China (Reuters) – Chinese tobacco companies are targeting women and children as potential smokers as the market in men has peaked, health experts said on Thursday. Around 53 percent of Chinese men smoked, leading tobacco control activist Judith Mackay said, but only three percent of Chinese women. “Prevalence in men has peaked, but they are targeting women and children,” she said at the World Cancer Congress in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen. “That’s where we need to be extremely vigilant.”

As the world’s largest consumer and producer of tobacco with over 300 million smokers, health experts warned that tobacco firms in China were becoming more sophisticated in targeting their market.

“Girls in China are getting more independent and they have more money to spend,” Mackay said.

Calls late on Thursday to China’s National Tobacco Corp, the state-owned monopoly and the world’s largest tobacco producer, were not answered.

China’s 1.3 billion population carries an enormous cancer burden. With one in every three cigarettes in the world smoked in China, the nation had 2.82 million new cancer cases and 1.96 million cancer deaths in 2008.

Globally, there were 12.68 million new cancer cases and 7.6 million cancer deaths in 2008.

Despite the massive health costs, experts say state-owned Chinese tobacco firms are skirting tobacco laws with tactics such as printing health warnings in English, rather than Chinese, and using very fine print.

“The law mandates that the health warning should cover 30 percent of the face of the packaging in the front and the back,” said Professor Yang Gonghuan, deputy general director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

“But in actuality the words are very small. It’s only a fine line.”

It’s a familiar refrain from the tobacco industry: high excise hikes on tobacco products lead more consumers to buy their cigarettes on the black market. Governments should therefore be careful not to raise duty too sharply. The clamour for higher tobacco duty from global governments in the last year should therefore have been a boon to spivs hawking cheap cigarettes the world over. Except of course on a global scale, this simply isn’t the case. In a year when governments across the world have been raising their excise rates on tobacco in an effort to trim their budget deficits, we should be seeing a huge rise in the illicit tobacco market. Right?

Well no. British American Tobacco’s Chief Executive Paul Adams said Wednesday there had been only a “slight rise” in the illicit market in the last year despite all the “significant” and “swingeing” excise increases mentioned in the company’s first-half results.

Some individual markets were undoubtedly affected. In Romania for instance, the percentage of cigarettes bought on the black market rose to 36% once government tax rises led to a doubling in the price of a pack. That percentage has now come down to around 24%, according to Adams. This reduction was not brought about by any reduction in the excise duty, however, but by a tightening of border controls.

Similar government action has led to a sharp reduction in the Canadian black market–where once again there were no price reductions.

So perhaps the link between high excise duty and the illicit tobacco trade is not quite as strong as we’re led to believe. Besides which, tobacco firms appear less concerned about fueling the illicit market when it comes to raising their own prices. The fact that BAT managed to raise is first half sales by 4%, despite flat volumes, suggests it had no qualms about raising the price of its Dunhills, Lucky Strikes or Pall Malls.

That’s not to suggest that illicit trade isn’t an issue of course. It accounts for about 12% of the world’s cigarette volumes. That means 12% of tobacco sales are effectively unregulated, with none of the strict controls on underage smoking the rest of the market faces. As the Canadian example and the recent experience in Romania have shown however, it is perhaps stricter border controls, and more stringent law enforcement rather than more modest duty increases that is best used to combat the problem.

Material from :blogs.wsj.com, by Michael Carolan

New regulations giving the Food and Drug Administration more control over the tobacco industry go into effect today. Cigarette makers are no longer allowed to use terms like “light,” “low” or “mild” when advertising cigarettes and smokeless products. Proponents of the law say labels such as “low-tar” give the false impression that some cigarettes are less harmful than others. Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin says the law will save lives and protect kids.

DURBIN: The tobacco companies — still very profitable, with billions of dollars to spend — are setting out to find a new class of customers, a new class of addicts. And they’re going after our kids.

