Indiana drug educators are praising the decision of tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds to pull the Camel Dissolvables line of smokeless tobacco products from current test markets: Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, In. and Portland, Or. R.J. Reynolds also the producer of Camel cigarettes.
"Because the products were in only a test marketing phase, R.J. Reynolds did not have to release what products or how much nicotine was used. The potential for overuse, even overdose, seemed like a real possibility since they had 3 times as much nicotine as one cigarette," said Tim Bristol, Outreach Coordinator for the Montgomery County AHEAD Coalition.
Camel's Sticks, Strips and Orbs drew controversy due to their easy-to-conceal packaging, wich looks similar to gum or candy, and their kid- friendly 'Mellow' and 'Fresh' flavors.
According to a Camel consumer relations representative, while the products are being pulled for "further refinement", information for potential re-design and other possible test markets have not been identified.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Californians continue to kick the cigarette habit
The percentage of California adults who smoke has continued to drop more than the national average, according to new data released Monday by state health officials. Still, deep disparities exist depending on gender, education, income, ethnicity and region.
Overall, Californians remain significantly less likely to smoke than people in the rest of the country, with 13.1% of adults surveyed statewide saying they smoked last year compared with 21% of adults nationwide.
Adults prefer smoking Kent cigarettes or Dunhill cigarettes.
"We have saved billions of dollars in healthcare costs that have been averted," Kimberly Belshé, the state's secretary of Health and Human Services, said Monday at a news conference near downtown Los Angeles to release the figures and display the state's latest anti- smoking advertisements.
Still, she said, "these prevalence rates also tell us we have more work to be done."
As of last year, California had seen a 38% decrease in smokers since 1990, when public health officials created the California Tobacco Control Program, funded by Proposition 99. The smoking rate is expected to decrease to 12.6% this year, close to the national goal of 12% by 2020. Only Utah reports a lower rate of smokers.
The downward trend in California is moving faster than the nation's, which has seen a smaller decrease in the smoking rate, down to 21% from 26% in 1990, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But rates within the state vary, in some cases widely. Many rural counties had rates of 17% or higher, including Lake (31.6%), Tehama (22.8%), Tuolomne (21.9%) and Humboldt (17.7%). Northern and eastern parts of the state have seenthe least decline in smoking since 1990.
Men still smoke at higher rates than women, 14.9% compared to 8.4% as of 2008.
College graduates smoked at less than half the rate of those without college degrees, about 6%. Among households with an income of $150,000 or more, about 8% smoked, while about 20% living in households earning less than $20,000 smoked as of 2008.
About 12.7% of whites smoked as of 2008, compared to 14.2% of African Americans, 10.2% of Latinos and 8.1% of Asians as of 2008.
Overall, Californians remain significantly less likely to smoke than people in the rest of the country, with 13.1% of adults surveyed statewide saying they smoked last year compared with 21% of adults nationwide.
Adults prefer smoking Kent cigarettes or Dunhill cigarettes.
"We have saved billions of dollars in healthcare costs that have been averted," Kimberly Belshé, the state's secretary of Health and Human Services, said Monday at a news conference near downtown Los Angeles to release the figures and display the state's latest anti- smoking advertisements.
Still, she said, "these prevalence rates also tell us we have more work to be done."
As of last year, California had seen a 38% decrease in smokers since 1990, when public health officials created the California Tobacco Control Program, funded by Proposition 99. The smoking rate is expected to decrease to 12.6% this year, close to the national goal of 12% by 2020. Only Utah reports a lower rate of smokers.
The downward trend in California is moving faster than the nation's, which has seen a smaller decrease in the smoking rate, down to 21% from 26% in 1990, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But rates within the state vary, in some cases widely. Many rural counties had rates of 17% or higher, including Lake (31.6%), Tehama (22.8%), Tuolomne (21.9%) and Humboldt (17.7%). Northern and eastern parts of the state have seenthe least decline in smoking since 1990.
Men still smoke at higher rates than women, 14.9% compared to 8.4% as of 2008.
College graduates smoked at less than half the rate of those without college degrees, about 6%. Among households with an income of $150,000 or more, about 8% smoked, while about 20% living in households earning less than $20,000 smoked as of 2008.
About 12.7% of whites smoked as of 2008, compared to 14.2% of African Americans, 10.2% of Latinos and 8.1% of Asians as of 2008.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
NC union says FDA menthol ban would hurt workers
A possible federal ban on menthol cigarettes would put people out of work during the worst economy in generations, according to a union representing tobacco workers, which says its members are being overlooked.
Busloads of workers from Greensboro, represented by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, traveled to Raleigh on Wednesday to protest outside a meeting of federal officials and various tobacco industry representatives.
The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products is in town as part of an extended examination of the use of menthol in cigarettes, one of the few growing sectors of the shrinking domestic cigarette industry.Cigarettes which contain menthol are Kiss Menthol Cigarettes and Doina Menthol cigarettes.
