Letter to Editor: Tobacco Control

Dear Editor:

I am proud to live in VT, a state taking action on expanding health care access and improving the medical care that its residents receive. Every time I read a story about health care reform, it discusses the importance of prevention and how we must act now to save health care dollars later.

If prevention is so important, why has the Governor proposed to level fund the tobacco control program for fiscal year '09, and to make matters worse the program stands to lose $500,000 this fiscal year. The governor has proposed to strike language from a bill that was passed last year. This funding was intended to enhance smoking cessation services at Federally Qualified Health Centers, Clinics for the Uninsured and Mental Health Centers in Vermont and increase access to over-the-counter medication to help Vermonters quit smoking. The Governor's budget is also taking nearly $8 million dollars away from the tobacco trust fund. This does not make good fiscal sense. Tobacco related disease continues to be the #1 cause of preventable death and disease.

The CDC estimates that Vermont's annual smoking attributable Medicaid expenditures are $72 million. From 2002 to 2006, Vermont has seen a 15% relative reduction in adult prevalence of tobacco use. This decrease in prevalence is saving Vermont $4-5 Million a year in Medicaid costs alone. This is PREVENTION.

Tobacco settlement dollars need to go towards prevention and cessation programs.

Thank you,
Michael F Wolik
Vermont

What is your state doing with Tobacco Settlement Money?
Some states are building Golf Courses with this money?

Can you imagine this? you don't have to.. because it is happening.
Big Tobacco Gives out money because their product causes disease and kills.
In my eyes The Tobacco Money is an apology fee. This is a product that you and I are addicted to.

This money should be used for Cessation Practices and Prevention..
Not Golf Courses or Fixing other aspects throughout your State.

And Big Tobacco Laughs @ what we are doing with the money.

Altria eyes UST, but price in question

Fri Feb 1, 2008 6:32pm EST Brad Dorfman and Jessica Hall

CHICAGO/PHILADELPHIA, Feb 1 (Reuters) - A long anticipated deal by Altria Group Inc (MO.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to buy smokeless tobacco company UST Inc (UST.N: Quote, Profile, Research) could be reached within months, but the price remains the toughest sticking point, sources familiar with the potential deal said on Friday.

UST shares closed 5.8 percent higher on Friday amid market speculation a deal was looming, analysts and investors said. Altria stock shed 0.5 percent.

UST and Altria declined to comment.

Altria, which last year spun off Kraft Foods Inc (KFT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and plans to spinoff its Philip Morris International unit on March 28, has been seen for years as poised to make an acquisition in the smokeless tobacco market.

"The writing is on the wall, and has been on the wall for years, that this was the inevitable combination," said one consumer investment banker, who declined to be named.

"Altria has made no secret of its intentions for the smokeless market. But Altria had a lot of steps to make before they could make a move. Of course, in that time, UST's prize smokeless business has deteriorated some," the banker said.

UST recently posted a 1.4 percent rise in fourth-quarter profits, but suffered a decline in market share for its core smokeless tobacco business.

UST, which makes Skoal and Copenhagen tobaccos, is facing increasing competition from Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Altria's Philip Morris USA unit.

Reynolds bought the Conwood smokeless tobacco business in 2006 and Philip Morris has been test-marketing a smokeless tobacco under the Marlboro brand. Buying UST, however, would give Altria an instant boost in that market to help diversify its revenue, analysts said.

"What's the quickest way to build share in smokeless tobacco? Just buy UST," said Morningstar analyst Gregg Warren.

Uncertainty remains, however, about how much of a premium UST's brands such as Copenhagen and Skoal can command over lower-priced competitors in the long-term, he said,

UST has been spending money on promotions to try to keep its customers from defecting to lower-priced brands by lessening the price gap between its products and competitor's brands in specific markets without actually cutting the list price.

UST, which has a market capitalization of $8.1 billion, would be a small acquisition for Altria, which boasts a market capitalization of $159.6 billion.

Fueling speculation Altria could be readying for a deal was the decision to announce only $20.5 billion worth of share buybacks, combined, by Altria and Philip Morris International. Analysts had said the the company had the balance sheet for much greater buybacks if management chose.

Altria Chief Executive Louis Camilleri said on Wednesday the amount of the repurchases was reached to leave the companies with financial flexibility.

"I think it's very important and history has taught us that we should have flexibility and financial wherewithal to be able to respond to opportunities," Camilleri said.

Previously, Camilleri has said that much of Altria's U.S. growth will come from an "adjacency strategy," where the company focuses on non-cigarette products, like smokeless tobacco.

In addition to the spike in UST's stock price, options trading also surged on Friday.

"After seeing share price declines and put buying for much of this week in UST on grounds that Altria is making more aggressive moves in the American chewing tobacco market, today we observed a 10 percent spike in UST's implied volatility," said Rebecca Engmann Darst, an equity options analyst at Interactive Brokers Group.

The "gain in UST's share price and call buying on Friday at strikes at $55 and $60 in February and March tell us that traders are looking for further gain in share prices," Darst added.

UST shares closed at $55, up $3.04 on the New York Stock Exchange. Altria shares closed at $75.44, down 38 cents, on the NYSE.

Site Link

Columnists:
Reduced harm tobacco - is it just smoke and mirrors?

So long as the market logic rewards higher sales of the product that kills, nobody will believe in the counter-intuitive case for the socially responsible tobacco company, suggests Mallen Baker
The debate on socially responsible tobacco has not moved on much in the last six years since BAT produced its first CSR report.

At that time, I wrote that the real test was on product harm reduction - and that remains the message today. What progress have we seen in whether the promise of reduced harm products is any closer?

When I first noted the amount of investment that companies like BAT and Philip Morris said they were sinking into reduced harm products, I very much envisaged a smokeable product that was genetically engineered or chemically altered to reduce the numbers of harm-causing chemicals.

However, in the last couple of years the focus of attention has moved to an alternative product - the Swedish tobacco pouch known as snus.

Site Link

Bolton

Some Campuses Decide Tobacco Company Money Is ‘Tainted’

By ALAN FINDER
Published: February 4, 2008

Officials at the University of Texas business school in Austin became uneasy when they realized that a reliable donor to student activities — the parent company of the tobacco maker Philip Morris — wanted a more prominent role in sponsoring events, and more interaction with students.

So the school decided two months ago to draw a line, and refuse all tobacco money for student groups, as well as for faculty research.

“What it came down to for us was the ethical dimension,” said George W. Gau, dean of the Texas school, the McCombs School of Business. “The leadership of the school felt that in some sense it was tainted money, that it is money gotten from a product that is significantly harming people.”

Across academia, universities and graduate schools are wrestling with whether to accept financing from tobacco companies for research or student activities. In the past few years, 15 public health and medical schools have turned away donations from the industry; McCombs’ move was unusual because of its longstanding ties to an array of corporations.

