It’s Time to Stop Bogarting Cigarette Stocks

You know you have reached a certain level of immortality when your name becomes a verb, and I can think of no better example than the American actor Humphrey Bogart, perhaps best known for his role in that all-time classic Casablanca. "To Bogart" a cigarette is to leave it dangling sloppily in your mouth, even when speaking, rather than engaging in proper smoking etiquette by giving it a few puffs at a time and then removing it. Over the years, the word has also come to mean to greedily hog something. Today, I would say both meanings of the word are accurate descriptions of investors in tobacco stocks.

Investors are "Bogarting" cigarette stocks by continuing to hold them at current prices. First, a little disclosure is needed. I have been a major fan of sin stocks in general and cigarette stocks in particular for years (see "Not All Sin Stocks are Created Equal" and "Delightfully Sinful Dividend Stocks" as recent examples. But my enthusiasm for Big Tobacco rested on two big assumptions: They are largely despised by both individual and institutional investors due to their pariah status as politically incorrect merchants of death-making them perpetual contrarian value investments. They pay high and growing dividends that are significantly better than what can be found elsewhere among mainstream large-cap stocks.

Unfortunately, I cannot credibly say that either of these conditions still hold. Cigarette stocks have become downright trendy of late as investors have taken to chasing yield in a low-interest-rate world. Let's take a look at Philip Morris International (NYSE:$ PM) , the seller of the iconic Marlboro brand among many others. For years Philip Morris appeared to be the perfect stock. It had access to emerging market growth (roughly half its sales) while benefitting from an American listing and top-notch management. It also paid a dividend far higher than the norm among stable U.S. blue-chip stocks, and that dividend was growing every year.

There's one little problem here: Philip Morris International is still a tobacco company . Its sales may be enjoying a multi-year boost as emerging market smokers trade up from cheaper local competitors to premium Western cigarettes, but worldwide demand for their products is shrinking, and fast. In its most recent quarterly release, Philip Morris International saw its profits fall 6% on lower volume sales. And perhaps worse, the regulatory noose continues to be tightened. Consider Australia's new plain packaging law. All cigarette boxes for all brands now look identical in Australia. Cigarettes must now be sold in logo-free boxes featuring nothing more than graphic pictures of people dying of smoke-related illness.

It's hard to enjoy taking a drag on that cigarette when you're looking at a picture of a gangrenous foot on the package. This does not at all bode well for premium brands like Marlboro. Given that tobacco companies are all but prohibited from advertising, how can a premium brand differentiate itself from the cheaper competition when it sells its cigarettes in an identical box? Australia has adopted the most aggressively anti-tobacco regime in the world in taking this approach, but other countries are catching up in a hurry. Russia, the world's second-largest tobacco market after China, is starting to take tobacco's health risks seriously.

 Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev recently said that a ban on public smoking and cigarette advertising t were "just the beginning" of his efforts to stamp out cigarette smoking in his country. Several countries in Latin America have joined this bandwagon as well. Meanwhile, Philip Morris International's dividend yield, now 3.9%, is not the great selling point it used to be. It's lower than that of the 4.2% offered by blue chip semiconductor maker Intel (Nasdaq:$ INTC) and significantly lower than that of most telecom stocks, MLPs and REITs.

Volunteers clean up cigarette butts

Fifty-five volunteers showed up Saturday at Luke Jensen Sports Park in Hazel Dell and cleaned up a record 25 pounds of cigarette butts, organizers said. The cleanup was part of the national “Make a Difference Day,” and put on by the city of Vancouver, Clark County Public Works and Clark County Public Health. Saturday morning, the volunteers met in Hazel Dell and then went in groups to 10 parks throughout Vancouver and Clark County.

In addition to the 25 pounds of butts, volunteers also collected 12 bags of litter, said Karen Llewellyn, volunteer coordinator with Clark County Public Works. Member of the Sherwood Neighborhood Association also picked up 20 bags of garbage. Organizers were fearful that the rain would deter volunteers from coming out.

But Saturday’s event surpassed last year’s effort in terms of volunteers and pounds of cigarettes collected. Last year, the first year the county has organized a cigarette-butt cleanup, 50 volunteers picked up 15 pounds of butts, Llewellyn said. “Despite the weather, I was really impressed with our turnout,” she said.

Smoking apps promote cigarettes to kids, say researchers

Magic Smoke. Puff Puff Pass. iRoll Up. Smartphone smoking-simulation apps like these exist by the dozens in the iTunes Store and Android Market. Researchers at the University of Sydney have cataloged at least 107 apps that they say contain a pro-smoking message and can entice kids into thinking that smoking is cool. The researchers, whose work was published Oct. 22 in the journal Tobacco Control, say the apps — which have been downloaded millions of times — are a violation of the World Health Organization's ban on outdoor smoking advertisements.

In addition to apps that allow users to simulate smoking or to blow smoke rings, there are also apps that teach how to roll cigarettes or that act as games where a cigar or cigarette is passed around from friend to friend. One game, Puff Puff Pass, bills itself as "addictive gameplay, almost as addictive as smoking for real." As the researchers write in their paper, "Smartphones are ideal marketing targets as consumers can be reached anytime, anywhere."

The authors found that the smartphone app market lacks consistent regulation regarding what content can be sold to what age groups. Some of the smoking apps in the iTunes store are restricted for sale to people 17 years or older. At least one app, iSmoke with puff rings, is labeled for users over the age of 12 but does not appear to have any actual age-related downloading restrictions. The authors say these age restrictions are not present in the Android Market. Lead author Nasser F. Bin Dihm told AAP News, which is published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, that at least three of the apps carried ads for cigarettes sold by Philip Morris.

He said that most of the apps are published anonymously or under nicknames, so the companies behind them can't be easily traced. He called this "suspicious." Barbara Loken, a consumer psychologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved with the study, told NPR that the apps "increase the involvement or engagement of the participant, even more than advertisements" and they can "normalize smoking" at a point when kids are determining their identities. At least one critic said the apps aren't the problem.

"If someone is enough of an idiot to download an app called 'Puff Puff Pass,' where the only point of the game is to smoke and pass along a cigarette, they are probably going to smoke either way — or already do," Charlie Osborne wrote for ZDNet's iGeneration blog. The authors of the new paper look at some country-specific laws and regulations that could be used to control what they call "harmful content" in other countries and suggest that app stores have a "legal responsibility" to make sure that they are complying with the World Health Organization's rules regarding tobacco advertising.

Imperial Tobacco Earnings Advance on Higher Cigarette Prices

Imperial Tobacco Group Plc (IMT), Europe’s second-biggest cigarette maker, reported higher operating profit as the maker of Davidoff cigarettes increased prices to combat declining shipments in Europe. Adjusted operating profit climbed to 3.16 billion pounds ($5.1 billion) in the 12 months ended Sept. 30 from 3.1 billion pounds a year earlier, the Bristol, England-based company said today.

That compares with the 3.19 billion average estimate of eight analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The stock rose as much as 2.5 percent, the most since Sept. 20. “Some skeptics are likely to remain unconvinced by today’s results, but we believe that the company is making good progress,” Damian McNeela, an analyst at Panmure Gordon, said in a note to clients today.

Imperial Tobacco has debuted packs that flip open with one hand and flavored filters to goose demand and offset lower consumption in Spain, where a worsening in the economy led it to take a 1.2 billion-pound non-cash impairment charge. Price increases in the U.K., where Imperial is the market leader, also contributed to growth. Profit in the European Union rose 4 percent.

“The EU is tough,” Chief Executive Officer Alison Cooper said in an interview with Cantos. “But we’re growing.” The stock was up 1.4 percent at 2,364 pence at 9:36 a.m. in London. It has gained 5.1 percent over the past year, including reinvested dividends.

The Tobacco Industry’s Longstanding Desire to Sell Marijuana Cigarettes

In one of the last Newsweek magazine cover stories we will ever see, Tony Dukoupil offers a fascinating inside view of the business people who are making millions by selling quasi-legal marijuana. Exactly as predicted by yours truly, they are not long-haired hippies in tie-dye T-shirts but hard nosed, profit-focused, stylishly attired businessmen who make campaign contributions and try to squeeze out their smaller mom and pop business rivals.

Andrew Sullivan was one of many observers to pick up on the possibility that the tobacco industry will soon follow these early adopters into the pot business, bringing their ruthless, addiction-promoting tactics with them. Tony quotes my friend Dr. Peter Bourne as recalling tobacco industry executives discuss such things during the Carter Administration, but we needn’t rely on Peter’s memory when we have a smoking gun. I dug through the internal documents that the government forced big tobacco to release and found evidence of the industry’s longstanding interest in selling pot.