Whatever the FDA decides will affect its members, according to the union, which represents workers at Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard Inc. Lorillard makes Newport cigarettes, the top-selling brand of menthols in the country.
"We're talking about people's livelihoods," said Randy Fulk, who worked at Lorillard for 36 years and is now an international representative with the union. "People are trying to pay the bills, put food on the table and send their kids to school. The workers are the ones that are going to suffer."
The union, which represents about 1,000 workers at Lorillard, says it's being shut out of the process, since it wasn't designated a "stakeholder," entitled to formal participation in Wednesday's meeting.
"They should hear from the ones who are going to be the most affected by this," Fulk said.
The FDA says it wants to hear from the union, but that Wednesday's meeting isn't the best venue, according to a letter sent by Lawrence Deyton, director of the Center for Tobacco Products, to the union's president, Frank Hurt.
"Though it would be ideal for the voices of every company, small and large, and every tobacco related industry sector to be heard, it would be logistically impossible and detract from the intention of these meetings: to engage in bi-directional, meaningful dialogue about tobacco product regulation," Deyton wrote.
The FDA is studying the health effects of menthol cigarettes, and a scientific panel is scheduled to have recommendations for the agency to review by March. Industry groups from tobacco manufacturers to convenience stores have gone on the offensive, saying there's no proof that menthol cigarettes cause greater harm than non-menthol varieties.
A ban on the minty smokes would be the most dramatic outcome, but it's not the only possibility, according to Paul Billings, vice president of national policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association.
"The statute gives the FDA broad authority, from banning it to reducing it or further regulating it, or setting new performance standards," he said.
The percentage of cigarette smokers using menthol brands grew from 31 percent in 2004 to 33.9 percent in 2008, according to a study by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, with more significant growth among younger smokers.
A menthol ban would fall heavily on Lorillard, the country's third-largest and oldest continuously operating tobacco company. Its Newport brand is the top-selling menthol cigarette in the U.S., with roughly 36 percent of the market.
Busloads of workers from Greensboro, represented by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, traveled to Raleigh on Wednesday to protest outside a meeting of federal officials and various tobacco industry representatives.
The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products is in town as part of an extended examination of the use of menthol in cigarettes, one of the few growing sectors of the shrinking domestic cigarette industry.Cigarettes which contain menthol are Kiss Menthol Cigarettes and Doina Menthol cigarettes.
Whatever the FDA decides will affect its members, according to the union, which represents workers at Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard Inc. Lorillard makes Newport cigarettes, the top-selling brand of menthols in the country.
"We're talking about people's livelihoods," said Randy Fulk, who worked at Lorillard for 36 years and is now an international representative with the union. "People are trying to pay the bills, put food on the table and send their kids to school. The workers are the ones that are going to suffer."
The union, which represents about 1,000 workers at Lorillard, says it's being shut out of the process, since it wasn't designated a "stakeholder," entitled to formal participation in Wednesday's meeting.
"They should hear from the ones who are going to be the most affected by this," Fulk said.
The FDA says it wants to hear from the union, but that Wednesday's meeting isn't the best venue, according to a letter sent by Lawrence Deyton, director of the Center for Tobacco Products, to the union's president, Frank Hurt.
"Though it would be ideal for the voices of every company, small and large, and every tobacco related industry sector to be heard, it would be logistically impossible and detract from the intention of these meetings: to engage in bi-directional, meaningful dialogue about tobacco product regulation," Deyton wrote.
The FDA is studying the health effects of menthol cigarettes, and a scientific panel is scheduled to have recommendations for the agency to review by March. Industry groups from tobacco manufacturers to convenience stores have gone on the offensive, saying there's no proof that menthol cigarettes cause greater harm than non-menthol varieties.
A ban on the minty smokes would be the most dramatic outcome, but it's not the only possibility, according to Paul Billings, vice president of national policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association.
"The statute gives the FDA broad authority, from banning it to reducing it or further regulating it, or setting new performance standards," he said.
The percentage of cigarette smokers using menthol brands grew from 31 percent in 2004 to 33.9 percent in 2008, according to a study by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, with more significant growth among younger smokers.
A menthol ban would fall heavily on Lorillard, the country's third-largest and oldest continuously operating tobacco company. Its Newport brand is the top-selling menthol cigarette in the U.S., with roughly 36 percent of the market.
Burgeoning market for smokeless tobacco products
Now for some more good news on the harm reduction front: While cigarette sales have fallen by 17 percent since 2005 due to robust health campaigns and steeper taxes, smokeless tobacco products sales have grown by an annual rate of approximately 7 percent, reports The Chicago Tribune. The increase in sales of smokeless tobacco products can be partially attributed to their invisibility. For addicted smokers stuck in a smoke-free office environment all day long, these products relieve them of their nicotine craving.
Economic factors have also been responsible for the rise in smokeless tobacco sales since a can of premium Swedish snus can run not much more than half the cost of a pack of Marlboro cigarettes in places where state, county and city excise taxes are high.