But on some campuses, faculty who get tobacco money for research grants have led pitched battles over proposed bans. Last spring, because of such faculty opposition, Stanford University and regents of the University of California system rejected prohibitions on tobacco dollars.

Many faculty members argued that the restrictions would infringe on academic freedom and lead to fights over money from other potentially controversial sources, like liquor, pharmaceutical or oil companies. They said that even if tobacco companies financed research, professors would guard their independence and not permit the companies to influence their results.

“We take funding from corporations, from the Department of Defense, from many, many sources, but ultimately the responsibility for the science belongs to the faculty member who did the science,” said Robert C. Dynes, president of the University of California system.

The California Board of Regents decided in September that rather than ban tobacco money, it would require research financed by tobacco companies to be approved by the chancellor on each campus.

The origins of the movement to ban tobacco money are traced to Australia, where nearly 20 universities stopped accepting money from the industry during the 1990s, said Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco medical school. Dr. Glantz was among the prime proponents of a tobacco ban in the California university system.

Universities also received a nudge from the American Legacy Foundation, a nonprofit group created as part of a $206 billion settlement in 1998 of a lawsuit filed by 46 states against the tobacco industry. The foundation, dedicated to reducing tobacco use, awards research and other grants to universities, but only if the unit of the university seeking financing does not accept tobacco money.

The medical school at Emory University and the public health schools at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, Louisiana State and the Universities of Arizona, Iowa and North Carolina have also banned tobacco money.

Proponents of bans often argue that universities should stop accepting tobacco money not only because of the public health impact of smoking, but because of what they view as the industry’s misuse of scientific research to confuse consumers about the risks of smoking and second-hand smoke.

“The argument for rejecting funding is that the tobacco industry has a 50-plus-year history of a corrupting influence on medical research,” said Dr. Michael J. Thun, the chief of epidemiological research at the American Cancer Society.

Philip Morris says the money it donates for research is given with no strings attached.

“When we make those grants, the control of the grant is by the researchers, and we ask them to publish their results and to make sure to make public that we funded it,” said Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris U.S.A., the largest tobacco company in the United States. “We think that the research we’ve funded has contributed to the base of scientific knowledge.” He declined to disclose how much the company spends on research grants.

Philip Morris is currently financing one research project at the University of Texas at Austin, a three-year, $455,000 effort to study how certain toxic compounds in cigarette smoke react with DNA, causing damage that can lead to cancer. Jennifer S. Brodbelt, a chemist who is a researcher on the study, said the company has had no role in the research.

“We are all struggling to maintain our research programs,” Dr. Brodbelt said. “If we can find new sources to support meritorious research, I say let’s make the most of it.”

Some of the nearly $150,000 that Philip Morris or its parent company, the Altria Group, gave to the McCombs school in recent years helped support two research centers. But most of the money went to student groups and activities, from the Hispanic Business Students Association to a conference on women in business leadership.

Because Philip Morris recruits employees from the business school — an activity not affected by the ban — it wants to support student events and educational programs, said Mr. Phelps, the company spokesman. The company donates money for similar activities at several dozen colleges and universities, he said.

But department chairmen and deans at the business school had become uncomfortable with the company’s role, and in particular its desire for more interaction with undergraduates. Some wondered whether giving the company more prominence on campus would suggest that the university was in some way endorsing it, said Dr. Gau, the dean.

Paula C. Murray, associate dean for undergraduate programs at McCombs, was among those who pushed for the ban. “We know the product is deadly,” she said. “We know it causes cancer. And we know that the younger you start smoking, the more likely you will find it hard to quit. With two-thirds of our undergraduates under 21, to me it’s a no-brainer.”

“Just because it’s green,” Ms. Murray added, “we don’t have to take it.”

Site Link

Whether Here or There, Cigarettes Still Kill People
The Wall Street Journal- Letter to the Editor
Feb. 4, 2008
By John R. Seffrin

Despite Philip Morris's corporate social-responsibility push in the U.S.,
the company hasn't changed its business practices ("Philip Morris Readies
Global Tobacco Blitz," page one, Jan. 29). By spinning off Philip Morris
International and pushing its new products into developing nations, the
company will achieve one thing not stated in its business plans: an
increase in the number of tobacco-related deaths world-wide.

Tobacco was the cause of approximately 100 million deaths in the last
century and is projected to be responsible for one billion deaths
world-wide this century. Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of
death in the world. Its use is associated with 15 types of cancer, as well
as heart and lung diseases, and there simply is no demonstrably safe way to
smoke or chew tobacco.

It is disturbing that PMI plans to introduce new products, including one
with higher nicotine levels, into developing countries. Nicotine is
addictive, and higher nicotine content will make it even easier for youth
to be addicted and harder for smokers who want to quit to do so. Addicted
children and adults may help PMI's bottom line, but they will hurt the
bottom line of countries around the world as smoking-related illnesses are
costly and claim entirely too many lives.

The planned spinoff of PMI may be good news for shareholders, but it will
allow the company to duck regulators and introduce ever-more addictive and
harmful products, and that is very bad news for everyone else.

John R. Seffrin, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
American Cancer Society
Atlanta

I'll play the devil's advocate. I don't think tobacco should be illegal. If people want to get addicted and smoke tobacco and die, who are we to stop them?

I'm not in favor of prohibition either. It didn't work with alcohol, doesn't work with drugs and wouldn't work with tobacco. However, I am encouraged to see this country move toward reducing tobacco use. It is so refreshing to be able to go to a restaurant or bar and not inhale a week's worth of second hand smoke.

In all of these articles and posts Prohibition of Tobacco is not mentioned.
Gaius Has so kindly created an argument in fear that I was trying to take away his freedom.

GP, something we agree on.

More government interference in our lives is NEVER the answer. People make decisions, right or wrong, and it's up to the people to reap the benefits of those decisions or pay the consequences of them.

Check out This Link:

http://tobaccofreekids.org/

In the left hand column at the bottom there is "The Tobacco Toll, Find out what tobacco has done to your state!"
What is Tobacco like in your State?

Here is my State :

Tobacco Use in Vermont
High school students who smoke: 17.9% (6,600)
Male high school students who use smokeless or spit tobacco: 13.1% (females use much lower)
Kids (under 18) who become new daily smokers each year: 800
Kids exposed to secondhand smoke at home: 42,000
Packs of cigarettes bought or smoked by kids each year: 1.3 million
Adults in Vermont who smoke: 18.0% (88,200)

Deaths in Vermont From Smoking
Adult nonsmokers who die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke: 900
Kids now under 18 and alive in Vermont who will ultimately die prematurely from smoking: 12,000
Adults, children, & babies who die each year from others' smoking (secondhand smoke & pregnancy smoking): 40 to 130

Smoking-Caused Monetary Costs in Vermont
Annual health care costs in Vermont directly caused by smoking: $233 million
- Portion covered by the state Medicaid program: $72 million
Residents' state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures: $629 per household
Smoking-caused productivity losses in Vermont: $197 million

Tobacco Industry Influence in Vermont
Annual tobacco industry marketing expenditures nationwide: $13.4 billion
Estimated portion spent for Vermont marketing each year: $28.2 million

Oh My God!!! 28.2 Million Spent on Tobacco Marketing in My State Alone?
We don't even grow it!

