Anti-smoking advocates are at it again – delivering the right message the wrong way.
No argument on the message:
Smoking is bad for your health.
But government intervention to reduce or stop a person’s tobacco use flies in the face of America’s core value, individual freedom. Monday’s Gazette carried a story about the American Lung Association’s tobacco control report card for North Carolina.

The state scored “F” – no surprise given the importance of tobacco in the economic history of our state. As you also would guess, the lung association’s scoring methodology stacks in favor of government intervention into the personal lives of its citizens.

A lung association spokesperson made no bones about the intent of the report card, saying its real reason is to influence the people who make public policy.

A host of anti-smoking advocates now want to achieve their goals by increasing the tax on cigarettes by $1 or more. They intend to push for the increase in this year’s General Assembly session.

The current cigarette tax in North Carolina is 45 cents, $1 less than the national average.

The Gaston County Board of Health has named reducing tobacco use as one of three priorities for the county. Gaston has a higher smoking rate for adults and more deaths attributable to smoking than North Carolina as a whole. The county has, however, seen considerable improvement in the percentage of adult smokers – from 33.3 percent to 23.7 percent – in the past five years.

To its credit, the health department worked with several Gaston restaurants who volunteered to go smoke-free before the state forced the issue last January. Key word: volunteered. That’s the right way to send this message.

(Interestingly, the health department itself didn’t go totally tobacco-free until Jan. 1 of this year.)

Deciding to be smoke-free — or not — is a choice best left up to restaurant owners who have business to win or lose based on their decisions. But North Carolina lawmakers, influenced by the anti-tobacco advocates, snatched that freedom by forcing restaurants to be smoke-free.

Will legislators once again bow to special interest wishes by attempting to control behavior, this time through taxation?

How much tax would it take to stamp-out smoking? A dollar? Two dollars? More?

Will an out-right ban on tobacco products be next? What will that do? Like illegal drugs do now and illegal whiskey did during Prohibition, it will drive transactions underground where purchases are made in dangerous, often life-threatening, circumstances.

As long as other states have lower prices on tobacco products, there will be a loss of revenue for merchants, particularly in border counties such as Gaston. People will drive across state lines to make their purchases and bring back cheaper goods for others. Don’t believe it? Ask older folks about the way cigarettes flew over the state line as travelers passed through North Carolina when cigarettes here were cheaper than anywhere in the country.

The lung association spokesman made it clear that the tax hike is only one strategy in the assault on smoking. Next up: smoking bans in the workplace, in retail establishments, in private schools.

Already, most of these places have decided on their own to go smoke-free. They made the decisions because they believed it was in their best interest. Had smoking enhanced their business, in a tobacco shop for example, they should be free to decide in that direction, too.

Government has no right to dictate behavior in any private establishment, even in the name of wellness, as anti-smoking advocates now claim. Freedom means people are free to make even bad choices.

We urge our lawmakers to refrain from supporting any attempt to limit the freedom of North Carolina citizens. It’s the wrong way to send even the right message.

In a recent study, scientists from UC Berkeley led by Matt Francis have demonstrated how to program tobacco plants to take advantage of the efficient way that they collect sunlight. Rather than attempt to reprogram all the cells of a mature tobacco plant, the scientists genetically engineered a virus called the tobacco mosaic virus to do the job for them.

The researchers sprayed the modified virus on a crop of tobacco plants, and the virus caused the plant cells to produce lots of artificial chromophores, which turn photons from sunlight into electrons.

In order for the chromophores to work, however, they must be spaced at a precise distance from one another – about two or three nanometers. A little closer or further apart, and the electric current will either be halted or the electrons will be very difficult to harvest.

Thankfully, tobacco plant cells have evolved to space chromophores at this exact distance, lining them up in a long spiral hundreds of nanometers long. By exploiting this structure, the researchers could take advantage of billions of years of evolution to grow perfectly spaced strands of chromophores.