Perhaps the most intriguing element to this story is that the use of smokeless tobacco products is increasing even though advertisers aren’t allowed to market them as a safer alternative to cigarettes. “I wonder how these people get the message,” ponders ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan.
Even though medical experts agree that quitting tobacco altogether is the ideal scenario, scientists admit that smokeless tobacco products are much less harmful than cigarettes.
But the potential benefit of these products, says ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross, is often overshadowed by anti-tobacco camps that focus on the possibility of increased risks of oral cancer from smokeless tobacco products. Dr. Ross notes that this risk “is essentially nil in the kinds of highly purified snus products found on the market today. These people must be confusing that with chewing tobacco used in years gone by.”
While others like Dr. Frank Leone, director of the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center’s Comprehensive Smoking Treatment Program, argue that smoke-free cigarette alternatives will only prolong a smoker’s addiction to nicotine, Dr. Ross counters that “there is a far greater net beneficial effect seen from the people who use snus instead of cigarettes as a means of effectively quitting smoking.”
Economic factors have also been responsible for the rise in smokeless tobacco sales since a can of premium Swedish snus can run not much more than half the cost of a pack of Marlboro cigarettes in places where state, county and city excise taxes are high.
Perhaps the most intriguing element to this story is that the use of smokeless tobacco products is increasing even though advertisers aren’t allowed to market them as a safer alternative to cigarettes. “I wonder how these people get the message,” ponders ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan.
Even though medical experts agree that quitting tobacco altogether is the ideal scenario, scientists admit that smokeless tobacco products are much less harmful than cigarettes.
But the potential benefit of these products, says ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross, is often overshadowed by anti-tobacco camps that focus on the possibility of increased risks of oral cancer from smokeless tobacco products. Dr. Ross notes that this risk “is essentially nil in the kinds of highly purified snus products found on the market today. These people must be confusing that with chewing tobacco used in years gone by.”
While others like Dr. Frank Leone, director of the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center’s Comprehensive Smoking Treatment Program, argue that smoke-free cigarette alternatives will only prolong a smoker’s addiction to nicotine, Dr. Ross counters that “there is a far greater net beneficial effect seen from the people who use snus instead of cigarettes as a means of effectively quitting smoking.”
Thursday, December 2, 2010
WHO seeks regulation of flavored tobacco
PUNTA DEL ESTE, Uruguay — More than 170 countries were taking up measures Friday to regulate flavored tobacco products out of concern they seek to get young people addicted to nicotine.
During a World Health Organization (WHO) meeting of the signatories of the body's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that ends Saturday in this upscale resort town in southern Uruguay, parties planned to define guidelines on tobacco product ingredients.
They also sought to draft a protocol on illicit tobacco trade and, for the first time, debate pricing, taxation and controls of so-called electronic cigarettes.
The battery-powered devices have no tobacco but deliver a dose of nicotine to the user, while producing water vapor that looks like smoke. Used in a number of countries, they are promoted as a way to quit smoking.
"There are hundreds of chemicals used to make smoking more attractive, mainly focused on the young people," said Antoon Opperhuizen, special adviser to the framework convention and vice-Chair of the WHO Tobacco Laboratory Network.
Canadian Cancer Society senior policy analyst Rob Cunningham explained that "tobacco producers are bringing more and more flavored cigarettes on the market -- with chocolate, vanilla and candy flavors that attract youths."
Representatives of the tobacco industry, which fiercely opposes the regulations saying they would hurt their powerful industry, pitched a tent outside the hotel where the WHO meet was taking place to present their views.
Producers claim flavored products represent half of global consumption and use three types of tobacco leaves: Virginia, Burley and Oriental. They worry the regulations would trigger bans of some of their most popular products.
"If we prohibit production of the American blend, which is made with a mix of Virginia, Burley and Oriental leaves, it will impact more than six million producers worldwide," said Antonio Abrunhosa, a Portuguese tobacco-farmer who serves as chief executive of the International Tobacco Growers' Association (ITGA).
Articles 9 and 10 of the framework convention call for guidelines to regulate contents and emissions of tobacco products, as well as measures to require tobacco manufacturers and importers to disclose information about the contents and emissions of their products, including toxic ones.
The provisions would "basically eliminate production of Burley and Oriental tobacco, making it an act of discrimination that would not solve the health problem because people would keep smoking other tobacco products," ITGA vice-president Jorge Nestor told AFP.
He also said any proposal should allow production activities that would be "economically sustainable over time."
Uruguay is facing a lawsuit from tobacco giant Philip Morris for its anti-tobacco measures. But it received support Thursday from the framework convention's signatories.
The country is the first in Latin America to introduce a tobacco ban -- in March 2006 -- and the fifth worldwide.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and eight international organizations have also backed Uruguay in its dispute with Philip Morris, whose annual turnover is about twice the gross domestic product of the nation of some 3.4 million people.