What is Tobacco like in your State?

Ironic, Bowhunt, for someone who thinks the government oughta limit a woman's right to choose.

wolik,
I have not been very responsive to you and I apologize. I have been slammed at work the past couple of days. I will soon, though. I will share my opinions (everyone on the board prolly sees that as a threat! ) regarding this topic. In the meantime, I did scroll past this article while eating. Check this out:

Tobacco Could Kill 1 Billion by 2100

Nothing like a little legal drug to help out with population control. Meanwhile, people keep getting thrown in jail for Mary Jane. The world is upside down.

Ever wonder the hold smokeless tobacco has on the political scene? How about in 1966, a warning label was put on cigarettes. Warning of the "possible" dangers of cigarettes. It took another 20 years to get those warnings put on smokeless tobacco.

Tomorrow I will attend the funeral of my uncle. After being a lifelong smoker, he lost his battle with cancer on Tuesday.

One is suicide while the other is murder. Big difference.

My condolences to you and your family.

Can you imagine if Abortions were addictive and Clinics spent billions of dollars each year trying to get you to come in and have one..
Wait a second that thought is sickening so How much does big tobacco spend on selling suicide?:

"Annual tobacco industry spending on marketing its products nationwide: $13.4 billion ($36+ million each day)" - TobaccoFreeKids.org

Me too ODT, hang in there bro.

Appreciated y'all. The ceremony was nice all things considered. The local VFW hall provided an honor guard, flag ceremony, taps, bagpipes and "21 gun" salute (uncle Glen was a Korean war vet). Lots of food and fellowship followed in the small country church where I spend many summers growing up. Renewed old friendships and strengthened family ties. Don't let your family slip by. My uncle was given 6-8 months 2 weeks ago, then died last week. We never know the amount of time laid out for us. Make amends with any family where there is strife. Enjoy life. Give support where you can.

wolik,
I stumbled across this today. I think it probably applies to dipping as well. Amazing, the power of the human body, to purge and heal, if we allow it to do so.


What happens to your body if you stop smoking right now.

My favorite uncle died from cigarettes when he was 54, 2 years younger than I am now. Yet, moron that I was, I dipped another 20 years before I finally tossed my last can. Before that, my grandfather (his dad) died at age 72 of lung cancer from cigarettes.

My father was "lucky," he quit smoking at about age 67 and never got cancer. He had a stroke about six years after quitting when his clogged carotid artery became blocked as a result of all those years of smoking. He spent the last 6 years of his life unable to speak, walk, or use his right arm as a resident in a nursing home. I dipped another year after he died. (His dad, my other grandfather, lived to be 103 and never smoked.)

I was just looking at www.tobaccofreekids.com and I found out something that I already knew...Montana has the highest rate of kids using chew at 22.8% and that does not change as adults, it is not quite as high, but it is still more than double smoking. The thing that amazes me is seeing these pics of guys who have died from smoking and chewing, or are horribly disfigured due to the cancer, yet my great uncle smoked until the day he died at 99, my grandfather smoked until he was in his late 70's and still lived to be 91. I have to wonder if most of this is a mindset. Back then they were not worried about cancer, now that it is on our minds we seem to be more affected by cancer, heart problems, etc... Granted I no longer want to put this theory to the test, it is just something that I have thought about for a number of years.

Some of it must be genetics. My maternal grandfather died of lung cancer around 72, his youngest son at around 54.

My dad smoked into his mid-60s, then had a stroke at 73 or so and died 6 years later. I believe the stroke was smoke-related. My paternal grandfather never smoked and lived to be 103 (his dad only made 96). However, my grandfather dipped snuff until his mid 90s - not the stuff we dipped but the fine powder type.

Weather it is genetics or by God's good graces I am just happy that I have not come down with any of the problems that nicotine causes. I would rather not try those theories.

I agree. But I've said several times that I still wouldn't go back to dip even if I were given an ironclad guarantee that I would never suffer any ill effects from tobacco and that UST promised to give me free Copendoodle for the rest of my life.

The sheer joy that I have from being free from the can after decades of slavery is too grand to throw away. In the past, my first consideration in accepting an invitation anywhere or planning any activity was if I'd have ample opportunity to feed the nicotine slave master that ruled my life. Now, I can say yes if it's something I want to do or with people I enjoy (as long as I'm free to go, of course).

I just sent this to my sister!
she is planning to end her slavery soon.
thank-you Bro!!

mw

It states that after 10 years, your rate of getting lung cancer is that of a non-smoker. I wonder what the rates are of one who quit using smokeless. Is the time frame about the same? Anybody have some insight?

Campaign aims at preventing spit tobacco use
By The Montana Standard Staff - 02/14/2008

The Montana Tobacco Use Prevention Program kicks off “Through with Chew Week” Feb. 17-23, an annual observance of activities designed to prevent and reduce spit tobacco addiction.

As a special incentive, the program will offer through the free Montana Tobacco Quit Line six weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy, including lozenges, the patch and gum.

The state’s spit tobacco use rate is one of the nation’s highest, largely because 12 percent of Montana men use spit tobacco, statistics show.

“What is more alarming, 22 percent of Montana 12th grade boys use spit tobacco,” said Ben Pezdark, tobacco prevention specialist with the Butte-Silver Bow County health department. “Our surveys show that more than half of Montana high school students do not believe that spit tobacco users risk significant health damage.” Spit tobacco causes oral, esophageal, stomach cancer and tooth and gum diseases.

Gina Evans, another tobacco prevention specialist, said people “who believe spit tobacco is a safe alternative to cigarettes are sadly mistaken.” The following activities are planned in conjunction with the week: Anaconda At the Subway, where Don Tweed is manager, a six-inch sandwich will be given away for each mostly full can of chew turned in on Tuesday, Feb. 19.

Butte Montana Tech’s Digger football team will be at Great Harvest bakery 3 to 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 20, promoting “Through with Chew Week.” A loaf of bread will be given away for each can of chew, mostly full, turned in.

Deer Lodge At the Yak Yak Coffee house, each mostly full can of chew brought in will bring a homemade baked treat on Thursday, Feb. 21.

Live radio remotes are planned from all three locations.

‘Spit Out’ day set Feb. 21 The Great American Spit Out, a day designated to encourage spit tobacco users to quit, is Thursday, Feb. 21.

People may call the Quit Line, which provides free nicotine replacement therapy and coaches who help callers develop individual quit plans. The toll-free number: (800) QUIT-NOW (784-8669).

For more information, call Ben Pezdark or Gina Evans, tobacco prevention specialists, at 497-5044 and 497-5003.

