In late June, President Barack Obama signed The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act into law. The law will allow the federal government broad authority over tobacco products and will also allow regulators to control cigarette packaging and marketing as well as how much nicotine—the addictive component in cigarettes—is added in tobacco products, explained the Washington Post previously.

Now, some tobacco companies—R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Inc.—are included in a group that just filed a federal lawsuit to block some of the provisions of the law, claiming it violates their rights to free speech under the U.S. constitution, reported Reuters. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco is an arm or Reynolds American Inc., the maker of Camel cigarettes and Winston brand cigarettes; Lorillard sells Newport cigarettes, said Reuters. Marlboro cigarettes are manufactured by the largest American tobacco company, Altria Group Inc., which is not involved in the lawsuit and supports the law, reported Reuters.

With the law in place, flavored cigarettes will be banned by this fall and shortly after—by January—tobacco manufacturers and importers will be required to provide the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the ingredients used in their products, said USA Today previously. By April 2010, those makers will no longer be permitted to place their logos on “sporting, athletic or entertainment events, or on clothing and other promotional items,” said USA Today, adding that by July 2010, verbiage including the words “light,” “low,” or “mild” will be banned from tobacco product marketing. Finally, by 2011, all tobacco products must “carry larger and stronger warning labels,” reported USA Today.

The lawsuit alleges that the law places too many limits on the firms’ commercial rights to free speech given bans in place on television and radio ads said Reuters, which noted that the group is not arguing the agency’s right to regulate tobacco products. “Even prior to the act, plaintiffs had few avenues of communication for speaking to their adult consumers,” the companies said in the lawsuit filed in a federal court in Kentucky. “The act imposes sweeping and unprecedented restrictions that effectively foreclose those avenues of communication that remain,” Reuters quoted.

The companies are seeking an overturn of warning label bans, the ban on color and graphics in label and cigarette ads, and some of the bans on ads and sponsorship of sporting and other venues, said Reuters.

Some argue that 1st amendment issues were not appropriately addressed; however, proponents of the law cite the hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in health care linked to cigarette smoking annually. At the bill signing ceremony, President Obama said he is hoping to cut down the numbers of teens each day—estimated at about 1,000—who take up smoking. “I was one of these teenagers. And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it’s been with you for a long time,” said Obama, quoted USA Today.

President Obama noted that the law’s focus is on ending kid-geared marketing, said USA Today. “The kids today don’t just start smoking for no reason. They’re aggressively targeted as customers by the tobacco industry. They’re exposed to a constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn, and where they play. Most insidiously, they are offered products with flavorings that mask the taste of tobacco and make it even more tempting,” President Obama said, quoted USA Today previously.

BOISE – Supporters call them an alternative to tobacco smoke but when it comes to electronic cigarettes there are some skeptics.

“I tried the patch, I tried chewing gum, I tried the nicotine inhaler,” said Noah Minskoff, owner of InnoVapor, LLC.

But Minskoff says none of them helped him quit smoking altogether.

“I still found myself smoking one or two cigarettes a day.”

He says that’s where electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, changed his life. In fact so much so he started InnoVapor, LLC, an online distribution company based in Boise.

“It’s been very effective for people who have used nicotine patches, or nicotine controlled inhalers, or nicotine gum has been unsuccessful,” said Minskoff.

Instead of inhaling burning tobacco, Minskoff says an e-cigarette works as a personal vaporizer powered by a battery.

“That battery heats a resistor up, a wire coil, and that wire coil reaches a certain temperature and it turns whatever liquid you have into a vapor,” he said.

But e-cigarettes don’t have everyone breathing easy.

“They have not gone through FDA approval,” said Nancy Caspersen, a registered nurse and tobacco cessation specialist.

Caspersen she says unlike nicotine gum and inhalers, little research and trials have been conducted on e-cigarettes in the United States.

“They’re not regulated so we really don’t know if there is a difference between a company making it in China and company making maybe in the United Kingdom,” she said.

Idaho health officials say the FDA recently did some testing on several companies selling e-cigarettes and found varying levels of nicotine as well as other chemicals known to cause cancer.

But Minskoff says the product and liquid he sells is independently certified in the U.K.

“Purely in my opinion it is far, far healthier than smoking,” he said.

But Caspersen says in her opinion that’s up to the FDA to determine.

The owners of InnoVapor say the company where they get their e-cigarette devices and liquids from is in process of going through drug trials in the United Kingdom.