I gave one of the documents, a report commissioned in the 1970s by Brown and Williamson, to Mike Rosenwald of Washington Post, and here is how he wrote it up: This is the dream tobacco companies have had since at least the 1970s, when consultants issued a secret report to Brown & Williamson touting a future product line in marijuana. “The use of marijuana today by 13 million Americans is socially the equivalent of the use of alcohol by some 100 million Americans,” said the report, found among millions of documents turned over to plaintiffs during the tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s.

“It is the recreational drug; the choice of a significant minority of the population. The trend in liberalization of drug laws reflects the overall change in our value system. It also has important implications for the tobacco industry in terms of an alternative product line.” The tobacco companies, the report concluded, “have the land to grow it, the machines to roll it and package it, the distribution to market it. In fact, some firms have registered trademarks, which are taken directly from marijuana street jargon.

These trade names are used currently on little-known legal products, but could be switched if and when marijuana is legalized. Estimates indicate that the market in legalized marijuana might be as high as $10 billion annually. The report was a long time ago, and no doubt the industry has more modern ideas for selling marijuana today. Maybe that’s why, during the run up to the 2010 election in which marijuana legalization was on the ballot in California, Altria took control of the web domain names AltriaMarijuana.com and AltriaCannabis.com. For those not in the know, Altria is the parent company of Phillip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboro, Players, Benson & Hedges and many other popular brands of tobacco cigarettes.

Missouri Voters Consider Tobacco Tax Increase

Could the third time be a charm for higher cigarette taxes in Missouri? Voters didn't like the idea in 2002 or 2006 but that could change now that the destinations for the funds are clearer. The money from the tax increase would go to schools and smoking cessation programs, but those against the proposition say they don't want Missouri to lose its status as the lowest tobacco tax state in the nation. The increase is in the hands of the voters. St. Louis resident Bob Moellman doesn't smoke but used to chew tobacco.

He's all for anything that will deter people from starting the habit. "I think it's gross watching some young kid do it, smoking, especially girls," explains Moellman. "To see a pretty young girl sucking on a cancer stick, it sucks." Proposition B would increase the tobacco tax from 17 cents a pack to 90 cents a pack. Most of that money would help with education and programs to help people stop smoking. But opponents of the proposition feel they are being picked on.

 "When we voted in the lottery, that's where the money was going. When they voted in the gambling boats, that's where the money was going," says Smoker's Outlet President Bob Ward. "There should be so much money for education that everything in school should be free." There are 15 Smoker's Outlet stores across the state of Missouri. Ward says his stores would still have a tax advantage over Illinois, but the rate would be similar to other neighboring states, making his shop less competitive with prices.

Ward says he also believes the state would lose out on more than $60 million in sales tax revenue a year if the tax goes through. "They are not only buying cigarettes, they are also buying gas, their lunch, grocery shopping, whatever it is they are doing in Missouri," says Ward. "It's a plus for Missouri to keep those people coming in the state." The state auditor's office predicts the tobacco tax increase will generate between $283 and $423 million every year.

Battle heats up over proposed 429% increase on cigarette taxes in Missouri

Many school districts across the state are calling for more taxes. “It's good for kids, it’s good for the health of the state,” said Nixa School District Superintendent Stephen Kleinsmith. Kleinsmith isn’t talking about a bond measure, but Proposition B. It’s the Missouri ballot initiative that, if approved, would raise the cigarette tax from 17 cents a pack to 90 cents. “I know Prop B would be a win for public schools and all kids in Missouri,” Kleinsmith said. The state auditor’s office estimates revenue generated from Prop B could total up to $420 -million a year. Eighty percnet would go for public schools, universities, and colleges.

Twenty percent would help fund smoking cessation programs. “It’s much needed. We are not getting fully funded and not even close for years,’ said Kleinsmith. Nixa says it could receive a $1.3 million share in the first year. The money would be used to pay for things like additional teachers, salary increases, and new textbooks. While Prop B may benefit schools, it would be a boon for tobacco users. “I agree with you, smoking is bad for you. It’s bad for the kids and everything,” said Wayne Ebersole. “But some of us already stuck on it, we are going to be paying for it.” Wayne wonders what will come next if Proposition B is approved by the voter.

“Cigarettes now; your food and your gas and everything down the line. They just want to keep raising taxes,” Eberole said. “I think it will be devastating to our economy,” said Al Livingston, operator of Discount Smokes in Nixa. The proposal calls for a 429-percent increase on all cigarette brands. However, generic brands would see a 760-percent increase. Roll-your-own type tobacco products would experience a 250-percent tax hike, while a 150-percent increase would be tacked onto other products such as cigars and smokeless tobacco.. “It is going to hurt. We may have survived, we may not. I just wish our politicians would speak out against it,” said Livingston. Smoke shops and gas stations are increasing their fight against the proposed tax increase.

The Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association is bankrolling the campaign against Prop B. Its bright orange signs and billboards can be seen in front of many gas stations and tobacco retailers. “We will have at least a 50-percent decrease in our tobacco and cigarette sales,” Livingston said. While the estimated income from Prop B would be close to $420 million initially, the amount may not last long. That’s because the measure seeks to collect revenue while reducing the revenue source. According to the ballot language, 20 percent of the money generated would be used for smoking cessation programs.

Between that, and the price hike, supporters hope to discourage 73,000 Missourians from becoming, or continuing, to be smokers. Fewer packs purchased would mean fewer taxes coming in. The $420 million could be slashed to $283 million a year, with the amount dropping as more people kick the habit. Kleinsmith realizes that, even if Proposition B passes, his district may not be able to count on the revenue forever. “We wouldn’t depend on it but short term,’ said Kleinsmith. “That is money we hope goes down and down until it drops to zero because we need to get all youth in Missouri off of smoking cigarettes Julie Sally, a spokeswoman for Show Me a Brighter Future, said the $283 million is believed to be the amount that can be counted on after the number of smokers decline to meet the goal set.

Stop Bogarting Tobacco Stocks

You know you have reached a certain level of immortality when your name becomes a verb, and I can think of no better example than the American actor Humphrey Bogart, perhaps best known for his role in that all-time classic, Casablanca. To “Bogart” a cigarette is to leave it dangling sloppily in your mouth, even when speaking, rather than engaging in proper smoking etiquette by giving it a few puffs at a time, then removing it. Over the years, the word also has come to mean to greedily hog something.

Today, I would say both meanings of the word are accurate descriptions of investors in tobacco stocks. Investors are “Bogarting” tobacco stocks — by continuing to hold them at current prices. First, a little disclosure is needed. I have been a major fan of sin stocks in general, and cigarette stocks in particular, for years. (See “Not All Sin Stocks are Created Equal” and “Delightfully Sinful Dividend Stocks” as recent examples.) However, my enthusiasm for Big Tobacco rested on two big assumptions: They are largely despised by both individual and institutional investors because of their pariah status as politically incorrect merchants of death, making them perpetual contrarian value investments.

They pay high and growing dividends that are significantly better than what can be found elsewhere among mainstream large-cap stocks. Unfortunately, I cannot credibly say that either of these conditions still hold. Cigarette stocks have become downright trendy of late as investors have taken to chasing yield in a low-interest-rate world. Let’s take a look at Philip Morris International (NYSE:PM), the seller of the iconic Marlboro brand, among many others. Philip Morris appeared to be the perfect stock. It had access to emerging-market growth (roughly half its sales) while benefiting from an American listing and top-notch management. It also paid a dividend far higher than the norm among stable U.S. blue-chip stocks, and that dividend was growing every year.

There’s one little problem here: Philip Morris International still is a tobacco company. Its sales might be enjoying a multi-year boost as emerging-market smokers trade up from cheaper local competitors to premium Western cigarettes, but worldwide demand for their products is shrinking, and fast. In its most recent quarterly release, Philip Morris International saw its profits fall 6% on lower volume sales. And perhaps worse: The regulatory noose continues to be tightened. Consider Australia’s new plain-packaging law.

All cigarette boxes now look identical in Australia. Cigarettes must now be sold in logo-free boxes featuring nothing more than graphic pictures of people dying of smoke-related illness. It’s hard to enjoy taking a drag on that cigarette when you’re looking at a picture of a gangrenous foot. This does not at all bode well for premium brands like Marlboro. Given that tobacco companies are all but prohibited from advertising, how can a premium brand differentiate itself from the cheaper competition when it sells its cigarettes in an identical box?

