A new study by a national anti-smoking group argues that states could raise more than $9 billion in new revenues if they all hiked cigarette taxes by $1-a-pack.

A new study by a national anti-smoking group argues that states could raise more than $9 billion in new revenues if they all hiked cigarette taxes by $1-a-pack. The levy wouldn’t come close to balancing recession-ruined state budgets, but it wouldn’t hurt. And, the group says, the higher tax would keep 2.3 million kids from becoming smokers and convince 1.2 million adults to quit, saving one million lives and $52 billion in health costs over the long-run. The study comes from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.Sin taxes like this are always a two-edged sword. If government wants to maximize revenue, it can’t impose a tax so high that it will discourage too many sinners. On the other hand, if the goal is to discourage the sin, the state would want to maximize the tax rate–or flat ban the activity. Trouble is, if everyone quit smoking or drinking, revenues would eventually dry up.

Two more issues to consider: Very high taxes will encourage smuggling, Internet purchases, and—if neighboring states don’t raise their taxes too–a quick drive across the border to stock up on smokes. Finally, some economists worry that tobacco taxes unfairly target the poor.

The tobacco-free kids study assumes that every state raises its tax by $1-a-pack. And it recognizes that demand for cigarettes is relatively inelastic—even high taxes won’t discourage many addicted smokers to quit. The paper assumes that a 10 percent tax increase would reduce overall consumption by about 4 percent, and youth smoking rates by 6.5 percent. It also recognizes that higher taxes will increase tax avoidance.

Still, the paper finds that a big tax hike would generate significant state revenues, although the bang for the buck might vary from state to state. It found, for instance, that when Texas raised its tax from 41 cents to $1.41 in 2007, the number of packs sold dropped by 21 percent in the following year, but tobacco tax revenues rose by nearly 200 percent. South Dakota also raised its tax by $1 in 2007, and saw consumption fall by one-quarter and revenues double. In Maine, a $1 tax increase in September, 2005 generated 75 percent higher revenues—perhaps because it was much easier for people to get their cigarettes in New Hampshire, where the tax was much lower ( 80 cents in 2006 vs. $2).

Nonetheless, the paper argues that in every state, higher tax rates more than make up for lower consumption (either less smoking or more purchases somewhere else) and would generate more revenue. And an accompanying poll suggests a tobacco tax would be quite popular.

In a TaxVox post last summer, Ruth Levine looked at the avoidance problem with city-level sin taxes. It is probably less of an issue with states, and the paper suggests people are less likely to take the trouble to avoid the tax over time, due in part to what it calls “smoker tax-evasion fatigue.” Still, this is a matter of some concern.

There are two other problems worth thinking about: Some states that have securitized their tobacco settlement money may receive less income from these deals if their cigarette sales fall. So, while their tax revenues may rise, lower demand may temper their overall revenue benefits. In addition, states such as New Jersey that already have very high cigarette taxes may not see as big a revenue boost from a further increase.

My colleague at TPC, Kim Rueben, suggests a solution: Increase the federal tobacco tax and rebate some of the money to states. But whatever the design, it is hard to argue with a tax that raises revenue, reduces smoking, or perhaps does at least a little bit of both.

By Howard Gleckman, Csmonitor

GREENSBORO, N.C. — In a conference call with analysts regarding fourth-quarter earnings, Martin Orlowsky, CEO of Lorillard Inc., the nation’s third-largest cigarette company and maker of the top menthol cigarette brand, Newport, discussed an upcoming review of menthol by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, which is planning to consider claims that products like menthol cigarettes have greater public health impacts, including among children and certain ethnic groups, The Associated Press reported.

“We believe the weight of the scientific evidence does not support a conclusion that menthol cigarettes convert greater health risk than non-menthol cigarettes. We also believe that the scientific advisory committee will indeed form its conclusions and recommendations based on the scientific evidence before it. We therefore continue to believe that the scientific advisory committee will not make a recommendation to the FDA that it ban menthol,” he said. “We believe that a ban on menthol would lead to a massive black market for contraband mentholated cigarettes and encourage the entry of totally unregulated products into the marketplace that would not meet even the basic standards for product integrity and quality.”

While analysts believe a ban on menthol is unlikely, the FDA could take some action against it, such as warning labels or reducing the amount of menthol in products, according to the report.