© 2news

WASHINGTON — Something as simple as the color of a cigarette packet can dupe smokers into thinking the cigarettes it contains are less dangerous to their health, a study showed.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Waterloo in Canada showed that, in addition to words like “light,” “mild,” and “low-tar,” which have been banished from cigarette packets in more than 40 countries, design elements and color are being used by tobacco companies to lull smokers into a false sense of security about the harmful effects of smoking.

“Substantial proportions of adults in the study associated perceptions of risk and tar delivery with package design,” the study’s authors wrote.

The study involved cigarette packets that were specifically designed and presented in pairs to some 600 adult smokers and non-smokers, who were then asked questions about what they thought the content of the packets would be like.

The packets were made to look and feel as if they were real and contained cigarettes, but the brand names were made up, to avoid “contamination.”

Each packet carried a pictorial health warning, as required under Canadian law.

The pairs of cigarette packets that were presented to participants in the study were identical, except for one element: either a term such as “full flavor” or “light,” or a design element on the packet, such as the color, were different.

The researchers found that around 80 percent of participants in the study believed that cigarettes in a light blue packet would deliver less tar, have a smoother taste and pose less of a danger to health than those in darker blue packaging.

Seventy percent of study participants said a packet with a white symbol would deliver less tar, be smoother and less unhealthy than cigarettes in a packet with a grey symbol.

And an equal number — seven in 10 — believed the same benefits to be true of cigarettes in a packet bearing the words “charcoal filter” and showing an image of the filter.

Smokers were more likely than non-smokers to be duped by the imagery, words and color of a cigarette package because “they have greater incentive to believe that some cigarettes may be less harmful,” the study found.

According to the study, tobacco use is responsible for one in 10 deaths around the world and is the leading cause of preventable deaths.

With the tobacco industry recognizing “rising levels of health concern” as a key threat to its existence, it has made reassuring consumers about the risks associated with smoking “an important function of tobacco marketing,” the study said.

“A central feature of this marketing strategy has been to promote the perception that some cigarettes are less hazardous than others,” wrote David Hammond and Carla Parkinson, the authors of the study.

The pair said tobacco packaging “has served as a critical medium for shaping perceptions of consumer risk.”

Forty-four countries, including the United States, have banned the use of the words “light,” “mild,” and “low-tar,” on cigarette packages, saying they mislead consumers about the health risks of smoking, the study says.

The authors want the list of prohibited words to be expanded and for cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging to try to stop the tobacco industry misleading smokers.

“There is growing evidence that the removal of brand imagery from packaging — so-called ‘plain’ packaging — reduces the appeal of brands and increases the salience of health warnings,” the study says.

“Research to date suggests that plain packages are less attractive and engaging and may reduce brand appeal, particularly among youth.”

The study was published in the Oxford University Press Journal of Public Health.

While tobacco leaf is the primary ingredient in tobacco products, it accounts for a very small share of the overall value of tobacco products. Gale and his colleagues7 estimated that in 1997, domestically grown tobacco leaf accounted for about 2.3% of the total value of the tobacco products consumed in the United States.

The largest share of this total, 43%, was the value added in tobacco product manufacturing—defined as the final value of the tobacco products produced minus the costs of the raw materials and intermediate products used in producing tobacco, such as tobacco leaf, papers, filters, and packaging materials. A relatively small share of this percentage was labor costs (just over 6%), whereas a much larger share went to advertising (almost 20%). Capital costs (including profits) accounted for much of the remainder of the manufacturing share, while wholesale and retail value added and federal, state, and local taxes accounted for the rest of the overall value. There are three primary types of manufacturing related to tobacco: stemming and redrying, manufacturing cigarettes, and manufacturing other tobacco products.

In contrast to the large number of tobacco farms, relatively few establishments are involved in tobacco manufacturing. On the basis of the most recently available data from the Census of Manufacturers, in 1997, 25 establishments owned by 14 companies were involved in tobacco stemming and redrying,9 13 establishments were owned by 9 companies involved in manufacturing cigarettes,10 and 63 establishments were owned by 52 companies involved in manufacturing other tobacco products. Collectively, these establishments employed 33,620 persons, with cigarette manufacturing accounting for nearly two-thirds of the total.9–11 Although tobacco product manufacturing involves relatively few people, the value added by manufacturers is significant.

