Smoke Free Movies has launched a series of print advertisements in several publications. This advertisement first ran in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety on January 12, 2010.

One White House adviser on counter-terrorism said Sunday there was no “smoking gun” that would have alerted authorities to the plot to blow up a U.S. international flight on Christmas Day, but admitted “human error” and “system lapses,” rather than deliberate concealing of information, enabled a terror suspect with explosives strapped to his body to board the aircraft.

“There is no smoking gun,” said John Brennan, the assistant to the President for homeland security and counter-terrorism, in a CNN program, adding: “There was no single piece of intelligence that said, ‘this guy is going to get on a plane.’”

He said that the security breakdown in the failed bombing of the Northwest Airlines flight last month was different from the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.

“It’s not like 9/11,” Brennan said, adding that the “system didn’t work as it should have”. There were some “human errors.” There were some “lapses” that should be corrected. “But day in and day out, the successes are there,” he said.

The Obama administration is under fire after a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab–who U.S. authorities say was linked to al Qaeda–was able to board the Delta/Northwest flight from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Detroit, with explosives tucked in his underwear.

Brennan, who is currently heading a government investigation into the case, also clarified that the United States was not opening a new front against al-Qaeda in Yemen–where the al-Qaeda branch in the Arabian Peninsula that claims to have trained and equipped the Nigerian bomber is based–and had no plans to send troops there either.

“I wouldn’t say we’re opening a second front. This is a continuation of an effort that we had underway, as I said, since the beginning of the (Obama) administration,” he reportedly told another TV program on Fox News.

He said the U.S. was not going to let al-Qaeda continue to gain in Yemen, but would take necessary steps to protect Americans there as well as elsewhere abroad.

Brennan also said that U.S.-born Yemeni cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was trying to incite terrorism and that he was linked to both the shoot-out at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas November 5, and the December 25 plot.

“Awlaki is a problem. He’s clearly a part of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He’s not just a cleric. He is, in fact, trying to instigate terrorism,” he said.

The U.S. official said there were indications that Awlaki had direct contact with Abdulmutallab and that he was also in touch with U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused gunman in the November 5 mass-shooting at the Fort Hood base.

Virginia is spending about 1.5 percent less on tobacco-prevention programs in the current fiscal year, according to a report by a coalition of public-health groups.

And other states are cutting funding for the programs overall by more than 15 percent this year, pushing it farther than ever below federally recommended levels, the report said.

Virginia’s spending on the programs, including federal funding, is about $13.4 million, down from $13.6 million in 2009.

That spending represents more than 4 percent of the estimated $307 million in tobacco-generated revenue Virginia collects each year from tobacco-settlement payments and tobacco taxes, according to the report.

Virginia ranks No. 32 on tobacco-prevention spending, committing about 13 percent of the minimum amount recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I am concerned that Virginia ranks so low,” said David DeBiasi, director of public advocacy for the American Lung Association of Virginia. “The impact of teen smoking on future health-care expenses, after they have developed cancer or emphysema, makes an investment in prevention not only a logical step but a necessary, fiscally sound decision.”

Under legislation passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1999, the state puts 10 percent of its payments from the national tobacco settlement into youth-smoking prevention, but lawmakers have shifted some of that money in subsequent years to help balance the state budget.

Also, state legislators this year added childhood-obesity prevention to the mission of the foundation that oversees the smoking-prevention program, raising concerns among tobacco-control advocates that smoking-prevention programs will lose funding.

All states, including Virginia, should spend $567.5 million of their own money and $62 million in federal grants on programs to prevent tobacco use — about 17 percent of the $3.7 billion, the Centers for Disease Control recommends, the report says.

Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia trimmed funding for such programs this year. New York cut the most at $25.2 million, or 31 percent, the report said.

States will collect more than $25 billion in a combination of tobacco taxes and legal settlements from the tobacco industry this fiscal year. They will spend about 2.3 percent of that on programs to prevent or stop tobacco use, the report says.

Released by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and several other groups, the report says smoking-related health care costs $95.9 billion annually nationwide.