Mankato Looks to Ban Tobacco Sampling In-Store

The Hookah Wars come to Mankato, as the city council considers a tobacco license for Puff Puff Palace. The city attorney has expressed concern over the business practice of sampling, saying it would make the business more a smoking lounge than a tobacco shop. Puff Puff Palace, located at 408 South Front Street, is owned by the same individual that owns Smokes 4 Less, looking to focus on the flavored tobacco world of hookah cafés.

The establishment will have 6 smoking areas, capable of holding 24 patrons at a time - and that has lead city leaders to doubt the actual intent. Mankato City Manager Pat Hentges says, "I think the question for the council is - yes, Eileen [City Attorney Eileen Wells] believes that our current ordinance could allow for sampling - is that what you really intend?" Councilman Charlie Hurd says, "You want a sample, you buy it, you take it home and you sample it. And they can provide small enough amounts, if that's really the intent here."

Councilman Jack Considine says, "No, the intent is to have a spot where people can walk from the other bars and smoke for awhile - that's what it is." The majority of council members were not pleased with the plan being put forth, and asked for the city administration to look into creating ordinances that would ban sampling outright, like other cities have done. Councilman Mark Frost says, "Do we have this language in our ban at all? I would really like us to consider putting this language into our smoking ban."

Alaska Native groups join forces to fight tobacco use

Alaska Native anti-tobacco crusaders received unanimous support from the board of the state’s largest Native organization last year. Now, with that support of the Alaska Federation of Natives, they’re trying to cut into the state’s high rate of tobacco use by Alaska Natives by persuading individual tribes to stop their employees from smoking at work. They’ve been particularly successful in the Interior, where the Tanana Chiefs Conference — a nonprofit corporation serving 42 Interior villages — resolved to ban tobacco products on tribal government facilities this year.

“We want to protect workers and children from secondhand smoke but also from seeing it as a social norm,” said Gary Ferguson, the wellness and prevention director for the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. He has been a vocal anti-tobacco advocate. “In the Interior, we have very resistant rates of tobacco use, and having an organization like TCC make a stand for its facilities basically sets the stage,” he said.

A majority of the state’s population is already protected from workplace secondhand smoke if you factor in municipal bans like those in Anchorage and Nome as well as employers that have made workplaces smoke-free, according to Andrea Thomas, tobacco department manager for the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium. Because there are so many tribal governments in the state, it is difficult to know how many have established policies like that of TCC, but at least seven have passed resolutions in support of smoke-free workplaces this year, she said. The Native Village of Nenana passed such a resolution.

Native anti-smoking advocates point to “Tobacco in the Great Land,” a 200-page report on tobacco use commissioned by the state government as a potent argument for fighting tobacco use. According the most recent report, in 2008 it’s estimated that 43 percent of Alaskan Native adults smoked cigarettes based on self-reported surveys. The estimated number of non-Native adults who smoked was 19 percent.

Both rates are higher in Bush communities than in cities and have declined during the past 10 years. The report overwhelmingly identifies tobacco as the leading cause of preventable disease in the state and directly responsible for $500 million annually in direct medical expenditures and lost productivity because of tobacco-related deaths. Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Alaska Native groups join forces to fight tobacco use

Philip Morris Int'l 3Q profit falls 6 percent

Cigarette maker Philip Morris International Inc.'s third-quarter net income fell more than 6 percent, despite higher prices, as the company sold fewer cigarettes. The seller of Marlboro and other cigarette brands overseas said Thursday that changes in currency exchange rates hurt its profit in the July-September quarter. The company narrowed its earnings guidance for the year. Philip Morris International said it earned $2.23 billion, or $1.32 per share, in the third quarter, down from $2.38 billion, or $1.35 per share, a year ago.

On an adjusted basis, the company said it earned $1.38 per share, missing Wall Street estimates by a penny. Its shares fell $3.85, or 4.2 percent, to close at $88 Thursday. When the U.S. dollar is rising against the world's other currencies, companies that sell goods internationally take a hit when converting revenue in foreign currencies back into the dollar. That effect is particularly strong for Philip Morris International, because it does all its business overseas. Excluding excise taxes, revenue fell about 5 percent to $7.9 billion, despite higher prices.

Analysts expected $8.21 billion, according to FactSet. Philip Morris International said the number of cigarettes it shipped fell more than 1 percent to 236.5 billion cigarettes compared with a year ago when the company saw volumes jump more than 4 percent. The company is the world's second-biggest cigarette seller, trailing state-controlled China National Tobacco Corp. Smokers face tax hikes, bans, health concerns and social stigma worldwide, but the effect on cigarette demand generally is less stark outside the United States.

Philip Morris International has compensated for volume declines by raising prices and cutting costs. Shipments grew 3 percent in the company's region that encompasses Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, but fell about 8 percent in the European Union as the region is under pressure because of the continent's government debt crisis, which has caused smokers to switch to cheaper roll-your-own tobacco and counterfeit cigarettes. "Economic conditions continue to be very difficult. Unemployment continues to rise," Jacek Olczak, the company's chief financial officer, said in a conference call with investors. Still, Olczak expressed "confidence in the underlying strength of the business." Shipments also fell nearly 5 percent in Latin America and Canada.

And in Asia, one of its largest growth areas, shipments grew less than 1 percent during the quarter on a tough comparison with the year-ago period, when shipments shot up in Japan following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The events offered the company a sales opportunity because supply disruptions led Japan Tobacco Inc., the world's No. 3 tobacco maker, to stop shipping cigarettes within Japan. Philip Morris International also bought Philippines company Fortune Tobacco Co. in February 2010, bolstering its Asian business.

Philip Morris International said total Marlboro shipments fell 2.3 percent in the quarter to 77.1 billion cigarettes. The company said its market share increased or remained stable in many key areas. During the quarter, the company spent $1.5 billion to buy back 16.7 million shares of stock, completing a three-year, $12 billion buyback program that began in May 2010. A new, previously announced three-year share repurchase program of $18 billion began in August. Looking forward, Philip Morris narrowed its full-year earnings forecast to between $5.12 and $5.18 per share. Previously the company forecast $5.10 to $5.20 per share. Altria Group Inc. in Richmond, Va., the owner of Philip Morris USA, spun off Philip Morris International as a separate company in 2008. Altria is the largest U.S. cigarette seller.

Tougher tobacco laws being drafted

A tobacco watchdog is preparing a new tobacco control law that will lift the legal age for buying cigarettes from 18 to 20, while sellers must be over 18. Dr Lakkana Termsirichaikul, of Mahidol University’s faculty of public health, on Monday revealed details of the proposed legislation at a press conference dubbed “Stop Using Children to Sell Cigarettes”. She said the Tobacco Control Research and Knowledge Management Centre (TRC) was busy drafting the new law on tobacco consumption control to replace the current one which was brought in 20 years ago.

 A study showed the number of smokers aged between 15-18 in the past 10 years had risen from 6.44% to 9.2% with the youngest smokers reported at the age of 6. The new law would be aimed at protecting juveniles. About 300,00 of them became new daily smokers each year, Dr Lakkana added. Besides raising the minimum age for buying and selling cigarettes, the significant changes to the law include:

- Those allowing minors to sell tobacco products will face a maximum one-year prison sentence and a fine of 20,000 baht.
 - Banning the sale of cigarettes on the internet and closing websites associated with it.
 - Banning the sale of packets containing less than 20 cigarettes and selling cigarettes individually.
 - Prohibit sales promotions by tobacco companies and displaying any form of advertising and prices of cigarettes at a point-of-sale.
 - State-run academic institutes must not receive financial support offered by tobacco firms, nor disseminate or promote their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.

Chico City Council to consider 20-foot smoking rule for businesses

A smoking ban within a specified distance of private entryways will be up for discussion at Tuesday's City Council meeting. Smoking is already prohibited in front of entryways to public buildings but not privately-owned businesses. The ordinance before the council would prohibit smoking within 20 feet of doors, windows and other openings to businesses. Two ordinance options are being considered, with one adding an exception for people passing by. It's not clear what kind of enforcement will be used or the penalty for violations.

The proposal was brought forward by the American Lung Association earlier this year, and in August the council voted 5-2 to send the issue to city staff for suggestions, with Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen voting no. In researching how other cities have addressed the matter, City Attorney Lori Barker reports most ordinances prohibit smoking within 20 to 25 feet of doors, windows or other openings. Other ordinances she found prohibit smoking completely on specifically designated sidewalks or on all city public property.