Sales of cigarettes to minors under 18 are now a federal violation. Tobacco companies won’t be allowed to sponsor athletic or cultural events. And they can no longer offer free samples or sell cigarettes in packages of less than 20.

From wbez.org, by Travis Truitt, June 22, 2010

MONTREAL – Police say they’ve taken down a contraband cigarillo ring that defrauded the federal government out of $5.2 million in taxes each year. Montreal police allege that two cells linked to the ring were pulling in as much as $100,000 and $15,000 a week respectively, from the sales of primarily cigarillos, but also cigars and cigarettes.

Police conducted seizures at 22 convenience stores, 16 homes and 13 vehcles, seizing more than $100,000 in cash and stockpiles of allegedly illegal tobacco products.
Some 16 people face charges of fraud, conspiracy and trafficking in stolen goods.
Some convenience store owners are also facing charges under the provincial tobacco tax laws.
Police say convenience store clients who purchased the products at convenience store at regular prices had no idea the products were illegal.

From winnipegfreepress.com, June 17, 2010, By: The Canadian Press

A new city policy will try to save money by raising health-insurance premiums for municipal employees who use tobacco products, a change that has some workers upset. Starting in January, health-insurance premiums will go up by an undetermined amount for city employees unless they take a test to prove they are tobacco-free, defined as having no nicotine in their body. In addition, for the first time, people who smoke or use other tobacco products will be eligible only for the city’s basic health-coverage plan. They will not qualify for the city’s Basic Plus health plan, in which the city covers more costs.

Martha Wheelock, an assistant city manager, said that health-care costs are still being analyzed and the exact amount of the premium increase is not yet clear, although a preliminary figure of $20 per month was given in the city’s proposed 2010-11 budget.

Wheelock said that having tobacco users pay more for health insurance continues a trend of trying to keep down costs overall.

“We as a city have talked about smoking in particular for a number of years, at least internally, and I think we’re ultra-sensitive to the topic given where we live and the roots of our city,” she said.

The city’s projected health-care costs for 2010 are $20.9 million — up 10 percent. Winston-Salem is self-insured; BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina administers the city’s plan.

Last year, all premiums went up 25 percent, but those who joined an expanded wellness program and took biometric tests were eligible to pay the old amount. About 80 percent to 90 percent of employees took the screening.

Wheelock said it is too early to know how much the changes planned for January will save the city. She said the city doesn’t break down its health-care costs by source, so there are no exact figures for how much smoking costs the city. But she said studies suggest that curbing smoking would be fruitful.

“The trend data shows that over time, this will save us and the employees themselves money,” she said.

Testing has found that 500, or 14 percent, of the 3,600 covered city employees and retirees use tobacco products. But because not everyone took the tests, the percentage likely is higher, Wheelock said.

With the program, Winston-Salem joins a growing number of government employers, including the state of North Carolina, in attempting to cut costs by improving employees’ health.

Under the state health plan, which also covers teachers, smokers are limited to a plan in which they pay 30 percent of medical costs, while nonsmokers or those in programs to quit pay only 20 percent of medical c osts. The plan’s smoking component is projected to save the state $13 million for the 2010-11 fiscal year.

Of North Carolina’s major cities, Winston-Salem is the only one adopting such a change, although Charlotte is considering restricting smokers to a higher-deductible plan next year.

The nicotine tests will likely be given yearly, Wheelock said, but other than that, the city hasn’t yet decided how to enforce the new policy. There are no plans for random testing for compliance, an idea considered for the state plan but discarded last month.

The city’s plan was announced in May, although rumors had gone around for months. Normally, the city makes health-coverage announcements in the fall, but Wheelock said the statement was moved up because it was likely to affect employees more than usual.

“I think we’re going to work extra hard to explain it to our employees,” Wheelock said.

The plan already has some smokers concerned. The city banned employees from smoking in city buildings two years ago, and some people said they thought the continued restrictions were unfair to smokers.