Tobacco companies agreed in 1998 to settle lawsuits several states brought over smoking-related health-care costs by paying them about $206 billion during a two-decade-plus period.

The largest U.S. tobacco company, Henrico County-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of Philip Morris USA, pays a majority of that amount. Altria spokesman David Sutton said states should use more of the settlement money for youth-smoking prevention and health-related initiatives.
December 10, 2009

A 2009 survey of 11,000 Vermont students in eighth through 12th grades found a change in attitude about the risks of smoking and marijuana that worries state health officials.

In the Department of Health’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey two years ago, 72 percent of Vermont school-age teenagers said they believed there was “great risk in people harming themselves” from smoking one or more packs of cigarettes a day. In this year’s survey, the percentage dropped to 67 percent.

Likewise, 51 percent of the students saw great risk of harm from smoking marijuana regularly, compared with 42 percent in the most recent survey.

“When we see the attitude more accepting and less perceived risk of harm, we are worried increased use will follow,” said Barbara Cimaglio, deputy health commissioner for alcohol and drug-abuse programs. “The harmful consequences of smoking tobacco and marijuana is a public-health message that must be delivered by parents and communities and understood by young people.”

The state has been conducting surveys of risky behavior among the state’s youth every other year since 1993. The survey asks students about use of bicycle helmets and seatbelts, fighting and abuse, sexual activity and use of contraceptive measures, nutrition and physical activity and whether they talk to their parents.

The changing view about the harmfulness of smoking reverses a 10-year trend in which more and more students saw risks in tobacco use.

The percentage of youth who smoke has remained at 16 percent since 2003 but had declined precipitously from 38 percent in 1995. Officials don’t want to see that trend reversed, Cimaglio said.

The survey found 22 percent of all students had used marijuana at least once in the past 30 days, down from 32 percent in 1997 — another trend officials would like to see continue rather than reverse.

Cimaglio noted two other disturbing indicators in the survey, although the data had changed little from 2007. Nearly one quarter of the students reporting riding in a vehicle with a drinking driver, and a nearly equal percentage said they had been in a vehicle when someone who had used marijuana was behind the wheel.

The imbibing or marijuana-smoking drivers could be parents or friends, Cimaglio noted. Regardless of who it is, the worrisome behavior “is something we want to focus on,” she said.

The Health Department plans a campaign in the spring to spotlight “how parents can support their children in making good choices,” Cimaglio said. The campaign will include radio and Internet messages along with initiatives developed by community organizations. The effort will be paid for under a $12 million, five-year federal Strategic Prevention Framework grant.

The campaign will build on some strengths identified in the survey, Cimaglio said, citing the fact that 77 percent of the students reported they talked with their parents, and 72 percent reported eating meals with their families at least three times a week. “Those are really protective factors,” she said.
By Nancy Remsen
November 29, 2009

Cigarettes are a clear public health problem. A significant number of people who smoke regularly throughout their lives will develop serious health problems including lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema. And for 30 years now, governments around the world have worked to change people’s attitudes toward smoking. Indeed, when I visited Tunisia in early November, they pointed out that 2009 was designated as a year-long anti-smoking campaign.

There are two classes of measures that have been taken to fight smoking (and related public health problems like alcohol and unhealthy eating). One is to make smoking less attractive in the short-term to counteract the positives of smoking. The other is to provide warnings about the dangers of smoking.

As I have written before in previous entries, one reason why smoking is so difficult to quit is that it provides some pleasure in the short term (and for the addicted smoker also the absence of painful cravings). The health risks are in the long-term and so they have a weaker pull over current behavior. Thus, measures like making it illegal to smoke indoors in public places and raising the price of cigarettes through taxes are aimed at decreasing the pleasure of smoking in the short term.

SmokersThe other major public health initiative is to influence the information that is available about smoking. For example, in the US, there are very few venues in which cigarette manufacturers are allowed to advertise, and so there are few positive messages about smoking in mainstream media. In addition, by law, cigarette packs have to come with a warning about the dangers of smoking.

