New restrictions on electronic cigarettes, commonly known as e-cigarettes, passed the Suffolk County Legislature on Tuesday.

Lawmakers approved a bill that restricts the battery-operated high-tech butts use in public places and their sale to those under the age of 19. The devices contain flavored liquid nicotine in cartridges that is vaporized, then inhaled and mimics smoke. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a public health warning based on tests that found they contain carcinogens.

“This vote signals that our local government will not hesitate to take steps to protect the next generation of Suffolk residents from the newest health risks,” said Legislative Majority Leader Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor), who proposed the bill.

E-cigarettes have already been banned in Australia, Canada, Israel, Mexico and Singapore. Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is expected to sign the bill into law, which will then take effect 90 days after it is signed by New York’s Secretary of State in Albany.

© 2009 Longislandpress

MARTINSBURG, W.VA. — Among businesses that could be affected by tougher restrictions on smoking in Berkeley County’s public places and workplaces, King Street Coffee & Tobacco Emporium arguably tops the list.

While coffee is first in the shop’s name at 320 W. King St. in Martinsburg, pipe tobacco and cigars have been owner Ed Trout’s primary calling card for more than 16 years.

Tobacco shops are not exempt in the Berkeley County Health Department’s existing “clean indoor air” regulations or the newly revised rules that are out for public comment.

The current regulation was adopted Sept. 15, 2001, by the Board of Health, but Trout received a special exemption for his business, County Health Department Administrator Bill Kearns confirmed.

“The conditions of that special exemption are that I not have any paid employees, that I do not allow anyone under the age of 18 to enter the premises and that my primary business is retail sale of tobacco products (and I still meet) all of those conditions,” Trout said Wednesday.

Trout said he has received no guarantee from the health department that his special exemption will remain in effect if the current clean air regulations are revised.

A rewritten draft of the regulations has been released for public comment and residents have 30 days to submit feedback in writing to the Health Department through the agency’s Web site at www.bchealthdept.org or by mail or in person at the agency’s offices. At least one public hearing, if not more, is expected to be scheduled in the coming weeks, officials have said.

While he was writing a letter to the Board of Health on Wednesday, Trout said he found that clean indoor air regulations in at least 23 West Virginia counties have a definition for tobacco shops and exempt them. Jefferson County, which is one of the counties that exempts tobacco shops, is not currently reviewing its regulations, according to Jefferson County Health Department administrator Amy B. Jones.

Without the exemption, Trout said he thinks a smoking ban on the business he’s owned since 1992 would be a “severe detriment.”

“It may take enough of my profits away to where I would really have to seriously consider whether it’s worth continuing to put the time in to get the income out of it,” Trout said.

“Not only is it a situation where a customer should be allowed to try a certain blend of pipe tobacco or to try a certain cigar to decide if they want to buy several ounces of that pipe tobacco or a box of those cigars. But yes, also I have several customers who come in and buy a cigar with the intent of sitting down and smoking the cigar,” Trout said.

Trout said members of the Churchill Society, a club that he and more than a dozen other cigar smokers chartered last year, also hoped to be exempt.

“We’re really hoping now that by being a private club, not having any employees and not providing any goods or services, that we don’t come under the regulation of this ordinance,” Trout said.


© Herald-mail

Tobacco’s younger, shinier cousin – the electronic cigarette – is gearing up for a battle with federal regulators, just as the fledgling industry is getting a foothold in a state built on smoking.

Electronic cigarettes, machines that turn liquid nicotine and flavoring into a vapor, have been sold in the U.S. for two years, and their popularity is surging. But the Food and Drug Administration signaled Wednesday that it might seek to stamp out e-cigarettes in their infancy.

The FDA said it plans to address safety issues, and that could include product recalls or criminal sanctions.

The industry is made up of small firms around the country that mainly sell online. Only one is based in North Carolina, still the country’s No. 1 tobacco producer.

The Charlotte company, Blu Cigs, is already branding itself as “E-Cigarettes 2.0” – and sees its product as a symbol for North Carolina’s changing economy.

Jason Healy, a native Australian with no prior background in the cigarette industry, launched Blu Cigs in May after seeing an electronic cigarette in a Charlotte bar.

Because no burning is involved and no tobacco is used, e-cigarettes are allowed in places their old-school brethren aren’t. In light of North Carolina’s impending smoking ban, Healy said this is the main draw.

The main differences between Blu and its competitors include a carrying case that will recharge the battery and a tip that lights blue instead of red – which Healy says keeps customers out of trouble.