“Over billions of years, evolution has established exactly the right distances between chromophores to allow them to collect and use light from the sun with unparalleled efficiency,” said Francis.

Since the modified tobacco plants themselves don’t generate electricity, the researchers must harvest the plants and extract the chromophore structures. Then, the scientists can dissolve the structures in a liquid solution, and then spray the solution on a glass or plastic substrate to create a solar cell. So far, the scientists have not yet demonstrated that the resulting solar cells can turn light into electrical energy.

Compared with traditional solar cells, those made from plants could have several potential advantages. For instance, they don’t require the use of toxic chemicals, they’re biodegradable, and they’re inexpensive to produce. On the other hand, bio-based solar cells would likely have a shorter lifetime than silicon solar cells.

In addition to using tobacco, the researchers also demonstrated how to manipulate E. coli bacteria to produce chromophore structures. In this case, the researchers didn’t use a virus, but modified the bacteria directly.

More information: Michel T. Dedeo, Karl E. Duderstadt, James M. Berger and Matthew B. Francis. “Nanoscale Protein Assemblies from a Circular Permutant of the Tobacco Mosaic Virus.” Nano Lett., 2010, 10 (1), pp 181-186. doi:10.1021/nl9032395
Via: Discovery News
© 2010 PhysOrg.com

NEW YORK – Injectable birth control is known to lower bone density, but women may be able to limit the loss by not smoking and getting even moderate amounts of calcium, a new study hints.

Health

The findings, say researchers, show that not all women are at equal risk of bone loss from using depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) — better known by the brand-name Depo Provera.

DMPA is given by injection about once every three months, and is generally considered an effective, convenient and low-cost form of birth control. The contraceptive can, however, lead to significant bone loss.

While research has shown that this lost bone mass is often regained after women stop using DMPA, there are still concerns about whether substantial bone loss is completely reversible. So limiting the decline in the first place would be ideal.

In the new study, researchers found that among 95 women who used DMPA for two years, those who smoked or had a low calcium intake were at particular risk of significant bone density loss — defined as a decline of at least 5 percent in the spine or hip.

Current smokers were nearly four times more likely to lose that much bone mass as non-smokers were. On the other hand, the risk declined by 19 percent for every 100 milligrams (mg) of calcium a woman got each day.

Drs. Mahbubur Rahman and Abbey B. Berenson, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, report the findings in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The study included 95 black, white and Hispanic women who were 24 years old, on average, at the outset. Their bone density was measured when they began using DMPA and two years later.

Overall, 47 percent of the women showed at least a 5 percent decline in bone density in the spine or hip.

Of those women, 44 percent were current smokers, versus 32 percent of women who lost less bone mass. The average calcium intake in the former group was 484 mg per day — less than half of the recommended 1,000 mg for women their age.

According to Rahman and Berenson, the findings suggest that not smoking can go a long way toward limiting the bone loss associated with DMPA. The same appears true of even moderate calcium intake; women who got more than 600 mg of calcium per day had lesser bone loss — about 2 percent or less over two years.

In other findings, women who had ever had a child were also at lower risk of significant bone loss. They were half as likely as childless women to see their bone density decline by 5 percent or more.

The results suggest that for DMPA users who have had children, do not smoke and get at least 600 mg of calcium day, “concerns about bone health are minimal,” write Rahman and Berenson.

But when women do smoke or get little calcium, they add, doctors should offer them help with smoking cessation and counsel them on eating calcium-rich foods and taking supplements if needed.

SOURCE: Obstetrics and Gynecology, January 2010.

A breath of fresh air. That’s what one developer is offering New Yorkers at 1510 Lexington Avenue. The new luxury rental high-rise is the first residential building in the city to ban smoking in all its units as well as its public spaces.

Tenants and their visitors are also banned from smoking within 25 feet of the building. Developers Kinnie Yon and her brother Neal Sigety are principals at Kenbar Management. They say the decision to go non smoking in the development came with the choice to acquire LEED certification, the benchmark for green buildings.

