Coming soon to the lives of American smokers: cigarette labels that go far beyond a simple warning.

Imagine gruesome color photographs showing a mouth riddled with cancer, lungs blackened, a foot rotten with gangrene. If the images sound sickening, well, that’s the point.

Under a law signed by President Obama on June 22 — the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act — tobacco companies will be required to cover 50 percent of the front and rear panels of cigarette packages with color graphics showing what happens when you smoke and bold, specific labels saying such things as:

“WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease.”

“WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children.”

“WARNING: Smoking can kill you.”

The first U.S.-mandated label in 1965 tentatively suggested “Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” Although the language changed over time, critics have long dismissed U.S. labeling as anemic and ineffective.

Indeed, the inspiration for the new labeling standards comes from abroad. Canada started the trend in 2000 with a label that showed a picture of mouth cancer. “It’s the one that smokers remember more than anything else. Even after nine years,” says David Hammond, a researcher from the Department of Health Studies at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. Since then, he says, more than two dozen countries have picked up on the idea.
ad_icon

A sampling of how explicit the labels can be: Malaysia’s cigarette packs bear a photo of a diseased lung; some in Brazil show a dead fetus lying near cigarette butts; Thailand’s show a person with a hole in his throat, to warn about throat cancer; in New Zealand, it’s a gangrenous foot.

Compare these with the American warning label, which has not changed since 1985: no images, and only a small-type surgeon general’s warning that states: “smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth and low birth weight.”

“Every piece of research that I’ve seen with smokers tells us that smokers think that [pictorial warnings] are more effective,” Hammond says. “U.S. smokers and consumers are getting worse health information than almost any other smoker in the world.”

While it is true that smoking rates in the United States are lower than in other countries — about 20 to 22 percent of the adult American population smokes — experts have long argued that a more powerful message would have a far greater impact on smoking habits.


© Washingtonpost

The U.S. government’s new tobacco regulations spell out the words, size and color of new cigarette warning labels — but despite much publicity about tough new warnings, don’t expect to see any for three years.

Some public-health advocates worry it’s a sign that federal action to cut smoking will come only slowly and cautiously — a concern they’d had ever since the nation’s No. 1 cigarette-maker, Henrico County-based Philip Morris USA, came out for regulation nearly a decade ago.

The new law requires stark, black and white labels covering half the pack with warnings such as “Cigarettes cause cancer” or “Smoking can kill you.”

But it also calls for warnings with color images, giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration two years to come up with guidelines for them. Cigarette-makers would then have 15 months to start putting new warning labels on packs.

That means that it won’t be until 15 months after the graphic-warning guidelines are published, in June 2011, that any new warnings will appear on packs, FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said.

Officials of both Philip Morris USA and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which backed the legislation, confirmed that timeline.

“I think this is simply another example of where the propaganda concerning the FDA legislation is at odds with the actual substance of the bill,” said Michael Siegel, a Boston University medical professor and tobacco-control advocate.

“Even putting aside the length of time before the warning labels go into effect, the hype over the warning labels has been exaggerated,” he said. “Evidence shows that while the warning labels may have a short-term impact, after a while people become used to them and don’t pay attention anymore.”

The warning labels specified in the bill — covering half the front of a pack with warnings printed in letters roughly 3/8-inch high — would be bigger than the text-only labels on British cigarettes, which cover about a third of the front of the packs. The new U.S. cigarette warnings, unlike the current warnings on the side of packs required since 1985, say cigarettes and smoking cause disease, not that they may do so.

The law also calls for eventually using graphic warnings, as Canada has for several years and as Australia started doing in 2006. Both countries use images of often luridly colored cancer-damaged tissue, while one Australian warning shows a baby on a respirator. The images are on both the front and back of the packs, so they are harder for smokers to hide.

A new study shows that Australian smokers noticed and read the new graphic warnings more than they had text-only labels and that the proportion who decided not to smoke at least one cigarette because of the warning roughly doubled.

The study showed Americans notice the current warnings rarely, while Canadians notice theirs sometimes and Britons a bit more often than the Canadians.

“There is no doubt that the bigger and more contrasting the warnings, the better for discouraging smoking and encouraging quitting,” said the study’s lead author, Ron Borland, of the Cancer Council in Melbourne, Australia.