In August, a handful of community members said the rules would be difficult to enforce, and that people still smoke now in places where it is banned, including City Plaza. On Friday afternoon, Nicole Romain, membership coordinator and office manager of the Downtown Business Association had not yet heard a reaction to the ordinance from board members. But she said when the association voiced its opposition in August the biggest concern from a survey of business owners was about enforcement. "As far as I know that's still the concern.

I haven't heard anything different," she said. "It's about creating another law and who is going to enforce that law. I don't know we have the police support to be enforcing it." Members of Students with Kids Leading Everyone Against Nicotine said they counted 857 cigarettes butts within 20 feet of 61 businesses, gathered signatures of support from 500 people and received endorsements for a ban from 70 businesses. The city had also been asked by the American Lung Association to ban smoking in Bidwell Park, an issue that has been referred to the Bidwell Parks and Playground Commission. The rest of Tuesday's council agenda includes a quarterly financial update, several consent items and other routine reports.

We must stub out smoking for teens in poor regions

MORE work needs to be done in socially deprived areas to reduce the number of youngsters taking up smoking, campaigners have said. Figures have shown that those who live in deprived areas are more likely to take up smoking and, despite work to bring these numbers down, more is required to try to tackle this trend. Speaking at the annual ASH Wales conference held in Cardiff, Professor Ann McNeill, deputy director of the UK centre for tobacco control studies, said it was also important to look at the influence parents from socially deprived backgrounds may have on their children.

 She said: “The number of people smoking increases between 11-15 - that’s the age when children tend to take up smoking. Smoking has decreased in the last decade so we can all congratulate ourselves but although youth smoking is going down, we cannot be complacent. “There are many factors that influence smoking in young people and the most worrying thing is socioeconomic trends. For may years we did not see much differentiation in young people smoking but what we are seeing at the moment is a trend towards a more deprived youth becoming the main smokers. “We know that smoking can be associated with truancy in schools and drinking and drug use.”

 A report into smoking trends across Wales by the Public Health Wales Observatory and the Welsh Government found that smoking prevalence was highest in the most deprived areas including the South Wales Valleys, South Cardiff and Barry. Professor McNeill said: “Parents smoking are obviously still playing a big role in the prevalence of smoking in young people. “As smoking becomes more concentrated in adults in deprived areas, it is likely that will have a knock-on effect on young children. There was a small change in smoking in the home when the smoke-free legislation came in, but this actually went down. It is clear that the legislation did not have a knock-on effect and drive smoking into the home.

But most of this decline was seen in the high socioeconomic groups so in the future we need to focus more on the more deprived groups.” Professor McNeill said that there were also gender differences in the uptake of smoking, and that it was important to understand these differences to try to reduce the numbers. In his last report before retiring this summer, former Chief Medical Officer for Wales Dr Tony Jewell found that 11% of 15-year-old boys smoked at least once a week while the figure for girls of the same age was 16%. This was higher than the figures for England, Scotland and Ireland. She said: “At the age of 11, boys and girls are similar in their habits, but at the age of 13 and 15, the number of girls smoking is higher than boys.

 “We need to keep an eye on gender differences and we need to keep working to get these rates down. One of the key things we need to be doing is to de-normalise smoking in the wider society.” Professor McNeill also said that the issue of illegal tobacco was of major concern. An estimated one in 10 cigarettes and half of all hand-rolled tobacco is smuggled, according to figures which put the cost of the practice throughout the UK at £2bn. She said: “Illicit tobacco is a really big issue. I think what is evident is that young people are visiting places to get illicit tobacco from wherever it is available and it’s very attractive to them because it is so cheap.

 It’s a big problem and something to watch out for.” Chair of the children’s committee, Julie Morgan AM, said she believed Wales could lead the way in tackling the problem of smoking in teenagers. “Up to 14,000 young people aged between 11 and 15 start smoking each year in Wales and that is a very sobering figure,” she said. We’ve done a lot of work in this area, but there is still a long way to go. With devolution we have more opportunity to be championing and leading the way and there are huge opportunities in Wales to drive the agenda forward.”

Tobacco rule about control and discrimination

The Avalanche Journal’s “Our View” on UMC’s anti-nicotine policy in the Oct. 3 edition is completely one-sided and does not “make sense” as you state. I do not smoke, and I do not appreciate secondhand smoke, but I am not going to infringe on someone else’s rights in order to make my rights the priority. Tobacco users have been singled out and criticized for years, yet tobacco companies continue to produce their products in abundance, while taxes on said products continue to skyrocket.

You state the “policy is a logical one,, and “Doesn’t it seem appropriate businesses in health-related industries would take the lead in promoting good health practices among their employees?” So my question is, “What’s next?” Will they stop hiring people who consume alcohol, abuse prescription drugs, and people who are overweight? Surely those do not promote good health practices.

This has nothing to do with promoting good health practices. It’s all about control and discrimination, whether it’s lawful or not. We should all be concerned when entities (private or government) start denying employment based on someone’s personal weakness.

Colorado marijuana-legalization amendment's lead shrinks

A ballot measure to legalize limited possession of marijuana in Colorado continues to lead in the latest Denver Post poll on the question, but it has dropped below 50 percent support. The poll of 614 likely voters found that 48 percent of respondents support the measure, while 43 percent oppose it. A poll last month found a wider lead for Amendment 64, with 51 percent in support and 40 percent opposed.

Both polls have a 4-percentage-point margin of error. The most noticeable swing in the new poll, taken Tuesday and Wednesday for The Denver Post by SurveyUSA, came among women. The previous poll showed the measure succeeding with women 49 percent to 39 percent. The new poll, however, shows women opposed 48 percent to 40 percent. Men continue to support the measure, as do young voters and those ages 50 to 64. But a slender lead among voters ages 35 to 49 has turned into a 4-point deficit, while voters 65 and older disapprove of the measure by a wider margin. The poll comes as the campaigns for and against the measure have been heating up, with both sides announcing a series of endorsements.

Opponents have touted endorsements against the measure from Gov. John Hickenlooper, the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and several law-enforcement organizations. On Monday, representatives from the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Denver Partnership, along with Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, will speak out against the amendment. No on 64 spokeswoman Laura Chapin disputed the language of the poll question — which uses the word "decriminalize" — and said the campaign is skeptical of the results.

Neither campaign was shown the results of the latest poll before they were published. "We have every confidence if people understand what Amendment 64 does ... they will vote against amending the Colorado Constitution this way," she said. Proponents of the measure, meanwhile, have announced the support of more than 300 doctors in Colorado, the Colorado branch of the NAACP, singer Melissa Etheridge and former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. In a statement, pro-64 campaign spokeswoman Betty Aldworth said the measure will make Colorado safer.

"Momentum is greater than ever among the volunteers who are working around the state to educate voters, and we look forward to more and more support in these final weeks of the campaign," Aldworth said. Amendment 64 would legalize use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people over 21 years old. People would also be allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants in their home. The measure legalizes marijuana sales at specially regulated retail stores but also allows communities to ban those stores. Public consumption of marijuana would not be allowed.

Landlords wary of marijuana law

With Question 3 on the statewide ballot expected to pass Nov. 6, landlord groups say they want the right to turn away renters who are medical marijuana patients and those who may be authorized to cultivate marijuana. They don’t want their apartments to become grow operations. Federal law still forbids the use, sale or making of marijuana and may trump state law. The ballot question asks to eliminate state penalties for marijuana use by qualifying patients, starting Jan. 1. At present, 17 states and the District of Columbia allow medical marijuana.

Under the proposal, the state Department of Public Health would allow nonprofit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers. In 2013, there could be no more than 35 treatment centers, with at least one but not more than five in each county. The landlords fear the “treatment center” could be in one of their units if the tenant attained the requisite state license to grow marijuana. The grow operations, according to the proposal, would be in a “closed, locked facility” and provide a 60-day supply of marijuana for the patient’s use. In a worst-case scenario, the feds could step in and seize their properties for drug activity, the landlord advocates say.

Medical marijuana exposes the landlord to civil asset forfeiture under a federal law that allows police departments or the Department of Justice to take a private property that has been used in any way for drug activity, said Skip Schloming, executive director of the Small Property Owners Association in Cambridge. “This puts the landlord in the vise of the conflicting legislation,” said Ron Bernard, editor of the Southern Worcester County Landlord Association’s newsletter and chairman of its membership committee. Mr. Bernard, who owns rental units in Southbridge and Warren, points out that a landlord can’t discriminate against an existing or potential tenant because of a handicap or medical issue. Mr. Bernard said his association, which has about 90 paid-up members, has concerns about the ballot question and hopes it will be defeated.

