Exploding e-cigarette set toddler’s clothes afire, Utah fire marshal says

By Michael McFall | The Salt Lake Tribune
The Provo fire marshal is warning people not to leave their charging e-cigarettes unattended after one exploded and burned a toddler.
A North Dakota woman, staying for a while in Mount Pleasant, was driving through Provo on Friday morning with her 3-year-old son when heated coils shot out of her e-cigarette. The coils bounced off the ceiling and landed in her son’s car seat, setting his clothes on fire, said Provo Fire Marshal Lynn Schofield.
She first tried to pat the flames out, but when that did not work, she tossed her iced coffee on him. That did the trick.
“The e-cigarette had a catastrophic failure,” Schofield said. “… The batteries overcharged and the batteries failed and expelled the coils at the end of the tube.”
The boy suffered first- and second-degree burns, which, though relatively minor, are painful, Schofield said.
The fire marshal said that this is the second time he has investigated an e-cigarette fire. In the other case, a charging e-cigarette shot out its coils into a laundry basket, burning the laundry but causing no injuries, he said.
Schofield, who has heard similar stories from fire marshals around the country, alerted the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates e-cigarettes. He received notification Monday afternoon that the FDA received his report.
The driver had been charging the e-cigarette with the charger that came with the product, though Schofield has heard the device failure also happens with after-market chargers.
“It’s a fairly new product so our data on device failure is pretty limited,” Schofield said. “…This is not a device that I would plug into my wall and leave unattended. We were fortunate, the [boy’s] burns were relatively minor, but it was certainly a wake up call.”
mcfall@sltrib.com
 

5 Things You Need to Know About E-Cigarettes

By  (@lizzyfit)

The electronic cigarette was invented in the 1960s, but it didn’t really take off until a decade ago. Currently, there are more than 250 brands of “e-cigarettes” available in such flavors as watermelon, pink bubble gum and Java, and in more colors than the iPhone 5C.

The Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association estimates about 4 million Americans now use battery powered cigarettes. They project sales of the devices to cross the 1 billion mark by the end of this year. Here, a look at the e-smoke trend, the good, the bad and the unknown.

What are e-cigarettes?

E-cigarettes are battery operated nicotine inhalers that consist of a rechargeable lithium battery, a cartridge called a cartomizer and an LED that lights up at the end when you puff on the e-cigarette to simulate the burn of a tobacco cigarette. The cartomizer is filled with an e-liquid that typically contains the chemical propylene glycol along with nicotine, flavoring and other additives.

The device works much like a miniature version of the smoke machines that operate behind rock bands. When you “vape” — that’s the term for puffing on an e-cig — a heating element boils the e-liquid until it produces a vapor. A device creates the same amount of vapor no matter how hard you puff until the battery or e-liquid runs down.

How much do they cost?

Starter kits usually run between $30 and $100. The estimated cost of replacement cartridges is about $600, compared with the more than $1,000 a year it costs to feed a pack-a-day tobacco cigarette habit, according to the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association. Discount coupons and promotional codes are available online.

Are e-cigarettes regulated?

The decision in a 2011 federal court case gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate e-smokes under existing tobacco laws rather than as a medication or medical device, presumably because they deliver nicotine, which is derived from tobacco. The agency has hinted it will begin to regulate e-smokes as soon as this year but so far, the only action the agency has taken is issuing a letter in 2010 to electronic cigarette distributors warning them to cease making various unsubstantiated marketing claims.

For now, the devices remain uncontrolled by any governmental agency, a fact that worries experts like Erika Seward, the assistant vice president of national advocacy for the American Lung Association.

“With e-cigarettes, we see a new product within the same industry — tobacco — using the same old tactics to glamorize their products,” she said. “They use candy and fruit flavors to hook kids, they make implied health claims to encourage smokers to switch to their product instead of quitting all together, and they sponsor research to use that as a front for their claims.”