Also during the call, Lorillard said it will enter the moist smokeless tobacco product market. Lorillard didn’t provide details of the new moist smokeless tobacco product, but said that an existing joint venture with Swedish Match to develop a new “snus” tobacco product for the U.S. had been mutually terminated, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In 2006 Lorillard entered into a joint venture with Swedish Match North America to develop and study of Triumph Snus. During the call, Lorillard said the snus product didn’t make gains in the test markets in the U.S., and that it may not have been the right time for the product in North America, according to the report.

Lorillard appears to be betting that Americans will continue to prefer more traditional products such as moist smokeless tobacco, the report stated.

Swedish Match sells its flagship snus brand, General, as well as the Catch brand in the U.S. Swedish Match will also continue selling in the U.S. its moist smokeless tobacco products such as Red Man and Timberwolf.

“We remain committed to the U.S. market,” Lars Dahlgren, chief executive of Swedish Match, said in an e-mail statement to the Journal. The company said the dissolution of the Lorillard joint venture has no bearing on its snus joint venture company with Philip Morris International Inc., which distributes snus products outside of the U.S. and Scandinavia.

HOUSTON – Celanese Corp. (CE), a Dallas chemical company, is counting on a rebound in cigarette smoking and soda-pop drinking to drive its earnings higher in 2011 and 2012.

As part of its consumer specialty segment, Celanese manufactures a sweetener for soft drinks and a product that is used for cigarettes filters. Its customers include Altria Group Inc. (MO), its Philip Morris International (PM) spin-off, and PepsiCo Corp. (PEP).

“These tend to go into decline later in the cycle. We think that demand has bottomed out,” Dave Weidman, chief executive and chairman of Celanese said in an interview Tuesday. But he was cautious about seeing any improvement for 2010, instead forecasting increases in the next two to three years.

Celanese swung to a small fourth-quarter profit Tuesday and topped analyst expectations. But the consumer specialty segment, what Weidman describes as a ” late-cycle business,” saw a volume decline because of soft demand for cigarettes and soft-drinks in global recession.

In January, Altria, the biggest U.S. tobacco producer, reported about a 11% to 12% decline in cigarette volumes in the fourth quarter and has a cautious outlook for the following year. “The business environment for 2010 is likely to remain challenging as many consumers continue to be under economic pressure based on high unemployment,” Michael Szymanczyk, chairman and chief executive of Altria, said during an earnings conference call Jan. 28. Pepsi and Philip Morris International are scheduled to report quarterly results Thursday.

Celanese has three business segments that manufacture other chemicals used in paints, textiles and medical devices. The company has more than 30 industrial plants in North America, Europe and Asia.

The $4.2 billion company is “aggressively” pursuing several acquisitions that range in size of a few million dollars to just under $500 million in all three of geographic locations, Weidman said. “We like to stay in businesses that are similar to businesses that we have today,” Weidman said. Weidman declined to give a timeline for when any of these deals could close.

Its largest segment by revenue, the acetyl intermediates division, had ” significant volume recovery and margin expansion” in the fourth quarter. Its revenue climbed 13% as the segment returned to profitability.

“Much of the beat came from very strong results in the company’s core acetyl intermediates business from which the company generates over 50% of its revenues,” Hassan Ahmed, an analyst with Alembic Global Advisors in New York, wrote in a note to clients.

Celanese posted earnings of $5 million, or 2 cents a share, compared with a prior-year loss of $155 million, or $1.09 a share.

Excluding impacts such as income-tax gains and provisions, the latest quarter had a 50-cent profit from continuing operations while the year earlier had a 40- cent loss. Revenue rose 7.9% to $1.39 billion on improved demand.

Weidman expects that in the next year Celanese’s earnings per share should increase because the company has closed plants in Europe and Mexico meaning it will have lower taxes and less depreciation to report.

Shares of Celanese rose 40 cents, or 1.4%, to $29.97.

By Susan Daker, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Customers may already have noticed the change—although it has been subtle thus far. But they will starting March 1. That’s the official launch date of the latest line extension from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s Camel brand: menthol cigarettes containing a menthol burst capsule that enhances menthol flavor when squeezed.

