Several organisations may have breached the Smokefree Environments Act in an attempt to recruit Christchurch students for a cigarette trial.
Canterbury Community and Public Health Smokefree Enforcement and Health Promotion officer Cindy Crampton-Cairns said she would be investigating an advertisement placed with Student Job Search looking for 15 students to take part in a cigarette product test. The act prohibited publication of tobacco advertisements in New Zealand, she said.
"Further investigations will establish if this clause is breached by Student Job Search and anyone else involved in arranging the publication of the advertisements. Tobacco companies appear to use middle men like Student Job Search to recruit smokers for product testing.
"This should be a warning for all potential job advertisers who do not have strict screening processes for what is being advertised, as they may unknowingly breach the Smokefree Environments Act."
The company supplying the cigarettes could also be breaching the act.
Monday, January 31, 2011
‘Pictorial warnings on packets to reduce tobacco habits’
Pictorial warnings on packets of tobacco products could greatly motivate users to quit and reduce tobacco habits as such warnings would remind them about the harms caused by tobacco, reports UNB.
The speakers stated this while speaking at a day-long workshop on "Media for Tobacco Control: Training Course for Journalists on Tobacco Control in Bangladesh" organised by PROGGA and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in collaboration with Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB) at its auditorium in the city Friday.
Pictorial warnings can be on every brand, even on most famous Marlboro cigarettes.
About 21 journalists from different print and electronic media took part in the workshop.
Coordinator of Addiction Management and Integrated Care (AMIC) of Dhaka Ahsania Mission Iqbal Masud mentioned that smokers have low understanding of many diseases caused by smoking and pictures are more easily understood by smokers, be they literate or illiterate.
Masud said pictorial warnings on tobacco products are being used in many countries including Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Venezuela, Thailand, Uruguay and Chile to good effect.
Referring to a study conducted by Consumers’ Association of Bangladesh (CAB), he said 90 per cent people observed that pictorial health warning on the tobacco products could be effective in Bangladesh.
The speakers stated this while speaking at a day-long workshop on "Media for Tobacco Control: Training Course for Journalists on Tobacco Control in Bangladesh" organised by PROGGA and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in collaboration with Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB) at its auditorium in the city Friday.
Pictorial warnings can be on every brand, even on most famous Marlboro cigarettes.
About 21 journalists from different print and electronic media took part in the workshop.
Coordinator of Addiction Management and Integrated Care (AMIC) of Dhaka Ahsania Mission Iqbal Masud mentioned that smokers have low understanding of many diseases caused by smoking and pictures are more easily understood by smokers, be they literate or illiterate.
Masud said pictorial warnings on tobacco products are being used in many countries including Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Venezuela, Thailand, Uruguay and Chile to good effect.
Referring to a study conducted by Consumers’ Association of Bangladesh (CAB), he said 90 per cent people observed that pictorial health warning on the tobacco products could be effective in Bangladesh.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Pasco deputy arrested, accused of being too friendly with inmates
LAND O'LAKES — Brian Call spent 14 years in construction before becoming a road patrol deputy in 2007. When the Sheriff's Office decided to build a hangar for its aviation unit using inmate labor, the agency put Call in charge — he could supervise the inmates and the construction at the same time, saving taxpayers' money.
Construction began in September and Call was transferred Nov. 1 from road patrol to work at the hangar.
But on his evening shifts monitoring the inmates — who are low-risk and given the option to do work duty to reduce their sentences — Call fraternized too much with them, according to the Sheriff's Office.
Call, 35, used his own cell phone to contact inmates' girlfriends and had them visit the hangar site, a report states. He brought Copenhagen smokeless tobacco and shared it with inmates, and had the inmates' girlfriends bring more to the site, the Sheriff's Office said.
An inmate told another construction supervisor — Deputy Karl Crawford — about the tobacco products. Crawford informed his superiors Dec. 7, beginning a criminal investigation. Call was placed on paid administrative leave Dec. 10 and unpaid leave Dec. 21.
He was arrested Tuesday and is in the process of being fired, said sheriff's spokesman Kevin Doll.
Call was charged with introduction of contraband into a jail facility and unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior — for allegedly taking tobacco from the inmates' girlfriends.
