Menomonie (WQOW) – UW-Stout is now at the head of the class when it comes to smoking. The university is the first tobacco-free university in the UW-System. Last April, students passed a referendum to ban all tobacco products on campus. That referendum went into effect Wednesday. University officials says there won’t be a fine for using tobacco on campus, but believe that students will follow the ban. Still, some students wish the ban carried some sort of penalty.

“I think it’s great. The downside is, I guess it’s mostly peer pressure and students are supposed to be the enforcers of it. There is no fine or negative consequence for people that use tobacco on campus,” says Jenessa Humphrey, a UW-Stout sophomore.

The university is encouraging students to hand out cards with ‘stop smoking’ suggestions and resources to people they see using tobacco on campus.

Cigarettes are just plain bad, as we all know by now. But what about the ones that contain menthol? Are they worse? A panel of experts is mulling menthol and trying to come up with some advice for the Food and Drug Administration on whether menthol should be forbidden as an additive. Young people seem to gravitate to menthol-flavored cigarettes, and there’s evidence menthol may make it harder for smokers trying to quit.

It turns out that tiny amounts of menthol are even added as a subtle flavor-enhancer to many cigarettes that aren’t labeled as menthol types.

Should menthol be banned —- just as Congress has banned other flavorings in cigarettes? Tobacco industry representatives say taste is the only thing that distinguishes menthol cigarettes from regular one — they aren’t more harmful.

The use of menthol started accidentally, after mint crystals got left in a smoker’s tin of rolling tobacco overnight years ago.

The mint in menthol cigarettes may be natural or synthetic or a combination of both. Natural mint is crystalized from steamed distilled oil of the corn mint plant. Some 99 percent of the mint comes through in the smoke.

So how does the stuff get put on cigarettes? A bunch of ways. Sometimes, it’s applied to the foil that is used to wrap the cigarettes. It’s also sprayed on the tobacco, and even injected into the tobacco paper or the filter.

After a few weeks for aging, Michael Ogden of R.J. Reynolds says the effect was found to be the same pretty much regardless of method, according to smokers who volunteered for taste tests.

Ogden says testers describe the menthol smokes using terms like “cooling sensation, minty flavor and medicinal flavor.”

Menthol can be misleading. “Menthol leads to the perception of an increase in nasal airway openness but in fact there is no actual change and (some studies have shown) minor constriction,” Ogden says

R.J. Reynolds is the maker of Kool and Salem, once the leading menthol brands. Now, Newport dominates the market. It’s from Lorillard, whose Scientific Director William True can sound like someone on Top Chef when he describes how the company assesses menthol.

True says the company taste experts sample packs the way some people test fine wine. They are sensitive to such things as a cigarette’s early draw, the tobacco’s papery or woody flavors, whether it’s bitter or sweet, has a later draw or an after taste.

But it isn’t menthol’s taste that is under scrutiny at the hearing.

The scientific advisory panel wanted to know what properties in mentholated cigarettes attract young people, African Americans, and other ethnic groups. Newport is the top menthol cigarette for adolescents, according to the federal Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. The thinking is that menthol mellows the harshness of tobacco, which makes it easier for initiates to inhale and others to inhale more deeply.

True objected strenuously. “Absolutely not,” he says. “Our product developers do not use menthol in any shape or form to cover, mask or minimize that harsh taste. The most significant items that impact the harsh taste of the cigarette are the tobacco blend, the moisture level of the blend and the filter ventilation.”

The manufacturers of menthol cigarettes also deny that young people and ethnic groups are targeted with promotions. Industry representatives couldn’t explain why menthol smokers tend to smoke fewer cigarettes, or why cancer rates are higher among African American smokers 70 percent of whom smoke menthol but smoke fewer cigarettes per day than non-menthol smokers.

“Internal studies do not indicate that menthol cigarettes are smoked any differently or more intensely than non menthol,” according to Lorillard’s William True. “These studies reinforce the overwhelming weight of epidemiology literature that menthol and non menthol convey similar risk of chronic disease.”

Article from npr.org.