“Before it was ‘Hey! He’s smoking,’” he said. “With the blue light, it’s more, ‘What the hell is that?’”

The FDA, however, found that e-cigarettes contain several toxic chemicals, including an ingredient in antifreeze. Scientists said they tested 19 varieties of electronic cigarettes, many of which contained fruit and candy flavors.

The FDA has blocked importation of electronic cigarettes in some cases, but this hasn’t affected Blu. Currently, the FDA is asking the courts to give it regulatory authority over e-cigarettes.

Health advocates say e-cigarettes are potentially unsafe and can lead kids toward traditional tobacco smoking. Because e-cigarettes are not covered by federal tobacco laws, they are often easier for young people to buy.

Blu Cigs doesn’t market its product as a healthier version of tobacco. Healy mainly promotes Blu as a cheaper alternative to cigarettes. Each nicotine and flavor cartridge costs about $1.

In general, one e-cigarette provides as many puffs as six or seven traditional cigarettes.

With the costs of the battery and other expenses, Healy estimates Blu Cigs costing about $1.25 to $1.50 per the equivalent of a pack of traditional cigarettes, which runs about $4 or $5.

The “starter kit” costs about $60, and has the equivalent of about 350 cigarettes. Target audience: ages 25-35, upwardly mobile and tired of going outside to smoke.

“You’re not a leper anymore,” said Healy, who looks younger than his 34 years. “Who wants to go outside, especially in the winter?”

From tobacco to technology

For 300 years, tobacco was the primary economic driver of North Carolina, and the state is still the top producer of tobacco in the U.S. The second- and third-largest U.S. cigarette companies, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco, are based in North Carolina.

But in 1959, the Research Triangle Park near Durham opened, and technology began to rise as the state’s prominent industry. Soon after, tobacco began a long, steady decline in popularity and importance.

Blu Cigs embodies the change from tobacco to technology, spokesman Steve Goldberg said.

The company says it has been successful in its two months of operation. The main product is the starter kit, which contains a carrying case, batteries, chargers and flavor cartridges. Healy said the company has sold more than 50,000 starter kits and had to stop taking orders for two weeks this month to keep the backlog from piling up.

Blu Cigs employs eight people in Charlotte and more than 200 in the Chinese factory where the product is manufactured. Healy said he expects the Charlotte office – on Archdale Drive – to have more than 20 workers by the end of the year.

The Electronic Cigarette Association, a new trade group, estimates electronic cigarette sales will reach $100 million this year. The group was created three months ago, so it doesn’t have figures for last year. Spokeswoman Amy Linert said the ECA expects sales to continue to grow quickly, as long as the FDA doesn’t shut them down.

Despite the growth, the industry is still small potatoes compared to the tobacco companies.

Altria, which owns Philip Morris USA, brought in nearly $3.9 billion in cigarette sales over the first three months of this year.

But the big three tobacco companies also are losing their customer base. Between 1996 and 2006, annual consumption fell 24 percent, to 371 billion cigarettes.

While tobacco firms aren’t looking to e-cigarettes as their future, they are counting on technology to face the expected consistent decreases in domestic cigarette consumption and declining public approval of smoking.

Philip Morris USA, the largest tobacco company in the country, built a 300,000-square-foot research and development facility in 2007, which sits in the center of a biomedical research park in Richmond, Va.

Winston-Salem-based R.J. Reynolds created a product that heats tobacco instead of burns it, but the company has focused its attention on making products that don’t produce secondhand smoke, don’t require spitting and don’t create a lot of trash. The result has been finely milled tobacco that’s made to be discreet – similar to mints or chewing gum, spokesman David Howard said.

The company also got a patent last year for a machine that inserts a smoker-controlled menthol capsule into regular cigarettes.

Lorillard, based in Greensboro, uses “advanced scientific equipment” to analyze tobacco properties and develop cigarettes with less smoke, according to its annual report.

While the big companies are trying to hold on to profits, Blu Cigs plans to expand. The next step is to distribute abroad, primarily in Europe and the Middle East. Blu Cigs might begin selling in retail stores, but Healy said he wants to see what action the FDA takes before starting that.

Hazardous or healthier?

Federal guidelines prevent the company from marketing the product as a safer alternative to cigarettes, though Healy points out that Blu Cigs don’t have the tar or carcinogens that traditional cigarettes have.

Still, the health effects of e-cigarettes are unknown. Some politicians, like Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, have called for the product to be taken off the market until the FDA has approved it.