During a World Health Organization (WHO) meeting of the signatories of the body's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that ends Saturday in this upscale resort town in southern Uruguay, parties planned to define guidelines on tobacco product ingredients.
They also sought to draft a protocol on illicit tobacco trade and, for the first time, debate pricing, taxation and controls of so-called electronic cigarettes.
The battery-powered devices have no tobacco but deliver a dose of nicotine to the user, while producing water vapor that looks like smoke. Used in a number of countries, they are promoted as a way to quit smoking.
"There are hundreds of chemicals used to make smoking more attractive, mainly focused on the young people," said Antoon Opperhuizen, special adviser to the framework convention and vice-Chair of the WHO Tobacco Laboratory Network.
Canadian Cancer Society senior policy analyst Rob Cunningham explained that "tobacco producers are bringing more and more flavored cigarettes on the market -- with chocolate, vanilla and candy flavors that attract youths."
Representatives of the tobacco industry, which fiercely opposes the regulations saying they would hurt their powerful industry, pitched a tent outside the hotel where the WHO meet was taking place to present their views.
Producers claim flavored products represent half of global consumption and use three types of tobacco leaves: Virginia, Burley and Oriental. They worry the regulations would trigger bans of some of their most popular products.
"If we prohibit production of the American blend, which is made with a mix of Virginia, Burley and Oriental leaves, it will impact more than six million producers worldwide," said Antonio Abrunhosa, a Portuguese tobacco-farmer who serves as chief executive of the International Tobacco Growers' Association (ITGA).
Articles 9 and 10 of the framework convention call for guidelines to regulate contents and emissions of tobacco products, as well as measures to require tobacco manufacturers and importers to disclose information about the contents and emissions of their products, including toxic ones.
The provisions would "basically eliminate production of Burley and Oriental tobacco, making it an act of discrimination that would not solve the health problem because people would keep smoking other tobacco products," ITGA vice-president Jorge Nestor told AFP.
He also said any proposal should allow production activities that would be "economically sustainable over time."
Uruguay is facing a lawsuit from tobacco giant Philip Morris for its anti-tobacco measures. But it received support Thursday from the framework convention's signatories.
The country is the first in Latin America to introduce a tobacco ban -- in March 2006 -- and the fifth worldwide.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and eight international organizations have also backed Uruguay in its dispute with Philip Morris, whose annual turnover is about twice the gross domestic product of the nation of some 3.4 million people.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Coalition awarded grant for tobacco initiative
The Bay Area Council On Drugs and Alcohol was awarded the Tobacco Environmental Coalition grant from the Department of State and Health Services.
The TEC prevents and reduces the illegal and harmful use of tobacco products in communities across Texas by promoting and conducting community-based environmental prevention strategies that have an impact on the social, cultural, political and economic processes of the community.
Coalitions broaden support for community projects and increase credibility, provide volunteers for activities, and maximize the power of participating groups through joint action. Coalitions are especially important when engaging in broad community actions to change public policy.
The coalition will conduct evidence-based strategies and evaluate activities in League City that address two major goals: Eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke; and reduce tobacco use among populations with the highest burden of tobacco-related health disparities.
The TEC prevents and reduces the illegal and harmful use of tobacco products in communities across Texas by promoting and conducting community-based environmental prevention strategies that have an impact on the social, cultural, political and economic processes of the community.
Coalitions broaden support for community projects and increase credibility, provide volunteers for activities, and maximize the power of participating groups through joint action. Coalitions are especially important when engaging in broad community actions to change public policy.
The coalition will conduct evidence-based strategies and evaluate activities in League City that address two major goals: Eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke; and reduce tobacco use among populations with the highest burden of tobacco-related health disparities.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
State lawmakers may use ‘sin taxes’ to fill budget holes in upcoming session
Huge budget gaps are looming for the Idaho state government and some lawmakers are scrambling to decide how to shore up funding for corrections, health and welfare, and education.
Some state lawmakers are examining increases for “sin tax” items, like cigarettes, alcohol, and other tobacco products. Idaho Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, told the Idaho Statesman that increases on those items could be part of a myriad of solutions to solve the budget crisis.
Idaho wouldn’t be the first state to increase “sin taxes” to fund government. Earlier this year, New York increased its taxes on cigarettes by $1.60 to $4.35 per pack, the highest rate in the nation. By comparison, Idahoans only pay 57-cents a pack in taxes. Idaho’s cigarette tax rate is eighth-lowest in the nation.
But just how much could those increases contribute to the state’s general fund? One report suggests that if Idaho were to add $1.00 to its cigarette tax, the state could gain as much as $46 million in revenue on an annual basis.
But that tax increase would come at a cost paid mostly by low-income residents of the state. A 2007 Heritage Foundation study relating to an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, found out who really pays when governments use cigarette tax hikes to fund government. Data suggests that 28 percent of the people who smoke make less than the federal poverty level. Another 26 percent of smokers are considered poor, making between 100 and 200 percent of poverty level guidelines.