Danny McGoldrick, vice president for research at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a backer of the new legislation, said it is better to wait for graphic warnings like those used in Canada and Australia than to go ahead immediately with the text-only ones.

“I think this shows how we want to go forward with evidence-based policy,” he said.

McGoldrick said language implementing the text-only warnings as an interim measure was left out as the House and the Senate worked to reconcile their versions of tobacco-control law after they were hurriedly adopted last month.

“I can’t recall a bill with so little give and take,” said Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society.

“This was rammed down people’s throats because of the deal they made with Philip Morris,” he said. “In my opinion, there’s this inside-the-Beltway mindset . . . saying, ‘I don’t care about the details, I’m going to get this bill through.’”

Henrico-based Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris USA, broke with the rest of the industry to support FDA regulation. Critics such as Blum believe the company’s strategy is to use regulation to consolidate its hold on the market, but Altria said it believes regulation will encourage competition, including from tobacco products that are alternatives to cigarettes.

For now, Philip Morris USA spokesman Bill Phelps said of the warning-label requirement: “It is too early to speculate on what these changes will entail from a manufacturing perspective.”
© Timesdispatch

Roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes expose smokers to similar levels of cancer-causing chemicals as manufactured cigarettes, scientists claim.
New research published in the journal Addiction Biology compared urine samples in 127 smokers of ready-made cigarettes and 28 samples from RYO cigarette smokers to check the levels of two known cancer causing chemical.

The results showed there were no differences in the concentrations of the toxins between manufactured and RYO cigarette smokers even when age, sex, body mass index, puffing behaviour and nicotine exposure were taken into account.

The authors raised concern at the fact that women also actually had higher concentrations of these toxins irrespective of the cigarette type smoked.

Lead researcher Dr Lion Shahab, from Cancer Research UK, said: “Many smokers believe that RYO cigarettes are more ‘natural’ and therefore are less harmful than manufactured cigarettes. The current findings suggest that this is not the case.

“These findings also show that women in particular accumulate higher concentrations of cancer causing chemicals in their body whether they smoke RYO or manufactured cigarettes.”

Elspeth Lee, Cancer Research UK’s head of tobacco control, added: “These results further highlight that there’s no such thing as a safe cigarette. Hand rolled tobacco is more commonly used by people from lower socio-economic groups, and it is also in poorer communities that smoking rates are highest.

“It’s important that people know that using hand-rolled tobacco may be cheaper but is every bit as toxic as ready made cigarettes.”

She added half of all long-term smokers die from their addiction to and so continued effort had to be made to reduce the impact that tobacco had on people’s lives.

“Preventing children from starting smoking is vital. Putting tobacco out of sight in shops and getting rid of vending machines will all help to protect young people from the devastating influence of tobacco marketing,” Ms Lee ended.

It’s been almost 12 years since Joe Camel retired. A legal settlement in 1998 prohibited the cool iconic cartoon character from being used in packaging and advertising. It turns out that Joe Camel was becoming as recognizable to kids as Mickey Mouse.

On Monday, President Obama signed into law sweeping legislation that puts the FDA in charge of the marketing and sale of tobacco products. The new law also gives the FDA the power to regulate what’s put in those products, including not only nicotine, but also candy and fruit flavorings marketed toward young people.

In 2006, R.J. Reynolds, the makers of Camel cigarettes, agreed to stop selling flavored cigarettes with names like “Twista Lime” and “Mocha Taboo.” Now, all tobacco companies will have to put an end to the subtle practice of luring new, mostly young smokers, with flavorings and fancy packaging. Keeping tobacco out of the hands of young people is the most important part of the new bill.

On Monday, when Obama signed the bill, he said: “The decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of smoking has emerged victorious.” The most important issue in the new legislation, he said, is to reduce the number of new smokers in the future.

On Tuesday, however, in a White House press conference, Obama admitted that he was struggling with kicking the habit himself, saying “I’m 95% cured.” He was responding to a reporter’s question on the subject.