Doll said the investigation into what else might have happened at the hangar is ongoing.
"As soon as allegations against Brian Call were reported, we began an investigation," Sheriff Bob White said in a press release. "As is the normal process, we turned our completed investigation over to the State Attorney's Office for action, which advised us charges were warranted. It is always disappointing when a member of our office is arrested.
"The Pasco Sheriff's Office holds itself to extremely high standards and we continuously strive to maintain the public trust."
Sheriff's Office employees are not allowed to use tobacco products if they were hired after 2005. All new employees — including Call, hired in 2007 — sign a document stating they will adhere to the anti-tobacco policy or face possible termination.
This was Call's first job in law enforcement. He's from New York and bounced between Florida, New York and New Jersey as an adult, working jobs as a carpenter, toll collector, foreman, handyman and construction project manager, according to his personnel file. Call didn't stay long at most of the jobs — he had 13 different employers since graduating from high school in 1993, the file states. He worked in construction in New York a few months before applying for the deputy position in Pasco in May 2007. He was hired in July. He made $40,376 a year.
Call's performance reviews were solid — he follows instructions, he needs to be more punctual, he's a good listener. He has "that unique ability to remember people's names that he contacts and he is very at ease speaking with people," his latest review said.
Inmates have done the majority of the work on the hangar, expected to be finished in February. The Sheriff's Office said using inmates to build the hangar has saved taxpayer money.
Sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said Call and the other construction supervisor "are basically doing the job of four or five people, so the savings to the county is significant, as much as $700,000 if a private contractor had built the project."
The department would not release the names of the inmates who worked on the hangar, citing the ongoing investigation.
Call, who lives in New Port Richey, was released from the jail Tuesday on $15,000 bail.
Construction began in September and Call was transferred Nov. 1 from road patrol to work at the hangar.
But on his evening shifts monitoring the inmates — who are low-risk and given the option to do work duty to reduce their sentences — Call fraternized too much with them, according to the Sheriff's Office.
Call, 35, used his own cell phone to contact inmates' girlfriends and had them visit the hangar site, a report states. He brought Copenhagen smokeless tobacco and shared it with inmates, and had the inmates' girlfriends bring more to the site, the Sheriff's Office said.
An inmate told another construction supervisor — Deputy Karl Crawford — about the tobacco products. Crawford informed his superiors Dec. 7, beginning a criminal investigation. Call was placed on paid administrative leave Dec. 10 and unpaid leave Dec. 21.
He was arrested Tuesday and is in the process of being fired, said sheriff's spokesman Kevin Doll.
Call was charged with introduction of contraband into a jail facility and unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior — for allegedly taking tobacco from the inmates' girlfriends.
Doll said the investigation into what else might have happened at the hangar is ongoing.
"As soon as allegations against Brian Call were reported, we began an investigation," Sheriff Bob White said in a press release. "As is the normal process, we turned our completed investigation over to the State Attorney's Office for action, which advised us charges were warranted. It is always disappointing when a member of our office is arrested.
"The Pasco Sheriff's Office holds itself to extremely high standards and we continuously strive to maintain the public trust."
Sheriff's Office employees are not allowed to use tobacco products if they were hired after 2005. All new employees — including Call, hired in 2007 — sign a document stating they will adhere to the anti-tobacco policy or face possible termination.
This was Call's first job in law enforcement. He's from New York and bounced between Florida, New York and New Jersey as an adult, working jobs as a carpenter, toll collector, foreman, handyman and construction project manager, according to his personnel file. Call didn't stay long at most of the jobs — he had 13 different employers since graduating from high school in 1993, the file states. He worked in construction in New York a few months before applying for the deputy position in Pasco in May 2007. He was hired in July. He made $40,376 a year.
Call's performance reviews were solid — he follows instructions, he needs to be more punctual, he's a good listener. He has "that unique ability to remember people's names that he contacts and he is very at ease speaking with people," his latest review said.
Inmates have done the majority of the work on the hangar, expected to be finished in February. The Sheriff's Office said using inmates to build the hangar has saved taxpayer money.
Sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said Call and the other construction supervisor "are basically doing the job of four or five people, so the savings to the county is significant, as much as $700,000 if a private contractor had built the project."