A paper by Jochim Hansen, Susanne Winzeler, and Sascha Topolinski in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology examined the effectiveness of these warnings on the attitudes of smokers toward smoking.

The authors reasoned that there are two kinds of smokers. Some smokers find that smoking is an important part of their self concept. They are truly smokers. Other people smoke cigarettes, but that is not an important part of their self-concept. They do not identify strongly as smokers.

There are also two kinds of warnings that are often given about smoking. Some of those messages are about the negative social consequences of smoking. For example, a warning might point out that “Smoking makes you unattractive.” Most of the warnings that actually appear on cigarette packs tend to focus on the danger of death associated with cigarettes, issuing warnings like “Cigarettes are dangerous for your health” or “Cigarettes cause lung cancer.”

In other posts, I have discussed the idea of mortality salience: that being reminded of your own mortality can affect your self-esteem. Hansen and colleagues reasoned that a cigarette warning that highlights that cigarettes may cause death could actually backfire. When someone identifies strongly as a smoker, then a warning that focuses on mortality can threaten that person’s self-esteem. Because they identify strongly as a smoker, the easiest way to boost their self-esteem is to increase their favorable attitude toward cigarettes.

To test this hypothesis, a number of cigarette smokers were tested. Some of these people were ones for whom smoking was an important part of their self-concept, while others were ones for whom smoking was not that important to their self-concept. The smokers read either a warning that talked about how smoking decreases a person’s attractiveness or a warning that talked about how smoking causes death. Later, these people rated their attitude toward smoking.

As these researchers predicted, if people thought smoking was an important part of their self-concept, they rated smoking as much more attractive if they read a warning that focused on death than if they read a warning focused on attractiveness. That is, for the group of smokers whose identity is bound up with smoking, the kinds of warnings that are typically shown on cigarette packs actually backfire.

This research suggests the importance of gathering evidence about programs that relate to the behavioral aspects of public health problems. On the surface, nobody could oppose big warnings on cigarettes that trumpet their health risks. However, we must be careful, because these warnings could actually do more harm than good.

By Art Markman
November 24, 2009, Psychologytoday

The great American Smokeout – a perfect time to highlight new findings that cigarettes are found to be laden with disease causing bacteria. The findings come from University of Maryland environmental health researcher and microbial ecologists at the Ecole Centrale de Lyon in France whose team found a “wide array” of bacteria in cigarettes that can harm human health.

According to Professor Amy R. Sapkota who led the research, “We were quite surprised to identify such a wide variety of human bacterial pathogens in these products. The commercially-available cigarettes that we tested were chock full of bacteria, as we had hypothesized, but we didn’t think we’d find so many that are infectious in humans.”

Sapkota says the bacteria found in cigarettes are believed to survive the smoking process. If so,”then they could possibly go on to contribute to both infectious and chronic illnesses in both smokers and individuals who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, so it’s critical that we learn more about the bacterial content of cigarettes, which are used by more than a billion people worldwide.”

Some of the bacteria found in cigarettes are the type found in soil. The study is the first to show there are as many bacteria in cigarettes as there are chemicals.

The researchers studied Camel; Kool Filter Kings; Lucky Strike Original Red; and Marlboro Red cigarettes, finding no difference in the amount and variety of bacteria in the cigarettes.

Cigarettes were found to contain bacteria that cause human infections, including those associated with blood and lung infection (Acinetobacter), a variety of bacteria related to anthrax and food borne illness (Bacillus), and Burkholderia – some of which are responsible for respiratory infections.

A bacteria that causes ten percent of hospital acquired infection in the US, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, was also found in cigarettes, along with Clostridium, and Klebsiella, both associated with respiratory, and other infection. The scientists found “hundred” of bacteria in cigarettes.

The study is the first to show that cigarettes are laden with bacteria, many of which can cause human illness. The research findings have important implications for public health.