“As part of LEEDs there is a requirement that you control tobacco smoke so that it doesn’t infiltrate other apartments in the building, and we said we’re building this LEED certified green healthy building why do we even allow smoking?” Yon said.

The 298 unit rent stabilized building, ranging from studios to three bedrooms, is slated to open next month. Each apartment features floor to ceiling windows and a washer and dryer. Amenities will include a cafe, fitness center and a children’s playroom. Developers say even in this soft rental market, they are confident they will attract tenants.

“If you are a smoker and you want to smoke at home, there are many buildings that would love to have you as a tenant today and that we believe that people who would like to live in a non smoking environment should also have a place,” Sigety said.

Citing health concerns over secondhand smoke, 1510 Lexington is not alone in the movement to ban smoking at home. Other buildings like the Tribeca Green in Battery Park City have started to take similar measures, enforcing a no light up policy for new tenants and their guests.

In a city where smoking is not allowed in restaurants and bars and may one day be banned in parks and beaches, New Yorkers seem to have mixed opinions about this new direction in housing.

“I think it’s trying to keep the air clean for everyone in the building and that’s a good thing,” said one New Yorker.

“Non smoking in my home? Well I don’t really agree because it’s my own home, it’s my own privacy. I should be able to do whatever I want,” said another New Yorker.

Still, the developers are optimistic smoke free multifamily housing will become commonplace in New York.

By: Shazia Khan, 11.29.2009, Ny1

Even smokers support bans to prohibit lighting up in the workplace, according to a new survey.

The international poll of nearly 5,000 people by research institute RTI International and Harris Interactive showed that nearly three-quarters of workers who smoke and 87 percent of employers support a smoke-free work environment.

“Although there was widespread variations among countries, overall the results demonstrate global support for workplace smoking bans,” said Michael Halpern, of RIT who is one of the authors of the report.

“This study shows support for additional programs and policies to increase those bans and assist employees with smoking cessation,” he added in a statement.

The strongest support for smoking bans was in India where 85 percent of people voted for smoke-free workplaces, followed by Japan with 75 percent. But only one-third of Germans and 27 percent of Poles thought bans should be in place.

The researchers also found that smokers estimated that they spent about one hour a day puffing on cigarettes, although the majority of people polled did not think the habit had a negative financial impact on the company.

“Several previous studies indicate that despite the beliefs of smoking employees and some employers in our study, smoking does have a substantial negative impact on a business’s finance,” Halpern added.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been a champion of a global ban on smoking at work. Many countries, including France, Spain, Ireland and Portugal have introduced bans to prevent workplace smoking.

Smoking is a leading cause of preventable death. The WHO says some 200,000 workers die each year due to exposure to smoke at work, while around 700 million children, around half the world’s total, breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke, particularly in the home.

According to the WHO almost one billion men and 250 women worldwide smoke some form of tobacco.

South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, India, Britain, Italy, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Turkey and Brazil participated in the poll which involved 3,500 workers, smokers and non-smokers, and more than 1,400 employers in the 14 countries.

November 17, 2009

A small group of students at Indiana University Southeast protested the university’s tobacco-free policy by lighting cigarettes and smoking on campus Thursday afternoon.

Three students received referrals after campus police asked them to put out their cigarettes and they refused, but the protest remained peaceful. Another half dozen students joined in the protest or carried signs but chose not to smoke.

Ian Girdley, a sophomore English and journalism major, organized what he called the “act of civil disobedience.”

“We ask the IU Board of Trustees to give us a reasonable place to smoke while still protecting students from unwanted secondhand smoke,” Girdley said.The students walked from the free speech area near the clock tower about 50 yards to a nearby field to smoke. The campus policy is that students can only smoke in vehicles.

“I think most of us would just like a designated area to smoke — maybe one on each end of campus,” said Katelyn Dowell, a junior majoring in psychology.

Tristan Williamson, a junior English major, does not smoke, but marched with the demonstrators. He said it is “ridiculous” that smokers do not have a place to go.