“It’s a little harder to quit than they think,” said Mickey Ferguson, a heavy-equipment operator for the streets department. Ferguson, a smoker, was among several employees who expressed reservations with the plan.

The city will again offer smoking-cessation classes to employees, and it started paying for anti-smoking aids last year.

About 50 employees took the smoking-cessation classes last year. City officials expect as many as 175 to take the classes during the 2010-11 fiscal year. Workers said that the classes have helped some people quit — but some stopped attending or saw few results.

Jeff Goins, a technician in the city’s parts department, has smoked for years, although he’s tried to quit several times. He was in the first round of classes, and they helped him kick the habit — but only for 4½ months. He said he didn’t plan on taking the classes again.

“It’s a waste of time. I know I have a problem,” he said. “I have to go with their policy, but I don’t think it’s a fair decision.”

June 15, 2010, journalnow.com, by Sarah Morayati

A Rudd government decision to hike the tax on cigarettes has passed the Senate with broad support from all parties. Labor raised by $1.80 to more than $14 the cost of an average pack of 25 cigarettes in April without formal legislation to formalise an excise increase. The coalition backed the measure with Liberal frontbencher Concetta Fierravanti-Wells saying the move would reduce the long-term strain on hospitals and healthcare services. ”This coalition, when elected at the next election, will continue this commitment to the Australian people,” she told parliament on Tuesday.

Independent Nick Xenophon said he supported the government’s decision to increase the excise.

“I do welcome that cigarettes are more expensive,” Senator Xenophon said.

However, the measure should be seen as one plank only in a policy to reduce smoking.

Subsidising nicotine replacement therapies and improving prevention methods needed to be funded.

Senator Xenophon called for details about the uptake of teenage smoking to be published annually and better surveying of the indigenous population to assess the effectiveness of the move.

The Australian Greens also supported the legislation.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert said more should be done to target the most vulnerable groups of smokers, including Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who smoked at more than double the rate of the rest of the population.

A proportion of the revenue should be made available for people to quit and discourage those considering taking it up.

The federal government is waiting on recommendations on which nicotine replacement medications will be available through its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2010 and a related bill now await royal assent.

From news.smh.com.au, June 15, 2010

WASHINGTON – According to public health officials, a loophole in President Obama’s children’s health insurance program cost the government more than $250 million in tobacco revenue in its first year, the Associated Press reports.  The loophole allowed companies to avoid large tax increases on loose rolling tobacco by relabeling their product as pipe tobacco. The result was a tax of $2.83 per pound, rather than $24.78 per pound that is assessed on rolling tobacco.  The technicality prompted tobacco companies to beef up production of pipe tobacco to record levels and decrease production of roll-your-own tobacco. The loophole was identified last November though it was unclear at the time whether the production shift was short-term or represented a long-term trend.

The trend has not slowed. In March, tobacco firms produced more than 2 million pounds of pipe tobacco, a record month for an industry that produced roughly 270,000 pounds a month prior to the tax change.

While the Obama administration said last year that it would release new rules for distinguishing between roll-your-own tobacco and pipe tobacco, it has yet to do so.

“We’re still studying, from a technical standpoint, how to distinguish between the two products,” said Arthur Resnick, a spokesman for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

The Obama administration said the only distinction between pipe tobacco currently produced and roll-your-own tobacco is in product labeling.

The Pipe Tobacco Council (PTC) said that it supports regulations distinguishing between traditional pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco, which the organization maintains is being mislabeled.

“It’s not really a loophole. It’s fraud,” said PTC spokesperson Norman Sharp.

Jun 3, 2010  nacsonline.com

The state could become the first to force retailers to put up graphic tobacco ads that warn customers about the dangers of smoking. Massachusetts could become the first state to force retailers to display — at their registers — graphic ads that warn customers about the effects of smoking, reports the Boston Globe.