The new cigarette supplanted Camel Menthol cigarettes in August 2009 and evolved from the “wonderful success” of Camel Crush (launched September 2008), according to Brian Stebbins, senior marketing director for Camel cigarettes. Crush also contains the menthol capsule, but squeezing it turns that cigarette from nonmenthol to menthol. “Whenever we launch something new, we try to find out who’s interacting with it, who likes it, who doesn’t like it and who has an idea of how to make it even better,” Stebbins told CSP Daily News.

“We identified that there’s a pretty large group of adult menthol smokers who are interested in the capsule technology, but they want to see us use it differently,” Stebbins said, adding that they want to use it to use it to make menthol cigarettes “even fresher and even cooler at the moment of their choosing, or on demand.”

The soft launch in August included “very minimal communication on packs and on the website for those who were interested.” Stebbins added, “And the idea there was to let those smokers who already choose Camel Menthol have an opportunity to experience the innovation first, let them experience the product first, let them let us know what they think and the response has been very positive.”

As for March 1, Stebbins said, “That is where we actually go out and try and tell the story to a broader audience about the innovation on Camel menthol.” The launch will mean a new look for the packaging, retail communications, retail merchandising and a “very solid” launch promotion program—including direct mail, emails and person-to-person engagements in bars, nightclubs and festivals.

Stebbins described the new packaging as having “a fresher, cooler color pallet that menthol smokers respond very nicely to” and said it will also “tell the story of the product within,” using the Camel mascot. Stebbins also said the name of Camel Menthol Lights will change to Camel Menthol Silver; Camel Menthol will keep the same name. He added, “We will still have a couple of menthol products that are in the market that will not have capsules in them, but they are not a primary marketing emphasis…. That really just kind of depends upon the business opportunity in those markets and retailer choice about what they carry.”

He said the product’s demographics are wide ranging. “Our testing indicates that the adult smokers who are interested span different age groups, they span different brands that they buy from today and it’s male/female. It’s a very broad opportunity, and I think that’s mostly because it’s a provocative innovation. We’re talking about a category, menthol cigarettes, where there’s a lot of sameness, and Camel cigarettes is the exact opposite of that.”

According to a Jan. 17, 1997 New York Times article, Reynolds briefly tested a menthol version of Camel in 1966, but never sold it nationally. Camel Menthols were nationally launched in 1997.

“I think the ‘new news’ here is menthol is growing considerably in the category, and to be frank, until we had introduced Camel Crush, Camel wasn’t getting its fair share of that growth,” Stebbins said.

Although menthol is “expressly permitted” under the recent flavored cigarette ban, there has been concern in the industry. David Howard, an R.J. Reynolds spokesperson, told CSP Daily News, “Obviously, as [U.S. Food & Drug Administration] regulations take effect, one of the things is that there will be a committee looking into menthol…. And certainly, whatever information is needed from us, we’re going to cooperate for any information that they need or assistance that we can provide in that study. But at this time, menthol is specifically not part of the flavored bans and permitted by FDA regulations…. And certainly, we believe it’s a viable product category, obviously; it’s a very large and growing category with adult smokers.”

According to the National Survey on Drug Use & Health Report, published by the Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, on Nov. 19, 2009, among past-month smokers, the rate of smoking menthol cigarettes increased from 31% in 2004 to 33.9% in 2008. Past-month smoking of menthol cigarettes was more likely among those who were recent smoking initiates (i.e., began smoking in the past year) than among those who were longer-term smokers (i.e., initiated use more than a year ago) (44.6% vs. 31.8% respectively).

By Linda Abu-Shalback Zid, Cspnet.com
February 5, 2010

Boston, Massachusetts February 1, 2010 – Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick submitted a $28.2 billion state budget for fiscal 2011 last week. To partially offset the three percent increase over 2010, Patrick’s budget proposal calls for raising the current 30 percent excise tax on cigars and smoking tobacco to 110 percent and 120 percent, respectively. The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association respectfully disagrees with this strategy.

“It’s outrageous to put the burden of budget management on the backs of cigar smokers. They ought to be finding jobs instead of creating job-killing new taxes,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.

The association represents some 2,000 members, most of whom are small business owners of mom-and-pop neighborhood cigar stores along with premium cigar manufacturers and distributors of related merchandise. Nearly 40 of those members reside, work and run their businesses in the state of Massachusetts.