Cigarette taxes don’t always provide a stable funding base. In 2005, Idaho saw $45.7 million in revenue from cigarette taxes alone. Since then, the state’s take in revenue has stayed mostly steady, with minor variations in revenue amounts. That was, until fiscal year 2010, when the state saw a 10.58 percent drop in total cigarette tax revenue. That decrease reduced the state’s revenues by more than $4.6 million to a total of $39.6 million.
Those in favor of increasing “sin taxes” note that hikes serve a dual purpose. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TBF), a group dedicated to developing policy options that prevent youngsters from taking up smoking cigarettes, notes that the tax increases revenue while decreasing the number of smokers, thereby decreasing potential costs to the public health caused by smoking. TBF believes that the $1.00 increase per pack for Idaho would save about $230 million in health care costs and would force as many as 6,200 Idahoans to stop smoking.
The state of Delaware, as cited in the group’s report, increased its cigarette tax by 60-cents per pack in July of 2007 and saw a 35.1 percent decrease in the number of smokers pared with a 35.1 percent increase in the state’s revenue. Delaware netted $31.6 million from the hike. Texas, which more than tripled its cigarette tax rate in early 2007, saw a revenue increase of more than $1 billion complemented by a 21 percent decrease in the overall number of packs sold each year.
Idaho House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, isn’t totally opposed to a hike in the cigarette tax. Rusche, a physician by trade, says the hike could do much good to prevent teens from taking up the habit of smoking. The Lewiston Democrat called a tax hike on cigarettes “another smoking prevention tool” in the fight against teenage tobacco use.
But is it fair for Idaho’s low-income resident to fund state government operations and social welfare programs? “It may be that they pay more,” said Rusche, a member of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. “On the other hand, it will go a long way to promote their good health.”
The minority leader would make no firm commitments to tax hikes. “This is a problem that requires investigation,” said Rusche, who echoed Geddes’ notion that legislators would use various methods to balance the state’s budget next year.
But one Republican on the tax panel says only desperation leads lawmakers to go after sin taxes. Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said she would oppose the hike because she is against tax increases in general. “Boil it down: stop spending and lower taxes,” Barrett told IdahoReporter.com. The Challis Republican said that she doesn’t think people should smoke or drink, but “that’s their choice and they’re not breaking the law.”
But what about the positive effect a tax hike would have on public health? “That’s a fallacy,” said Barrett, an ex-smoker herself. “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price. You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”
Some state lawmakers are examining increases for “sin tax” items, like cigarettes, alcohol, and other tobacco products. Idaho Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, told the Idaho Statesman that increases on those items could be part of a myriad of solutions to solve the budget crisis.
Idaho wouldn’t be the first state to increase “sin taxes” to fund government. Earlier this year, New York increased its taxes on cigarettes by $1.60 to $4.35 per pack, the highest rate in the nation. By comparison, Idahoans only pay 57-cents a pack in taxes. Idaho’s cigarette tax rate is eighth-lowest in the nation.
But just how much could those increases contribute to the state’s general fund? One report suggests that if Idaho were to add $1.00 to its cigarette tax, the state could gain as much as $46 million in revenue on an annual basis.
But that tax increase would come at a cost paid mostly by low-income residents of the state. A 2007 Heritage Foundation study relating to an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, found out who really pays when governments use cigarette tax hikes to fund government. Data suggests that 28 percent of the people who smoke make less than the federal poverty level. Another 26 percent of smokers are considered poor, making between 100 and 200 percent of poverty level guidelines.
Cigarette taxes don’t always provide a stable funding base. In 2005, Idaho saw $45.7 million in revenue from cigarette taxes alone. Since then, the state’s take in revenue has stayed mostly steady, with minor variations in revenue amounts. That was, until fiscal year 2010, when the state saw a 10.58 percent drop in total cigarette tax revenue. That decrease reduced the state’s revenues by more than $4.6 million to a total of $39.6 million.
Those in favor of increasing “sin taxes” note that hikes serve a dual purpose. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TBF), a group dedicated to developing policy options that prevent youngsters from taking up smoking cigarettes, notes that the tax increases revenue while decreasing the number of smokers, thereby decreasing potential costs to the public health caused by smoking. TBF believes that the $1.00 increase per pack for Idaho would save about $230 million in health care costs and would force as many as 6,200 Idahoans to stop smoking.
The state of Delaware, as cited in the group’s report, increased its cigarette tax by 60-cents per pack in July of 2007 and saw a 35.1 percent decrease in the number of smokers pared with a 35.1 percent increase in the state’s revenue. Delaware netted $31.6 million from the hike. Texas, which more than tripled its cigarette tax rate in early 2007, saw a revenue increase of more than $1 billion complemented by a 21 percent decrease in the overall number of packs sold each year.