Site Link

Crunch Take a Stand and Say "No Thanks, Big Tobacco"
02/16/08 - American Hockey League (AHL) Syracuse Crunch

The Syracuse Crunch announced today that after previously receiving funding from a smokeless tobacco company, they have adopted a "No Thanks, Big Tobacco" policy to refuse tobacco company advertising, sponsorship, or promotion in the future.

In honor of their decision, Tobacco-Free Onondaga County and Reality Check, a youth empowerment program, will recognize the Crunch before the 7:30 p.m. game against Rochester. Reality Check teens will present a plaque to Jim Sarosy, Syracuse Crunch Senior Vice President, and a Crunch player, thanking them for efforts to protect the health of our community during an on-ice ceremony, emceed by Clear Channel HOT 107.9's Jus Mic.

More than 80 organizations and events in Onondaga County have signed these "No Thanks, Big Tobacco" policies, which are part of an initiative to decrease the social acceptability of tobacco in Onondaga County and across New York State. Youth get very mixed messages: they receive anti-tobacco education in schools, but they see tobacco promotion throughout the community, signs in retail stores, smoking in movies, and sponsorship at local organizations and events.

"The Syracuse Crunch are pleased to have the opportunity to give back to the community which has provided such strong support for the team over the years," said Crunch Senior Vice President, Jim Sarosy. "Signing the 'No Thanks, Big Tobacco' policy is another way for the Crunch to show our commitment to the health of our fans."

Big Tobacco companies spend more than $13 billion per year in promoting their products. These marketing strategies are a more powerful influence than peer pressure on children's likelihood to smoke. Young people are particularly susceptible to tobacco marketing, which more than doubles the odds that children under 18 will become tobacco users.

"Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of death in the United States," said Dr. Cynthia Morrow, Onondaga County Commissioner of Health. "I commend the Syracuse Crunch for being a role model for youth in Onondaga County."

Kara Williams from Tobacco-Free Onondaga County reports that almost 90% of adult smokers started before they were 18. "As much as one third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable to tobacco company marketing efforts," says Williams, "so we encourage other sports teams, community events, and agencies to take this simple action to protect the health of our children and community."

Tobacco-Free Onondaga County, a Coalition of local organizations and individuals funded by the New York State Department of Health, is working to create a healthy and tobacco-free community.

The Crunch's next game is Saturday, February 16 vs. Rochester at the War Memorial at Oncenter at 7:30 p.m. Tickets can be purchased by calling the Crunch office at (315) 473- 4444, stopping by the Oncenter Box Office, located on the State Street side of the War Memorial or by calling TicketMaster at (315) 472-0700.

Site Link

Head to Head: On Snus

Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements? No
BMJ 2008;336:359 (16 February) Bristol - Alexander W Macara, president, National Heart Forum

Use of snus is less harmful than smoking and John Britton thinks that doctors should suggest it to people who are unable to give up cigarettes. But Alexander Macara argues that it could result in increased use of tobacco

The use of smokeless tobacco products—–notably snus—has suddenly become controversial. Reasons for this include publicity by the tobacco industry,1 the introduction in England of a ban on smoking in public places,2 recent interest by major multinational companies in acquiring manufacturers of smokeless tobacco products,3 and the publication of comprehensive reports by a scientific committee of the European Commission4 and the Royal College of Physicians of London.5

Last October the British American Tobacco Company pressed the European Union to reconsider its 1992 ban on snus,1 from which Sweden secured an exemption when it joined the union. Three weeks later the European Parliament called on the commission "to investigate the health risks associated with the consumption of snus and its impact on the consumption of cigarettes."6


What is snus?
Snus is the Swedish word for snuff, which was fashionable to inhale before cigarettes superseded it.

BAT describes snus as "A finely ground moist tobacco, either loose or in tiny sachets—a bit like tiny teabags—that are placed under the upper lip and typically held in the mouth for about 30 minutes before being discarded."1


Health hazards
Epidemiological studies of the effects of snus are often undermined because it is commonly used along with smoked tobacco and alcohol.7 Different lifestyle factors and patterns of use in different countries preclude any Cochrane-style meta-analysis, but the two recent reports summarise the current state of knowledge.4 5

The expert group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that smokeless tobacco is carcinogenic to humans,8 and the European Commission report cites studies by the Swedish Institute of Public Health and the Karolinska Institute as evidence that snus is carcinogenic.9

The obvious entry point to research on snus is the oral cavity. Mucosal changes, known as snus induced lesions or leucoplakia, are inevitable and potentially precancerous with a gradient in severity suggesting a dose response.10 Lesions in the local epithelium are reversible on quitting but gingival retractions are not.

In India, a 10 year follow-up study has shown that oral cancers invariably arise from pre-existing leucoplakia.11 In the US, oral cavity cancer was found in patients who were exclusive users of smokeless tobacco and who had no exposure to alcohol.12 Studies in India, Pakistan, and the Sudan reported large increases in the risk for oral cancers related to the use of various smokeless tobacco products,4 and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has stated, "There is sufficient evidence that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer."8

There is particularly strong evidence of a causal relation between smokeless tobacco and pancreatic cancer, notably from the Swedish construction workers cohort13 and the Lutheran brotherhood cohort in the US.14

The INTERHEART study covering 52 countries showed an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in all forms of tobacco combined.15 A recent follow-up of a large US cohort showed that compared with men who had never used any tobacco product, men who quit tobacco use entirely or switched to smokeless products had significantly higher relative risks of cardiovascular disease, particularly the switchers.16 The EC report concluded that smokeless tobacco has a significant effect on myocardial infarction.4

A cohort study based on the Swedish Birth Registry showed an increased risk of premature birth and pre-eclampsia among snus users compared with non-users of any tobacco.17

Nicotine exposure
Smokeless tobacco delivers quantities of nicotine comparable to those typically absorbed from cigarette smoke and is addictive, although unarguably less so than smoked tobacco. Nicotine levels obtained from snus are about twice as high as those obtained from nicotine replacement therapy, which does not induce dependence.4 Moreover, at least 60% of people who use snus to quit smoking become chronic snus users.4 However, Action on Smoking and Health asks whether snus is the new way to give up smoking.18 The royal college’s report also envisages "harm reduction" by providing safer sources of nicotine, but within the context of a nicotine regulatory authority.5

Citing various experts, the European report argues, "If snus or other STP can provide some of the smokers who cannot otherwise quit smoking with a less hazardous source of nicotine that is acceptable to them, then the use of snus as a harm reduction option deserves consideration . . . if, on the other hand, the availability of snus has little impact on smoking prevalence but adds further tobacco users to the existing population, as appears to have existed in Norway, there would be no benefit but an adverse impact on public health by allowing snus use."4 I fear the second outcome. If legalised, snus might be taken up by people, especially the young, who might never have smoked tobacco but who may then progress to doing so.

BAT admits "smokeless does not mean harmless and the best way to avoid the risks associated with consuming tobacco is not to consume it at all."1 A harm reduction policy could instead lead to harm perpetuation.