Dr. Adam Goldstein, director of UNC Chapel Hill’s Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program, said he’s “cautiously worried” about e-cigarettes.

While it’s possible that they’re healthier than regular cigarettes, they’re still a source of addiction and could appeal to younger people. And a new study implied that nicotine could itself be carcinogenic.

“You don’t encourage anyone to develop use of one nicotine product,” Goldstein said. “If a smoker tells me they’re using this instead of smoking, I’ll say, ‘Great, now let’s talk about quitting.’”

Suffolk County legislators have proposed legislation to ban the use of personal vaporizers (PVs) in locations where smoking is not permitted. While the device is not a smoking cessation device, it has resulted in many individuals quitting smoking. Now, Suffolk County would like to require that users of the personal vaporizer limit use to areas where тАЬsmoking is permittedтАЭ. This would expose PV users to carcinogenic, second-hand smoke, which they have struggled to avoid by quitting smoking. Can our own government really ask non-smokers to risk their health by encouraging them to enter smoking areas?

A Personal Vaporizer, more commonly known as an electronic cigarette, is an electronic nicotine delivery system that delivers controlled levels of nicotine to the body without the dangers of tar and the many hazardous carcinogens found in cigarettes. It is considered by many to be an alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes and can be used with or without nicotine.

It is made up of three essential parts, a battery, an atomizer and a cartridge. A rechargeable battery is used to warm the heating element (atomizer), which heats up the liquid nicotine found inside the cartridge and turns it into a steam/vapor similar to the one emitted by a theatrical fog machine. There is typically little to no odor from this vapor, with the occasional exception of a slight scent of the flavor of the liquid.

The liquid base, which creates the visual vapor, is called Propylene Glycol (PG) and often comprises more than 90 percent of the liquid being vaporized. The FDA approves the use of this liquid in asthma inhalers to deliver medication to the lungs of patients with compromised respiratory systems and it is also used as a hospital disinfectant due to statistically verified germ-killing ability. Inhalation of vaporized PG has been studied for more than 60 years. There has been no evidence of any harmful effect, due to the vapor inhalation, to animals or humans to date.

Many media stories in reference to this device aspire to instill fear in the public by insinuating that the supposedly тАЬunknownтАЭ vapor may be dangerous and hazardous to the health of those around it, yet when asked to provide supporting evidence, reporters have no reply except to state that it has not been studied. While there have not been many studies of the actual liquid vaporized, there have been more than a dozen studies on PG dating back to 1942. There was also a study done in New Zealand (information on this study and others available at www.VapersClub.com/pg.html) by an independent firm, which analyzed second-hand vapor from a personal vaporizer and concluded that there was no evident danger to using the device or being around the exhaled vapor.

There are a number of reasons why the government may not want these devices to succeed. They are attempting to implant an invalid fear in the public to accomplish this goal. Fear is dissipated by education. More information on the personal vaporizer and an educational video can be found at www.VapersClub.com. Please educate yourself and those around you.

The Board of Health wants to introduce a new anti-smoking amendment, but they wants the the public’s opinion first.
New Yorkers are being called upon to give their opinion in a public hearing on July 30 on a new Health Code amendment that would put graphic anti-smoking warnings wherever tobacco products are sold. The warnings would include images depicting the adverse health effects of smoking and information on how to quit.

The measure, which is expected to be voted on in September, would require the city’s 12,000 tobacco retailers to display these large “point-of-sale warnings and cessations messages” at eye-level wherever tobacco products are displayed and at the point of purchase is made, such as a cash register. It is also described as the first regulation of its kind in the nation.

According to the Health Department, these displays will force the customer to see the health effects of smoking and visually contemplate their tobacco purchase. They say the signage also promotes a greater understanding of the toll tobacco takes on the body and encourage current smokers to quit.

“While the tobacco industry spends billions of dollars every year to glamorize smoking, we will show New Yorkers the harsh realities,” Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley, stated, “These warning signs will help persuade smokers to quit and show children why they shouldn’t start smoking.”

But Mohamed Shody, mignight manager of midtown Manhattan’s Omniall Deli said to PIX News, “It’s never going to stop people from buying cigarettes because the smokes cannot quit immediately. It takes a long time. And, by the way, I’m a smoker too and it’s not going to affect me.”

The new signs also targets the city’s youth population. Most smokers start taking puffs during their adolescence and by age 19. According to the Health Department, two-third of that group become daily smokers.