McCalla pointed out that studies prove that higher taxes on tobacco products like premium cigars never produce the revenues they were designed to bring in. In fact, he said, they result in lower sales which cost jobs, closed businesses, and significantly reduce the very tax revenues for which they were originally created.

“When tobacco taxes go up, especially those on discretionary products like premium cigars which are enjoyed only occasionally, consumers will find less expensive sources for their favorite cigars. They will turn to the Internet and mail order as well as go across state borders or even resort to buying bootlegged products. That creates a lose-lose situation: neighborhood cigar retailers lose sales and the state loses all that tax revenue,” said McCalla.

According to McCalla, tobacco taxes are regressive and disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income earners, even among premium cigar smokers.

“Tobacco taxes also tend to be unreliable and unsustainable sources of revenue and don’t result in real budget fixes. They hurt local businesses and the overall economy. The unintended consequences for individual states and the American society as a whole can be avoided with application of sound fiscal policies and real budget reforms instead of bad tax policy,” McCalla said.

CITY HALL — Two tobacco companies are suing the city over a law banning retailers from selling candy-flavored tobacco products, Council Speaker Christine Quinn said Tuesday.

But the city is determined to snuff out such products across all five boroughs, the speaker said.

“It is clearly another example of the unfettering greed of the tobacco industry,” Quinn said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.

“But it is not something we are afraid of. This is a solid law. This is a smart law. So go ahead big tobacco, you can bring it on.”

The ban goes into effect on Feb. 25 and prohibits the sale of various products, including flavored cigars and cigarillos (short, narrow cigars that are wrapped with whole-leaf tobacco). The products come in an assortment of flavors ranging from apple martini to chocolate chip cookie dough.
Quinn and advocates from health and clean air groups charge that the products, which have three to six times the tobacco found in regular cigarettes, are deliberately disguised by multi-colored wrapping and sweet flavors to lure young people into buying tobacco products and eventually becoming life-long nicotine addicts.

“I looked at the pack here and I thought, ‘Gummy bears,’” said Joanne Koldare, director of the NYC Coalition For a Smoke Free City. “They have created what appears to be, for children, a smooth seamless transition from candy to tobacco products. But we’re onto them.”

According to the city’s Department of Health, the number of youths who smoke cigars and cigarello have almost tripled since 2001, from five to 14 percent, Quinn said.

The city’s law comes on the heels of a federal law, enacted this summer, that bans the sale of flavored cigarettes (except for menthol) across the United States.

But tobacco companies argue that the city doesn’t have the legal right to enact such a law.

“Localities should allow the FDA to consider issues like this one in a regulatory process that allows for public comment,” said Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Altria, the parent company for the two companies filing the lawsuit.

“We believe that the ban is bad policy because it unfairly denies adults who use tobacco products access to the products they prefer,” Phelps told DNAinfo, adding that the ban would have a negative impact on the local New York City economy.

“At a time when the economy is suffering, it’s putting additional pressure on businesses,” he said. “We don’t think it makes a lot of sense.”

Pablo Hussein, who works in a Delancey Street bodega on the Lower East Side, said the store would lose “a couple hundred dollars” of sales when the ban goes into the effect — a small sum compared to what Altria may lose.

“We can sell other things,” said Hussein, pointing at the magazines, lotto tickets, snacks and cigarettes, lining the store’s shelves. “We are the little store in between. It is the big companies that have a problem.”

By Suzanne Ma, Dnainfo.com

SALT LAKE CITY – Smoking is still legal in our state. But if you want to smoke e-cigarettes time could be running out.

Today a House sub-committee approved a bill that would ban e-cigarettes, or electronic cigarettes, and any other flavored tobacco products including those that look like candy.

The only exceptions would be products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The bill now goes on to the full House.

Copyright 2010 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved.

Nicotine is definitely addictive, but scientists have been debating for several decades the effect of menthol in hooking people on tobacco. Some researchers suspect that menthol allows smokers to take deeper drags or puffs on cigarettes, drawing in greater amounts of nicotine and its byproducts.

“It helps the poison go down smoother,” says Jonathan Foulds, the director of the Tobacco Dependence Program at the University of Dentistry and Medicine of New Jersey’s School of Public Health.

In a cessation program at his university, Foulds found that people who smoked menthol cigarettes seemed to have more difficulty quitting than those who smoked regular cigarettes.