The tobacco industry’s constant defence is that tobacco is a legal product. But if we had known before tobacco was ever used, how disastrous it would prove to be, would it not have been banned in all its forms?

Site Link

Head to Head: On Snus

Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements? Yes
BMJ 2008;336:359 (16 February) Bristol - John Britton, professor of epidemiology

Use of snus is less harmful than smoking and John Britton thinks that doctors should suggest it to people who are unable to give up cigarettes. But Alexander Macara argues that it could result in increased use of tobacco

Smoking is the biggest avoidable cause of death and disability,1 and of social inequalities in health,2 in the United Kingdom. Smoking currently kills over 100 000 UK citizens each year,3 predominantly from lung cancer, heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Half of all lifelong smokers die from smoking, typically losing 10 years of life.4 Non-smokers are victims too. Although smoking is prohibited in public and workplaces throughout the UK, smoking in the home remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality through passive exposure, especially in young children.5 Stopping smoking reverses or prevents progression of these problems.

Currently, 77% of UK smokers want to give up smoking, and 78% have tried and failed.6 Of the many reasons why they have not succeeded in quitting, the most important is addiction to nicotine. Cigarettes deliver nicotine to the brain rapidly, and in high doses, achieving arterial concentrations around five to six times those obtained, far more slowly, from conventional nicotine replacement therapy products.7 The repeated high dose hits of nicotine that cigarettes deliver not only reward the smoker directly but also confer rewarding properties on other stimuli arising from smoking and behaviours associated with it.8 The result is a powerful addiction, such that someone who is a regular smoker at 25 has a roughly even chance of still being a smoker at 601—assuming, of course, that they survive that long.

The tragedy is that nicotine addiction itself is not especially hazardous. Nicotine is not harmless,8 but in practice accounts for little if any of the morbidity and mortality caused by smoking. It is the hundreds of other toxins in tobacco smoke, not nicotine, that make smoking so deadly. So if smokers who are unable, unwilling, or simply unlikely to quit were to switch from cigarettes to other, less hazardous sources of nicotine, millions of lives could be saved.

Safer choices

By far the safest alternative is the current range of nicotine replacement products. All reduce the symptoms of withdrawal from smoking and therefore, although marketed and licensed primarily as cessation aids, are also logical long term substitutes for cigarettes. However, because of their low dose and delivery rate they are not highly effective; smokers find them helpful but not satisfying as a cigarette substitute. So it would help if medicinal nicotine products could be developed to mimic the cigarette more closely—delivering high doses, quickly, on demand.

Another, and more controversial, alternative source of nicotine is smokeless tobacco or snuff—tobacco for oral or nasal use. Smokeless tobacco products are all considerably more hazardous than nicotine replacement therapy and some especially so. The Swedish moist tobacco products (known as snus) are among the less hazardous and cause pancreatic cancer, probably cardiovascular disease, and various other health problems.8 9 10 11 12 However, because these risks are all lower for snus than for smoking, and because snus use does not cause lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, snus use is substantially less hazardous than smoking.

Recent data from Sweden, where snus has been available for years, indicate that habitual smokers and young people experimenting with tobacco products have substituted snus for cigarettes, resulting in low levels of smoking.13 14 This suggests that smokeless tobacco is an acceptable smoking substitute for some smokers and therefore snus may be effective in this role in other populations.

Although nicotine replacement therapy is not licensed for use as a long term substitute for smoking, in practice it is common sense for health professionals dealing with smokers who are unable to quit smoking to encourage use of medicinal nicotine products as a substitute for smoking, and prescribe them if necessary. They should strongly advise smokers that the best option would be to quit all nicotine use, and do all they can to support this by encouraging uptake of behavioural therapy supported by nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline in accordance with established clinical guidelines. However, for those who try repeatedly and fail, or for those who are not ready to stop using nicotine, switching to a medicinal nicotine product is the logical next best option. Doctors should encourage this.

Using smokeless tobacco is another matter. In the UK, the only legally available smokeless products are the more hazardous ones because the 1992 Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations prohibit the supply of oral tobacco products that are not intended to be smoked or chewed. Snus is intended to be sucked, so it is illegal for a doctor or anyone else to supply it, although mail order purchase for personal use from a supplier in Sweden is within the law. In my view, as a measure of last resort in smokers who have tried all other cessation and substitution options, doctors would be justified in suggesting an individual trial of snus. Whether this approach will prove effective remains to be seen and desperately needs to be tested in clinical trials. However, while the alternative is equivalent to a form of Russian roulette in which every other chamber of the revolver holds a bullet, pursuing a less hazardous alternative—even this one—surely makes sense.

Site Link

Replies

Snus raises issue of health inequalities - Hugh Whittall, Director Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, WC1B 3JS
I have read with interest the head-to-head articles regarding the use of snus (BMJ 16 February 2007), and welcome the discussion of this important subject. One issue not mentioned in these articles is the potential impact of snus on health inequalities and different ethnic and cultural groups. In its recent report, 'Public health: ethical issues', the Nuffield Council on Bioethics suggested that permitting snus might carry the risk of increasing health inequalities as members of certain ethnic groups who already have a culture of chewing stimulants might more readily take up using this substance. This should be an important consideration for health policy-makers and doctors in this context.

Snus is not a nicotine replacement - Peter Goggin, editor Sausalito, CA 94965
The title of this article is quite misleading ("Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements?"), as Snus is not at all a nicotine replacement. It would be more accurate to ask, "Should doctors advocate snus as an alternative to smoking?"

Site Link

Altria expects growth in Marlboro brand, smokeless products after international unit spinoff
The Associated Press
Published: March 11, 2008

NEW YORK: Altria Group Inc. said Tuesday that it will deal with fewer cigarette sales by capitalizing on its Marlboro brand and selling more smokeless products as it prepares for the spinoff of its international cigarette business.

Altria, which sells Marlboros, Parliaments and Virginia Slims, is preparing to spin off its Philip Morris International business on March 28 to shareholders of record as of March 19.

On its own, Altria will consist of Philip Morris USA, a 28.6 percent stake in Britain-based beer maker SABMiller PLC and the Philip Morris Capital Corp.

In an investor presentation Tuesday, Altria projected that cigarette sales volume will fall between 2.5 percent to 3 percent in the U.S. over the next few years. To deal with this, it has bought cigar maker John Middleton Inc., and introduced Marlboro-branded moist smokeless tobacco and snus, tobacco packets which have long been popular in parts of Europe.

Mike Szymanczyk, who will take over as Altria CEO after the spinoff, said the company plans to build on its already popular Marlboro brand, which is built on "an idea that resonates as well today as when it was created decades ago." Marlboro, recognized by its cowboy image, is the leading cigarette brand in every state in the country, he said.

Philip Morris International will have its headquarters in New York and operations will be run out of its current Lausanne, Switzerland office. Altria will move its headquarters to Richmond, Virginia, but rent office space in its former Park Avenue headquarters in New York City.