The department would not release the names of the inmates who worked on the hangar, citing the ongoing investigation.
Call, who lives in New Port Richey, was released from the jail Tuesday on $15,000 bail.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
FDA to review new or altered tobacco products
Tobacco companies that want to introduce new products or make changes to existing brands will soon face more scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The FDA said Wednesday that it will start reviewing new tobacco products or changes to existing brands for public-health dangers on March 22.
The requirements cover cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco introduced commercially after Feb. 15, 2007, and changes to existing brands since that date. The rules were part of the legislation passed by Congress in 2009 that for the first time gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Tobacco products can be considered cigarettes like Winston cigarettes or Vogue Cigarettes.
"The law requires this because up till now, tobacco products have been the only mass-consumed product for which users do not know what they are consuming," Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, said on a conference call with reporters.
"Manufacturers frequently alter ingredients, again without anyone knowing what they are consuming," Deyton said. "This law requires the FDA to carefully examine the impact those changes, or new products, may have on the public health."
The FDA issued guidance to the industry yesterday about how to submit products for review.
A spokesman for Henrico County-based Altria Group Inc. said the company was studying the guidelines and plans to submit comments to the FDA during a public comment period. The company had no comment Wednesday on the possible business impact of the requirements.
Altria is the parent company of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris USA, and the largest smokeless tobacco maker, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.
"This guidance is certainly more restrictive than any tobacco company anticipated when the FDA initially began regulating tobacco and appears to be more restrictive than the underlying statute contemplates," said Ashley L. Taylor Jr., a partner with Troutman Sanders who heads the law firm's tobacco team.
"For example, on their face, the new guidelines will require that certain changes made by virtually every company to its cigarettes in response to state 'fire-safe' laws must now seek FDA approval for such changes when the companies were simply following the underlying state law requirements," he said.
Taylor said the firm is encouraging its clients to actively participate in the FDA's comment period as the regulations continue to be shaped.
"The FDA is simply beginning the process to establish the framework it will use in its approval of new products," Christopher Growe, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in St. Louis, said in a note to clients. The "discussion in our view could be characterized as largely procedural."
Under the law, companies can bring a new tobacco product to market or make changes to existing brands if they can show the product is "substantially equivalent" to one already being sold before Feb. 15, 2007. A product that does not meet that requirement could be banned or removed from the market if the FDA finds it poses new public-health concerns.
What constitutes a change in a product is fairly broad under the federal law. It includes changes in ingredients, design, composition and the heating source, FDA officials said.
The purpose of those requirements, Deyton said, is to ensure that new products are not more dangerous to consumers than existing ones. "FDA's involvement does not indicate that these products are safe," he said. "There is no tobacco product that is safe."
Deyton said he believes companies still will be able to make product innovations under the regulations.
Reynolds American Inc., the second-biggest U.S. tobacco company, is reviewing the FDA guidance and has submitted "several applications to date on substantial equivalence" to the agency, David Howard, a spokesman for the North Carolina-based company, told Bloomberg News. Howard said the specifics of the submissions were proprietary.
One major tobacco-control group said the requirements are an important step for public health. It also will be significant because the FDA will collect information about tobacco product ingredients and design, and how companies change them over time.
"As a result of the bright spotlight of FDA scrutiny, tobacco companies will no longer be able to secretly manipulate their products in ways that make them more addictive and appealing," the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said in a statement.
Deyton said about 200 people are now working at the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, which was created in late 2009. The center is still hiring, but it has "sufficient staff" now to handle the review process, he said.
Under the law, companies also may submit products for FDA approval as "modified risk" products that might be less risky to health. The FDA is still developing its guidelines for that approval pathway.
The FDA said Wednesday that it will start reviewing new tobacco products or changes to existing brands for public-health dangers on March 22.
The requirements cover cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco introduced commercially after Feb. 15, 2007, and changes to existing brands since that date. The rules were part of the legislation passed by Congress in 2009 that for the first time gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Tobacco products can be considered cigarettes like Winston cigarettes or Vogue Cigarettes.
"The law requires this because up till now, tobacco products have been the only mass-consumed product for which users do not know what they are consuming," Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, said on a conference call with reporters.