Nearly 2 million of the city’s 8.3 million residents are under the age of 18, according to the Department of City Planning.

The city recorded its lowest adult smoking rate in 2008, with only 15.8% of New Yorkers smoking. But the Health Department says that there are still 950,000 New Yorkers who smoke.

About 7,400 New York City residents die from tobacco-related illnesses each year, which is more than the death toll of AIDS, homicide, suicide and drug-related deaths combined.

“Smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in New York City,” Farley said.

The proposal is the latest from New York City’s ongoing campaign to help New Yorkers quit smoking.

The Health Department’s television ad campaign, for example, include commericals with children, surgical procedures and testimonials from a man who was left with a hole in his throat from throat cancer and a woman who had to have her fingers amputated.

© Wpix

As home to one of the nation’s first public smoking bans, and one of the first localities in the country to raise the legal age to purchase cigarettes to 19, Suffolk County has been at the vanguard of national efforts to break America’s addiction to smoking. But now a new, high-tech smoking threat has emerged in the form of “electronic cigarettes. “

Marketed towards young smokers, untested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and lacking any governmental oversight whatsoever, the skyrocketing popularity of “e-cigarettes” has spurred Suffolk County Legislative Majority Leader Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor) to introduce legislation that would prohibit the sale of these devices to anyone under the age of 19. Cooper’s bill would also place the same public usage restrictions on e-cigarettes that are already in effect for traditional forms of smoking.

If approved by the Legislature, Suffolk County would become the first municipality in the nation, and one of only a small handful of governments worldwide, to place restrictions on these untested devices.

E-cigarettes closely resemble and purposefully mimic the art of smoking by having users inhale vaporized liquid nicotine (often through kid-friendly, flavored cartridges) created by heat through an electronic ignition system. This actually makes the tip of the e-cigarette glow as if it were really lit. The cartridge and ignition system are housed in a device created to look exactly like a traditional cigarette. Versions are also available that mimic cigars or pipes. After inhaling, the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a “cloud” of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional smoke.

“These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. But they also have the potential to create a life-long addiction to nicotine,” says Cooper. “They’re just too dangerous to be left unrestricted. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids to be able to get their hands on them.”

But kids are getting their hands on them. Besides being sold at numerous sites on the Internet, there are currently at least four known locations on Long Island where anyone can legally purchase e-cigarettes. And that literally means anyone. Since these devices are so new to the American market and they don’t contain tobacco, e-cigarettes are not governed by Suffolk’s Tobacco 19 law or any other state or federal regulation.

“I commend Legislator Cooper for taking a pro-active stance on health care with this legislation prohibiting the sale of this drug delivery device to individuals under the age of 19 and banning its use where cigarettes are banned,” said Suffolk County Department of Health Services Commissioner Dr. Humayan Chaudhry.

Just because they don’t contain tobacco, don’t be fooled into believing e-cigarettes are safe. Manufacturers of these devices still have not subjected them to independent, peer-reviewed, scientific examination.

A known neurotoxin, nicotine is also one of the most highly addictive substances available for public consumption. More lethal than strychnine, just 60 milligrams of nicotine on the tongue —about three drops—is enough to kill a 160 pound person. In contrast: The lethal dose for strychnine is 75 mg, for diamondback rattlesnake venom it’s 100 mg, you’d need to ingest 200 mg of arsenic to do somebody in, and Cyanide’s lethal dose is 500 mg.

Studies show that adolescents can become addicted to nicotine after ingesting the equivalent of 20 traditional cigarettes (the amount normally available in a single pack). The appeal created by the flavorings of e-cigarette cartridges (including cherry, grape and vanilla, just to name a few) can lead young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction.

To make matters worse, the current lack of governmental testing and regulation means that e-cigarette manufacturers and marketers can make whatever claims they want about these dangerous devices. This includes telling customers they can legally be smoked anywhere, which has already led to altercations between non-smoking restaurant patrons and “e-smokers.”

So now, after nearly a decade of progress on public smoking bans nationwide, e-cigarettes are being used where traditional forms of smoking are outlawed. This is causing distress from non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke. It’s also causing confusion for public health agencies that are not sure what, if any, authority they have to prevent e-smokers from powering up and puffing away.

By giving county and municipal law enforcement and public health officials the tool they need, Cooper’s proposed law will also close that loophole. Non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand ingestion will no longer have to stress about being exposed to a cloud of vapor from an e-cigarette.