Nearly 1,700 people were enrolled in the program. They signed up, Foulds says, because they wanted help quitting. Millions of Americans say they’ve tried to quit smoking, and some groups appear to have a harder time than others, such as low-income, less-educated African-Americans and Hispanics.

The current cost of smoking, particularly in the northeastern United States, would certainly be enough to make a poor person want to break the habit. In New Jersey, a pack of cigarettes costs $8; in Manhattan, a pack costs $11.

For many, those prices mean it’s time to quit or cut back. But Foulds says it’s not quite that simple when the body is addicted to a certain level of nicotine.

Over time, he says, “Your body tries to inhale more smoke per cigarette to get the usual dose of nicotine. With regular cigarettes, it becomes harsh because nicotine and the toxins in the smoke are harsh on your throat.”
Menthol smokers, it appears, don’t have the same problem. Those who smoke menthols say it creates a cooling, soothing sensation.
Menthol is a cooling agent, Foulds says, and that makes it easier to inhale more smoke per cigarette and perhaps get more nicotine.

Dr. Kolawole Okuyemi of the University of Minnesota has studied disparities in black and white smokers, and the effect of menthol cigarettes on biochemical markers.

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that African-Americans who smoke menthol cigarettes inhale a higher volume of carbon monoxide compared to those who smoke non-menthol cigarettes, according to Okuyemi. They also take in more byproducts of nicotine that can be measured in the blood or the saliva.

“If you take a menthol smoker who smokes 10 cigarettes and a non-menthol smoker who smokes 10 cigarettes a day, the carbon monoxide, the nicotine and cotinine [a byproduct of nicotine] will be higher for the menthol smoker.” That suggests “there is something about menthol that makes it easier to smoke more intensely,” Okuyemi says.

One of the biggest indicators of a person’s addiction is how soon they light up after they get up in the morning, Okuyemi says. Studies show that menthol smokers light up sooner than regular smokers – as soon as five minutes after they get out of bed.

Among African-Americans who smoke, the vast majority smoke mentholated cigarettes, and many of these studies compared biochemical markers in black and white smokers. It may have more to do with the fact that African-Americans metabolize nicotine more slowly, says Okuyemi. That would mean that they are more likely to retain nicotine.

Andrew Hyland of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute isn’t entirely convinced that menthol aids addiction. Though not linked in any way to Lorillard, which manufactures menthol cigarettes, Hyland’s study was cited by one of the company’s representatives as evidence that menthol cigarettes are no more addictive than others.

Hyland followed 13,000 smokers for five years. He found that low-income and less-educated people had a harder time quitting, but he found no difference between whites and blacks, or menthol and regular cigarette smokers. He agrees that menthol’s role in smoking is not entirely neutral.

“If you look at how deeply people inhale or the puff volumes — how much smoke they bring into their lungs — some studies show that it is easier [to smoke menthol], but other studies show it’s not,” says Hyland. “To me, that means it is probably not a huge deal, especially relative to the thing that gets people hooked. The menthol is a tool, a marketing tool. Once they are hooked on the product, with the nicotine, that’s when they’re in trouble.”

Historical documents show that the industry did in fact target African-Americans in the late 1950s. At that time, African-Americans were no more likely to smoke menthol than white Americans. Lorillard maintains that a fourth of white Americans who smoke today smoke menthol cigarettes. About 75 percent of African-American smokers use menthol cigarettes now, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They start later in life and quit later, like 56-year-old Larry Harrison, who gave up cigarettes after 38 years.

“Fourteen days clean,” he says. For those who don’t think that sounds like a very long time, he says, “When you’ve been smoking 38 years, one day is a long time without a cigarette.”

By Brenda Wilson, NPR
January 25, 2010

A pot legalization bill heads to committee Tuesday with amendments that have made its language more conciliatory — although the bill still sets up a collision course with federal policy.

Amid protest by supporters and opponents, AB 390 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will get its first hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. After first being introduced nearly a year ago, the bill was amended last week.

Most of the changes were aimed at polishing the language, perhaps to address some of the rhetoric that has been used against it. The word “legalization” is completely gone from legislation that has been widely called “the legalization bill,” replaced by “regulation by the Department of Alcoholic Beverages.” The word “infractions” was replaced by “crimes,” in reference to those who sell marijuana to minors.