Idaho House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, isn’t totally opposed to a hike in the cigarette tax. Rusche, a physician by trade, says the hike could do much good to prevent teens from taking up the habit of smoking. The Lewiston Democrat called a tax hike on cigarettes “another smoking prevention tool” in the fight against teenage tobacco use.
But is it fair for Idaho’s low-income resident to fund state government operations and social welfare programs? “It may be that they pay more,” said Rusche, a member of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. “On the other hand, it will go a long way to promote their good health.”
The minority leader would make no firm commitments to tax hikes. “This is a problem that requires investigation,” said Rusche, who echoed Geddes’ notion that legislators would use various methods to balance the state’s budget next year.
But one Republican on the tax panel says only desperation leads lawmakers to go after sin taxes. Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said she would oppose the hike because she is against tax increases in general. “Boil it down: stop spending and lower taxes,” Barrett told IdahoReporter.com. The Challis Republican said that she doesn’t think people should smoke or drink, but “that’s their choice and they’re not breaking the law.”
But what about the positive effect a tax hike would have on public health? “That’s a fallacy,” said Barrett, an ex-smoker herself. “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price. You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
JAPAN - WITH TAX INCREASE, AFTER FIRST MONTH THREE OF FIVE QUITTERS STILL SMOKE-FREE
As of Friday, October 1, 2010 an increase in the tobacco tax pushed cigarette prices up by a record-high 60 yen (0.72 USD) to 140 yen (1.68 USD) per 20-cigarette pack. According to a survey conducted on 316 smokers by pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson K.K. before the hike, about 60 percent said they would quit. Of these, 58 percent cited financial reasons. (Japan - with tax increase in place, fewer smokers buying cigarettes so far..)
Adding roughly a third onto the price of the average bra Macromill Research doesn’t look at what percentage quit, but instead focuses on how the quitters are coping. Over the 1st and 2nd of November 2010 500 members of the Macromill monitor group who had resolved to stop smoking following the tobacco price rise in October completed a private internet-based questionnaire. 68.4% were male, 12.8% in their twenties, 33.2% in their thirties, 31.8% in their forties, and 22.2% aged fifty or older.
I (Macromill Research Group) suppose it’s a good sign that at least some people are quitting, although looking at Q1 (Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500)) and from tales from smokers, relapses can happen at unexpected times, so after a month free from smoking one cannot really say one has kicked the habit. Furthermore, with the end of year party season coming up, thus placing the quitters around people smoking and around drink, the second and third greatest temptations according to Q3SQ1, the risk of relapse will be pretty high, I fear.
Research results
Q1: Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500) First time 31.6%, Twice 25.6%, Thrice 18.8%, Four times 5.4%, Five times
5.4%, Six times 0.4%, Seven times 0.8%, Eight times 0.2%, Nine times 0.0%, Ten or more times 4.8% Don’t know 7.0%.
More older people had fallen off the wagon, with 24.3% of the over-fifties back to their old habit. However, although almost the same percentage of two packs a day or more people had restarted, 73.1% had managed to quit completely. Those with spouses or other family members who smoked were also more less than average to have managed to resist temptation.
For those who had given in to temptation, 1.1% didn’t manage a day, 4.8% two days, 10.6% three days, and 24.3% four days.
Adding roughly a third onto the price of the average bra Macromill Research doesn’t look at what percentage quit, but instead focuses on how the quitters are coping. Over the 1st and 2nd of November 2010 500 members of the Macromill monitor group who had resolved to stop smoking following the tobacco price rise in October completed a private internet-based questionnaire. 68.4% were male, 12.8% in their twenties, 33.2% in their thirties, 31.8% in their forties, and 22.2% aged fifty or older.
I (Macromill Research Group) suppose it’s a good sign that at least some people are quitting, although looking at Q1 (Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500)) and from tales from smokers, relapses can happen at unexpected times, so after a month free from smoking one cannot really say one has kicked the habit. Furthermore, with the end of year party season coming up, thus placing the quitters around people smoking and around drink, the second and third greatest temptations according to Q3SQ1, the risk of relapse will be pretty high, I fear.
Research results
Q1: Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500) First time 31.6%, Twice 25.6%, Thrice 18.8%, Four times 5.4%, Five times
5.4%, Six times 0.4%, Seven times 0.8%, Eight times 0.2%, Nine times 0.0%, Ten or more times 4.8% Don’t know 7.0%.
More older people had fallen off the wagon, with 24.3% of the over-fifties back to their old habit. However, although almost the same percentage of two packs a day or more people had restarted, 73.1% had managed to quit completely. Those with spouses or other family members who smoked were also more less than average to have managed to resist temptation.
For those who had given in to temptation, 1.1% didn’t manage a day, 4.8% two days, 10.6% three days, and 24.3% four days.
IDAHO - HEALTH GROUPS PUSHING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE TOBACCO TAX.
