CDC launching graphic anti-smoking ad campaign

Tobacco taxes and smoking bans haven't budged the U.S. smoking rate in years. Now the government is trying to shock smokers into quitting with a graphic nationwide advertising campaign.
The billboards and print, radio and TV ads show people whose smoking resulted in heart surgery, a tracheotomy, lost limbs or paralysis. The $54 million campaign is the largest and starkest anti-smoking push...

Hypnotist helps to stub out smoking habits

A Biddulph based dentist has joined forces with a clinical hypnotherapist to help his patients quit smoking.

Dr Richard Armishaw, of Synergy Dental Care, Tunstall Road, Biddulph, wants to raise awareness of side effects of smoking that damage the teeth and mouth, including bad breath, gum disease, tooth loss and oral cancer.
He said: “People come to us to get rid of the black marks on their teeth, but they dont realise the major damage that they have done to what’s underneath”

The practice is offering sessions with hypnotherapist Rosemarie Wakeman, who say she creates a pathway to take people’s minds away from smoking.

The two hour sessions are designed to change the smoker’s attitude to lighting up in the hope that they will eventually quit.

Prominent Berkeley marijuana dispensary to close shop

One of California’s biggest medical marijuana establishments – embraced by local officials as a model business that donates to the poor and pays millions in taxes – has become the latest target in a statewide crackdown by federal prosecutors.

Berkeley Patients Group, founded in 1999 by leading names in the state’s medical marijuana movement, will cease operations at its current location later this year, according to an agreement between the dispensary’s owners and the landlord. The document was signed on Feb. 28 by Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.

“Berkeley Patients Group agrees to cease all cannabis-related activities and remove all cannabis-related property from the premises by May 1, 2012,” the document states. Legal experts said agreements of this kind can be revised, but it was unclear if that was possible in this case.

The decision to shutter the outlet on San Pablo Avenue was triggered by a warning from Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney for Northern California. In a letter sent to the owner of the building that houses the dispensary, Haag said federal prosecutors would file a forfeiture action if marijuana continued to be distributed at the location. Berkeley Patients Group has leased the property since 1999 and operates under a city license.

The letter cited violations of federal law and the fact that the outlet is within 1,000 feet of two schools: the Center for Early Intervention on Deafness, which also houses a preschool, and Ecole Bilingue de Berkeley, a French bilingual grade school.

“Marijuana dispensaries are full of cash and they’re full of marijuana, and everybody knows that," Haag said in an interview. "They are at risk of being robbed, and many of them are robbed.”

While marijuana is illegal under federal law, Haag said she doesn’t have the resources to target all the medical pot outlets that have proliferated in her district in recent years. So, she said, her office is focusing on protecting children.

“When a dispensary comes to my attention that is close to a school, a park or a playground or to children, that's a line I've decided to draw, and those are the dispensaries that I’m looking at,” Haag said.

Since federal prosecutors announced a statewide crackdown in October, Haag said her office has sent letters to a number of dispensaries, including Berkeley Patients Group and an outlet in Santa Cruz that was robbed by armed gunmen in February. The outlet is next to a preschool.

“People in the community may be supportive of the dispensary," Haag said, "until there’s an armed robbery and people come running out of the dispensary shooting guns."

Berkeley Patients Group’s owners declined interview requests, but supporters said the outlet has never been the scene of violence or an armed robbery. The group issued a statement reading: “BPG remains committed to providing safe and affordable access to its patient-members, while working to preserve the jobs of its 70+ employees. We are grateful for the level of support we have received from the Berkeley community over the years.”

Humble says no to smoking in public

It's now illegal to smoke in public areas in the city of Humble.

The Humble City Council recently voted 5-1 to enact a city ordinance that bans smoking in public areas.

The ordinance, which went into effect March 1, imposes a maximum fine of $2,000 to businesses and individuals who violate the ordinance.

Health issue

Humble City Manager Darrell Boeske said enacting the ban was a public health issue, and one that city leaders should take seriously.

"I am not against a person being able to smoke, but by the same token I don't know why you would subject people who don't smoke to that health hazard, especially children," Boeske said. "Smoking is a detriment to health and really annoying to people who don't smoke."

Ordinance basics

The new ordinance outlined a number of establishments where smoking is banned, including: all restaurants, pool or billiard halls, gaming halls and bingo parlors, movie theaters, auditoriums, shopping malls, educational offices, child care facilities, some bars, and enclosed and open air sporting arenas.