Thomas Kiklas, co-owner of e-cigarette maker inLife and co-founder of the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association, countered that the device performs the same essential function as a tobacco cigarette but with far fewer toxins. He said he would welcome any independent study of the products to prove how safe they are compared to traditional smokes.

The number of e-smokers is expected to quadruple in the next few years as smokers move away from the centuries old tobacco cigarette so there is certainly no lack of subjects,” he said.

What are the health risks of vaping?

The jury is out. The phenomenon of vaping is so new that science has barely had a chance to catch up on questions of safety, but some initial small studies have begun to highlight the pros and cons.

The most widely publicized study into the safety of e-cigarettes was done when researchers analyzed two leading brands and concluded the devices did contain trace elements of hazardous compounds, including a chemical which is the main ingredient found in antifreeze. But Kiklas, whose brand of e-cigarettes were not included in the study, pointed out that the FDA report found nine contaminates versus the 11,000 contained in a tobacco cigarette and noted that the level of toxicity was shown to be far lower than those of tobacco cigarettes.

However, Seward said because e-cigarettes remain unregulated, it’s impossible to draw conclusions about all the brands based on an analysis of two.

“To say they are all safe because a few have been shown to contain fewer toxins is troubling,” she said. “We also don’t know how harmful trace levels can be.”

Thomas Glynn, the director of science and trends at the American Cancer Society, said there were always risks when one inhaled anything other than fresh, clean air, but he said there was a great likelihood that e-cigarettes would prove considerably less harmful than traditional smokes, at least in the short term.

“As for long-term effects, we don’t know what happens when you breathe the vapor into the lungs regularly,” Glynn said. “No one knows the answer to that.”

Do e-cigarettes help tobacco smokers quit?

Because they preserve the hand-to-mouth ritual of smoking, Kiklas said e-cigarettes might help transform a smoker’s harmful tobacco habits to a potentially less harmful e-smoking habit. As of yet, though, little evidence exists to support this theory.

In a first of its kind study published last week in the medical journal Lancet, researchers compared e-cigarettes to nicotine patches and other smoking cessation methods and found them statistically comparable in helping smokers quit over a six-month period. For this reason, Glynn said he viewed the devices as promising though probably no magic bullet. For now, FDA regulations forbid e-cigarette marketers from touting their devices as a way to kick the habit.

Seward said many of her worries center on e-cigarettes being a gateway to smoking, given that many popular brands come in flavors and colors that seem designed to appeal to a younger generation of smokers.

“We’re concerned about the potential for kids to start a lifetime of nicotine use by starting with e-cigarettes,” she said.

E-cigarettes can not be sold to minors yet vaping among young people is on the rise.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found nearly 1.8 million young people had tried e-cigarettes and the number of U.S. middle and high school students e-smokers doubled between 2011 and 2012.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/facts-cigarettes/story?id=20345463#

More restrictions for smokers at Ralph Engelstad Arena

By: Jennifer Johnson, Grand Forks Herald
Those who want to take a smoke break during events at Grand Forks’ Ralph Engelstad Arena will be free to leave but they won’t be allowed back in starting Oct. 6, the night of the first UND men’s hockey game, according to arena spokesman Chris Semrau.
This will affect all events at the arena itself and the Betty Engelstad Sioux Center.
The arena’s new policy would be consistent with UND’s tobacco policy, and is another step to ensure a healthier workplace for employees on event nights, Semrau said on Monday.
UND became a tobacco-free campus in 2007, but the Ralph was among the places exempted. The arena was able to offer guests an outdoor smoking zone.
Arena officials have considered getting rid of those zones for years, Semrau said. Though he estimates the number of people who smoke at arena events is low, he said tobacco smoke drifting into the building while children were present was enough to trigger complaints. “Most guests and staff said they didn’t want smoking allowed anymore.”
“The community itself has voted to remove smoking from most establishments, and this is another step in that direction,” Semrau said, referring to city laws restricting smoking indoors.
“We thought this was the right next step for the facility,” he said. “With any change, you’ll always have some negative feedback. But we hope to address what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, and we believe it will not have a major impact on guests.”
Information about the new policy will be sent to season ticket holders in the next week, he said.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/273965/