Rather than culturing bacteria from small samples of cigarettes, the researchers used DNA microanalysis to find total amounts of bacterial genetic material, uncovering bacteria in cigarettes that could cause infection in humans. The findings that cigarettes are full of potentially harmful bacteria, known to cause disease in humans, arrive just in time for the Great American Smokeout 2009

By Kathleen Blanchard, Nov 20th, 2009

It makes no sense. Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and illness in the United States. It also causes cancer, heart disease and other fatal conditions.

Yet, just when federal officials were hoping for further reductions in the number of adults who smoke, the figures go up slightly.

That was the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta last week. According to the most recent survey taken in 2008, a little less than 21 percent of U.S. adults said they smoked. That’s up slightly from the year before when 19.8 percent said they smoked cigarettes.

More importantly, it was the first time in almost 15 years the survey showed an increase in smokers. Health officials had hoped the U.S. smoking rate had moved permanently below 20 percent.

“Clearly, we’ve hit a wall in reducing adult smoking,” said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy organization.

There’s a general perception related to indoor smoking laws and higher cigarette taxes that smoking is a fading public health danger. But health officials believe that those gains have been undermined by cuts in state tobacco control campaigns. In some or many of those campaigns, money designated for programs designed to discourage or prevent smoking has been diverted to economic development or other programs not at all related to anti-smoking efforts.

Willmore pointed out that the tobacco industry has been discounting cigarette prices to offset tax increases to keep smokes more affordable.

Dr. Clyde Yancey, president of the American Heart Association, said the tobacco industry had done little to discourage young smokers. He said cigarette marketing has persisted and is effectively reaching children and minorities with messages about flavored or menthol products.

Once youngsters are addicted to cigarettes, it is easy for them to carry the habit into adulthood.

So is smoking harmful and are the medical treatments to repair the damage expensive for the public sector? When the House of Representatives approved landmark legislation last spring giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products, members described huge health care costs associated with smoking.

Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs. They also cost an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity. That includes the days they were not able to work because of illness caused by smoking.

The adult smoking rate has been dropping since the mid-1960s when roughly 2 out of 5 U.S. adults smoked. Now it’s 1 in 5. But federal health goals for 2010 had hoped to bring to bring the rate down to close to 1 in 10, cutting it in half again.

The health problems caused by smoking are clear and undeniable. Smokers also inflict many of those same problems on those around them who do not smoke, according to the American Lung Association, among other organizations.

If potentially new smokers would only take a look at the statistics, they would know how harmful — and how addictive — smoking is to their health. The most sensible course — for children and adults — is to avoid that first cigarette.

Mumbai, – Not unlike their contemporaries in other Asian cities, woman in metroes of India, including those in Mumbai run a significant risk of developing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) from secondhand smoke (SHS), an NGO Smokefree Mumbai has said in its report.

Presenting the report on Chinese women and SHS, published in the American Heart Association’s Circulation (AHAC), today Smokefree Mumbai said the report found that SHS had a significant, negative impact on the health of Chinese women, who had never smoked, the risk which would, without doubt, equate to Indian women too.

The first of its kind report by the AHAC had revealed a link between exposure to SHS and an increased chance of suffering from coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

The study on the women that covered their exposure to SHS at home and at work, and assessment of their cardiovascular health through blood pressure measurement and hospital records showed 39.5 were exposed to SHS and those exposed were ran a significantly higher risk than non-exposed women for coronary hearth disease, ischemic stroke and PAD.

A similar report by World Health Organization (WHO) also revealed the presence of gender-specific issues in exposure to secondhand smoke. The research also suggested that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of breast cancer in young premenopausal nonsmoking women.

”While 97 per cent Mumbaites have voted in favour of smoke-free environment, the ramification of the ban on smoking in public on the women population, largely non-smokers, may be found as reason for contemplation,” observed the report.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is exercising its recently acquired regulatory authority over the tobacco industry by targeting online ads for cigarette products that are aimed at youth.

In this case, the government agency has sent warning letters to several companies selling flavored cigarettes through their websites, directing them to either cease their marketing or sales or bring the products into compliance with the law.