In 1997, the value added in production was $29.3 billion for manufacturing cigarettes, $2.7 billion for manufacturing other tobacco products, and $0.7 billion for stemming and redrying. In contrast to tobacco farming, tobacco manufacturing takes place in a small number of states. As with tobacco farming, however, most of the economic contribution of tobacco manufacturing is concentrated in even fewer states. Almost two-thirds of the value added from tobacco manufacturing in 1997 came from manufacturing in North Carolina (34.3%), Virginia (21.4%), and Kentucky (9.8%). Other states in which tobacco products are manufactured include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Overall employment in tobacco manufacturing has been falling for several decades.

In 1977, almost 61,000 persons were employed in tobacco manufacturing; by 2000, employment had fallen by more than half to just over 28,000 persons. As with the declines in tobacco leaf production, part of this decline in employment can be attributed to declines in overall U.S. cigarette production and consumption. In addition, much of the decline in employment is the result of tobacco industry actions, including increased automation of production processes (a longstanding trend)12 and the shifting of production from the United States to other countries (particularly important in more recent years). Major factors behind the shift to overseas production include reductions in trade and investment barriers, the opening of previously closed markets (particularly in Asia and Central/Eastern Europe), lower labor and other operating expenses, and an interest in locating in expanding markets.

I was dismayed and disappointed to read the June editorial ” Rhode Island Sets Good Example With Pot Law.” Like the writer of the editorial, I, too have seen friends and family battle debilitating illnesses and want them to have access to the best medical treatment possible. However, permitting people to grow their own illegal and dangerous drug is not providing the best possible medical treatment, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell was correct to veto legislation that would have permitted that.

Recently, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment issued a report linking marijuana use to cancer, stating that its extensive review of scientific papers shows that marijuana smoke contains 33 of the same harmful chemicals contained in tobacco smoke.

Science Daily, on June 15, reported that using a highly sensitive new test, scientists in Europe are reporting “convincing evidence” that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material, DNA, in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.

Additional research from other sources shows that the respiratory difficulties associated with marijuana use preclude the inhaled route of administration as a medicine. Smoked marijuana is associated with higher concentrations of tar, carbon monoxide and carcinogens than even cigarette smoke. Marijuana adversely impairs lung function, causes abnormalities in cell linings and the airways of the upper and lower respiratory tract, and in the air spaces deep within the lung, and it causes cancer.

In other words, smoking marijuana is likely to make healthy people sick and sick people sicker. It would be extremely irresponsible for Connecticut to have a law on the books that would harm the very people it is meant to help.

Furthermore, permitting marijuana use would send the wrong message to young people who have their whole lives ahead of them, lives that surely hold more promise when not compromised by the use of dangerous recreational drugs.

© Courant

African-American smokers in Atlanta told researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that they view menthol cigarettes as refreshing and somewhat less dangerous, according to a study published earlier this year in the journal Ethnicity & Health.

Among other views expressed by the 54 adult smokers in small focus-group discussions:

—- Taste was the main reason they chose menthol cigarettes. “With a nonmenthol, I have to pull on it and a bunch of smoke has to go in before I taste it. But with the menthol, it’s just puff and you go,” one participant said.

—- Because they were viewed as less harsh, menthol cigarettes sometimes delayed attempts to quit smoking. “The reason I started smoking menthol was because the regulars were so strong, and instead of me quitting, I was trying to find some means of getting around that, so I went to menthol,” one participant said. Some said switching to a nonmenthol brand was a way to encourage quitting.

—- Menthol cigarettes were seen as soothing and smooth; and they were ranked as less dangerous than nonmenthols, which were viewed as strong or harsh.

—- Most of the participants noted that African-Americans smoke menthols; whites smoke nonmenthols. A participant gave this perception: “Your typical white person smokes the nonmenthol. … Typical white folks, they smoke Marlboro, Camel, Winston.”

Three out of four black smokers prefer menthol cigarettes, compared with about a quarter of white smokers, other research has found. And there’s concern among public health officials about whether menthol may contribute to disease or addiction among minority smokers, though the science on these issues remains inconclusive.

The purpose of the Atlanta discussions was to generate hypotheses that could lead to future research, the CDC journal article said.
© Ajc

As an advocate for the American Heart Association, I want to thank Sen. Claire McCaskill for co-sponsoring the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Incredibly, our nation’s most preventable cause of death is unregulated by any federal agency with the required scientific expertise and experience. Deadly products have been sold for generations without federal oversight, putting both young and old at risk for heart disease and stroke. In Missouri, 10,680 residents die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. Of those tobacco-related deaths, an estimated 35 percent are due to cardiovascular disease. The time has come for Congress to pass legislation placing the tobacco industry under the Food and Drug Administration’s authority.