Nine F-M businesses fail tobacco compliance check

By: Forum staff reports, INFORUM
FARGO – The Fargo and West Fargo police departments, with assistance from Fargo Cass Public Health, conducted tobacco compliance checks Wednesday.
In Fargo, 63 businesses were checked and seven failed, and in West Fargo, 11 businesses were checked and two failed.
Business that failed in Fargo were: Petro Serve USA, 2903 Main Ave.; Petro Travel/Fuel Store, 4510 19th Ave. S.; Stop-n-Go, 204 42nd St. S.; West Acres All Stop Amoco, 3441 13th Ave. S.; Fargo South Pointe, 3202 33rd St. S.; Holiday Station Store, 2755 S. Brandt Drive; and Stop-n-Go, 602 23rd St. S.
Business that failed in West Fargo included: Petro Serve USA, 239 Main Ave. W.; and West Fargo Truck Stop, 1021 Main Ave. W.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/412889/group/News/

House Dems call for cigar, e-cigarette regulations over 'kid-friendly' products

By Julian Hattem
A group of House Democrats is calling on the Obama administration to issue new rules for cigars and electronic cigarettes.
In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday, the lawmakers asked regulators “to act quickly” with new rules for the products, over which the federal government currently has little oversight.
“Manufacturers of e-cigarettes are taking advantage of this regulatory loophole to target children,” wrote Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.). “As a result, some e-cigarette makers are producing products with kid-friendly flavors such as ‘Cherry Crush’ and ‘Cookies & Cream Milkshake.’ ”
A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 1.78 million middle- and high-school students have used e-cigarettes, which vaporize nicotine without producing smoke.
“With over a million youth now using e-cigarettes, FDA needs to act without further delay to protect public health,” the lawmakers added.
The group of legislators also sent a separate letter to Republican leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which Waxman is the top Democrat, requesting a hearing on the health risks posed by the tobacco products and the FDA’s authority to impose new rules.
The FDA, which oversees cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, has been working on regulations to expand its oversight to e-cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco, which are currently exempt from its rules.
Those rules have been under development at the FDA for years.
Bringing the tobacco products under the agency’s jurisdiction could subject them to new fees and restrictions, which some tobacco companies have worried could unfairly single them out with overly restrictive rules.
Health organizations and some tobacco giants have backed the FDA’s efforts, arguing that new regulations would protect the public health and level the playing field for tobacco companies.
According to the Obama administration’s spring roadmap for new regulations, a proposal to expand the FDA’s oversight could be released in October.
Earlier in September, Senate Democrats used the CDC’s findings to encourage the FDA to “redouble” its efforts.
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/322519-house-dems-call-for-cigar-e-cigarette-regulations#ixzz2fBmaZlYm

Top New York chefs want to ban 'tacky and intrusive' e-cigarettes from their restaurants