There are exceptions to the ban that include homes, tobacco outlets and stores, and bars in operation before March 1.

Common trend

Boeske added that larger cities, such as Dallas, Austin and San Antonio had enacted similar ordinances, and that a smoking ban was hardly a new concept to anyone.

"We didn't jump in here the first day. We are last to get on the bandwagon," he said.

Boeske said many of the larger chain restaurants have placed a ban on smoking in those establishments, but that a lot of the smaller local restaurants have trouble telling customers, smoking is not allowed.

"This is just a way to help them," he said.

Councilman Bill Connor, the lone dissenter on the council, said he opposed the smoking ban because it takes the control of the smoking issue out of the hands of the business owner, and puts in into the hands of the government.

"I don't like anything that takes people's rights away," he said. "If we got to sit here and control what people do, well that's not what government is for. It's supposed to be for the people, not against the people."

Connor, who owns a business in Humble, said he has had people come into his business over the years, and has never had a problem asking people not to smoke.

"None of these businesses have a problem (asking people not to smoke)," Connor said.

However, Connor said some businesses are afraid to enforce a ban on smoking for fear of losing their customers.

"They are shuffling the blame on us," Connor said.

Meanwhile, in a memorandum addressed to the city council, Connor explained why the city doesn't need another ordinance.

"We currently have ordinances we are not enforcing. Why add another one? Especially one that encumbers the rights of the business owner," Conner said in his memorandum. "The right to smoke or not smoke should be left up to the business owner and not the city of Humble."

Wayne Falgiano, who owns and operates the Railroad Café in Humble, has never allowed smoking and is happy to see the ordinance pass.

"Cigarette smoke is pretty nasty stuff," Falgiano said. "It stays in the air a long time. I don't recommend smoking in a restaurant at all."

Let counties set their own smoking ban restrictions

Chances are good this week that some form of statewide smoking ban will emerge from the Indiana Statehouse.

Legislators from the House and Senate began negotiations Monday on a compromise over proposed smoking restrictions. This, after the House passed a bill restricting smoking in workplaces and nearly all other public places and business; after 18 months it would include bars as well. The Senate passed a version carving out many more exemptions, such as for bingo halls, nursing homes -- and no ban for bars. More importantly, the Senate bill includes a provision that would block any new local smoking ordinances.

No matter what happens, it's likely Delaware County's smoking ban that includes businesses, bars and taverns would remain in place. But it could prevent other counties from enacting tougher bans.

Rep. Eric Turner, R- Cicero, who is leading the House-Senate conference committee, said he would not support any measure that would block new local smoking ordinances.

"I don't want to go down that path of trying to trump what locals have successfully done for a number of years," Turner said.

State Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, believes it's important to protect the right of cities and towns to adopt tougher rules than whatever becomes state law.

So do we.

And here's another reason: With East Central Indiana counties having the highest lung cancer rates in the state (84.6 cases for every 100,000 residents) and smoking rates that trump the state average (23 percent smoke vs. 20 percent statewide), it's imperative local governments have the necessary tools to take action on behalf of the public's health and welfare.

That means local governments, whether in ECI or elsewhere in the state, need to have reserved for them the power to ban smoking as they see fit.

The Statehouse has seen a dearth of common sense in this short session. Let's hope that members of the conference committee can hammer together a smoking ban that allows counties and towns to enact their own ban, as well as come up with a bill that has fewer exemptions. To do anything less would endanger the public's health and go against the tide of clamping down on smoking.

As we've editorialized before, a level playing field for business and health -- where one locale cannot gain at the expense of another -- is the ideal.

The state's health would benefit best from a bill that contains few exemptions, and allows local government to enact tougher bans.

Gov. Mitch Daniels said he hopes the version of the smoking ban will be a strong one. We just hope it protects home rule.

Fewer premature births after smoking ban in Scotland

Since Scotland introduced a ban on smoking in public places in 2006 there has been a 10% drop in the country's premature birth rate, say researchers.

They believe this is a smoke-free benefit that can be chalked up alongside others, like reductions in heart disease and childhood asthma.

Tobacco smoke has been linked to poor foetal growth and placenta problems.

Plos Medicine analysed smoking and birth rates for all expectant women in Scotland before and after the ban.

It included data for more than 700,000 women spanning a period of about 14 years.

Significant change
Scotland was the first country in the UK to ban smoking in public places, followed by Wales, Northern Ireland and England in 2007.