Altria will keep trading under the symbol MO, while Philip Morris International is expected to use PM.

The new Altria, without PMI, projected earnings per share would grow 9 percent to 11 percent this year, a slightly lower rate than the 12 percent to 14 percent forecast for Philip Morris International.

The cigarette maker also expects a long-term annual shareholder return of more than 12 percent when combined with its dividend. Earnings-per-share growth over time is expected to be in the range of 8 percent to 10 percent.

Additionally, Altria says it plans to realize $1 billion (€0.65 billion) in annual costs savings from the spin-off, $300 million (€195.07 million) of which was realized in 2007. About $700 million (€455.17 million) in additional savings will be realized by the end of 2011, the company says.

"Going forward, we will do more for less," Szymanczyk said.

He said the company planned a 75 percent dividend payout ratio, with an initial post-spin annualized dividend rate of $1.16 (€.75) a share, and share buybacks worth $7.5 billion (€4.88 billion) over two years.

Philip Morris International reported 2007 gross revenue of $55.1 billion (€35.83 billion), compared PMUSA's $18.49 billion (€12.02 billion).

Altria shares fell 23 cents to $74.51 in morning trading Tuesday.

___

AP Business Writer Sara Lepro in New York contributed reporting.

Site Link

New 'snus' taking on smoking ban
Monday, March 17, 2008 3:07 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

It might have a funny-sounding name, but snus is no laughing matter to activists who led the 2006 campaign to ban smoking from public places across Ohio.

Snus, a nugget of tobacco wrapped in a porous tissue, will be under the lips of thousands of people in central Ohio this year if product launches by three tobacco companies are successful.

The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. started selling Camel Snus in central Ohio in July. Lorillard Tobacco Co. introduced its lower-cost Triumph brand in central Ohio this year, and the Liggett Group is including Columbus among the seven cities in which it plans to test-launch its Grand Prix snus this summer.

Pronounced "snoos," snus is Swedish for snuff, but it differs from conventional American smokeless tobacco in that it is pasteurized rather than fermented and is contained in tea-baglike pouches that are removed without spitting. Higher-end snus, such as the Camel brand, is refrigerated. A tin of snus costs about the same as a pack of cigarettes.

The tide of snus comes about a year after a tough anti-smoking law took effect across Ohio, barring people from lighting up in virtually all public buildings.

R.J. Reynolds acknowledged that the ban, and similar anti-smoking laws in other states, played a role in its decision to market snus. A Lorillard advertisement for Triumph in Ohio also alludes to the smoking ban: "No smoking? No problem."

"If you aren't allowing smoking and you have adults who are choosing to use tobacco products, shouldn't they have an opportunity to use a legal product that doesn't interfere with other people?" asked David P. Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds.

Representatives of the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids held a news conference Wednesday to decry the spread of snus in Ohio. They noted that, while smokeless tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer or emphysema, it is blamed for mouth cancers and heart disease caused by increased heart rates.

"All of these manufacturers are getting into smokeless because they see that cigarette use is decreasing," said Shelly Kiser, director of advocacy for the American Lung Association of Ohio. "This has serious implications for Ohio."

Kiser and Beverly J. May, regional director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the new smokeless products will discourage people from quitting their smoking habits by making it easy to switch to a smoke-free substitute in restaurants, bars and other public places, then return to smoking at home.

Ads for Camel Snus, in fact, note that it can be used on airplanes and in nightclubs and other public places.

Site Link

Smokeless tobacco catches on as U.S. cigarette smoking wanes
Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 - 12:08 AM

With U.S. cigarette smoking waning, competition in smokeless tobacco is smokin.'

The latest example comes from Chesterfield County-based Swedish Match North America, which has introduced its Red Man moist snuff nationally.

The roll-out follows a seven-month test in 11 states, including Virginia. Consumer acceptance was "overwhelming," said Elliot Eliades, the company's chief of new product development.

Cigarette consumption is declining at 1 percent to 3 percent a year, but moist snuff sales have risen about 7 percent to 11 percent each of the past two years.

"The category is growing, and more companies are trying to get a piece of the pie," Eliades said.

That includes the nation's top cigarette maker, Henrico County-based Philip Morris USA, which has made smokeless part of its long-term growth strategy and is test-marketing its own moist snuff brand and another smokeless product called snus.

The companies are using well-established brand names to sell the new smokeless products.

Swedish Match's Red Man has been associated with chewing tobacco since 1887, while Philip Morris is selling its smokeless products using the name of its most popular cigarette brand, Marlboro.

-- John Reid Blackwell

Site Link

WARNING: The Post Below Appears to be an ("Press Release") advertisement put out By Swedish Match

I feel no need to site a fake article that is really an advertisement for tobacco, but i felt that we should know that Redman is now available in a can.. Knowing this before taken by Surprise may help in a stressful tempting situation.. i deleted many links from this post in order to try and keep it informational.. - MW

RICHMOND, VA UNITED STATES: Swedish Match, the fastest growing moist snuff company in the US, announces the launch of Red Man Moist Snuff, the latest product to carry the most recognized brand name in smokeless tobacco.

Newest entry by Swedish Match available nationwide

RICHMOND, Va., March 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Swedish Match, the fastest
growing moist snuff company in the US, announced the launch of Red Man
Moist Snuff, the latest product to carry the most recognized brand name in
smokeless tobacco. This follows a successful test market launch last year
in 11 states, which represented 36% of the moist snuff category volume.
"Consumer acceptance of Red Man Moist Snuff in the test markets was
overwhelming," according to Elliot Eliades, Director of New Product
Development for Swedish Match North America. "Through event marketing,
retail intercept and website driven sampling we accelerated consumer trial
by quickly getting 'cans in hands'. Early awareness scores indicated that
Red Man Moist Snuff created significant consumer buzz."

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080317/NEM011 )

For more than 100 years, Red Man has been one of the most well known
and well respected brand names in the smokeless tobacco category,
representing quality, heritage and tradition. Post test market research
confirms that the brand's authenticity transfers well from loose leaf to
moist snuff. Eliades adds, "This tells us Red Man Moist Snuff will climb
the consumer acceptance curve at an accelerated rate."

Red Man Moist Snuff is produced from a blend of high quality tobacco
and is available in Long Cut Wintergreen, Fine Cut Natural and Long Cut
Straight -- the three most popular flavors in the moist snuff category. The
product also has uniquely original packaging -- embossed metal lids with
metallic side labeling. Each can is stamped with the distinctive Red Man
Indian head logo.

The new moist snuff offers consumers a premium brand with a respectable
price. The national launch of Red Man Moist Snuff is supported by major
print advertising, direct mail, and visually appealing, high impact point
of sale materials, product sampling for adult consumers in adult-oriented
venues, and a co-promotion with Maxim magazine.