The state of Idaho is being pushed by many health groups to increase the tax that they currently have in place on cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Idaho has a lower cigarette tax than any of its neighbors at 57 cents per pack, Radke (Jodi Radke, Rocky Mountain regional director for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids). Wyoming charges 60 cents per pack, Nevada 80 cents, Oregon $1.18, and Montana and Utah $1.70. Washington just raised its tax by $1, to $3.02. The nationwide average in states that don't grow tobacco is $1.54. Idaho ranks in at number 42 in regards to their tax on tobacco products such as cigarettes. The tobacco tax rate is 40 percent of the wholesale sales price of the tobacco. Tobacco tax is imposed on all “other tobacco products,” excluding cigarettes.
The health groups, including state sectors of the American Cancer Society, are pushing to increase this tax by at least 57 cents per pack. The belief is that if they are able to do this, they would not only increase funding for many state programs, but they would also be able to detract more people from smoking.
Health groups, who have support from Republican Rep. Dennis Lake, believe that it will drop the smoking rate of kids in the state of Idaho by nearly 4% immediately.
After the conservative turn of the Idaho Legislature during the November election, however, proposals to hike increases, regardless of which product is targeted, face a tough fight in the 2011 session.
American Heart Association lobbyist Adrean Casper said raising Idaho's 57-cent-per-pack cigarette tax 10% would cut youth smoking by about 6.5%.
There are some who oppose this, as the tax hike in Idaho on cigarettes would face some stiff competition in regards to trying to get it passed.
Idaho has a lower cigarette tax than any of its neighbors at 57 cents per pack, Radke (Jodi Radke, Rocky Mountain regional director for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids). Wyoming charges 60 cents per pack, Nevada 80 cents, Oregon $1.18, and Montana and Utah $1.70. Washington just raised its tax by $1, to $3.02. The nationwide average in states that don't grow tobacco is $1.54. Idaho ranks in at number 42 in regards to their tax on tobacco products such as cigarettes. The tobacco tax rate is 40 percent of the wholesale sales price of the tobacco. Tobacco tax is imposed on all “other tobacco products,” excluding cigarettes.
The health groups, including state sectors of the American Cancer Society, are pushing to increase this tax by at least 57 cents per pack. The belief is that if they are able to do this, they would not only increase funding for many state programs, but they would also be able to detract more people from smoking.
Health groups, who have support from Republican Rep. Dennis Lake, believe that it will drop the smoking rate of kids in the state of Idaho by nearly 4% immediately.
After the conservative turn of the Idaho Legislature during the November election, however, proposals to hike increases, regardless of which product is targeted, face a tough fight in the 2011 session.
American Heart Association lobbyist Adrean Casper said raising Idaho's 57-cent-per-pack cigarette tax 10% would cut youth smoking by about 6.5%.
There are some who oppose this, as the tax hike in Idaho on cigarettes would face some stiff competition in regards to trying to get it passed.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tobacco Free Colleges & Universities
A tobacco free campus policy prohibits smoking and the use of tobacco products everywhere on the property.
With thoughtful planning and communication, universities can experience a smooth policy transition and experience many positive outcomes:
Students, staff, and faculty have more incentive to quit tobacco and their efforts are more successful.
Exposure to secondhand smoke is completely eliminated on the property.
A safe and healthy environment for everyone who comes to your campus.
Students, staff, and faculty are healthier with fewer absences.
Increased work productivity when students, staff, and faculty are no longer taking multiple breaks to smoke.
More attractive grounds when people are not congregating to smoke and tobacco litter is eliminated.
Increased support for other initiatives that decrease tobacco use and protect health.
With thoughtful planning and communication, universities can experience a smooth policy transition and experience many positive outcomes:
Students, staff, and faculty have more incentive to quit tobacco and their efforts are more successful.
Exposure to secondhand smoke is completely eliminated on the property.
A safe and healthy environment for everyone who comes to your campus.
Students, staff, and faculty are healthier with fewer absences.
Increased work productivity when students, staff, and faculty are no longer taking multiple breaks to smoke.
More attractive grounds when people are not congregating to smoke and tobacco litter is eliminated.
Increased support for other initiatives that decrease tobacco use and protect health.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
FDA warns electronic cigarette companies about health claims
RICHMOND, Va. — The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning Thursday to makers of electronic cigarettes, saying some make unproven health claims, but also said the agency wants to work with them to clarify what's legal.
The FDA said Thursday it sent warning letters to five companies that make e-cigarettes or components for the plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales.
In the letters, the FDA said the companies are violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including unsubstantiated claims and poor manufacturing practices.
The FDA said Thursday it sent warning letters to five companies that make e-cigarettes or components for the plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales.
In the letters, the FDA said the companies are violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including unsubstantiated claims and poor manufacturing practices.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Are Electronic Cigarettes Approved By The FDA
There are two things that a smoker has trouble with: keeping healthy, and quitting. Over the years, there have been many \"Anti-smoking\" programs and products that have come and gone. Things such as nicotine-flavored gum (yuck!), pills, and patches have spread a message that they can help you quit. Out of the shadows emerges a new product that threatens to take down the entire smoking industry, as it leaves its path of destruction in the wake. These products are called electronic cigarettes, and if you haven\'t heard of them, then you should without question pay attention to this article and learn about them.