Images in the ads would feature “ominously darkened lungs, damaged brains, and diseased teeth could start appearing before the end of the year in more than 9,000 convenience stores, pharmacies and gas stations, if a proposal by the state Department of Public Health is approved as expected,” writes the newspaper.

Also, retailers who refuse to post the signs within 2 feet of tobacco displays and registers could face fines of $100 to $300.

The ads mirror a New York City campaign that began last December. Massachusetts would use $316,000 in federal stimulus money from the CDC, notes the newspaper, “which will allow the state to provide the materials to retailers without charge.”

Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, commented that most retailers “will respond coolly” to another mandate.

“Do you really have to have additional graphic signage and multiple layers of it at each cash register?’’ said Hurst, adding, “If you warn on everything, those warnings become essentially meaningless. They already have signage on alcohol, tobacco, lottery, they have signage on price accuracy.’’

Philip Morris commented that such graphic warnings, if established, should be under the authority of the federal government, which has expanded authority to the FDA for the manufacture, distribution and retail sales of tobacco products as part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, notes the newspaper.

The Massachusetts Public Health Council is expected to vote on the graphic posters in August.

A group of researchers has developed a novel tea filter to treat cigarette addiction and have discovered the molecular mechanism behind the smoking cessation effect.

Professor Zhao Baolu and his group from the State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences identified theanine as the active ingredient in the tea filter that inhibits nicotine addiction.

Their work entitled “The cessation and detoxification effect of tea filters on cigarette smoke” was published in the X. edition Science of China in 2010.

Cigarette smoking has been linked to many life threatening diseases including heart disease, cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Many methods have been developed for smoking cessation by researchers and clinicians. Despite all efforts, currently available smoking cessation methods produce only modest success rates with frequent relapse. Due to the addictive nature of nicotine, quitting smoking remains an extremely difficult task. Therefore, the need for developing new smoking cessation strategies with better efficacy and fewer side effects is urgent.

Human tests using a newly developed tea filter were conducted at the Addiction Branch of Beijing Military Region General Hospital. A total of more than 100 male smokers participated in this study. The results from the first trial showed that the participants’ average daily cigarette consumption decreased by about 43 per cent and 56.5 per cent after using the tea filters for 1 and 2 months, respectively. The results from the second trial showed that the participants’ average daily cigarette consumption decreased by about 48 per cent, 83 per cent and 91 per cent after using the tea filters for 1, 2 and 3 months, respectively.

The average daily cigarettes consumed by the participants decreased from about 24.5 per day to about 3 per day at the end of 3 months of treatment. In addition, most participants indicated that sputum and their smoking-related symptoms were reduced compared with the control group. Physical examinations of the participants did not reveal any apparent side effects.

The mechanism of action (MOA) studies indicated that theanine in the filter exerted an inhibitory effect similar to the nicotine acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) inhibitor. In addition, theanine could significantly inhibit the nicotine-induced increased expression of nAChR and the increase of the neurotransmitter dopamine (DA) released in mouse brains.

The toxicological studies showed that the tea filters could significantly reduce the carcinogenic materials such as tar, free radicals, nitrosamine, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) generated in cigarette smoking.

Animal studies also revealed that tea filters could significantly reduce the acute toxicity, mutagenicity, lung damage and carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels in the blood caused by cigarette smoking.

Timesofindia

With implementation of picture-based health warnings on cigarette packs in Pakistan only 20 days away, a discussion on the potential benefits of introducing plain packaging of tobacco products as a measure to control tobacco use offered an interesting visualisation here on Tuesday of what cigarette packs may look like in the future, should there be no slackening in the pace of current advocacy efforts.

The acting director of Tobacco Control at the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease-UK (The Union) Dr. Ehsan Latif shared this relatively new idea in the domain of tobacco control with participants of a two-day workshop on ‘Tobacco Packaging and Labelling.’ The workshop has been organised by the World Health Organisation, The Union and the Tobacco Control Cell of the Ministry of Health.