About Swedish Match:

Swedish Match is a global Group of companies with a broad assortment of
market leading brands in smokeless tobacco, cigars and pipe tobacco,
matches and lighters. Some of our well known brands include Red Man, Timber
Wolf, Longhorn, Macanudo, Partagas, Cohiba and Borkum Riff. Swedish Match
North America is headquartered in Richmond, VA, with manufacturing
facilities in Owensboro, KY, Dothan, AL, the Dominican Republic, and
Honduras. For more information visit

F-ing a-holes. I got my first dip while in college. A "skoal Rep" came around the dorm and was giving away tins of Bandits. The buzz was very cool to a dweeb like me. Today they still use the addictive nature of the substance to sell product. All they need do is get 'cans in hands'. I simply do not understand why the FDA nicotine as a drug.

Who has received Tobacco Money in your State and Elsewhere?

The Quarterly Campaign Finance update has been posted to the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund website. It includes updated contributions to all federal candidates (Appendices A and B ) as well as summary tables and charts that include contributions to candidates by election cycle by party and total contributions by company. The report includes contributions through the end of February, 2008.

This summary information and information on contributions to individual members can be accessed at: http://tobaccofreeaction.org/contributions/.
Use the state pull-down list on the right to go directly to Members from your state.

Here's an idea I had not considered before: Hide all tobacco products from view!

Shop owners in Ontario, Quebec and a few other provinces must now hide tobacco products from their customers under rules that will cover most of Canada by year-end as the country tries to stamp out smoking by young people.

The provincial governments want to discourage the habit by "de-normalizing" the presence of cigarettes, which typically enjoyed prime placement behind the cash register.

Link to Full Story

While, I too enjoy not having smoke in restaurants, I get really frustrated with the government sticking their noses in the business of these establishments. If I owned a restaurant, it should be my choice on whether or not smoking is allowed. The market will take care of the problem. I don't eat in small places that allow smoking, nor in restaurants that have poor separation between smoking and non smoking sections. The owners of these places don't get my money. If enough people do this, restaurants will change their policies. Unfortunately our government has nothing better to do than baby sit us.

Before my city changed the smoking ordinance, there had only ever been one restaurant in this town of over 50,000 with no smoking - and it closed (due to an unrelated reason). If you wanted to eat out, you breathed someone's secondhand smoke.

The city didn't ban smoking, it just required restaurants to declare themselves smoking or non-smoking. If smoking, they had to provide reasonable ventilation/separation if they provided a non-smoking section.

I only know of a single restaurant in the entire city to declare itself smoking - and that was, of all things, a McDonalds, which projects itself as a family place.

While plenty of people expressed disdain for smoking, they had little choice if the ate out and restaurant owners either didn't care or were afraid to take a chance until they were given an excuse to go non-smoking (reasonable ventilation/separation).

Restaurants are in business to make money, not make customers delighted. Many will ignore certain things (like safety & health) if they can get away with it and others are afraid to go against the tide and risk losing business.

I do not agree that a business owner has the same rights and protections as a private citizen in their own home.

You are right, restaurants are in business to make money. But they won't do that unless they delight the customer. If they are afraid to change, then maybe they should not be in business. They should always want to do what is best for their bottom line.

Business owners absolutely should have the right to choose how to run their businesses. They are the ones risking their money. Tobacco is a legal substance, and, as has already been argued, prohibition probably would not work. If they want to allow customers to smoke, they should be allowed. Is the government going to pay them for any lost business (usually bars are the most negatively affected) when they institute the bans?

Maybe you missed where I stated that not a single restaurant in town was non-smoking. More than once I have seen groups leave upon hearing a restaurant was not smoke free. But nothing changed until pressure was exerted by citizen via the city council.


That sounds... very libertarian but I don't buy it. I've been salaried, non-union, management my entire adult life. Most businesses doesn't care a teeny bit about anyone's health or wellfare if it affects the bottom line. Some will let you and your children die a slow, horrible death as long as they can get money out of your hands. Only a casual study of history proves that. I reject the notion that business owners have a right to invite people into a business and expose them to toxic chemicals.


So far, the restaurant business around here has been booming since the new smoking ordinance - and that includes restaurants with bars. But government doesn't always reimburse businesses for doing the responsible thing. Why should restaurant be treated special?

I don't want the business to care about my health. Nor do I want the government doing so. Frankly that is my job. Apparently either not enough people were speaking with their feet to make a difference or the restaurant owners were just not good business people (Probably a combination of both). I live in a place where smoking is still allowed, in separate sections (Though I believe smaller places are not required to offer non smoking), but there are a fair amount of non-smoking restaurants because owners know this is good for business. There is also a diner right up the road where the air is so thick with smoke, I don't know how anyone breathes. I walked in once and will never go back, but apparently they have the business to stay open, so god bless them. There are plenty of other places that want my money.

I hate the weed as much as you do, don't get me wrong. I hope and pray that fewer and fewer start in with the habit. But the I fear government interference even more. I have rumors of the possibility of people being fined for smoking in their own homes if the smell crosses the property line. Our rights are being taken away left and right.

I suppose we could go on forever without changing each other's minds on this - I've been in a few similar discussions with smokers on other forums. But I still contend that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose and vice versa.

Nobody in their right mind would tolerate people burning any other noxious dried weeds in restaurants or close public quarters except for tobacco. Why should it be treated differently and why should we facillitate just nicotine addicts?

You've got me wrong. I would not stop at tobacco. If I open a place, I've got a choice on whether or not to serve alcoholic drinks. Is there a chance that someone at my restaurant drinks too much and kills someone on the road. Nobody is telling me that I can't serve alcohol. Food allergies are another danger. Should I not serve tin roof sundaes or prawns to prevent people from getting sick.

Like you, I think we can agree to disagree. The best part of being an American is we can have our own opinions.

Oh, and I happen to agree with the original intent of this thread. Tobacco settlement dollars should go to to stopping tobacco usage through education and assistance with cessation programs. It would be nice if something like this site could be partially funded with those dollars

The difference is that I can - and do - go to restaurants that serve liquor/wine/beer and not have my liver or brain affected by the alcohol consumed by people near me. If I'm deathly allergic to sundaes or prawns, I won't be harmed by the lady across from me who consumes either or both. You can offer them, but I'm not forced to buy or eat them.

But having a separate smoking section in the same building is usually like having a designated peeing area in a small pool - nobody has the choice of being unaffected.

Besides, in your restaurant, I'm gussing you aren't serving or selling the cigarette smoke. Unlike anything on the menu, your customers are bringing the smoldering weed with them. Kind of like a person coming to the restaurant barefoot, unbathed, and smelly.

I think that tobacco should be allowed to be advertised, and that the law banning its advertisement is a violation of the First Amendment.


Big Red

Thats right, I said it.


Tobacco is unhealthy and dangerous and should not be sold to kids, but how about we don't violate the first amendment over it?