By MARGOT PEPPERS
As electronic cigarettes become more and more widely used, restaurant owners and chefs are having to take a definitive stance on the use of them in their own establishments.
While some fine dining eateries allow the glowing cylinders, others have banned them for various reasons, like the notion that they bother other patrons, their likeness to actual cigarettes, and even simply because they appear tacky.
Eric Ripert, for instance, chef and co-owner of Le Bernadin in Times Square, told Business Week that he personally disapproves of the electronic cigarettes because ‘I don’t find it elegant. It’s weird to see someone smoking with a plastic cigarette.’
While Mr Ripert dislikes the way e-cigarettes look, he does admit that he recently allowed a patron to smoke one at the table, mostly because it is still a new phenomenon, and therefore a rare occurrence.
Do or Dine chef and owner Justin Warner has a similar take on the battery-powered cigarettes.
He explained that while he lets his diners light up electronically at the table, he, too, has an issue with how the cigarettes look – especially the blue lights on the ends, which are ‘very tacky-looking’.
‘They look like a prop I would’ve had in my raver days,’ the chef added.
Labelled as a ‘healthy’ alternative to smoking and promoted by celebrities like Jennie McCarthy and  Stephen Dorff, electronic cigarettes have seen a tenfold rise in sales in the last year alone.
But just because they are more common now than ever doesn’t necessarily mean they will become a fixture in restaurants any time soon.
Carlo Mirarchi, who owns Williamsburg restaurant Blanca, says despite what the e-cigarette companies claim, they do have a ‘kind of odor’ to them.
As such, he says he wouldn’t allow them during meal time, but he wouldn’t be averse to customers lighting up at the very end of the night.
Gabriel Stulman, the owner of restaurants including Fedora and Jeffrey’s Grocery, has a stronger opinion and stipulates that no customer smoke cigarettes – electronic or not – indoors or outdoors.
According to the Virginia native, the practice is just as intrusive and distracting as someone playing music out loud from their iPhone.
‘Anyone smoking an e-cigarette is forcing their desires and interests on others in a manner with which the other party may not enjoy it,’ he says.
Sue Chan, a spokesman for Momofuku, explained that staff at their restaurants ask that guests don’t smoke electronic cigarettes because they are ‘disruptive’ to the other diners.
For Alex Stupak, however, who owns Mexican restaurants Empellon Cocina and Empellon Taqueria, the newness of e-cigarettes means his establishments have yet to come up with an official policy.
He added that because of their supposed odorlessness, it may prove difficult to ask patrons not to smoke them, which he says would be akin to asking them to get rid of a toothpick.
And Drew Nieporent, owner of the Myriad Restaurant Group, with establishments that include Nobu and Tribeca Grill, said that when it comes to e-cigarettes in his restaurants, it depends on the situation.
While he admits that his gut reaction would be to see it as just another form of smoking, he adds that he would only say anything if another guest were to complain.
Indeed, a large number of restaurateurs are of the belief that e-cigarette smoking is acceptable so long as it is not a bother to fellow customers.
Said the management at the Elm in Williamsburg: ‘We don’t mind them. We actually have had a few guests “light up” in the dining room.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2422651/Theyre-distracting-intrusive-customers—look-tacky-Why-New-York-chefs-want-ban-e-cigarette-fine-dining-restaurants.html#ixzz2fBktEMZz

Woman in graphic anti-smoking ad dies from cancer

Associated Press – CBS News
A North Carolina woman featured prominently in a graphic government ad campaign to get people to stop smoking died Monday of cancer.
Terrie Hall died at a hospital in Winston-Salem, N.C., federal officials said. She was 53.
“She was a public health hero,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted the campaign. “She may well have saved more lives than most doctors do.”
A former smoker whose voice box was removed years ago, Hall took a leading role in the campaign that showed how smoking-related cancer ravages the body. Officials believe the “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign led as many as 100,000 Americans smokers to quit.
Hall’s oral and throat cancer was caused by the cigarette smoking she began in high school, CDC officials said. This summer, the cancer spread to her brain.
Hall’s first ad showed her putting on a wig, putting in false teeth and covering a hole in her throat with a scarf. It was the campaign’s most popular spot by far, receiving more than 2.8 million views on YouTube.
It was the federal public health agency’s largest and starkest anti-smoking push, and its first national advertising effort.
In another ad, the Lexington resident addressed the camera in the buzzing sound of her artificial voice box. She advised smokers to make a video of themselves reading a children’s book or singing a lullaby. “I wish I had. The only voice my grandson’s ever heard is this one,” her electric voice growled.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57603199/woman-in-graphic-anti-smoking-ad-dies-from-cancer/