“When it comes to smoking in any form, we can’t wait for Washington to release another report or issue another obvious warning. We need them to step up and take real action,” says Cooper. “Until they do, we here at the local level who are on the front lines of the smoking war must once again take it upon ourselves to protect our most vulnerable populations from the enslaving dangers of nicotine addiction. If we fail to act on this newest front, the future casualties will be our own children.”

A public hearing on Cooper’s legislation will take place at the June 23 meeting of the County Legislature, which will be held at Suffolk Community College’s Culinary Arts Center in Riverhead.

As the New York Times reports this morning, a bill allowing the Food and Drug Administration to “impose potentially strict new controls” on the tobacco industry has made it through the Senate. As the House had already passed a similar bill back in April, it seems certain that the measure will reach President Barack Obama’s desk — a measure he says he will sign into law. The Times quotes Clifford E. Douglas, from the University of Michigan’s Tobacco Research Network as saying, “This is a historic step changing the nature of tobacco in society forever.” And yet, a troubling and underreported aspect of this bill concerns a matter that seems rooted in past practices.

At issue is a bit of legislative horse-trading that the Altria Group — parent company of tobacco industry giant Philip Morris — managed as the bill was being negotiated, and having won their point, agreed to the measure, ensuring its success. Today’s Times piece makes glancing mention of it:

But the law would give the F.D.A. power to set standards that could reduce nicotine content and regulate chemicals in cigarette smoke.

The law also bans most tobacco flavorings, which are considered a lure to first-time smokers. Menthol was deferred to later studies.

Health advocates predict that F.D.A. standards could eventually reduce some of the 60 carcinogens and 4,000 toxins in cigarette smoke, or make it taste so bad it deters users.

As it turns out, this would be one of those occasions when the New York Times might consider reading their own paper. Stephanie Saul, reporting last year, wrote a pair of articles that take on this matter head on.

‘Cigarette Bill Treats Menthol With Leniency,’ May 13, 2008:

Some public health experts are questioning why menthol, the most widely used cigarette flavoring and the most popular cigarette choice of African-American smokers, is receiving special protection as Congress tries to regulate tobacco for the first time.

The legislation, which would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to oversee tobacco products, would try to reduce smoking’s allure to young people by banning most flavored cigarettes, including clove and cinnamon.

But those new strictures would exempt menthol — even though menthol masks the harsh taste of cigarettes for beginners and may make it harder for the addicted to kick the smoking habit. For years, public health authorities have worried that menthol might be a factor in high cancer rates in African-Americans.

The reason menthol is seen as politically off limits, despite those concerns, is that mentholated brands are so crucial to the American cigarette industry. They make up more than one-fourth of the $70 billion American cigarette market and are becoming increasingly important to the industry leader, Philip Morris USA, without whose lobbying support the legislation might have no chance of passage.

“I would have been in favor of banning menthol,” said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, who supports the bill. “But as a practical matter that simply wasn’t doable.”

Soon tobacco products will carry graphic images on them to discourage smoking, writes BRIAN KAVANAGH .

IN 1942, when esteemed French industrial designer Raymond Loewry received a commission to redesign the logo and packaging for American Tobacco’s Lucky Strike brand of cigarettes, he perhaps had little idea that his work in this regard would have a far more tangible impact on humanity than any of his previous endeavours.

Loewry’s input on iconic motifs for companies such as Coca-Cola, Spar and Shell may have powerfully ingratiated themselves with the popular consciousness, but it was his Lucky Strike target logo that ultimately synthesised a true pop icon for American advertising, art and cinema.

It also served to attract and expose tens of millions of people to a product that causes cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and 10 different forms of cancer.

So the World Health Organisation (WHO) did not choose “tobacco health warnings” as the theme of this year’s global No Tobacco Day without just cause. Starting on May 31st, the WHO began a major information and lobbying campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of cigarette advertising.

It also emphasised the effectiveness of placing pictorial images directly on cigarette packaging in dissuading people from starting smoking and providing an unambiguous depiction of the consequences of smoking for those who already smoke.

According to the Department of Health commissioned Survey of Lifestyles, Attitude and Nutrition (Slán), rates of smoking among the Irish populace have declined over the period 1998-2007 from 33 per cent to 29 per cent.

However, it is estimated that close to 7,000 people die each year in Ireland from smoking-related illnesses, and tobacco has been identified by the WHO as the leading cause of death and disability in the world.