The cigarettes are flavored with fruit or candy, making them enticing to teenagers and children, the FDA said. The agency received its authority to act against tobacco products in June 2009, under the the Tobacco Control Act, which gives the FDA authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products and specifically bans cigarettes containing certain characterizing flavors. It does not, however, allow the FDA to ban nicotine or tobacco outright.

Questions Over E-Cigarettes

Flavored cigarettes are not the only tobacco product the FDA seeks to control; the agency came out against electronic cigarettes this summer. These are battery-operated devices that contain nicotine, flavorings and other chemicals. They “turn nicotine, which is highly addictive into a vapor that is inhaled,” the FDA said.

E-cigarettes also are available online and could serve as gateway products to traditional cigarettes for young people, the FDA claimed. Companies that market these devices are fighting back, however. One firm filed suit against the agency earlier this year, claiming it overstepped its authority. Others maintain that the products are not as dangerous to health as the FDA purports.

Enforcement Up Overall

In general, regulatory authorities such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration are stepping up their enforcement activities for online marketing and sales as the internet has proven to be a very effective channel for marketers that seek to flout US regulations, or to find new, unrestricted channels to sell their wares.

The tobacco industry falls in the latter category as it has been chased out of many traditinal advertising venues. RJ Reynolds, for example, pulled out of print advertising in response to an outcry over sultry print ads.

November 10, 2009 Marketingvox

LIMBANG: ‘Kemt’ and ‘Pally’ are names that trigger an anxiety attack among parents here.

They are cigarette-shaped sweets that are packaged like cigarettes. At first glance, the sweet boxes look like real cigarette boxes. Parents are worried that such sales gimmick may eventually tempt children to start smoking.

Ibrahim Tapa, 38, said the products, known as ‘Smoke Candy’ here, were believed to be imported from China and were sold at 50 sen per box.

Unethical and illegal

This kind of gimmick by traders goes against the government’s anti-smoking policy, where millions of ringgit is spent to discourage people from picking up the smoking habit and is making a mockery of the government’s effort to create a healthy society.”

A Borneo Post survey here showed that several traders were selling ‘Smoke Candy’ openly.

The authorites were unaware of the sale of such products but said such sweets are banned under the Control of Tobacco Act, 2004 and the Food Act, 1983.

“The Ministry of Health and Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism have asked the public to provide more information so that they could take action.
05 November 2009

TORONTO, – Most women smokers know smoking can lead to cancer, heart disease and premature death but they are unaware of other health effects, a Canadian survey indicates.

The survey, conducted by Angus Reid on behalf of nicotine replacement therapy brands Nicoderm and Nicoette, reveals the majority of Canadian women who smoke are not necessarily aware of the host of other effects smoking can have on their immediate and longer-term health.

Eighty-three percent of female smokers say lung cancer was most strongly attributed to smoking, 62 percent say premature aging of skin, 61 percent say dental problems such as yellowing of teeth or tooth loss and 60 percent say heart disease.

Fewer than two in 10 female smokers surveyed were aware of the link between lighting up and increased risks of developing health issues such as infertility, early onset of menopause, menstrual irregularities, osteoporosis, baldness, premature grey hair, weight gain, hearing loss and incontinence.

Of the female smokers surveyed 78 percent say they tried to quit the habit two or more times. Sixty-nine percent cited health concerns as their primary reason for trying to quit, 14 percent said motivation by family, 8 percent say societal pressure, 6 percent say financial reasons and 5 percent say motivation by friends.

The survey of 1,061 adult female Canadian smokers or former smokers was conducted Oct. 20 to Oct. 23 has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Nov. 5, 2009 Upi

The Justice Department says it’s backing off the prosecution of people who smoke pot or sell it in compliance with state laws that permit “medical marijuana.” Attorney General Eric Holder says “it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers.” Party hardy! I mean — let the healing begin!