After the legislation was introduced in Scotland, fewer mothers-to-be smoked - 19% compared with 25% before.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

It is important to remember that the reasons a baby can be born premature or underweight are complicated and that smoking is just one risk factor”

Andy Cole
Chief Executive of Bliss
At the same time there was a significant drop in the number of babies born prematurely or with low birthweight.

The investigators believe both are linked to the smoking ban, even though these rates started to go down some months before the ban was introduced and smoking incidence started to creep up again shortly after the ban.

They say there have not been any major changes in maternity care that would explain the findings.

Also, the reduction in premature births was both in non-smokers and women who continued to smoke when pregnant, which they say suggests passive smoke exposure is likely involved.

But while their work suggests a link, it is not proof that one thing necessarily causes another. As with all retrospective studies like this, it is impossible to rule out entirely all other factors that might have influenced the finding.

However, Dr Daniel Mackay and colleagues from the University of Glasgow say their findings "add to the growing evidence of the wide-ranging health benefits of smoke-free legislation" and "lend support" to the adoption of such legislation in countries where it does not currently exist.

Andy Cole, chief executive of the special care baby charity Bliss, said: "We welcome the findings of this new study, which highlights a reduction in the number of babies born early or with low birthweight in Scotland, where around 8,000 babies are born each year needing specialist hospital care.

"Bliss always recommends that women should not smoke during pregnancy and that they should lead a healthy lifestyle. However, it is important to remember that the reasons a baby can be born premature or underweight are complicated and that smoking is just one risk factor."

According to the British Heart Foundation, there are more than nine million smokers in the UK, and smoking remains the UK's biggest cause of avoidable early death.

It says the focus should now shift to the effect of smoking in the home and confined spaces, such as cars, especially where children are present.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We are continuing to build upon the achievements made to protect future generations from the devastating effects of smoking such as bans on cigarette vending machines and the displays in shops.

"We are committed to ensuring a new comprehensive robust tobacco control strategy for Scotland is developed this year. This strategy will focus on prevention and cessation and include ambitious targets for reducing smoking across Scotland."

Smoking in public places ban reaps health benefits

"Yes, please," says the woman's speech bubble, oblivious to the smaller "No thanks" speech bubble emanating from her bump. Of course, unborn babies do not have a choice in the matter if their mothers choose to continue puffing through pregnancy, despite the known risks.

Moking among pregnant women and mothers is thought to account for around half of all cot deaths in Scotland and a quarter of miscarriages and still births, as well as reduced birthweights and more preterm deliveries. Yet it remains more common in Scotland than England, especially in Glasgow and among teenage mums.

A common response to questions from health professionals is: "My mum smoked when she was expecting me and I turned out fine." It is hard to change behaviour that is so culturally ingrained, especially when friends and family are heavy smokers. It may take literally generations. At best public policy can nudge citizens in the right direction. So we should welcome a study published today from Professor Jill Pell of Glasgow University that suggests the 2006 Scottish ban on smoking in public places has resulted in a reduction in the number of preterm births and low birthweight babies. In view of the increased risk of such babies developing long-term health problems, any reduction in those figures is highly desirable.

This is a major study. It considers all single births, nearly three-quarters of a million, between 1996 and 2009. The results imply that the publicity surrounding the ban about the risks of smoking and the increased support for smoking cessation may have been as important as the ban itself. The percentage of mothers smoking while pregnant fell from more than 25% to less than 19%.

Equally significant perhaps is the recently reported drop in children being admitted to hospital with breathing difficulties such as asthma. That suggests parents have not simply swopped smoking in public places for lighting up in their own living rooms, as some opponents of the ban predicted.

There is still a long furrow to plough on this issue. Nearly two-thirds of teenage mums in Scotland continue to smoke during pregnancy, as do one in four pregnant women in Glasgow, where 600 women are being recruited for a trial to see if offering £400 of supermarket vouchers can help stiffen their resolve to quit the habit. It may smack of desperation but if far more women stop smoking and stay stopped with the incentive than without it, public policy will have given a big nudge in the right direction and the scheme should be adopted more generally.

The argument about drinking in pregnancy is more complex but that too constitutes an avoidable risk to unborn children, bolstering the case for minimum alcohol pricing. It is tragic that having got rid of polio and diphtheria, the big childhood killers of the past, avoidable causes of child harm and death persist in the 21st century.