In case it passes, Mr. Schloming said, his organization is petitioning legislators to amend the proposal to remedy the landlords’ concerns. The landlords, Mr. Schloming said, want the cultivation of marijuana to be forbidden in homes and apartments and only be allowed in business settings. Mr. Schloming said that because the ballot question allows growing to be done under lock and key, his organization anticipates landlords will have problems gaining access to their apartments in which a state-sanctioned grower is doing business. He also noted that growing marijuana requires a lot of water, lighting and ventilation, and is widely known to put additional wear and tear on an apartment.

Mr. Schloming said the organization wants landlords to have the ability to turn down medical marijuana tenants or evict them, because such tenants are not likely to disclose this information to landlords. Michael G. Gatlin, vice chairman of the Property Law Section of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said these are all legitimate concerns. “At least at this point in time, it’s hard to say what a landlord should do,” the Framingham lawyer said. Mr. Gatlin said then Deputy U.S. Attorney General David Ogden sent a letter to U.S. attorneys in October 2009 saying that given the burgeoning nature of medical marijuana use, the agency would not prosecute people who are using marijuana in states where it’s been made legal, nor were they going to prosecute caregivers.

But naturally, the government intends to prosecute trafficking, which in theory could be done by a caregiver, the lawyer said. “It’s an inconsistent kind of position,” said Mr. Gatlin, adding it would clearly be illegal for a federally financed or federally maintained housing project to allow people to grow marijuana on site. “Beyond that, you’re kind of hoping that the feds are going to look the other way, but there’s no guarantee that they are,” he said. Another concern, he said, is that medical marijuana would violate any type of mortgage a landlord would hold on the property. Every mortgage has language that says the property can’t be used for illegal purposes.

“I think what’s going to happen is, some unfortunate person is going to lose their property by way of a default under the mortgage for that reason, or the feds are going to seize it and test it in court,” Mr. Gatlin said. “The bad news is you’re going to have to litigate the issue, or there has to be some clarification to the statute that will result from this referendum that makes clear what the parties’ rights are, at least under state law. The Legislature has to clean this thing.” Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Medical Marijuana Project, said government interference with medical marijuana is “happening all over the country.” The government, he said, leans on landlords to evict these tenants. It is to the chagrin of both providers and patients that some patients are no longer able to get safe, reliable access to their medicine.

“The only thing the federal government is doing when it tries to use this ‘asset forfeiture’ is it’s just pushing the marijuana market underground where it can’t really be licensed or controlled,” he said. Landlords usually get a written warning and a certain amount of time to either challenge the proceedings or evict their tenants, he said. The government claims “they aren’t interfering with state medical marijuana laws, when in fact they are,” Mr. Fox said. They do it under a variety of guises, such as saying they’re too close to schools, even though medical marijuana providers have shown no danger to children or to their communities in terms of increased violence or availability, Mr. Fox said. Christina Sterling, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, said her agency wouldn’t comment on hypothetical scenarios.

But federal law, she said, unambiguously makes it unlawful to grow, distribute or possess marijuana, other than as part of a federally authorized research program. Marijuana is a controlled substance and has been placed in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has no currently accepted medical use in the country and has not been determined to be safe and effective by federal health authorities, she said. “While this office does not intend to focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment program in compliance with state law,” she said, “individuals and organizations who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana and those who knowingly facilitate such activities will be in violation of federal law and subject to federal enforcement.” If the Massachusetts ballot question passes, she added, her office will wait and see how the state will regulate marijuana.

SouthCoast cities and towns join growing roster to ban tobacco products in pharmacies

Westport has joined a tide of communities snuffing-out pharmacy tobacco sales in SouthCoast and beyond. Westport's new rule, approved in August by the town's Board of Health, went into effect in October and bans tobacco sales in all pharmacies as health care institutions, according to Judith Coykendall, program manager for the Seven Hills Behavioral Health Tobacco-Free Community Partnership. Coykendall — whose program is funded by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program — has urged communities to pass these regulations.

Joining her are DPH-funded programs such as the Western Bristol County and Foxboro Tobacco and Alcohol Prevention Collaborative and its counterpart, the Five County Regional Tobacco and Alcohol Education Program. The latter covers several other SouthCoast communities, Cape Cod and the Islands and areas of the South Shore. "My role ... is to bring these initiatives to the boards of health and explain to them how they work and what they involve, and then it's the boards' decisions to go forward or not," said Marilyn Edge, director of the Western Bristol County and Foxboro collaborative.

She said regulation language is provided by attorneys from the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards. Sometimes, she said, local health boards opt against implementing the ban because they have no pharmacies selling tobacco anyway; others don't see the issue as a priority. "We've been talking about this in Westport for a very long time," said Edge, who noted that CVS and the Westport Apothecary are the only two pharmacies in town. "One of the hesitations, when we first started talking about this, was no one wanted to adversely affect the business of the independent (pharmacy)."

 But then the Westport Apothecary voluntarily stopped selling cigarettes, "which was fabulous," she said, noting that independent pharmacies in Fall River also ceased tobacco sales well before that city's ban. A list from the Massachusetts Municipal Association shows the cigarette clamp-down flaring up all over the state. Following Boston's passage of a pharmacy tobacco ban in 2008, \ more than 45 cities and towns in Massachusetts had passed similar rules as of the end of September — including New Bedford, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Rochester, Wareham and Fall River.

The bans pertain to independent pharmacies, pharmacies in hospitals, chains like CVS and supermarkets that contain pharmacies within them, according to D.J. Wilson, the Massachusetts Municipal Association's tobacco control director. Pharmacies are "supposed to be promoting health-related type products and not selling cancer-related products, like cigarettes," said Karen Walega, health director in Rochester, which passed the pharmacy tobacco ban earlier this year. Walega serves a dual role as health director in Marion, where she said the health board is also considering tobacco regulations. Bob Collett, the director of the Five County program, said he plans to make a case for the ban in Acushnet and Mattapoisett, too.

 Pharmacy tobacco sales send the wrong message, according to Coykendall, who said smokers can still buy cigarettes at convenience stores and gas stations. "The implied message to youth is if they sell this in a health care institution, then it must be not that dangerous," she said. She also described pharmacy tobacco sales as a troubling trigger to anyone shopping at these stores for smoking cessation aides. "Why would you be selling an addictive product in a health care institution and in the same store, you're selling products to help them get over that addiction?" she asked. Many cities and towns have passed rules extending to other retailers, such as regulations on electronic cigarettes. Some communities have also prohibited individual sales of cheap, flavored cigars.

 But at what point does clamping down on tobacco and nicotine products trample on personal freedom? A man smoking in downtown New Bedford Friday afternoon said pharmacy tobacco sales should be restricted only if voters approve it. "I don't need somebody to tell me what to do at 60 years old," said the man, who declined to give his name. "I don't think that the politicians should be making rules for everybody else." Others lighting up in the city Friday didn't see the ban as an infringement on smokers' rights.

 Since pharmacies sell medicine, "it makes sense to do it, but it is a slight inconvenience, I guess," said Adam DeAraujo, 23, who works downtown and said he used to buy his cigarettes at the nearby Rite Aid. Tony Abreu, 29, lives in Fall River, where pharmacy tobacco sales have been banned since 2011. He said he's fine with restrictions as long as stores don't stop selling cigarettes altogether. "It didn't really bother me," he said. "Cigarettes were more expensive at CVS anyway."

Federal agent's fall led ATF to abandon cigarette sting

A special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) approached the Hampton Police Division in the spring of 2010 about working with him on undercover cigarette stings. Later that year, as soon as questions began to surface about the agent, Clifford D. Posey, the ATF ceased its involvement in the Hampton cigarette sting operation. Posey later admitted as part of a 2011 plea agreement that he embezzled more than $46,000 in cigarettes and guns during the operation.

Poll on black-market cigarette sting operation The Hampton Police Division ran an undercover sting into black-market cigarette sales for about 19 months, realizing thousands of dollars in revenue, yet making no arrests. The operation was shut down after allegations of misconduct. The Daily Press asked readers in an online poll: What is your assessment of the operation?