Former IUS music professor Jamey Abersold argued with the protesters, accusing them of distorting the truth about the harmfulness of tobacco. Abersold now does anti-smoking presentations at local schools.

“I don’t think people should be allowed to smoke anywhere,” Abersold said.

University spokeswoman Jenny Johnson Wolf said the students who chose to smoke will be referred to the vice chancellor for Student Affairs, which is university policy for anyone caught smoking.

There is a judicial hearing to determine any discipline. Wolf said there is no minimum or maximum penalty for violating the smoking ban and that each offender is treated on a “case- by-case” basis.

In two years of the restrictions, less than 20 students have received referrals for smoking, Wolf said. Many of the students at the protest say they smoke in the parking lot, and no one has ever told them to stop. Girdley said he has received verbal reprimands for smoking on campus, but was never issued a referral before Thursday.

He said one reason they chose to demonstrate now — two years after the Indiana University Board of Trustees mandated the campus become completely tobacco-free — is because of concern the university was planning to start stricter enforcement of the anti-smoking policy.

Wolf said the university is discussing how to better enforce the rules, but that no formal proposal has been made and no date is set for changes to take place.

“The campus, with feedback from our Executive Council and students, is reviewing options to improve the effectiveness of the tobacco-free compliance, Wolf said. “This includes the possibility of fines and/or community service being assigned to those who break the tobacco-free policy.”

Student Government Association President James Bonsall said he will meet today with administration officials to discuss how to better enforce the tobacco-free policy. He said the university is considering issuing citations that would be similar to parking tickets, rather than having students go before a judicial board.

“Basically, nobody has ever had to enforce the smoking ban so far,” Bonsall said.

He said the problem with the current system is that some students do not have vehicles on campus and therefore cannot smoke. He supports having designated smoking areas away from building.

“I don’t believe nonsmoking students should be subjected at all to smoke,” Bonsall said.

He said it was good to see students out protesting, although he disagrees with them violating university rules to do so.

October 29, 2009
By MATT THACKER, News-tribune

A new study on pollution in Boise, Meridian and Garden City bars is the latest chapter in Smokefree Idaho’s 18-month-long campaign to protect workers and patrons.

So far, the campaign has not succeeded in getting any Treasure Valley cities to ban smoking. Eagle came close, but ultimately backed off. But the campaign leaders say they will not stop trying.

“As long as there are workers that are not protected, we are continuing on,” said Heidi Low, Idaho director of government relations for the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

Air in bars on average is 15 times more polluted than air in restaurants, where smoking is prohibited by state law, the coalition said in a news release.

The project is the first scientifically based study of its type to measure the impact of smoking on the indoor air quality in Treasure Valley workplaces, according to a news release from the group.

Volunteers conducted the study under the supervision of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., known for its studies of indoor air quality.

Monitors measured levels of fine particle air pollution. Secondhand smoke is a major source of fine particulate pollution, according to the Coalition for a Healthy Idaho, which is running the Smokefree Idaho campaign.

The coalition is made up of 30 health-related groups, including Blue Cross of Idaho, the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians and the Boise State University Center for Health Policy.

The study found that full-time bar workers are exposed to more than four times the average annual limits of fine particulate air pollution recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

At least 24 states and more than 350 cities that have comprehensive bans on smoking at workplaces, restaurants and bars, Low said.

The coalition is trying to plug remaining holes in Idaho’s state anti-smoking law, which bars smoking in restaurants and most workplaces, but not bars. The line between a bar and a restaurant is a gray area in state law, Low said.

Colleen LaMay: 377-6448

By Colleen LaMay, Idahostatesman

For those of you wondering how the tobacco ban will be enforced at Commonwealth Stadium, just look at the way it will be enforced on the rest of campus. Essentially, the same problems that have crept up at the hospital and have been predicted to pose an issue on campus have a strong potential to be mirrored at the stadium.