The reporter, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers, framed her question like this: “As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting. But with the new law that you signed … regulating the tobacco industry, I’d like to ask you a few questions … How many cigarettes a day do you smoke? Do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people?” She then went on to ask Obama if the new law that he signed on Monday “should help you quit. If so, why?”

Obama’s response: “The new law that was put in place is not about me. It’s about the next generation of kid’s coming up.”

The new law that gives the FDA the authority to ban all cigarettes from having candy and fruit flavors takes effect this October. The law will also put an end to marketing practices by tobacco companies such as sponsoring sporting and entertainment events using tobacco logos or brand names, or giving away clothing or promotional items bearing the logo or brand name of a tobacco company.”

Years ago, Camel had a T-shirt promotion. I still have the shirt with a giant picture of Joe Camel on the front. It was pretty cool at the time. President Obama, like Joe Camel, is a cool and iconic character. We don’t need images of him smoking. He’s a role model to kids, and it’s counterproductive. And yet, after yesterday’s news conference, in between talking about the economy, health care, nuclear proliferation and global warming, Obama was talking about his own nicotine habit.

He admitted that although he has backtracked on the smoking issue, he does so in private. So why bring it up in the first place? Most news sources, however, ran with the story. That seems fair. After all, once it was brought up, it was a legitimate news story. However, some Web sites ran photos of Obama smoking.

There’s the famous one from the Time magazine college photos of a young Obama looking cool with a cigarette dangling from his mouth. Then there’s the undated one that ran as part of a story at Examiner.com, with the caption, “Obama takes a Presidential smoke break.”

Other photos have surfaced from the past, and although some are obviously photo-shopped, some are real. The one that popped up yesterday in the Examiner looks real and it looks recent. Is there really a good reason to run it? Images of the President smoking should not be made public.

Barack Obama is bigger than Joe Camel ever was. Maybe even bigger than Mickey Mouse.

© Tothecenter

Tobacco Companies tried to cover up the shocking pictures which were printed on cigarettes packs. That’s why health minister, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, said that ministry has the right to confiscate these companies.
Health Minister said that the ministry could usurp cigarette packs or compound tobacco companies that were found to be using a marketing strategy to cover up the shocking pictures.
He reported: “We can confiscate or take the cig products from the market. But at the moment, we will give severe warning to the companies found blocking the pictures with a marketing escapade.”

He said that now he only gives them a warning without using any kind of marketing strategy to cover up the pictorial warning.
The Ministry had decided that cigarette packs must carry graphic pictures as health warnings and starting with March 2009 and with June 1st its enforcement officers will start confiscating cigarette packs that do not carry the pictorial warning.
A series of graphic photos such as a dead fetus, a cancer-ravaged mouth and throat were among the pictures were used to create awareness on the dangers of smoking.
Health Minister said that they have identified two or three companies that are using marketing ploys for to block the pictures.
He added that these companies had created a transparent plastic cover over the cigarette packs for to cover the warning pictures. And consumers could use the cigarette’s brand name printed on the transparent plastic which cover up the shocking pictures.

Puff, puff and put it up, then take it out again anwhere you please.

There’s now absolutely no denying that the electronic cigarette is the healthier way to smoke and possibly the easiest way to stop smoking all together.

What is an electronic cigarette you ask?

“It looks like, feels like and tastes like a real cigarette and also distributes the same pleasures of smoking a traditional cigarette, but without all the harmful effects of a traditional cigarette.”

The top secret to what makes the electronic cigarette healthier than traditional smoking is what’s inside — and even more important what’s not inside.

What’s not inside is tobacco — what’s now inside are vitamins!

That’s right, the newest E-Cigarette cartridge is filled with vitamins! Now while you puff on an E-Cig you can receive essential vitamins such as vitamin D, vitamin B, and even a multi-vitamin.

And for your puffing pleasure, flavors come in banana, blueberry, bubblegum, cola, cookies and chocolate chips, cookies and cream, grape, green tea, orange, kiwi, pomogranant, multi-fruit punch and more.

Source: Examiner

THOSE disgusting images on the packets of cigarettes mean little to smokers. The pictures shown warrant viewers’ discretion. They are shocking and gory, with little respect for taste and style. It is supposed to deter people from smoking. Very few, I am sure, kick their smoking habit by merely looking at them. At least, I have not known anyone who did that.