Plain packaging means packaging with mandated, standardised appearance in terms of colour, size and shape. “Plain packaging means that neither brand imagery and colours nor corporate logos or trademarks would be permissible on cigarette packs. The brand would hence be identified only by the name, which would appear in a mandated size, font and location,” Dr. Ehsan stated.

Dr. Ehsan’s argument was based on Article 11 of the WHO FCTC recommendations and requirements for plain packaging. The law calls for adoption of measures to restrict or prohibit the use of logos, colours, brand images, or promotional information on packages other than brand names and product names displayed in a standard colour and font style. “This may increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings and messages, prevent the package from detracting attention from these and address the industry package design technique that may suggest that some products are less harmful than others,” states paragraph 46 of the said Article.

Plain packaging, Dr. Ehsan stated, removes the ability of the packages to serve as advertising. Since product packaging and design are important elements of advertising and promotion, plain packaging can eliminate the effect of advertising or promotion on packaging.

“Moreover, plain packaging addresses the problem of misleading labelling, makes the package less attractive, and has the potential to reduce tobacco use,” Dr. Ehsan pointed out.

The visiting tobacco expert also shared some of the common arguments that the tobacco industry uses against plain packaging. “Legal arguments are the most common. The industry terms it as a violation of trademark law and international trade law (TRIPS, NAFTA,” Dr. Ehsan said, but shared the good news that international treaties make exceptions for public health measures. Moreover, large health warnings taking up at least 60% of the package (and trademark space) have not been successfully challenged.

Even though there are no best practices in plain packaging as yet, the intervention is recommended by WHO FCTC articles 11 and 13 implementation guidelines. “Where plain packaging is not politically feasible, governments should implement complementary best practices such as: a) prohibit printing of emissions quantities on packaging; b) prohibit misleading descriptions and related imagery; and c) require picture-based warnings to cover most of the package surface,” Dr. Ehsan remarked in conclusion.

The director general of the Tobacco Control Cell Yusuf Khan shared that picture-based health warnings would start appearing on cigarette packs in Pakistan with effect from May 31.

However, the tobacco industry has been allowed a grace period of 90 days to clear old stocks from factory premises and port of entry. He shared printed versions of a variety of cigarette packets bearing pictorial health warnings, and assured that the tobacco companies are showing compliance with the law.

Yusuf Khan urged participants from the districts to spread awareness about existing laws and to spearhead implementation. “Ironically, even those who are authorised to take action against violators of the anti-tobacco law and unaware of the powers conferred upon them under the law,” he pointed out.

The DG also shared the advocacy material prepared by the Tobacco Control Cell to inform heads of private institutions, bus drivers and conductors, hotel managers, and others who can act under the law to prevent smoking in public places.

The purpose of the workshop is to build the technical capacity of the government to implement effective measures for regulation of tobacco product packaging and labelling, consistent with guidelines enshrined in the FCTC. At a more practical level, the workshop will empower the participants to argue more effectively for package health warnings. The workshop was also addressed by Dr. Farrukh Qureshi from WHO, Dr. Fouad Aslam from The Union, Dr. Arif Azad from TheNetwork, and Dr. Ziauddin Islam from the Tobacco Control Cell.

By By Shahina Maqbool, The news

The headlines are as recent as a puffed smoke-ring, wafting intact: Australia proposes regulations mandating plain packaging. Plain, in this instance, bears no relation to the “less is more” school of thought subscribed to by many designers; rather, it means sans logo, branding images, and color.

Furthermore, promotional copy will be limited to brand name and product designation, and even then of a standard font, size, position, and color. In dwarfing contrast to that austerity, will be graphic, color photos of cancer, augmenting prominently-placed warnings. The intended end-result is packaging that, at a distance (for example, a sales counter), is indistinguishable across brands. As such, a more apt description might be generic packaging.