I don’t think the federal government should be spending a whole lot of time on small-time druggies, and I’m undecided about legalizing pot, which enjoys 44 percent support among the general public, according to a recent poll. Recreational use is not the wisest thing — and if my 12-year-old son is reading this, that means you! — but it’s no more harmful than other drugs (e.g., alcohol) and impossible to eradicate. On the other hand, I worry it’s a gateway to harder stuff. So I think we probably should have an open debate about decriminalization.

But it should be a real debate, about real decriminalization, and not clouded — pardon the expression — by hokum about “medical marijuana.” To the extent it puts the attorney general’s imprimatur on the notion that people are getting pot from “caregivers” to deal “with serious illnesses” — as opposed to growing their own or flocking to “dispensaries” just to get high — the Justice Department’s move is not so constructive.

I do not deny that for some people, including some terminal cancer patients and pain-wracked AIDS sufferers, marijuana is a blessed relief. Let ‘em smoke, I say, just as the Justice Department has usually ignored such cases since long before Holder spoke up. But if you believe there is any scientific evidence that smoked marijuana has the multiplicity of therapeutic uses that advocates claim — well, I’ve got a bag of oregano I’d like to sell you.

Usually, drugs have to pass exacting testing by the Food and Drug Administration before they go on the market. There’s a good reason for this: we don’t want people spending money on products that might be ineffective or actually harmful. In California and elsewhere, however, snake oil — sorry, “medical marijuana” — got on the market via a different route: popular referendum. The pot for sale in dispensaries is subject to none of the purity controls that actual pharmaceutical drugs must meet. Indeed, the new DOJ policy essentially recognizes a gray market for pot, leaving these supposedly seriously ill people at the mercy of their dealers — I mean caregivers — with respect to quality and efficacy.

What other substances should we handle this way? Cocaine? Laetrile? Didn’t President Obama just sign a bill authorizing the FDA to regulate the nicotine content of tobacco? And I thought he promised to “restore science to its rightful place.”

Under California’s law, you don’t even need a prescription to get pot (which would admittedly have been a problem, since the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency controls who gets a prescription pad, and not many doctors would use theirs to prescribe an illegal drug). All it takes is a “written or oral recommendation” from a physician.

A few years ago, a California woman called Angel Raich took her defense of medical pot all the way to the Supreme Court. She lost on the legal issue, which had nothing to do with the medical effectiveness of pot. Along the way, though, she claimed that she was suffering from “life-threatening” scoliosis, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, bruxism, endometriosis, headache, rotator cuff syndrome, uterine fibroids, and Schwannoma. The Latin names might have snowed some judges, but physicians recognized each of these conditions as a common, non-life-threatening problem for which conventional treatments were available. Raich listed a cornucopia of potent drugs, from Vicodin to Methadone, that she had tried previously and gotten no satisfaction. I’m not a doctor, but I thought she might consider a consultation for hypochondria, or perhaps marijuana dependency.

This is not an isolated instance. According to a survey by NORML, the pro-”medical marijuana” organization, which can be expected to emphasize the desperate health of users, only 22 percent of California medical marijuana users suffer from AIDS-related disease. Most of the rest have more subjective maladies such as “chronic pain” or “mood disorders.”

Raich’s physician was Frank Lucido, a well-known Berkeley doctor and pro-pot activist — he also makes money as an expert witness on “medical marijuana” — whose Web site boasts that he was “investigated by the Medical Practices Board of California for cannabis evaluation practices in 2003, and fully exonerated.” The case involved his recommendation of marijuana to treat attention deficit disorder in a 16-year-old boy, but, as I say, he was fully exonerated.

In a brilliant article (requires subscription) on this subject in the Hastings Center Report, a bioethics journal, lawyer and anesthesiologist Peter J. Cohen noted that “medical marijuana” groups have been notably passive about demanding FDA testing and approval for this purported elixir. Instead, they took their case to the people. As Cohen argued, this is no way to make health policy: “medical marijuana,” he wrote, should be “subjected to the same scientific scrutiny as any drug proposed for use in medical therapy, rather than made legal for medical use by popular will.” The “medical marijuana” movement may not be a threat to our civilization, but it is an insult to our intelligence.

By Charles Lane | October 20, 2009