According to the American Heart Association, the cigarette chemical cocktail — which includes rat poison, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, benzene and ammonia — damages arteries throughout the body once it hits the bloodstream. Clots are more likely to form as a result, causing heart attack or stroke.

Big Tobacco spends $423 million a year in Missouri to promote such dangerous products to adults and teenagers, jeopardizing public health. I want to encourage Congress to follow Senator McCaskill’s lead and support the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

A hip new brand of electronic cigarettes have recently hit the market called Blu Cigs. There are many different types of e-cigarettes and each one brings something unique but none have created as much buzz and excitement as Blu Cigs.

A few of the reasons electronic cigarette smokers are so excited about Blu Cigs are:

- They can smoke Blu Cigs anywhere
- the blu pack they come with charges the cigarettes while you’re on the go.
- They contain absolutely NO tar, tobacco, ash, and produce no unpleasant smell.
- They look and feel just like a regular cigarette
- And most of all, they are 75% cheaper than traditional cigarettes.

To top it off they are the most affordable high quality electronic cigarettes at just $59.95 for the Blu Cigs Starter Pack which includes FREE shipping.

The cartridges are another huge advancement with the amount of vapor they produce and the delicious flavors you have to choose from. The vapor production is one of the most important factors of an e-cigarette feeling real because the thicker and more vapor they produce the more better it simulates a traditional cigarette drag.

For the Blu Cigs cartridges you have a variety to choose from when you place your order. You can have Classic Tobacco, Magnificent Menthol, Java Jolt, Vivid Vanilla , Cherry Crush or you can choose the variety pack which includes all 5 so you can find out which one you like best. They also each come in various nicotine levels ranging from high Full Flavores to Non nicotine.

When it comes to charging your electronic cigarette you have the option of a USB charger as well as a traditional wall charger but their best innovation is The exclusive blu packs that charge your e-cigs on the go! Simply charge your pack as needed and it will charge your batteries up to 6 times.

While most advertising is fleeting, tobacco brands shown on screen are viewed repeatedly on a growing number of media platforms. Their lifetime is measured in decades. Thus, there should be no tobacco brand identification or tobacco brand imagery (such as billboards) in any movie scene. In recent years, under pressure from states’ Attorneys General, US-based tobacco companies have written to Hollywood film studios to protest use of their tobacco trademarks, after the fact, but not pursued any legal remedies for this use of their trademarked material.

The studios, in turn, have publicly stated that they never request permission to use these trademarks. However, a simple, easily-enforced rule would be more effective in eliminating hardto- detect arrangements for global brand exposure in films. A total ban on brand identification on screen would be the most straightforward extension of national restrictions on tobacco branding in all media.

Require strong anti-smoking ads

Classroom and in-theatre experiments show that an anti-tobacco advertisement before a film that includes tobacco imagery helps inoculate both younger and older adolescents against the promotional effects of such imagery in the film. A strong anti-smoking ad (not one produced or influenced by a tobacco company) should run before a film with any tobacco presence and in any distribution channel, regardless of its rating. It should be culturally appropriate and targeted to specific audiences. Such spots are important because, even if tobacco images are cleared from youth-rated films, adolescents may be exposed to adult-rated films through new digital technology.

In the United States, for example, adolescents get around half of their tobacco exposure from R-rated films; the same is likely to be true in other countries. Because all media are converging on digital technology and because it is increasingly likely that adolescents in many countries can also access this technology, effective antitobacco spots can be added to videos and other distribution channels, including cable and satellite, Video On Demand and Internet download after distribution.

The World Lung Foundation web site hosts a series of anti-tobacco ads from various countries (http://www.worldlungfoundation.org/mmr/eng_ index.html) that have been selected for their potential applicability around the world, having been shown to be effective in a number of countries. The American Legacy Foundation’s “truth” campaign spots (http://americanlegacy.org/truthnews. aspx) and television ads developed by the (US) State of California (http://www.tobacco freeca.com/ads_tv.html) have also been demonstrated to be effective in discouraging smoking initiation by youth.

There are significant considerations for governance in this kind of policy intervention. National rules are needed to determine how ads will be developed and selected for use, who will vet and pay for them and how many will be needed to avoid audience fatigue. In addition, rules for distribution and monitoring procedures will be needed. Because this policy may be the least disturbing to the status quo and may provide the film industry an opportunity to demonstrate corporate social responsibility, anti-tobacco ads may be the easiest policy to promote. While research shows that anti-tobacco spots do not lower audience opinion of a given movie, their presence may be inconvenient enough that they may contribute to an eventual reduction in the number of new movies with smoking imagery.