"Manufacturers frequently alter ingredients, again without anyone knowing what they are consuming," Deyton said. "This law requires the FDA to carefully examine the impact those changes, or new products, may have on the public health."
The FDA issued guidance to the industry yesterday about how to submit products for review.
A spokesman for Henrico County-based Altria Group Inc. said the company was studying the guidelines and plans to submit comments to the FDA during a public comment period. The company had no comment Wednesday on the possible business impact of the requirements.
Altria is the parent company of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris USA, and the largest smokeless tobacco maker, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.
"This guidance is certainly more restrictive than any tobacco company anticipated when the FDA initially began regulating tobacco and appears to be more restrictive than the underlying statute contemplates," said Ashley L. Taylor Jr., a partner with Troutman Sanders who heads the law firm's tobacco team.
"For example, on their face, the new guidelines will require that certain changes made by virtually every company to its cigarettes in response to state 'fire-safe' laws must now seek FDA approval for such changes when the companies were simply following the underlying state law requirements," he said.
Taylor said the firm is encouraging its clients to actively participate in the FDA's comment period as the regulations continue to be shaped.
"The FDA is simply beginning the process to establish the framework it will use in its approval of new products," Christopher Growe, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in St. Louis, said in a note to clients. The "discussion in our view could be characterized as largely procedural."
Under the law, companies can bring a new tobacco product to market or make changes to existing brands if they can show the product is "substantially equivalent" to one already being sold before Feb. 15, 2007. A product that does not meet that requirement could be banned or removed from the market if the FDA finds it poses new public-health concerns.
What constitutes a change in a product is fairly broad under the federal law. It includes changes in ingredients, design, composition and the heating source, FDA officials said.
The purpose of those requirements, Deyton said, is to ensure that new products are not more dangerous to consumers than existing ones. "FDA's involvement does not indicate that these products are safe," he said. "There is no tobacco product that is safe."
Deyton said he believes companies still will be able to make product innovations under the regulations.
Reynolds American Inc., the second-biggest U.S. tobacco company, is reviewing the FDA guidance and has submitted "several applications to date on substantial equivalence" to the agency, David Howard, a spokesman for the North Carolina-based company, told Bloomberg News. Howard said the specifics of the submissions were proprietary.
One major tobacco-control group said the requirements are an important step for public health. It also will be significant because the FDA will collect information about tobacco product ingredients and design, and how companies change them over time.
"As a result of the bright spotlight of FDA scrutiny, tobacco companies will no longer be able to secretly manipulate their products in ways that make them more addictive and appealing," the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said in a statement.
Deyton said about 200 people are now working at the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, which was created in late 2009. The center is still hiring, but it has "sufficient staff" now to handle the review process, he said.
Under the law, companies also may submit products for FDA approval as "modified risk" products that might be less risky to health. The FDA is still developing its guidelines for that approval pathway.
Alta. seizes millions of illegal cigarettes
About 75,000 cartons of cigarettes suspected to be contraband were seized Wednesday in central Alberta.
The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission and the RCMP said they found the 14 million cigarettes after executing a search warrant at a Quonset hut near Ponoka.
Federal customs officials are also involved in the investigation.
The cigarette packages are not marked for legal sale in the province, said Hobbema RCMP Const. Perry Cardinal.
"You're talking about $3 million in lost tax revenue to the province of Alberta," Cardinal said. "Those agencies will conduct their investigation … and find a point of origin and what not of these tobacco products."
The investigation is still underway. No charges have yet been laid.
The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission and the RCMP said they found the 14 million cigarettes after executing a search warrant at a Quonset hut near Ponoka.
Federal customs officials are also involved in the investigation.
The cigarette packages are not marked for legal sale in the province, said Hobbema RCMP Const. Perry Cardinal.
"You're talking about $3 million in lost tax revenue to the province of Alberta," Cardinal said. "Those agencies will conduct their investigation … and find a point of origin and what not of these tobacco products."
The investigation is still underway. No charges have yet been laid.
Monday, January 10, 2011
FDA's Middle Road
For all the polemics surrounding FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco, it is precisely last week's move by Star Scientific Inc. that buoys tobacco manufacturers about the future of their business but also stokes their starkest concern.