For about one-third of smokers, menthol makes a cigarette taste better — but it doesn’t make it harder to quit and doesn’t appear to entice teens to smoke, tobacco companies told a key federal panel yesterday. And they’ve found no evidence that menthol cigarettes are more toxic than regular smokes, the companies told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

The panel, meeting yesterday in Gaithersburg, Md., is supposed to recommend how menthol cigarettes are regulated by next year — including whether they should be banned.

For the industry, billions of dollars of sales a year are at stake.

Menthol cigarette sales are declining, though R.J. Reynolds marketing operations director Monica J. Graves said there has been a slight recent rise in the percentage of smokers choosing menthol brands.

“This dynamic is not explained by marketing or by the amount of menthol in the product,” she said, adding that sales and price data show tobacco companies offer fewer promotions for menthol cigarettes.

“The menthol in Lorillard brands is simply designed to complement tobacco taste. Assertions Lorillard is trying to generate a physiological effect are simply not correct,” William R. True, senior vice president for research and development at Lorillard Tobacco Co., the top seller of menthol cigarettes.

There aren’t inadvertent biological effects, either, said Jane Lewis, senior vice president at Henrico County-based Altria Client Services, a sister company of the nation’s top cigarette-maker, Philip Morris USA.

“Menthol added to cigarettes does not increase risks of smoking. Menthol does not increase cigarette dependence. It does not affect cessation,” she said.

Altria anchored much of its case on an internal one-year study of 3,585 adult smokers, including 1,104 menthol smokers. In addition, the study looked at 1,077 non-smokers.

That study, one of the largest ever of people smoking naturally as opposed to the often-forced or paced smoking in laboratory studies, found:

•no sign that menthol smokers ingested more smoke;

•menthol smokers tended to smoke fewer cigarettes a day;

•no sign menthol smokers showed more biological changes that can foreshadow illness or cancer;

•no sign menthol affected how smokers metabolize nicotine, the addictive substance in cigarettes;

•no sign menthol affects how smokers metabolize nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone, a potent carcinogen; and

•no sign menthol smokers were more likely to score higher on a standard test of nicotine dependence.

Altria’s Lewis said that supported findings in published epidemiological studies that menthol smokers are not more likely to suffer smoking-related diseases than other smokers.

In its submission, Altria said only one study has ever looked at whether menthol cigarettes particularly appeal to teenagers — and found no significant differences in teen’s sensory reactions to menthol as opposed to regular cigarettes. Other studies found no difference in when smokers of menthol and regular cigarettes started, the companies said.

Altria’s written submission also reported that nine national studies of smokers — ranging from 1,021 people who sought help quitting to 19,545 current and former smokers — found no difference in the percentages of menthol and non-menthol smokers who quit.

An informal group of tobacco control experts yesterday said menthol’s anesthetic effect tricks smokers into thinking their cigarettes are less harsh and therefore safer.

Article from: timesdispatch.com, July 16, 2010

Smoking cigarettes is funny, fashionable but unfortunately it can harm the smokers health. Statistics show that most of smokers are young people. The latest Global Youth Tobacco Survey (2009) by the World Health Organisation (WHO), in consultation with the Government of India, declared that more than 50 per cent of the people who bought cigarettes from stores were not refused despite the country’s law prohibiting sale of tobacco to minors.

The WHO had carried out a school-based survey of students aged between 13 and 15. A two-stage cluster sample design was used to produce representative data for the country.

According to the preliminary results, 14 per cent students use one tobacco product or the other. Of these, 19 per cent are boys and 8.3 per cent girls. Worse, 15.5 per cent students who have not started smoking are likely to start soon. A total of 10,112 students participated in the WHO survey.

The survey revealed that 24 per cent think boys and 13.4 per cent think girls who smoke have more friends, and 21.1 per cent think boys and 15.6 per cent think girls who smoke look more attractive. And 5.7 per cent usually smoke at home.

The exposure to second-hand smoke is no less in India. The survey shows one in five students live in homes where others smoke and more than one-third of the students are exposed to smoke outside of their homes.

The good news is that more than two-thirds of the current smokers want to stop smoking.

According to the data, 66.1 per cent want to stop smoking, and 67.2 per cent have tried to stop smoking during the past year. “Six out of 10 students think smoking in public places should be banned,” the survey added.