 • 33.6 percent (48 responses): It sounds like they were more interested in making money and buying cars than in making arrests.
 • 26.6 percent (38 responses): It sounds like a total boondoggle.
 • 18.2 percent (26 responses): We don't know all the facts in the case, so it's hard to make a fair assessment.
 • 10.5 percent (15 responses): The operation sounds like it had good intentions, but after it failed to yield arrests, it should have been disbanded long before 19 months.
 • 7.7 percent (11 responses): Success can't always be measured in arrests. They could have gathered valuable intel to fight crime in the city.
 • 3.5 percent (5 responses): I don't have an opinion.

Poor smokers in NY spend 25 pct of income on cigs

A new study shows low-income smokers in New York spend 25 percent of their income on cigarettes, a finding that led a smokers' rights advocate to say it proves high taxes are regressive and ineffective. The American Cancer Society said the study by RTI's Public Health Policy Research Program using state data shows a need to help more poor New Yorkers quit smoking or never start. In New York, with the nation's highest cigarette taxes, a pack of cigarettes can cost $12, though many smokers have turned to cheaper cigarettes bought online and by using roll-your-own devices.

 Wealthier smokers — those earning $60,000 or more — spend 2 percent on cigarettes, according to the study. "The poor pay $600 million in cigarette taxes and get little help in quitting," said Russ Sciandra of the American Cancer Society. He said state statistics show smokers earning less than $30,000 pay 39 percent of state and city taxes on cigarettes. More of the cigarette tax revenue has to be used to better fund smoking cessation programs, now at a fraction of the federal recommendation, and to aim more at low-income households, he said.

 Sciandra said other studies show lower income smokers have less success at quitting. He said low-income smokers trying to quit are hampered by being around many smokers and having less cash to buy smoking cessation aids. But for smokers, the study proves cigarette taxes are punitive and "undeniably regressive," said Audrey Silk of CLASH, a national smokers' rights organization. "It busts their theory that high taxes equal submission to their coercive measure at the same time," she said. She criticized government "anti-smokers" who jack up taxes, but she also found with anti-smoking groups like the Cancer Society.

 "Ulterior motives abound ... to generate bad news as reason to tighten the screws and fish for more funding to do it with," she said. "They enrich themselves at the expense of those they helped stigmatize." Peter Constantakes of the state Health Department argues that tax increases and other programs are helping people kick the habit. "Cigarette taxes are an evidence-based intervention that has proven successful in encouraging smokers to quit," he said.

"New York is promoting a number of anti-smoking initiatives, including targeted media campaigns, that are designed to reduce the smoking rate among lower-income groups and prevent young people from becoming smokers." He notes Medicaid provides extensive smoking cessation products, while some state programs are aimed at communities with low incomes and education rates and high racial and ethnic minority populations.

Smoking befogs brain post stroke

cheapcigsreview.blogspot.com -  review of the best cigarettes, also where you can make an order for cheap cigarettes.

The MoCA exam tests patients with memory and problem solving questions and gives them a score out of 30. Smokers had a median MoCA score two points lower than non-smokers -- 22 out of 30 compared to 24 out of 30. Patients who had previously quit smoking achieved the same scores as lifetime non-smokers, said Gail MacKenzie, clinical nurse specialist at Hamilton General Hospital, Canada. "This research emphasizes the importance of smoking cessation for people with stroke or TIA," said MacKenzie.

TIA, or transient ischemic attack, is a mini stroke and often serves as a warning sign that a bigger stroke is imminent, according to a Hamilton statement. "Smoking is a risk factor for cognitive impairment for people who continue to smoke and this ability to problem-solve and make decisions has implications for patients' health and self-management of care," added Mackenzie. Almost 37,000 Canadians and many more worldwide will die prematurely each year due to tobacco use, and almost a third of these deaths will be from cardiovascular disease.

 Smoking contributes to the build up of plaque in the arteries, increases the risk of blood clots, reduces the oxygen in the blood, increases blood pressure and makes the heart work harder. "There needs to be more effort to help people stop smoking to protect their brain both from stroke and from mental decline after stroke," said Mark Bayley, co-chairman of the Canadian Stroke Congress, where these findings were presented.

Smokers doubt that warning labels on cigarette packs have sense

Representatives of the Rights of Smokers public initiative think that labeling cigarette packages with warning pictures about diseases caused by smoking is peculiar to backward countries only. "Civilized states have started to give up making such packages. Recently a Washington court ruled that the U.S. government should stop demanding the labeling [of packages] with such images.

The key argumentation [of the ruling] is the absence of any proofs that such labels somehow reduce the number of smokers," the leader of the Rights of Smokers public initiative Yuriy Paliychuk said. "Today mainly backward countries, such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Thailand, and Uruguay, use such 'scary' packages. Anti-smoking activists are again dictating to the society the savage rules they used to call 'European practice'.

They only put warning inscriptions on cigarette packages in the developed European countries," Paliychuk said. He added he doubts about effectiveness of such images. "The global experience shows that they [the images] have nothing in common with fight for a healthy lifestyle," he said. As reported, from September 16, 2012 practically all kinds of tobacco advertising will be banned in Ukraine. From December 16, 2012 smoking in public places, at bars and restaurants, children's play grounds, offices, and state buildings will be prohibited.

Pearl Street Mall smoking ban aired at Boulder open house

Only a few Boulder residents attended an open house Wednesday on a proposed Pearl Street Mall smoking ban, but their position was clear: Cigarettes should be snuffed out. The ban will appear on the Boulder City Council agenda Oct. 16, and then again for a public hearing Nov. 15. If passed, the ban would be enforced 24 hours a day on the pedestrian mall between 11th and 15th streets and on the Boulder County Courthouse lawn. It was drafted in response to complaints from tourists, downtown employees, restaurant owners and retail businesses about an increase in cigarette-butt litter and secondhand smoke, city officials say.

 Sharon Hillman, a 22-year Boulder resident, said she struggles with asthma and attended Wednesday's open house to show her support for the proposed ban. She said she lives near the mall and walks through it several times a day, and lately she's been bothered by how many people smoke there. "I just think this year was the tipping point where I couldn't find fresh air on the mall anymore," Hillman said. "There is a reason you live downtown, and I want to be able to hang out where I live." The ban would not be enforced in alleys or on side streets of the mall, according to the city staff. If it passes, police and city employees would spend the first month educating people seen smoking about the ban.

 After that, violators would be given one warning before being ticketed for smoking, which carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine or 90 days in jail, according to information distributed Wednesday. Molly Winter, director of Boulder's Downtown and University Hill Management Division and Parking Services, said the response to the proposed ban has been almost unanimously positive. She noted a survey of downtown business owners and employees done by Downtown Boulder Inc. has so far shown that 73 percent would support the ban. Cigarette butts are the most prominent kind of litter on the mall each day, Winter said, but smoking in the public area also creates a substantial public health risk, the primary reason for the proposed ordinance.

 Jennifer Kovarik, program coordinator for Boulder County's Tobacco Education and Prevention Program, noted that about 12 percent of Boulder County adults are smokers, and there is mounting evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke in an outdoor setting can be just as damaging to one's health as indoor exposure. Robin Kolble, manager of the University of Colorado's community health department, has been working on a possible campus-wide smoking ban for years, but she came to Wednesday's open house as a concerned resident. "I think a lot of people believe that when you blow the smoke out it just goes away, but it doesn't. It lingers," she said. "I really would like to be able to take my grandchildren to the mall without breathing in smoke."

Missouri to vote on raising lowest tobacco taxes in the US

Missouri’s cigarette tax is the lowest in the nation, and that has some people doing a slow burn. At 17 cents per pack, Missouri’s tax is nearly half as much as the next lowest and well below the $1.49 national average. In Kansas, the tax is 79 cents a pack. All that could change on Nov. 6, however, when voters get another chance to decide whether to raise the tax to 90 cents per pack and make Missouri’s cigarette tax the 33rd highest in the country. If it wins approval, Proposition B is projected to generate $283 million to $423 million a year in additional tobacco tax revenue, which would be directed to a fund aimed at K-12 schools, higher education and smoking cessation programs.

“Raising the tobacco tax is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking rates and prevent our youth from ever starting,” said Misty Snodgrass, government relations director for the American Cancer Society. “It’s also a revenue win for our underfunded public schools and universities.” But opponents argue Proposition B would hurt sales tax revenue for state and local government and drive business to neighboring states. “This would put small businesses in Kansas City at a disadvantage, which is horrific public policy,” said Ron Leone, who is running the opposition’s campaign for the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association PAC.