Star Scientific, best known for its Stonewall products, will submit an application of approval under the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act of 2009 to market Stonewall Moist-BDL as a modified-risk tobacco product. (Click here for previous CSP Daily News coverage.)
The terms are technical, but the impact is great for those banking their future on ultra-low carcinogenic products. While most retail operators and tobacco manufacturers opposed empowering the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products, a number of non-cigarette makers muted their opposition in 2008-09.
Their restraint rested with insider appreciation and years of testing that showed moist smokeless, snus and the nascent wave of oral tobacco products produce significantly less tobacco-specific notrosamines (TSNAs), which scientists cite as one of the leading cancer-causing agents in tobacco leaf and smoke.
A few years ago, a leading OTP manufacturer told me, "I can't support FDA oversight. I don't believe in it, and there are too many 'ifs' that could harm my business. But if the FDA does eventually gain jurisdiction, you can bet that we're going to seek classification as a reduced-harm or reduced-risk product."
And that's the holy grail for not only Star Scientific, but many of the cigarette and OTP companies. This explains why these businesses are collectively investing tens of millions of dollars to pioneer new, smoke-free lines that aim to radically reshape the tobacco industry over the next five to eight years.
Star Scientific chairman and president Paul Perito said it right: "It is clear that the means are available for all tobacco companies to reduce well-established toxins in the tobacco they use in manufacturing."
What the tobacco companies are waiting for is to see if the FDA will recognize and establish a tiered approach that modifies the kind of warnings issued on every unit of tobacco. Will the agency publicly acknowledge that dissolvable products are "less bad" or "less dangerous" for consumers?
"We're not looking for them to say it's 'better for you'," one tobacco maker told me. "But we also don't want them to say that all tobacco is equally bad for you. And that's where we are today."
FDA's Dilemma
Asked specifically about Star Scientific's planned application, the FDA's tobacco division--the Center for Tobacco Products, led by Dr. Lawrence Deyton--offered a careful response. "On the question about modified-risk products, FDA is not going to speculate about a possible product submission," Kathleen Quinn told CSP Daily News in an email.
"However," said Quinn, acting director of the Center's Office of Health Communication & Education, "modified risk is a provision in the Tobacco Control Act, which outlines a path for manufacturers to legally market a product. Should a company present a modified risk tobacco product to FDA, the agency will evaluate it."
Not surprisingly, the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products walks a delicate tightrope. Empowered by Congress to regulate tobacco, the center has been bombarded by anti-tobacco advocates to ban menthol, to uphold and intensify current marketing restrictions and, essentially, take necessary steps to drastically cut consumption of any and all tobacco products.
These groups assert that any effort by the FDA to establish various grades of risk is no different than the FDA giving its seal of approval for consumers to ingest products inherently bad for them.
At the same time, realpolitik suggests that tobacco is a critical cash cow to city, state and federal coffers; is the funding backbone of the children's health program, SCHIP; employs directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions; and is a vital industry in parts of the country, from the Carolinas to the Appalachians.
Pro-tobacco advocates received a boost last week when one of their staunchest critics resigned from the FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), which will be hearing evidence this week about menthol and is expected to issue a recommendation by March. Gregory N. Connelly resigned from the panel, accusing it of being too cautious in attacking menthol and nicotine, according to media reports.
His reaction should not come as a surprise--and should calm the waters among retailers who might reflexively castigate anything government related.
Expect the FDA to tread cautiously when it comes to new arenas of tobacco innovation; that it may very well deliver a middle-road recipe that permits some new forms of tobacco to enter the marketplace, but with restrictions that will be cumbersome but not unworkable.
Star Scientific, best known for its Stonewall products, will submit an application of approval under the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act of 2009 to market Stonewall Moist-BDL as a modified-risk tobacco product. (Click here for previous CSP Daily News coverage.)
The terms are technical, but the impact is great for those banking their future on ultra-low carcinogenic products. While most retail operators and tobacco manufacturers opposed empowering the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products, a number of non-cigarette makers muted their opposition in 2008-09.
Their restraint rested with insider appreciation and years of testing that showed moist smokeless, snus and the nascent wave of oral tobacco products produce significantly less tobacco-specific notrosamines (TSNAs), which scientists cite as one of the leading cancer-causing agents in tobacco leaf and smoke.