Introducing an effective tobacco control strategy, including the use of graphic pictorial images on cigarette boxes, is seen as a crucial step in reducing tobacco-related deaths.

In May 2005, the European Commission bolstered the existing EU Tobacco products Directive of 2002 by recommending that member state governments adopt 14 graphic pictorial health warnings from a library of 42 colour photographs and other illustrations for inclusion on cigarette cartons.

According to the HSE, pre-testing of the EU library has been carried out and the images for use on the Irish market have been selected. Proposals have already been submitted to Government to amend the existing tobacco legislation, and one of these amendments will allow the Minister for Health to introduce combined text and photo warnings on tobacco products. It is anticipated that this will be enacted before the Dáil summer recess.

Popular wisdom would dictate that people are free to choose whether to smoke and graphic images would be unlikely to affect their knowledge of, or inclination to buy, cigarettes.

However, a four-country survey conducted by Dr David Hammond for peer-reviewed journal Tobacco Control determined that smokers who live in countries which have government-mandated health warnings are far more likely to have knowledge of the negative effects of tobacco consumption.

Canada was the only country among the group to carry pictorial warnings of smoking-related impotence and, accordingly, Canadians were three times more likely to believe that smoking can cause impotence.

Dr Fenton Howell, HSE director of Public Health, welcomes the planned legislation: “We would be delighted to support the legislation which would have cigarette packaging display graphic images of the consequences of smoking. You would hope they would encourage smokers, or a percentage of them, to quit. Evidence based around the world would suggest that the more support you make available to people who wish to quit smoking, the more [people] avail of it.”

Sarah, a 21-year-old smoker who works in the media industry, agrees on the value of pictorial warnings: “Most packs of cigarettes just have a text warning, which you barely notice unless you make a conscious effort to read it. The text also blends in with the pack. I think graphic images would be a far better deterrent, as you would not help noticing a graphic image like cancerous lungs and, yes, it would have a much stronger effect than text.”

But not all smokers are swayed by visual incentives. “I smoke 20 cigarettes a day and graphic warnings wouldn’t make me give up,” says Jonathan, a professional in his mid-30s. “They have those on the boxes in Canada, where I lived for a period, and they did not bother me,” he adds.

Although it is difficult to assess how effective these measures will be in an Irish context, what is certain is that packaging is a crucial marketing appendix for tobacco companies, and the method by which cigarette cartons are designed and displayed forms an invaluable way of communicating brand image and creating a consumer presence.

Studies on interpreting the cigarette package as brand image, such as the one conducted by Dr Melanie Wakefield and published in Tobacco Control, have moved some countries, including Ireland, to eliminate in-store advertising of tobacco products.

In addition to the planned introduction of pictorial warnings, on July 1st this year restrictions on the display and advertising of tobacco-related products in Irish retail premises will come in to effect, as Norma Cronin, health promotion manager with the Irish Cancer Society, explains: “The legislation, which will come into force on July 1st, is very important in terms of communicating a strong public health message. Point of sale display is a form of advertising and it has an important effect on young people starting to smoke.

“Young people are the type of people recruited by the tobacco industry, as there is a strong addictiveness factor there.”

What is also remarkable is that, in addition to having the capability to act as powerful deterrents to smoking, graphic warning labels can also be a capable and cost-effective means of transmitting health information.

A large proportion of anti-smoking awareness campaigns are funded by the HSE Health Promotion budget, run under the auspices of the HSE social marketing programme.

“Health Promotion has a public awareness campaign running at intervals throughout the year promoting the National Smokers’ Quitline,” says Hugh Scully, business manager of population health with the HSE. It plans to spend €600,000 on this campaign this year.

“The campaign’s aim is to raise awareness of the support available to those who are contemplating stopping smoking,” says Scully.

The HSE works with the Irish Cancer Society (ICS) to ensure effective governance, management and operation of the National Smokers’ Quitline.

The ICS manages the day-to-day operation of the quitline, as well as providing counselling, advice, information and support.

“The expected cost of the service is €180,000 for 2009,” he adds.

The quitline can be contacted on 1850 201 203, Monday to Saturday, from 8am to 10pm.

Other Government-backed institutions include the Office of Tobacco Control which, says spokesman Nigel Fox, “assists in the introduction of tobacco control legislation”. The HSE allocates the OTC about €2.5 million a year, according to its annual report.

International research has demonstrated the value of vivid anti-smoking images in helping to discourage people from buying tobacco; how well they fair in an Irish context will soon be known.

Source: Irishtimes