UK Hospital has enforced its tobacco-free ban since Nov. 2008 and still encounters far more violations than should occur. General campus is set to implement the ban Nov. 19, and the enforcement, while becoming a little clearer every day, is still hazy at best.

Policy-wise, the idea remains the same at every venue: to promote smoke free air and help rid campus of cigarette butts gratefully adorning campus. But this still leaves smokers with no place to go.

As for those caught ignoring the ban, employees would be referred to Human Resources, students would be dealt with via the code of conduct and visitors would be asked to leave.
While it’s not the strongest stance, at least there is some method of punishment in place for the tobacco ban.

However, the tobacco ban is difficult to monitor and therefore difficult to enforce. Essentially, smokers will be expected to honor the ban, non-smokers will need to report violations and UK Police will “approach” individuals who violate the ban. See where there could be issues here?

In a Sept. 30 Kernel article, Anthany Beatty, vice president for public safety, said violating the ban is not a criminal offense and police officers will not be involved until the situation escalates to an issue of public safety. But by the time an issue deserves police attention, it could be too late.

Brendan Space, a finance sophomore and smoker, said the ban would not stop him from smoking at the stadium and does not think it will be possible to enforce the ban.
Sporting events crowd thousands of fanatical fans in a small, volatile area, and the mix of high adrenaline, alcohol and intolerance toward the ban could present a problem. Leaving a passionate fan responsible for policing UK’s ban could prove risky.

The silver lining for UK in this situation is the fact the ban will not take effect until the final football game versus Tennessee on Nov. 28. This gives UK a little over a week after the ban is implemented campus to find problems, test out the ban before it is fully implemented next year and prepare to combat non-compliant fans.

With any luck there will be a smoother transition at Commonwealth Stadium than at the UK Hospital, but don’t count on it.

October 5, 2009 Kykernel

Smoking bans are spreading from planes, trains and buses to another mode of transit: rental cars.

Beginning Oct. 1, Avis and Budget will become the first major rental-car companies to ban smoking in their entire North American fleets and to impose a cleaning fee of up to $250 on customers who smoke in the cars.

“The No. 1 request we get is for a smoke-free car,” says John Barrows, spokesman of the Avis Budget Group, the parent company. He says a common customer complaint is a car that smells of smoke, adding, “We’re addressing both concerns.”

Barrows says employees who drive the vehicles are no longer allowed to smoke and the cars will undergo a new inspection upon return. He says it costs the company more to clean a smoky car, because it often has to be taken out of service longer.

Avis is following a smoke-free travel trend that took off two decades ago. In 1988, Congress banned smoking on short domestic flights and in 1990 expanded that to flights of up to six hours. That year, it also banned smoking on interstate buses.

In 1994, Amtrak banned smoking on short and medium-distance trips and now allows it only in a designated area of the Auto Train, which runs from outside Washington, D.C., to the Orlando area.

Other car-rental companies have taken more limited steps to address smoking. Hertz allows customers to request a smoke-free car but doesn’t guarantee it, says spokeswoman Paula Rivera.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Alamo Rent A Car and National Car Rental do not have an “across-the-board” smoking ban but many of their locations restrict smoking, says Laura Bryant, spokeswoman of parent company Enterprise Holdings.

Anti-smoking groups hailed Avis Budget Group’s ban. “Avis is protecting the rights of all of its customers to breathe clean air,” says Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Secondhand smoke is significantly more concentrated in cars than it is in bars, restaurants and other public places, according to a study released last month by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest cigarette-maker, believes private business owners “should have the opportunity to make their own smoking policies,” says spokesman David Sutton.

“It’s disappointing but it’s their private property,” says Gary Nolan of the Smoker’s Club, a part of the Citizens Freedom Alliance, which aims to protect private property rights. Nolan, a smoker, says he used to rent often from Budget, adding, “I won’t rent from them again.”

Barrows says Avis Budget Group, based on customer research, expects its smoke-free policy will help its bottom line. He says, “We think we may gain more business than we lose.”

Copyright © 2009 Usatoday