A few years ago, a leading OTP manufacturer told me, "I can't support FDA oversight. I don't believe in it, and there are too many 'ifs' that could harm my business. But if the FDA does eventually gain jurisdiction, you can bet that we're going to seek classification as a reduced-harm or reduced-risk product."
And that's the holy grail for not only Star Scientific, but many of the cigarette and OTP companies. This explains why these businesses are collectively investing tens of millions of dollars to pioneer new, smoke-free lines that aim to radically reshape the tobacco industry over the next five to eight years.
Star Scientific chairman and president Paul Perito said it right: "It is clear that the means are available for all tobacco companies to reduce well-established toxins in the tobacco they use in manufacturing."
What the tobacco companies are waiting for is to see if the FDA will recognize and establish a tiered approach that modifies the kind of warnings issued on every unit of tobacco. Will the agency publicly acknowledge that dissolvable products are "less bad" or "less dangerous" for consumers?
"We're not looking for them to say it's 'better for you'," one tobacco maker told me. "But we also don't want them to say that all tobacco is equally bad for you. And that's where we are today."
FDA's Dilemma
Asked specifically about Star Scientific's planned application, the FDA's tobacco division--the Center for Tobacco Products, led by Dr. Lawrence Deyton--offered a careful response. "On the question about modified-risk products, FDA is not going to speculate about a possible product submission," Kathleen Quinn told CSP Daily News in an email.
"However," said Quinn, acting director of the Center's Office of Health Communication & Education, "modified risk is a provision in the Tobacco Control Act, which outlines a path for manufacturers to legally market a product. Should a company present a modified risk tobacco product to FDA, the agency will evaluate it."
Not surprisingly, the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products walks a delicate tightrope. Empowered by Congress to regulate tobacco, the center has been bombarded by anti-tobacco advocates to ban menthol, to uphold and intensify current marketing restrictions and, essentially, take necessary steps to drastically cut consumption of any and all tobacco products.
These groups assert that any effort by the FDA to establish various grades of risk is no different than the FDA giving its seal of approval for consumers to ingest products inherently bad for them.
At the same time, realpolitik suggests that tobacco is a critical cash cow to city, state and federal coffers; is the funding backbone of the children's health program, SCHIP; employs directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions; and is a vital industry in parts of the country, from the Carolinas to the Appalachians.
Pro-tobacco advocates received a boost last week when one of their staunchest critics resigned from the FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), which will be hearing evidence this week about menthol and is expected to issue a recommendation by March. Gregory N. Connelly resigned from the panel, accusing it of being too cautious in attacking menthol and nicotine, according to media reports.
His reaction should not come as a surprise--and should calm the waters among retailers who might reflexively castigate anything government related.
Expect the FDA to tread cautiously when it comes to new arenas of tobacco innovation; that it may very well deliver a middle-road recipe that permits some new forms of tobacco to enter the marketplace, but with restrictions that will be cumbersome but not unworkable.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Cigarettes and Marijuana, Why Are Cigarettes Legal?
Millions of people smoke cigarettes. It is unfortunate that I happen to be part of this statistic. Being a smoker, we know the dangers that come with smoking. We know that we can develop serious lung and throat problems or cancer.
Most smokers though, don't know some of the products that are in the cigarette they are smoking. Let's start by naming nicotine. Nicotine is probably the only ingredient in a cigarette that a person will remember. There are cigarettes which have low nicotine level, for example there is Winston White cigarettes with Nicotine volume: 0.1 mg. It is the most addictive substance in the tobacco. There is more to a cigarette than nicotine and tobacco. For instance if you smoke did you know that you are smoking ammonia, acetone, benzene(used as a solvent in fuels), and carbon monoxide. There's a list of ingredients that go on for days. Can you imagine actually bringing a flame near those ingredients.
You might blow up! So tell me something, why are they legal? I mean, I understand that alcohol can kill you but thats only due to being too intoxicated or getting behind the wheel. The purpose of the drinking age is to make sure that more mature people who should understand their limits can drink but young kids who just want to party can't. Even now though, adults do not know their limits or they just don't follow the rules. There are many deaths caused by driving while intoxicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)