Starting with the next January, China will ban smoking in all public places, whether indoors or outdoors, and including public transport facilities and work areas. This is a significant expansion of smoke-free areas in China. Under the prior, local tobacco regulations, smoke-free areas were basically only public spaces, not workspaces. On May 10, officials of the Ministry of Health claimed in a media conference that this new regulation was based on the request of the “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” of the World Health Organization (WHO). Smoking kills, which is the basic reason for this ban. However, these new regulations are perhaps somewhat unrealistic, and it will be quite difficult for this ban achieve tangible results.

First of all, the implementation cost will be very high. There are 350 million smokers in China. It is difficult to impose a strict prohibition on the daily habits of such a large population. Shanghai has been running its own “smoking ban” since March.

However, the prohibition exists only in name, as smokers are keeping to their usual habits.

The effective implementation of the regulations relies on strict enforcement, which requires the support of personnel, staffing and funding.

It will take a lot of time and manpower to enforce these regulations nationwide. As the funding comes from fiscal income, this will once again increase the burden on taxpayers.

China is a huge cigarette market, and one keyed to cultural habits. Smoking and drinking social customs, and cigarettes are a symbol of identity and status. The more expensive your brand, the more weight you carry, especially in official circle and the business world.

Tobacco is also considered an important source of revenue by some local governments. On January 14, a spokesman of the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration said proudly that its business revenue reached 513.11 billion ($75.15 billion) in 2009, an increase of 55.93 billion ($8.19 billion), up 12.2 percent over the previous year. Taxes (including State-owned enterprises’ income) made up 416.34 billion ($61.07 billion) of this, up 26.2 percent from the previous year.

Tobacco thus makes up a significant proportion of government revenue. Unless the government’s tobacco monopoly is broken, it seems unlikely officials will take serious steps to enforce smoking bans and reduce the consumption of cigarettes.

Cigarettes are small, but they have very deep roots. Without changes in the tobacco financial system, the “smoking ban” will be invalid.

China signed the “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” at the UN Headquarters in 2003.

Article 11 of the Convention says that health warnings must be printed on the packaging and labels of tobacco products. They should take up 50 percent or more of the principal display area but shall be no less than 30 percent of the principal display areas.

This requirement has not even been implemented yet. To the contrary, the design of cigarette packaging in China has become more and more attractive and splendid.

Ironically, the packaging and design of Zhonghua cigarettes meant for export is totally different from the familiar domestic red boxes. On the upper front of the boxes for export, there is a picture of a smoker, vividly depicting his ulcerous lips and the blackened remnants of his teeth. The Zhonghua logo is printed in the cramped space below.

Therefore, the seemingly strict smoking ban is actually aimed in the wrong direction. Policymakers certainly face little risks: The people this disadvantages are China’s 350 million smokers. And they cannot stand together to react effectively to the policy. But on the supply side, tobacco companies are well organized interest groups with plenty of connections.

So these regulations will do little to actually control smoking in China, especially given the lack of enforcement. Rather than singling out the vulnerable group, the smokers, we instead need to target China’s tobacco monopoly.

We should start mandating large health warnings and other measures designed to reduce sales instead of merely restricting where people can smoke. Otherwise, the national commitment to reducing smoking looks weak, and the government’s authority will be damaged.

Individual cigarettes as Marlboro or Winston and cigarillos are still being sold in Montreal, one month after legislation went into effect prohibiting the practice, a CBC News investigation has shown. An amendment to the federal Tobacco Act banning the sale of packages of fewer than 20 cigarillos or cigars went into effect on April 6. The sale of individual cigarettes was already illegal. The goal of the legislation was to discourage tobacco use among young people.

But visits to several Montreal convenience stores demonstrated that some continue to break the law.

In the very first store visited by an undercover CBC reporter, the cashier handed over a cigarette while admitting she wasn’t allowed to do so. In another store, the cashier stepped outside to complete the transaction.

In visits to 10 convenience stores, four agreed to sell individual cigarettes or cigarillos. In two of those cases, the tobacco was sold to a minor.

Seventeen-year-old Angela McCrary had no problem buying two flavoured cigarillos — small cigars which have become increasingly popular among young people — and one cigarette. McCrary said her friends have had similar experiences.