References to “adults” were changed to “persons 21 years of age or older.”

The bill also now specifies that pot smoking would be banned in offices, restaurants and other locations that already bar tobacco smoke.

The bill also removed some references to “changes in federal law” because, according to Ammiano’s staff, such changes probably aren’t coming anytime soon. AB 390 still contains language that could place the state at odds with federal policy, including a clause stating one purpose is “to prevent state and local agencies from supporting any prosecution for federal or other crimes relating to marijuana that are inconsistent with those provided in this bill.”

Law enforcement groups have traditionally provided the main opposition efforts to reduce or eliminate penalties on marijuana. However, the growing visibility of groups like Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), as well as former judges and police officers who favor legalization, may have changed this dynamic.

In Sacramento, the most public opposition is being organized by a local religious group, International Faith-Based Coalition. The group was founded a year ago by Bishop Ron Allen, pastor with the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church and an resident of the mostly low-income Oak Park neighborhood of Sacramento for all of his 51 years.

Contrary to the claims of marijuana proponents, Allen said that for him, marijuana really was a gateway drug. He said he began smoking it heavily at age 19, then moved on to a crack cocaine addiction that was with him from ages 33 to 40.

“I was a pastor on crack cocaine,” Allen said, adding that marijuana “was the start of my addiction.”

Allen said that his group speaks out against all drugs-including legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco and prescription painkillers.

“Can you just imagine having one more illicit drug legalized in the Oak Park community?” Allen asked.

Many and new ideas about how to decrease smoking among American inhabitants appears since the Food and Drug Administration has taken over the regulation of tobacco use. One of the many other ideas is to ban flavored cigarettes and cigars.

Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA, explained: “Flavored cigarettes are a new gateway for many children and young adults to become real smokers.”

This is the main cause why they decided to prohibit these kinds of cigarettes. However there was approved before a legislation which bans minors from smoking.

Anti-tobacco researchers declared that they recently found that 11 businesses were failed in Charleston alone for selling cigarettes to minors. Such cases are met every day in many cities across the country.

Researchers explained that with the last anti-smoking legislation gets the job done, instead of creating severe penalties for those who sell to children. That’s why FDA decided to put into place a new law that bans flavored tobacco because, somehow, that is the cause for teens smoking.

In general, kids start smoking because bad parenting and a poor work ethic. That’s mean that only adults are guilty of increasing number of smokers among children.

Researchers can’t understand why the FDA thinks that putting a ban on flavored cigarettes will modify anything when businesses are still selling tobacco products to minors, indifferent of flavor. This is like telling that since the law against murder isn’t working we are going to ban all knives. Still the FDA doesn’t stop there, it will acts against smoking till will have good results.

Almost all scientists consider that even cigarettes packs attract kids into smoking. That’s why they proposed to put the image of a diseased lung on cigarette packs.

What they haven’t accounted for is the loss in tax dollars that is set to follow this ban on flavored tobacco. Some states are foretold to lose up to $140 million in tax money from the banning of flavored smoking products.

As it is known, the tobacco center at the FDA has issued numerous fees on tobacco corporations that fund the center’s very existence.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is predicted that by 2013 these fees will bring in up to $500 million annually.
In general, tobacco companies are censured with sales taxes much higher than alcohol or any other products on the market. And almost all people think that this is fair because the rise in health care costs because of tobacco-related illnesses.

Unfortunately they don’t pay attention on alcohol and fast food effects which lead to many health problems such as liver disease and heart disease.

New research showing that thrill-seeking teenagers are especially susceptible to fruit-flavored cigarettes is in line with the recent ban on the sale of flavored cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2009. According to the FDA, the ban, authorized by the new Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, is part of a national effort by the FDA to reduce smoking, which is the leading preventable cause of death in America.

“We found that those teens who gravitate toward novel experiences were especially drawn to cigarettes described as having an appealing, sweet flavor, such as cherry,” says lead author Kenneth Manning with Colorado State University.

The study, published in the December issue of the journal Tobacco Control, was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Past research has found that high-sensation-seeking youth are more likely to smoke cigarettes than their low-sensation-seeking peers, Manning notes. But until now, no studies have looked at how novel, sweet-tasting cigarettes might impact this group of thrill seekers. The authors proposed that the influence of cigarette flavor descriptors lies in their ability to alter the “arousal potential” of a cigarette brand’s marketing communications (such as its packaging). Arousal potential refers to the degree to which a stimulus (like the description of a cigarette’s flavor) is capable of gaining attention and exciting the nervous system.