We have yet to ascertain how effective the expensive anti-smoking campaigns launched so far are. I have a feeling that the prohibition sentiment fires up more smokers. Forbidden fruit tastes better, they say.

Some years ago the regional office for the Western Pacific of the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that half of all Malaysian men smoke. The study also showed that every day about 50 teenagers below 18 begin to smoke and about 30 per cent of boys aged between 12 and 18 smoke.

WHO acknowledges the fact that the Western Pacific Region, which includes East Asia and the Pacific, has the highest smoking rate in the world. To put it in perspective, about one in three cigarettes are consumed here. More than 30 per cent of the world’s smokers come from China. India contributes 11.2 per cent of smokers while Indonesia and Russia make up 4.8 per cent and 4.6 per cent respectively. Developing nations make up 70 per cent of smokers. China has 320 million smokers or 12 times our population. India has 120 million smokers.

In the industrialised West, the number of smokers is declining. In 1955, 56 per cent of American men smoked but by 2001 it was down to 25.5 per cent. Similarly in Britain, in 1974, 51 per cent of the men smoked. It was down to 28 per cent in 2001. But there is an addendum to that: more women are smoking in developed countries.

While fewer Chinese women smoke, the numbers for the US and Britain are much higher. In the US, women made up 21 per cent of smokers whereas in Britain it is almost 25 per cent. Hardly 3.7 per cent of smokers in China are women; in India the figure is slightly less.

We have done almost everything to deter smoking. We have banned cigarette advertisement that had brought billions in advertisement money. We launched anti-smoking campaigns overzealously. We have made it a point to raise the price of cigarettes in almost every Budget. We love to call them “sin taxes”. Today, the price of the most popular cigarette brand is RM9 or 7.5 times the price of this newspaper.

On April 1, the American government spiked the federal tax rate on cigarettes from 39 cents to US$1.01 per pack, a record increase. Supporters say the move will stop at least a million teenagers from starting the habit and cause another million to stop smoking. It will save an estimated 900,000 lives. The tax was signed by President Barack Obama, who is trying hard to quit smoking himself.

We should think out of the box. The answer does not lie only in campaigns to deter people from smoking. We should now harp on people changing their lifestyles. Modern life dictates certain conventions. A hectic lifestyle is unavoidable. Eating habits, too, have a major bearing on our people’s health. Lifestyles have changed but our eating habits have not. We spend many hours in the office, hardly allowing ourselves to exercise. We eat like our forefathers, yet they toiled and sweated in the sun. We live and work in the comfort of our air-conditioned homes and offices.

Encourage our people to exercise. Engage them in sports. Get them to work out in gyms. Let them jog or brisk-walk. Make sports compulsory in schools. Start our children to love sports early. At the same time, we cannot blame our young for wasting their hours when we fail to provide sporting avenues for them. Even in the villages where space is plentiful, football fields are nowhere to be seen these days. Football has a massive following. If we can get the young to play, onlookers will assemble. In a faraway village, a football field is everyone’s idea of a meeting place free from political encumbrances.

In the cities, spaces for sports are fast diminishing. Even schools are compromising what’s left of open fields for buildings. In the name of progress we turn empty spaces into concrete structures. How are we to ensure our young are healthy? What kind of recreational and sports activities are we offering them? Yet we blame the young for becoming Mat Rempit.

Learn from Adnan Osman, the 67-year-old sportsman extraordinaire. He quit smoking only when he was 50. The decision changed his life. He has since run 12 marathons, climbed all 12 mountains above 2,100 metres in this country, reached the peak of Gunung Tahan 15 times and Mount Kinabalu thrice. He attempted to cycle all the way to Beijing for the last Olympics, only to be turned away at the border. He has just completed the most gruelling foot race in the world, the Marathon of the Sands in Morocco.

Adnan did not quit because of the frightening images on the packets of cigarettes. He did it because he wanted to change his lifestyle for the better. There are lessons to be learnt here. It takes more than warnings, campaigns and sin taxes to make people quit smoking. The determination to turn a new leaf and to be healthy made Adnan quit his 33-year old habit.

He should appear on the packets of cigarettes, not those hideous images.