“Anyone can go in and just smile and ask for a single cigar or cigarette, and even though it’s illegal,” said McCrary. “It’s how they make their money. It’s like they’re encouraging smoking.”

The new regulations are important and should be enforced, said the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control.

“If kids or adults are buying [cigarettes or cigarillos] one at a time, they don’t get the impression they are getting hooked,” said spokesperson Flory Doucas. “Having them being sold in single sticks gives the impression they are less addictive, innocuous and makes them more affordable.”

The more affordable tobacco products are, the more likely young people are to experiment with them, said Doucas.

Health Canada, which is responsible for enforcing the regulations, confirmed it started sending out inspectors only last week. In Quebec, the department has 11 inspectors to monitor some 6,000 convenience stores and cigarette makers. Only repeat offenders are being fined.

“Hopefully, with reminders and warnings and other measures, we will be able bring compliance to an acceptable level,” said spokesman Denis Choinière.

Driven by a relatively recent indoor smoking ban, a fair share of restaurant owners throughout the Lower Shore are creating outdoor smoking sections, some even with sidewalk café tables, for patrons accustomed to a smoke with their cocktail or meal.In a strip mall tucked away on South Division Street at the southeastern edge of Salisbury, there is a single exception: Café Fez.

There is no outdoor smoking section, because there’s no need. It is a hookah lounge, the county’s only one, serving up molasses-dipped flavored tobacco in Turkish-style water pipes, offering patrons an on-premise taste of a Middle Eastern and Indian social custom with or without an ethnic meal or beverage.

And lighting up at Café Fez is legal, says Dr. Clifford Mitchell, acting assistant director for environmental health and food protection at the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

While the business may resemble a traditional coffee shop or café, it isn’t. Owner Mo Jabri won an exemption from the state that allows smoking indoors because hookah is the shop’s primary function.

Mitchell says there was an exemption for tobacco retailers whose primary business is the retail sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products But “if 90 percent of retail sales is food and 10 percent is tobacco, the business cannot meet the definition of a tobacco retailer.”
Strategically located

At Café Fez, however, tobacco is the main draw. Café patrons relax on one of several couches flushed along just about every inch of wall space. Hints of East Indian incense and soft music fill the air. Some patrons order from a menu of classic Middle Eastern sandwiches or snacks as chicken shawarma, hummus or grape leaves.

And likely, they’ll order a bowl of shisha, or flavored tobacco blended in molasses and served in a tall, glass water pipe called the hookah.

Jabri, a native of Morocco, launched a simple menu of all-natural sandwiches, soups on occasion, and sides or snacks and several standard beverages that include an Arab-style coffee drink.
“The food is healthy and we sell no liquor,” Jabri says. “I’m not in the Salisbury city limits, and there was only one license offered for hookah in Wicomico County, and I got it.”

The café location also is strategically located near Salisbury University, just as many other hookah establishments have settled in or near college settings, says Mitchell, a physician.

Mitchell says state regulators are keeping watch on the trendy establishments because some business owners have attempted to disguise smoking-allowed restaurants for a hookah café.

“We’re hearing from health departments and others because there is some concern as to whether we are adequately controlling these places… there is concern that the definition is not as clear as it needs to be.”
Growing interest

Mike Martone, a student at Salisbury University who last month joined Jabri’s small staff of employees, has seen interest grow significantly since Café Fez opened in the fall of 2009.

Curiosity drives in some customers. The use of all-natural ingredients in both food and tobacco products is a drawing card, he says, grabbing a pre-packaged box of flavored tobacco from a shelf.

“Nicotine in this box is 0.5 percent and tar is 0.0 percent — nothing is added to the tobacco, like with cigarettes,” said Martone, pointing to a list of ingredients. By comparison, the annual increase of cigarette nicotine, the addiction agent, was 1.6 percent between 1998 and 2005, according to one study. “Everything here’s all natural.”

The experience may have been psychological, but Martone’s nicotine habit changed after picking a hookah at Café Fez: “I lost interest in cigarettes.”

Natives of Arab countries or of Middle Eastern descent, including some Muslims, find a familiar piece of home culture at the hookah café, Martone says. Some customers stumble upon the café, and more and more, curiosity seekers are dropping in for a first-time experience at a friend’s recommendation, he said.