Voters rejected tobacco tax hikes in 2002 and 2006. Both years, the nation’s biggest tobacco companies spent millions to oppose the increase. But this time around, those same companies have said they are sitting out the campaign. “Big Tobacco is standing down this year because they support Proposition B. They support it because it reduces their competition,” Leone explained. That’s because in addition to increasing taxes on tobacco products, Proposition B also would eliminate a pricing advantage that off-brand cigarette companies currently have in Missouri.

In 1998, Missouri was one of 46 states that entered into a legal agreement with cigarette makers forcing them to pay into a state fund to help cover the cost of smoking-related diseases. Companies that didn’t sign the agreement still pay into the fund, but through a loophole in the law get their money back at the end of each year. Missouri is the only state that hasn’t closed the loophole. “This ballot initiative eliminates a loophole in the law that has created an uneven playing field for cigarette manufacturers and retailers in Missouri,” said Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc., a major manufacturer of tobacco products. “Primarily for this reason, Reynolds American Inc. has no plans to oppose the Missouri ballot initiative.”

Leone said the passage of Proposition B would mean off-brand cigarettes could cost customers as much as 57 cents more per pack, in addition to the new increased tax. “In one fell swoop, Big Tobacco can reduce or eliminate their competition,” Leone said. Money for schools Snodgrass said the decision to use the additional revenue generated by the proposed tax increase for public schools and higher education is a key difference from previous efforts and a big reason why supporters are so optimistic it will succeed this time. “We know that Missourians support their local public schools,” she said. If passed, the additional revenue would be put into the Health and Education Trust Fund, where 50 percent would go to K-12 schools, 30 percent to higher education and 20 percent to tobacco use prevention and quit assistance programs. Supporters estimate that the higher tax could result in millions in additional funding for area school districts, including nearly $3 million for North Kansas City, $2.7 million for Lee’s Summit and $2.3 million for Kansas City.

Leone, however, questions whether the additional revenue will actually translate into higher funding levels. Lawmakers have a history of using new revenue streams to justify cuts in other state appropriations, he said. “Even if this brought in $300 million for schools, it doesn’t guarantee the money that is currently appropriated for schools is going to stay there,” he said. “The budget is a big shell game, and what goes in the front door can just as easily go right out the back door.” Snodgrass said proponents would be vigilant to ensure the additional revenue is spent in line with how voters intended. “The coalition behind this initiative will be a constant presence in Jefferson City to remind legislators of the voters’ intent and ensure accountability for its implementation,” she said. In addition to new revenue, Snodgrass said fewer Missourians smoking will also save the state millions of dollars a year.

Medicaid costs associated with tobacco-related disease cost taxpayers $532 million annually, she said. Each pack of cigarettes sold in Missouri “costs our economy $12.68 in lost productivity and preventable health care expenses,” she added. “The low tobacco tax in Missouri costs the state dearly in state tax dollars, in lost productivity, in preventable disease and in premature deaths.” Impact on local business Leone called the increased tax “outrageous and unfair.” The real impact of the 90-cent per pack tax would be loss of business, and ultimately jobs, at stores along the state’s borders. “For some reason we’re embarrassed for being the lowest cigarette tax, even though that brings a tremendous amount of business into this state,” he said. A study commissioned by Leone’s organization and performed by Joseph Haslag, an economist at the University of Missouri, found that, if estimates are correct, Proposition B would result in 157 million fewer packs of cigarettes sold in Missouri every year. That would mean the amount collected in sales and other state and local taxes would decrease by $67 million. Haslag’s study predicts that would translate to $1.4 million in lost sales taxes for Kansas City and $824,000 for Jackson County.

 “That’s why this isn’t just about smokers,” Leone said. “That’s why everyone has skin in this game. Our state and local governments are going to lose revenue if this measure passes.” Snodgrass called that argument “fatally flawed” She said it presumes that with a decrease in smoking, none of the money currently spent on cigarettes will make its way back into the local economy and countered that tobacco use in the state costs an estimated $565 per household in public expenditures. “They are trying to convince voters that Missouri’s economy is only competitive because we sell deadly, addictive products cheaper than our neighbors,” she said. “That’s just a false argument. The harm caused by tobacco products is currently subsidized by all Missourians.” Leone said his organization is not opposed to any tax increase on tobacco. He said he spoke in favor of legislation that would have nearly doubled the tax to 33 cents per pack earlier this year, but the bill never gained traction. “For anyone to say we’re against all tax increases is ridiculous,” he said. “We’re just against any tax increase that puts us at a competitive disadvantage with our neighboring states.”

Congressman who compared cigarettes to smoking lettuce becomes lobbyist for R.J. Reynolds

A former 18-year member of Congress who was a longtime friend of the tobacco industry while in office has become a paid consultant and registered lobbyist for tobacco giant Reynolds American. Steve Buyer, a Republican congressman from Indiana from 1993 to 2011, had been the beneficiary of over $100,000 in Reynolds donations over the years and pushed the company's legislative goals. In 2009, he gave a famously colorful speech on the House floor endorsing smokeless tobacco: "You could have smoked that lettuce and you still end up with the same problems.

You could cut the grass in your yard, dry it, and roll it up in a cigarette, and smoke it — and you're still going to have a lot of problems," he said. "It is the smoke that kills, not the nicotine." Buyer revealed the new job for Reynolds American in little-noticed testimony Sept.19 before the Indiana General Assembly's Health Finance Commission. A federal disclosure filing shows that Buyer and his former chief of staff, Mike Copher, registered to lobby for a Reynolds American subsidiary called RAI Services as of the beginning of September.

(Buyer became a lobbyist immediately after leaving Congress in 2011, with a health care company his first client.) At the Indiana hearing, Buyer said he is working as "an advocate of Harm Reduction Strategies" for Reynolds American, according to his prepared remarks. "To be an agent of change you can do it from the outside and attack tobacco manufacturers like many anti-tobacco organizations do or you can do it from the inside," he said. "I have chosen to be an agent of change from the inside." Buyer argued that the public is being "misinformed by the public health community about risks presented by tobacco in its various forms."

He disputed statements by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokeless tobacco — which include chewing tobacco and snuff — is not a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes. The CDC says smokeless tobacco products "can cause cancer, oral health problems, and nicotine addiction." Messages to Buyer's lobbying firm, where Copher is now a partner, were not returned. Reynolds American declined to comment. In the face of declining U.S. cigarette consumption rates, Reynolds American has been aggressively marketing smokeless tobacco products such as its Grizzly and Kodiak snuff lines.

Buyer has long been an advocate of smokeless tobacco and an ally of Reynolds American. The company gave $132,500 overall to Buyer's campaign committee, political action committee, and private foundation between 1997 and 2009, public filings show. More than $80,000 of that came Buyer's way in 2008-9 when proposed stricter tobacco regulations were before Congress and had to make it through the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, on which Buyer sat. Buyer led the charge against the bill, which gave the FDA the power to regulate tobacco and was ultimately signed into law by President Obama in 2009.

Buyer had offered an amendment that would have delayed implementation of the law for up to 10 years, Congressional Quarterly reported at the time.The amendment failed. He then offered an alternative bill, backed by Reynolds American, that would have had fewer restrictions and created a new Tobacco Harm Reduction Center in the Department of Health and Human Services instead of giving the FDA the power to regulate tobacco. Buyer's bill, which also touted smokeless tobacco products, failed in a House vote.

Tobacco Trust Fund Commission awards county $100,000

Yadkin County is a step closer to its goal of an agricultural center and conference room. The county received a $100,000 grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission to help with the construction of the center. According to its Web site, the Tobacco Trust Fund Commission was created by the General Assembly in 2000 to help soften the financial impact to farmers and tobacco-related businesses caused by the sharp decline of tobacco in the agricultural economy.

The Web site states, the commission’s funding from a set appropriation of monies paid by cigarette manufacturers under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement to the state. Since 2002 the commission has awarded grants to public and nonprofit agencies that meet the goals of strengthening the rural and tobacco-dependent economies of North Carolina. This year the commission announced just over $2 million for a total of 19 grants relating to agricultural and economic projects across the state.

Yadkin County applied for the grant to help towards building the agricultural center and conference room. The county applied for $355,000 and was awarded $100,000. “It gets us closer to the goal of building the center using the least amount of county tax dollars as possible,” said Aaron Church, county manager. “Pending the contract it certainly gets us closer to where we need to be to move forward.” Church said that the county has also applied for grants with The Golden Leaf Foundation.

 “We were turned down the first time around but I met with Golden Leaf representatives and discussed how we could strengthen our application before the deadline on Nov. 1,” Church said. “We’ve also talked to the USDA but they had already spent their community building project money for the year so that’s something we’ll have to follow up on next year.” Church said that the community college has started a soft capital campaign and that this campaign will probably gain momentum if construction for the project is voted on by commissioners in the future. Church said that it is unclear if any progress will begin if the Tobacco Trust Fund Commission grant is contracted.