For years people have been trying to find a product that allow, or help a person to quit smoking. What people have failed to do however is think outside of the box. Everyone was always concerned about \"How to help someone quit\" but no one has even considered ways to make smoking healthier. Look, let me just hit you with a dose of reality, people will be smoking six ways to Sunday until the end of time, and we\'re not going to be able to find ways for everyone to quit. Would it not be more beneficial to everyone if we could just make a product that simulates the smoking experience but keeps all of the cancer-causing chemicals at bay?
That\'s what the creators of the electronic cigarette have done, and they\'re geniuses for it too. Now people actually have a chance to maybe not \"quit\" smoking, but to smoke healthier. With the electronic cigarettes, people are not just filling their lungs up with a bunch of tar and nastiness; in fact they\'re not filling up their lungs with any of that nonsense. This is because of the way that the e-cigs are made. They contain a type of water vapor ingredient that simulates the \"smoke\" when you inhale. By the time you exhale, the smoke has evaporated, and won\'t go everywhere. So that means that you aren\'t blasting smoke into everyone\'s face all of the time.
Electronic cigarettes would be a good investment to make for someone who wants a healthier alternative to smoking cigarettes. If this is something that you want to do, then you should most certainly look into electronic cigarettes.
For years people have been trying to find a product that allow, or help a person to quit smoking. What people have failed to do however is think outside of the box. Everyone was always concerned about \"How to help someone quit\" but no one has even considered ways to make smoking healthier. Look, let me just hit you with a dose of reality, people will be smoking six ways to Sunday until the end of time, and we\'re not going to be able to find ways for everyone to quit. Would it not be more beneficial to everyone if we could just make a product that simulates the smoking experience but keeps all of the cancer-causing chemicals at bay?
That\'s what the creators of the electronic cigarette have done, and they\'re geniuses for it too. Now people actually have a chance to maybe not \"quit\" smoking, but to smoke healthier. With the electronic cigarettes, people are not just filling their lungs up with a bunch of tar and nastiness; in fact they\'re not filling up their lungs with any of that nonsense. This is because of the way that the e-cigs are made. They contain a type of water vapor ingredient that simulates the \"smoke\" when you inhale. By the time you exhale, the smoke has evaporated, and won\'t go everywhere. So that means that you aren\'t blasting smoke into everyone\'s face all of the time.
Electronic cigarettes would be a good investment to make for someone who wants a healthier alternative to smoking cigarettes. If this is something that you want to do, then you should most certainly look into electronic cigarettes.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Smoking increases stress levels
Many people say they smoke because it helps to take the edge off and reduce their stress levels. But new research has found that smoking induces an opposite effect, increasing stress levels over time rather than calming the nerves.
A team of researchers from the London School of Medicine and Dentistry recently evaluated a group of nearly 500 people who attempted to stop smoking after being hospitalized for heart disease. At the beginning of the study, all participants generally had similar stress levels and believed that smoking helped to reduce stress.
But after a year, those who continued to smoke saw no improvement in perceived stress levels, while those who abstained actually experienced a 20 percent drop in stress levels. According to the study paper, those who remained faithful by not smoking had "a significantly larger decrease in perceived stress".
Part of the reason why smokers may actually experience more stress than non-smokers is because the lulls in between smokes can be stressful. Smokers get sudden cravings for another cigarette and the desire to have one can be a considerable cause of mental strain.
Non-smokers, on the other hand, a free from such cravings. Even those who quit and initially struggle with cravings eventually break the habit and no longer experience cravings, which reduces overall levels of stress.
So in addition to the other known health benefits gained by not smoking, smokers now have another incentive to kick the habit and improve their overall sense of well-being.
A team of researchers from the London School of Medicine and Dentistry recently evaluated a group of nearly 500 people who attempted to stop smoking after being hospitalized for heart disease. At the beginning of the study, all participants generally had similar stress levels and believed that smoking helped to reduce stress.
But after a year, those who continued to smoke saw no improvement in perceived stress levels, while those who abstained actually experienced a 20 percent drop in stress levels. According to the study paper, those who remained faithful by not smoking had "a significantly larger decrease in perceived stress".
Part of the reason why smokers may actually experience more stress than non-smokers is because the lulls in between smokes can be stressful. Smokers get sudden cravings for another cigarette and the desire to have one can be a considerable cause of mental strain.
Non-smokers, on the other hand, a free from such cravings. Even those who quit and initially struggle with cravings eventually break the habit and no longer experience cravings, which reduces overall levels of stress.
So in addition to the other known health benefits gained by not smoking, smokers now have another incentive to kick the habit and improve their overall sense of well-being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)