“A lot of people whose origins or ethnicity are in places with hookah come in, although Fridays and Saturdays are busiest with mostly college students,” Martone said. “It’s a good place to sit and relax, listen to music. Some people sit and smoke and talk business, just like at a cyber café.”

Michael Shockley grew up in Ocean City; he tried hookah at a resort tobacco shop, “but (the pipe) was a lot smaller and more expensive.”

“This is my first day here (at Café Fez),” he said. “It’s a lot cheaper here. It’s comfortable. I like it.”

His friend, Dan Gray of Salisbury, tried mango- and melon-flavored tobacco on his fourth visit to Café Fez.

“I heard about this place through the grapevine; (last week) was my first day — a friend brought me here,” he said. “Now I’m back with a new friend.”

By Deborah Gates, Delmarvanow

Ratcheting up world-wide efforts against tobacco, Australia’s government said Thursday it plans to ban brand labels and other marketing imagery on cigarette packaging by 2012, a move that would erase iconic logos like Marlboro red-and-white chevron from store shelves.

Under the proposal, the tobacco industry would be prohibited from using logos, colors, brand imagery or promotional text on tobacco product packaging. The brand name would be reduced to small, uniform letters at the bottom of each pack. The dominant image would instead be the often-graphic antismoking warnings that Australian government has required since 2006.

Cigarette companies vowed to fight the measure Thursday. A spokeswoman for British American Tobacco PLC, the largest cigarette maker in Australia by sales, said the company believes the plain packaging proposal will “not hold up to close scrutiny.”

But Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has seen his popularity drop in recent months and will have to face an election within a year, vowed to press on. “Cigarettes kill people, therefore the government makes no apology whatsoever over what it’s doing,” he said Thursday. He also enacted Thursday an immediate 25% hike in cigarette excise taxes, a move that will raise 5 billion Australian dollars (US$4.62 billion) over the next four years.

Australian officials Thursday described the move as the first of its kind in the world, and it potentially marks a new front as governments around the world look for ways to curb tobacco use. Earlier this year in the U.S., a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can’t block tobacco companies from using color and graphics in their advertisements, though he upheld other restrictions.

Two years ago, U.K. policy makers declined to pursue a ban on logos on packaging when they pushed forward a ban on in-store cigarette displays. However, in February the U.K.’s Department of Health said it would consider mandating generic packaging for all cigarettes as part of a campaign to halve smoking rates by 2020.

The move could be challenged on a number of fronts. Tim Wilson, an expert in intellectual property at the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs, said there is a clear argument under Australia’s international trade obligations that even if tobacco companies’ property rights aren’t being taken by the government, they certainly are “being devalued.” He added, “there would be a very legitimate argument that you should seek compensation for that.”

Cigarette company executives in Australia Thursday complained that the rule would devalue brands but wouldn’t reduce smoking. They also said plainer packs are easy to counterfeit. “Our industry is already losing over 12% of market share to the criminal black market and the taxpayer A$600 million a year. And as everyone knows the criminal black market doesn’t pay taxes and doesn’t ask kids for identification,” said Louise Warburton, a spokeswoman for the Australian unit of BAT.

A spokeswoman for Philip Morris International Inc., the New York-based company that offers the Marlboro brand outside the U.S., said no executives were immediately available for comment.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the government is acting on World Health Organization advice that plain packaging of cigarettes should be considered as a measure to curb smoking. The legislation will be carefully drafted to withstand any legal challenge, she said.

“Information from tobacco companies themselves that they use their packaging as a way to market their products that kill people convinces us that this is the next step that should be taken,” Ms. Roxon said.

The government’s aim is to cut smoking rates to 10% or less of the adult population by 2018. The Australian government says smoking is the largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in Australia, killing over 15,000 Australians each year.

Australian tobacco regulations already are quite strict, with restrictions on tobacco advertising in broadcast and print media and in sponsorship of sporting and cultural events since the early 1990s. Since 2006, all cigarette packets have carried graphic images of smoking-related illnesses designed to motivate smokers to quit.