He said that the commissioners will need to review the contract and allow him to sign on before the money with be at the county’s disposal and that he will need to meet with the commission’s representatives to learn what exactly the money can be used towards. “We’re very grateful for this grant,” Church said. “It’s a tough environment for grants. Getting a grant to build a building in this economic environment is very, very difficult. We didn’t hire professional grant writers to get this grant. The grant was written by the county staff and commissioners.

A lot of farmer’s read and reviewed our application to help us include what we needed to get this money.” If the agricultural center comes to fruition the plans are to build it on land behind the Surry Community College Yadkin Center. The agricultural center will feature a 300-person conference room, a smaller conference room, office space for agriculture departments for the county, state and federal levels and classroom space for the Yadkin Early College and Surry Community College. The site will also feather a commercial kitchen and a school cafeteria.

 The center will house offices for Foreign Agricultural Services, a subdivision of the USDA, Yadkin County Soil and Water, Natural Resources Conservation Service and NC State University’s Cooperative Extension offices. These offices are currently located in an older building on Elm Street in Yadkinville. Once the center is built and these offices are moved the county must make some necessary renovations to the old building and other offices will be moved there. The Yadkin County Farm Bureau has already given a commitment of $50,000 towards the project, the Yadkin County Dairy and Livestock Association has given a written commitment of $28,000, and the Yadkin County Extension and Community Association has designated $5,000 for the center. Read more: Yadkin Ripple - Tobacco Trust Fund Commission awards county 100 000

SMH campus going tobacco-free

cheapcigsreview.blogspot.com - buy cheapest cigarettes online.

Lisa Rickmond may have found a way to quit smoking. A registered nurse at Southampton Memorial Hospital, Rickmond will have to leave the grounds to smoke when the hospital campus goes tobacco-free on Nov. 8. “I’m leaning toward trying to quit,” the 49-year-old Franklin woman said. “It’s about time. I’ve smoked since I was 13.” The ban means visitors and employees can no longer light up on the grounds, which includes the parking lots that serve the hospital, four medical offices and East Pavilion nursing home, said Anne Williams, director of marketing. Smoking is already prohibited inside all buildings.

The ban also will include the areas of Courtland Medical Center and Total Family Care next to Belk department store off Armory Drive in Franklin. To help the estimated 10 percent of the hospital’s 425 employees who smoke, a free smoking-cessation program will be offered to them and their families, Williams said. Rickmond plans to participate. “I plan to take advantage of every tool,” she said. “Being a long-term smoker, I know it’s going to be a challenge.”

 An April study labeling Franklin as one of the least healthy localities in Virginia inspired the ban, Williams said. The study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute ranked Franklin 127th out of 131 cities and counties in health outcomes. The results were attributed to high unemployment and poverty rates. The study indicated that 22 percent of Franklin residents smoke, which is 3 percentage points higher than the state average. “It makes sense for us to be the leader in a community to make people healthier,” Williams said. “We are the health care provider of the community.”

 The hospital will provide free nicotine patches to employees and tobacco-cessation counselors. Nicotine gum and lozenges will be offered to visitors and employees, she said. Employees currently smoke in their cars, parking lots and outside the hospital where benches and ashtrays are provided, Williams said. Rickmond, the clinical coordinator for the medical surgical floor, goes to her car to smoke for privacy. “Smoking has always been kind of a conflict for me personally,” she said. “I’m a pretty open considerate smoker, but you want to live what you teach.”

 “I’ve smoked for a lot of years and don’t get the same enjoyment,” Rickmond continued said. “It’s very expensive and I’m in the minority now. My lifestyle is leaning toward healthier choices, exercise and diet.” “(If they want to smoke) they will have to be off our property,” Williams said. “Certainly, we discourage them to walk to the street or stand on someone else’s property. We are really trying to encourage our staff to take this opportunity to become healthier and give them the tools they need to quit smoking.” “We are not trying to penalize our smokers or our staff,” she added.

Northeast Ohio Medical University to go tobacco-free

The Northeast Ohio Medical University will ban all tobacco use on its campus beginning Nov. 1 – apparently becoming the first public institution in the state to respond to a recommendation by the Ohio Board of Regents that campuses become tobacco-free. Cleveland State University's board of trustees plans to adopt a policy in November. Other universities and community colleges in Ohio are developing or discussing a policy.

 The NEOMED board of trustees approved a resolution at its meeting Friday banning all tobacco on its campus, including in vehicles. It applies to employees, students and visitors. The policy says "interaction with smokers will be firm, but courteous and respectful." Those who violate the policy will first be reminded that NEOMED is smoke-free. Subsequent violations will result in disciplinary action similar to violating other NEOMED policies. The actions are outlined in the student handbook, employee handbook and university code of professional ethics. Visitors will be escorted off the property if they don't comply after an initial request.

 It will be difficult to find a place to smoke anywhere near campus. While most universities are adjacent to public property NEOMED, in Rootstown in Portage County, is rural. Smokers will have to go down the main driveway and cross Ohio 44 to light up. The board acted after administrators reviewed research, discussed the issue and received an endorsement by the NEOMED Student Council. The university will continue to offer and promote smoking cessation and nicotine replacement therapy, it said. Many services are provided at no cost or a reduced cost.

 Many colleges in Ohio banned smoking in buildings even before a state law went into effect in 2007 that restricts smoking inside most public places and workplaces. But students, staff and employees on most campuses can light up as they cross college greens and socialize away from buildings. Miami University had banned smoking on campus before the regents' recommendation. The University of Toledo bans all tobacco products but allows their use in seven huts around campus and in personal vehicles.

Several private colleges in the state have smoke-free campuses. The regents have said they hope that colleges will heed their concerns about the detrimental effects of tobacco on the health of employees and students. They approved a recommendation in July following a request by Cleveland Clinic officials. All Clinic facilities are smoke-free and it does not hire smokers. Dr. Eric Kodish, chair of the NEOMED board of trustees, is chairman of the department of bioethics at the Cleveland Clinic and felt strongly about the issue, a NEOMED spokeswoman said.

Health department grants target tobacco use, obesity

The McLean County Health Department wants real progress in the fight against fat and tobacco use and is deputizing community partners. The health department announced Thursday that it will award $96,000 to community organizations to implement programs to: -- Improve the health of students and school staff.
 -- Promote worksite wellness, including nutrition, physical activity, smoking cessation and weight and disease management.
 -- Voluntarily limit places where residents, employees and visitors can smoke at multi-unit housing properties. 
-- Prohibit cigarette use in public areas not covered by the Smoke-Free Illinois Act. About 35 representatives of various organizations were at the announcement at Uptown Station in Normal. “We would like to see measurable reductions in smoking and obesity,” health department director Walt Howe said.

 Overweight and obesity rates continue to increase with 39.5 percent of McLean County adults overweight and 22 percent obese, meaning they are at least 30 pounds overweight, Howe said. Consequences include joint destruction, cancer and heart disease. “The ultimate tragedy is what will happen with our children,” Howe said of childhood obesity. Fewer McLean County adults are smoking compared with a generation ago. But 16 percent continue to smoke, leading to 226 deaths in McLean County each year, Howe said.

Tobacco prices hit record Rs 140/kg in Karnataka sale

Karnataka’s Flue Cured Virginia (FCV) tobacco prices touched Rs 140 a kg, a record high, on the first day of auctions. The price was about 12 per cent higher than last year. The lowest bid price was also higher than last year by 84.61 per cent at Rs 120/kg. “This is an all-time high in the history of tobacco auctions in Karnataka.

The main reason is strong global demand for tobacco grown in light soil,” G. Kamala Vardhana Rao, Chairman, Tobacco Board, told Business Line. “In Andhra Pradesh, a similar trend is prevailing - strong demand and prices firming up - for crop grown in light soil,” he added. Another reason for prices to go up sharply in Karnataka is due to crop area shrinkage.

This crop year, area under tobacco is down 11.32 per cent at 94,000 hectares compared with last year due to erratic monsoon rains. According to K.N. Vishakantaiah, Regional Manager, Tobacco Board, Karnataka, “First day’s arrival in all the 11 auction platforms was 288 bales and the entire lot (34,358 kg) was sold with an average price of Rs 139.49/kg.” In all, about 10-12 companies actively participated in Karnataka auctions.