Big Tobacco’s ‘Other’ Products Catch Fire
Also on the rise is the "cool quotient" of mini cigars, which are not subject to the same level of legal scrutiny as cigarettes.


Just because cigarette sales have been steadily falling in recent years doesn't mean the tobacco industry is going up in smoke.

On the contrary, sales of other tobacco products, such as snuff, snus, roll-your-owns and especially cigars are on the rise, according to a new Harvard University study.

Two years ago, R.J. Reynolds purchased moist snuff manufacturer Conwood. Philip Morris in the past two years has also begun testing snuff and spit-free snus in Dallas and Indianap olis.

Meanwhile, the popularity of mini cigars is exploding among young people, especially in the hip-hop world. In the last eight years, their sales have mushroomed by more than 100 percent, according to the study.

The most popular brand of mini cigar in the hip-hop culture is Black and Mild, a name taken up by several small-time rappers and DJs. In December, Philip Morris purchased the brand from John Viet Middleton Inc.

Researchers attribute the growing demand for the other products partly to the fact that the federal and state governments and the courts don't seem to apply the same level of scrutiny to them as they do cigarettes.

In what the researchers call a "loophole for death," the other products are cheaper due to lower taxes. The federal tax on cigarettes is at least 10 times higher than that for snuff, snus, roll-your-owns and cigars, according to the study.
Also, the leading producer of anti-smoking ads — the American Legacy Foundation — is prohibited by court order from targeting any type of tobacco product other than cigarettes.

The foundation's hands are tied by the terms of a landmark settlement in 1998 between the tobacco industry and 46 states called the Master Settlement Agreement. Part of the $206 billion settlement required the tobacco companies to fund anti-tobacco ads, but the focus was on cigarettes because they were the product being marketed to minors at the time, said Najma Roberts, communications manager for the foundation.

Now, she said, the foundation is stepping up its research of mini cigars to determine whether they should ask the federal government to allow them to train their crosshairs on that tobacco product as well.

"They are big in the urban community, specifically among Hispanics and African Americans," Roberts told Miller-McCune.com. "There's definitely a misconception that they are not as bad as cigarettes."

Meanwhile, Congress is moving ahead on giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products with a bill that in part would outlaw sweet- and spice-flavored cigarettes. Specifically omitted from that ban on "any artificial or natural flavor" is menthol, a flavor especially popular among African-American smokers. The Congressional Black Caucus has protested the exclusion.

In the eight-year Harvard study, which was published in the June 11 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the researchers concluded that the growing demand for the other products has offset by one-third the 18 percent drop in the sale of cigarettes since 2000.

Put another way, even though the sale of cigarettes has fallen by 18 percent in eight years, the sale of all tobacco products in that time has decreased by only 12 percent due to the rising consumption of cigars, snuff, snus and roll-your-owns.
"The apparent magnitude of overall decline in tobacco use in the U.S. may be illusory," the authors of the study said in a statement.

Associate researcher Hillel Alpert, one of the study's two authors, told Miller-McCune.com that he is worried about what seems to be a widespread belief that cigars and the other alternative tobacco products are somehow healthier than cigarettes.

"If somebody were to jump out of a tall building, it doesn't matter whether they jump from the 10th story or the 20th story — it leads to the same result," he said.

In the study — the first of its kind in the U.S. — the researchers attributed the growing demand of the other tobacco products largely to their lower prices. Ever since the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, the largest civil settlement in American history, cigarettes have been heavily taxed but not the other tobacco products.

The researchers urge the federal and state governments to tax the other products equally.

"Lower federal and state taxes on these non-cigarette products are keeping tobacco addiction affordable and encouraging preventable disease and death," professor Greg Connolly, the study's lead researcher and the director of Harvard's Tobacco Control Research and Training Program, said in a statement. "State campaigns to curb tobacco use should address this loophole for death."

Meanwhile, the American Legacy Foundation isn't the only tobacco watchdog that would like to take aim at mini cigars.

Similarly hamstrung is the National Association of Attorneys General, which, although it is allowed to go after tobacco companies for using inappropriate marketing tactics to sell cigarettes, roll-your-owns and smokeless products, is prohibited from going to court over the portrayal of small cigars such as Black and Mild. The association has argued that the "cigars" are erally just cigarettes in disguise.

Because such products are wrapped in tobacco leaf, rather than paper, they fall under the category of cigar and are thus exempt from many restrictions that apply to cigarettes, according to a study from the Baltimore City Health Department. But the study also says that the mini cigars, unlike regular cigars, tend to be inhaled.

Like the American Legacy Foundation, the Association of Attorneys General is trying to change the rules pertaining to mini cigars. It has requested that the federal government broaden its definition of cigarettes to include them but, so far, to no avail, said an attorney with the association who asked that his name not be used because he is not authorized to speak to the press.
Meanwhile, mini cigars are the fastest-growing tobacco product on the market.

In 2000, Americans bought enough cigars to equal 112 million packs of cigarettes. By 2007, that number had jumped to 242 million.

Cigarettes are still by far the biggest seller. In 2007, Americans purchased 17.4 billion packs. The next most prevalent form of tobacco consumption is moist snuff, which in 2007 sold the equivalent of 2.9 billion packs of cigarettes — a 30 percent increase over the amount sold in 2000. The consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has also sharply risen, jumping in that time frame from the equivalent of 281 million packs to 537 million.

The amount of money the tobacco industry spends on marketing has also increased in the past decade. Between 1996 and 2005, the amount spent on smokeless tobacco ads more than doubled, from $121 million to $251 million, according to a report from Tobacco Free Kids. The amount spent on cigarette ads rose in tandem, from $5.1 billion to $13.1 billion, according to the organization.

The meteoric ad budget seems a little counterintuitive, given how the 1998 settlement banned cigarette ads on billboards and how cigarette ads seldom make appearances in newspapers or magazines anymore. Now the ads show up in the form of in-store promotions, coupons and direct mail.

Speaking on behalf of Philip Morris, Greg Mathe, spokesman for parent company Altria, made no bones about the fact that the industry is trying to grow and make money. But he said the tobacco company knows better than to try to target minors.
"We have an adult-only focus," he said.

What's more, he said, the company does not try to pitch any of its products as somehow healthier than others.

"There is no such thing as a safe cigarette," said Mathe, who, when asked, said that he does not use tobacco products. "Tobacco products are harmful. They cause serious diseases and they are addictive."

Link to Article

Our worthless Congress finally did something worthwhile yesterday (well, at least the House side):


House Votes to Regulate Tobacco as a Drug


Have any of you seen the movie, "Thank You For Smoking"? The reason I like this bill is because it is similar to the bill that William H. Macy was pushing in the movie. If passed and made into law, the FDA can force those Rat Bastards at UST to put a picture of a cancerous mouth on the front of the Shitenhagen label. I see that as a very visual kind of truth in advertising!

Thanks Buff!!! I was on my honeymoon when the bill PASSED.. FINALLYYY!!!!