Mr. Rudd wants the legislation to be in place by January 1, 2012, with the ban to take effect by July 1 of that year—an extended time frame that suggests a confidence his government will win the next federal election due by April 2011 at the latest, but which also acknowledges the possibility of a protracted court battle with the tobacco giants.

The tax increase will raise the price of a pack of 30 cigarettes by around A$2.16. Cigarettes currently cost around A$12 to A$15 a packet, depending on the brand. Mr. Rudd said he hopes to use the A$5 billion from the higher cigarette taxes to fund public hospitals.

“Tobacco companies will hate this measure, they will oppose it, nonetheless this and other measures will help to reduce smoking,” he said. “This sort of thing should have been done by governments years ago.”

Australia’s main conservative Liberal-National opposition said Thursday it hasn’t yet seen evidence that introducing plain packaging would be effective in reducing cigarette consumption.

“There is evidence that an increase in [tobacco] excise can result in a reduction of consumption but we need to see the government’s evidence on the measures that they are proposing,” opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said.

By RACHEL PANNETT, Online

A research study and editorial to be published Monday in the medical journal Pediatrics takes direct aim at a novel tobacco product that some critics say too closely resembles Tic Tac breath mints.

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, the nation’s second-largest cigarette maker behind Philip Morris, is test marketing the product, Camel Orbs, along with other dissolvable tobacco products, in three cities. It is part of a broad industry trend to create smokeless products in response to declining cigarette use and the rise of smoke-free air laws.

The study says Orbs, pellets made of finely ground tobacco with mint or cinnamon flavoring, are packed with nicotine and can poison children and lure young people to start using tobacco. The pellets dissolve in the mouth, like breath mints. “Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and to make it look like a piece of candy is recklessly playing with the health of children,” the lead researcher, Gregory N. Connolly, a professor with the Harvard School of Public Health, said in an interview.

Camel Orbs began test marketing last year in stores in Portland, Ore., Columbus, Ohio, and Indianapolis. They have also been advertised in popular magazines including People, Wired and Rolling Stone. One ad says: “Enjoy Anywhere. Anytime. Anyplace.”

David Howard, a Reynolds spokesman, said Camel Orbs were marketed only for adults and come in child-resistant containers. He denied that they look like Tic Tac mints.

“Those packages don’t at all look alike to me,” Mr. Howard said in an interview Friday.

But other people detected youth appeal. Emily A. Kile, 18, a high school senior involved in antismoking efforts in Greenfield, Ind., said, “Kids can sit in class, you know, and use it and nobody would know.”

Mike Moran, the police chief of Talent, Ore., 280 miles south of Portland, said he found a group of teenagers last spring sharing Camel Orbs taken from one of their older brothers.

Mr. Howard of Reynolds said it was unfair to criticize the flavoring of Camel Orbs because many other products, including the quit-smoking aid Nicogum, come in flavors. Mr. Howard also said many other common products posed risks to infants or children from accidental ingestion.

“Virtually every household has products that could be hazardous to children, like cleaning supplies, medicines, health and beauty products, and you compare that to 20 to 25 percent of households that use tobacco products,” he said.

But Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, a Harvard medical professor and chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, said tobacco and Camel Orbs posed special risks.

“The difference here is that kids potentially will be watching grown-ups ingesting these products,” he said in an interview. “The last time I checked, we don’t have adults drinking toilet bowl cleanser in front of their kids.”

Dr. Winickoff, who advised Professor Connolly on where to publish the study, contended that the tobacco industry was creating novel products partly to entice and addict a new generation of smokers to replace those who die.

It is the sort of assertion all major tobacco companies deny, saying they are just providing product choices to adult smokers.

The study, to be released Monday on the journal’s Web site, found that Camel Orbs had an extremely high level of absorbable nicotine because of the alkalinity of the product. An Orb sampled by this reporter had a very minty taste and seemed to deliver a jolt of nicotine. The study also found 13,705 reports to the nation’s poison control centers of ingestion of tobacco products of all sorts by children under age 6 from 2006 through 2008, of which 1,768 were from smokeless products.

Professor Connolly said researchers found one specific case of accidental ingestion of a Camel Orb pellet by a 3-year-old in Oregon, although the child did not need medical attention. Other children suffered nausea or vomiting from eating other tobacco products. But Professor Connolly estimated that the nicotine in 10 to 17 orbs could kill an infant.