To test this theory, the researchers divided 253 high school students into two groups to evaluate three pictures of cigarette packages: Camel, American Spirit, and a fictitious brand, “Onyx.” The first group viewed packages that included traditional cigarette descriptions such as “domestic blend,” and the second group of teens viewed packages with the cigarettes described as “cherry.” Following exposure to each package, the study participants responded to several questions regarding the appeal of the brand (i.e., beliefs about how enjoyable it would be, overall evaluation, and trial intention).

To determine their sensation-seeking tendencies, the students responded to measures such as “I would like to explore strange places” and “I like friends who are exciting and unpredictable.”

Sensation-seeking varies over a continuum, explains Manning. “In our study, we essentially divided half of the students into the high group and the other half into the low group based on their overall sensation-seeking scores.”

Results indicated that the appeal of the brands across the belief, attitude, and trial intention measures depended on both the sensation-seeking tendency of the student and whether the student had viewed the brand packages with the traditional or sweet flavor descriptions. In particular, among students who were classified as high-sensation seekers, the cigarette brands were significantly more appealing to those exposed to the packages that included the sweet flavor descriptors than to those who had viewed the packages with the traditional descriptions.

This underscores a key point of the FDA ban — that flavors make cigarettes and other tobacco products more appealing to youth, and are created to attract and allure kids into lifelong addiction. “By enhancing the arousal potential associated with tobacco brands, sweet flavor descriptors boost the appeal of these products among high-sensation seekers,” the authors conclude.

The FDA encourages consumers to report continuing sales of flavored cigarettes through a special tobacco hotline (1-877-CTP-1373) and web site (www.fda.gov/flavoredtobacco).

Parents and consumers can learn more about the risks of flavored tobacco products at http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/FlavoredTobacco/ucm183196.htm.

The Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (www.saprp.org) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds research into policies related to alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs.

Legalizing marijuana will increase California’s tax revenue, decrease crime and prison populations and benefit recreational and medical users.

Let’s consider the facts involved in this controversy.

Medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996. Marijuana is said to increase cancer patients’ appetite, cure insomnia, reduce anxiety and help relieve chronic pain.

Nobody can deny that California’s finances are in crisis.

Medical marijuana is already earning California about $14 billion a year.

According to a government study, legalizing marijuana for recreational use could generate $1.5 billion to $4 billion in additional tax revenue for California.

In addition, the United States spends about $68 billion a year housing prisoners.

According to the Office of Legislative Research Report, one-third of those imprisoned were convicted of non-violent drug crimes and half of those are marijuana offenders. This means that one-sixth of America’s prisoners are in jail for marijuana charges. Legalizing marijuana would mean that tax payers could save $11.3 billion a year.

Some people argue that marijuana is addictive and that it would therefore be irresponsible to legalize it.

However, studies have shown that unlike cigarettes, marijuana is not physically addictive.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana can be mentally addictive.

This means that users feel like they are dependent on it. They think that marijuana is what relieves their anxiety or helps them sleep at night. When really, it is all in there head.

In addition, although many would disagree, marijuana is far less physically harmful than other legal substances such as cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes include the addictive substance nicotine. Marijuana does not.

Smoking tobacco can lead to lung and throat cancer, emphysema, and bronchial and lung disorders.

Consuming alcohol can lead to irreversible brain damage, stomach ulcers, alcohol dependent hepatitis, cancer of the mouth and throat, high blood pressure and heart and liver diseases.

So why is there such an opposition to the legalization of this drug if, medically, its primary use is alleviating symptoms of the ill?

It’s the basic social stigma. Marijuana has been socially unacceptable for so long that many are not ready to accept its legalization.

Advocates need to overcome the negative perceptions so that the beneficial properties of recreational marijuana become socially acceptable.

Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use.

It is high time that the public be given the opportunity to partake in a victimless crime without fear of prosectution.

We need to overcome the social blocks so that we can see the crucial beneficial properties of recreational marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana will not only increase California’s income, but decrease crime and benefit recreational and medical users.