Enactment is slated for July 1, 2012. In the interim, the principals (government and tobacco) will spar fiercely; however, punches and counterpunches began flying years ago, when rumors of the regulations first floated. At this juncture, the fight plans of each corner seem clear, in terms of their fundamental arguments. Given that the regulations are a world-first and might serve as the template for other governments invites analysis of those arguments, but not just from the perspective of a single industry.

Government: Plain packaging would reduce smoking

A major aspect of the argument is that packaging makes cigarettes appealing, in particular to youth. There is some empirical muscle to the allegation. Young people, indeed, are impressionable, as a consequence of that stage in life; nonetheless, it doesn’t automatically follow that the decision to smoke and the decision to smoke a particular brand are influenced equally by packaging. The former can be influenced by many social and lifestyle factors, and packaging doesn’t have to be one of them. As for the latter, a plausible contention is that packaging is trade-dress, distinguishing among choices, after the decision to buy cigarettes already has been made.

Another aspect of the argument is that packaging imparts an aura that reduces the effectiveness of the warnings and that plain packaging would not convey the false perception that some cigarettes are safer than others. Surely, the vast majority throughout modern societies accept science’s claim that smoking can cause cancer and other serious ailments; yet, people continue to light up, some from addiction, but what about the newcomers? The answer can’t be assignable all to packaging, not when, for years, packs have carried explicit, conspicuously-placed warnings. Is it now reasonable to postulate that the effectiveness of a warning is a function of its size, in justifying devoting a large portion of the front panel and the entire back panel to it? Moreover, promotional qualifiers such as low-tar, mild, light, etc., can be proscribed by regulation and have been in various countries.

But no matter how an analysis is finessed, packaging can’t be dismissed as a potential influence in smoking. That’s because for decades, promoters of packaging have hailed the discipline’s effectiveness, relative to impulse buying and brand building. It’s almost redundant to say that packaging plays a role in consumer packaged goods. The issue, in the case of cigarettes, is whether the role is the one alleged.

Tobacco: No proof plain packaging would reduce smoking, and mandating it constitutes theft of intellectual property

The logic in the no-proof part of the argument is implied by the proposed regulations’ being the first of their kind. In compensation, the government cites a combination of approvals, recommendations, and studies from a variety of sources, including The World Health Organization (an agency of the United Nations). Even so, the prestige of a source does not exempt it from the evaluation of the methodologies and assumptions underlying the inputs from that source. Packaging is a multifaceted discipline, and any undertaking that does not adequately reflect that fact is likely to produce findings that are simplistic at best and misdirected at worse. It’s a truth that’s applicable even to cigarettes, a product that is unquestionably deadly; for, the objective should be the implementation of measures that achieve what they propose to achieve. It’s not a support of smoking to say that the government should go beyond citation to disclosure, so that analysis can be made—yes, by tobacco—but, more importantly, by disinterested parties.

Any allegation that packaging induces product usage simultaneously concedes that packaging is a valuable corporate asset. It can’t be otherwise, when packaging is the medium that conveys logo, brand, product description, and promotional copy through structure and graphics. Packaging is the embodiment of all the time, money, and resources invested in building a consumer packaged good. It’s an incontestable argument, then, that packaging is intellectual property; the contest is over the degree of control and restriction that a government should exercise over it.

One might ask, on what basis is it that packaging, as intellectual property, should be sacrosanct, when practically every other aspect of the tobacco industry is regulated, in accordance to the government’s stances. Even if the proposed regulations are implemented unrevised, packaging will continue to exist as a promotional medium (although greatly reduced) for tobacco; however, for years, other media, particularly television, have been banned. The tobacco industry should steer clear of complaining of being singled out, which, in large measure, steams from its products’ being like no other consumer packaged good. The prospects for sympathy are slim. Instead, the industry would seem better served by pinning its defense on the protection that it believes it’s entitled to under international trade treaties and the like.