In a commentary in Pediatrics, Dr. Laurence R. Deyton, director of the newly formed Center for Tobacco Products at the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Marisa L. Cruz, also from the center, wrote about the “unique concerns” of dissolvable tobacco. New Reynolds products also include a thin strip similar to some breath mint products and a stick resembling a toothpick.

“The candy-like appearance, added flavors, and easily concealable size of many of these products may be particularly appealing to children and adolescents,” they wrote.

The dissolvable products are the second priority for review by the F.D.A. office, after menthol cigarettes, under legislation passed by Congress last year. The law put tobacco products under government review for the first time. Reynolds has been required to provide the F.D.A. with about 13,000 pages of research and other materials about dissolvable tobacco products.

Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, co-sponsored an amendment that was included in the new law and required the F.D.A. to study dissolvable products within two years. Depending on the outcome of that review, the agency could ban them or require product changes.

“They’re tobacco candy,” Senator Merkley said Friday. “Everything about them is designed for kids. We know from research that for people to be addicted to nicotine, you’ve got to get them before 21 when their brain is still developing.”

By Duff Wilson, Nytimes

ST. PAUL — Anti-tobacco activists spread out around the Minnesota Capitol Wednesday in an effort to convince lawmakers to ban products they say are designed to hook children on nicotine.

A bill due up for a legislative committee hearing Thursday would forbid sale of “e-cigarettes,” designed to give users nicotine vapor without tobacco. The bill also would classify “little cigars” as cigarettes.

“The new products, they are sneaky,” said Dr. Mary Boylan of St. Luke’s Cardiothoracic Surgery Associates in Duluth, who spoke at the rally with about 150 people.

Those at the rally, including many young people, talked to legislators about making the changes to a law that already bans tobacco use in public buildings.

“We will save more lives today than I can being in the operating room all day,” Boylan said about changing the law.

One of the new products, legal to sell now, resembled a breath strip, but the doctor said it provides a dose of addictive nicotine.

“They are under the radar screen,” she said.

DFL lawmakers seek

change in health plan

Some Democratic lawmakers want to change a health care program for the poor that was signed into law just three weeks ago Wednesday.

Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, and others announced Wednesday they have a plan to provide permanent health care to poor adults with no children other than the new General Assistance Medical Care program. The plan would take $1 billion of state money to be matched with $1 billion of federal money.

Patients would move off of GAMC onto a newly expanded Medical Assistance Program, and some MinnesotaCare insurance recipients also would move to the new program.

Huntley said the new program would allow rural hospitals to receive better funding when they provide care for the poor. Most rural hospitals would not participate in the new GAMC program, citing its high cost.

But Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s spokesman said Huntley’s plan is based on incomplete tentative information and would cost too much. Brian McClung said the new GAMC program, negotiated between legislative health leaders and the governor, should be given a chance to work before it is scrapped.

Also, McClung said: “There is a significant math problem with this proposal.”

McClung claimed that the Huntley plan was built on use of money from a fund that would be in deficit.

ERA again

An equal rights amendment to the Minnesota constitution is being considered, as it has every year since the federal ERA took effect in 1982.

A Senate committee discussed the matter Wednesday, but took no action. It was unclear if the proposed amendment would be brought up for a vote in the month the Legislature has remaining in its 2010 session.

The amendment proposal would require people be treated the same, regardless of gender.

Refund party

If Dairy Queen’s Blizzard can celebrate its 25th birthday, the Minnesota property tax refund program can do the same, Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, said.

So, as chairman of the House property taxes committee, he hosted that party Wednesday in an attempt to draw attention to the program, which a third of eligible taxpayers do not collect.

“It helps people stay in their homes,” Marquart said.

Sitting behind a “happy birthday” sign, Former Gov. Wendell Anderson said that his signing of the bill, combined with raising taxes a few years earlier, “made Minnesota in the minds of others, the state that works.”

Alec Olson of Willmar, Senate president when the refund passed, said the concept was “rather radical,” but the program “has brought people together.”

The average property tax refund in 2008 was $683.

Also celebrated was a related program, which provides money to renters.

By Don Davis, Grandforksherald

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.