Beyond Australia, beyond tobacco

Now that Australia has taken cigarette packaging regulations to new heights (or lows, from tobacco’s view), some governments will not wait the time required to determine the success of those measures before following suit. Over the years, the tobacco industry has been able to thwart proposals for plain packaging of cigarettes in the U.S. What Australia has done might give impetus to renewed efforts, especially in light of next month’s expansion of the Federal Food & Drug Administration’s governance of tobacco. Plus, the FDA will be just one of several agencies governing tobacco; therefore, packaging regulations can take a variety of paths.

But few things damage the credibility of an analysis more than an unwarranted slippery slope argument, which would be the case to assert that the Australian regulations diminish packaging, in general. That said, consumer packaged goods companies, in general, should recognize the need for reflection.

The government in the Land Down Under sees packaging regulations as a means to reduce the number one preventable cause of death—smoking. But the list is longer, there and around the world, including drunken driving, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. What they have in common is a link (of varying directness) to what people consume. How might packaging regulations address those linkages? How wide-ranging can the call for plain (or at least, pared down) packaging stretch?

What if regulations restricted the alcohol industry from using packaging designed to increase sales and consumption? There go beer labels that change color to indicate coldness, beer bottles with spiral necks for faster dispensing, and liquor closures that double as shot glasses. Why not protect children from the influence of sugary cereals that are marketed in cartons unquestionably designed to appeal to them? And isn’t society better off without the salt content for which many prepared foods (i.e. packaged foods) are known?

It deserves repeating that tobacco is a deadly product, unlike any other marketed, so, this is not an attempt to equate it with the aforementioned. That notwithstanding, it is a reality that the redeeming qualities of a host of CPG’s are debatable. Just as much of a reality, however, is that until a product is banned Prohibition-fashion, the company has a duty to seek adequate financial returns for its shareholders. A large part of that duty is monitoring the packaging regulations horizon for the broadest implications and to do ones best to comply with the present and to plan for the foreseeable.

Written by Sterling Anthony, CPP

Riding a wave created by a youth movement against smoking, the city will start imposing its own fines on businesses that sell tobacco to minors.
Azusa Youth Against Smoking campaigned for a new ordinance to keep tobacco sellers in check following unscientific studies done by the organization.

“We are pleased they took a step forward by introducing an ordinance,” said project coordinator Edgar Ontiveros, who helped students coordinate the event. “When we first started, we started small … it is very rewarding.”

The Azusa Youth Against Smoking conducted a study in December that found 41 percent of retailers in Azusa sold tobacco to minors.

Teens attempted to purchase cigarettes, and if the clerk offered to make the sale without checking ID, the teens would make an excuse and leave the store, Ontiveros said.

The group presented the study to the council earlier this year.

The city crafted ordinance will place a $250 to $500 fine for those businesses caught selling tobacco to minors.

“If we have it on our books, it will be easier for us to collect the fine,” Public Works Director Tito Haes said.

While the youth organization is happy with the ordinance, they felt it would have been stronger if the city charged a fee to sell tobacco.

“We are happy with the ordinance that staff recommended, however, we feel it is missing teeth,” Ontiveros said. “A stronger ordinance will decrease the number of illegal sales to youth.”

The City Council, directed staff to come back later with information about a sellers license, Haes said.

“It was really to avoid imposing another fee to businesses in town,” Haes said about not including the license in the ordinance. “It is a down economy and we felt it was not the time to add another fee to businesses in town.”

Despite not having the license, the ordinance demonstrates the city’s desire to work with the organization and Haes said he believes the fine will do enough to deter illegal sales.

“I think it still serves the purpose,” Haes said. “I understand where the Azusa Youth Against Smoking is coming from, but I kind of disagree. If you impose a licensing fee across the board, you are kind of penalizing businesses that do obey the rules. If you have the fine you only penalize businesses breaking the rules.”

By Daniel Tedford, Staff Writer