Study: Kids of smokers are more likely to smoke

Written by:  HealthDay

Teens of a parent who smoked — even if the mother or father quit before the teen was born — are more likely to smoke than those whose parents are nonsmokers, a new study finds.
Having an older brother or sister who smokes also raises the odds that a teen will pick up the habit, the researchers report.
“These findings imply that any amount of smoking could have important influences on the next generation,” said lead researcher Mike Vuolo, an assistant professor of sociology at Purdue University. “Given the influence on the oldest siblings, this is especially the case in heavy-smoking households.”
Vuolo and co-author Jeremy Staff, an associate professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University, analyzed data from a multigenerational study that has followed participants since 1988, when they were freshmen in high school, to 2011. They focused on 214 now-parents and 314 of their children aged 11 and older.
Annual survey results uncovered four patterns of smoking: teens who were persistent heavy smokers, teens who were light smokers who quit or reduced use, teens who started smoking later and nonsmokers.
Their children were then surveyed in 2011.
“Surprisingly, we found similar odds of smoking among the children for the three smoking groups (23 percent to 29 percent) compared with children of nonsmokers (8 percent),” Vuolo said.
In homes with a persistent heavy-smoking parent, the oldest sibling is influenced to smoke, which in turn increases the chances that younger siblings will smoke by six times, he added.
“We should educate young people that smoking at any time in their lives could have influences on their children. Also, preventative efforts should target heavy-smoking households, trying to break the cycle of influence on the oldest siblings,” Vuolo said.
The report was published online Aug. 5 and in the September print issue of Pediatrics.
Dr. John Spangler, a professor of family and community medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, said there may well be a genetic component to these findings.
“This study confirms what we have already sensed, that there is a family history of tobacco use among many smokers,” Spangler said. “We know that people are more likely to uses substances like alcohol based on family history, the same holds true for tobacco use.”
This may point to a genetic predisposition to metabolize nicotine or dopamine differently, he said.
“We should encourage doctors to ask about a family history of smoking, because if there is a family history of smoking then that individual is more likely to be a smoker in the future,” Spangler said.
Parents who were former smokers should realize their child is more likely to become a smoker. These parents may want to discuss smoking with their children with an eye toward preventing it.
“This may also be a good way for physicians to counsel parents about and children about tobacco use — that there is this risk factor,” Spangler said.
Another expert agreed that parents who smoke should make every effort to quit, but said that further measures are needed.
“Even parents who are unable to quit should make their cars and homes smoke-free, send clear messages to their children about not smoking and support policies and programs like increased tobacco taxes, smoke-free laws and comprehensive prevention and cessation programs that are proven to reduce smoking among kids and adults,,” said Danny McGoldrick, vice president for research at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130916/LIFESTYLE/309160023/Study-Kids-smokers-more-likely-smoke

Check Up: Study of casinos raises alarm on secondhand smoke

By Don Sapatkin, Inquirer Staff Writer
A half-century after a U.S. Surgeon General’s report raised the alarm on tobacco, most Americans know that smoking may eventually cause lung cancer. Far less appreciated is what can happen just minutes – 60 seconds, according to some research – after taking in a breath of smoke, even secondhand.
In the bloodstream, platelets are activated and become sticky. They clump together to form clots that can cause a heart attack or stroke. They stick to artery walls, ripping the lining when blood flow increases and interfering with the vessels’ ability to expand and contract as needed.
“I’m sure you’ve heard, ‘If you’re having a heart attack, take an aspirin,’ ” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “Aspirin is an anti-platelet agent. And what the smoke is doing is exactly the opposite.”
His latest research, analyzing ambulance calls from casinos, illustrates the point.
Smoke-free laws in most of the country, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, partly or completely exempt casino floors. Colorado’s law changed in the middle of the 13-year study period, offering what Stanton calls “a natural experiment” in secondhand smoke’s short-term effects.
On July 1, 2006, the state implemented a smoking ban in all workplaces, public spaces, restaurants, and bars; casinos were exempt. Ambulance calls in rural Gilpin County dropped 23 percent from locations other than its two dozen casinos, where they were unchanged.
Gambling floors were added to the law effective Jan. 1, 2008. Ambulance calls from casinos (and their parking lots) swiftly dropped 19 percent; every place else remained the same.
Numerous studies have found declines of roughly 20 percent in hospitalizations for various conditions after comprehensive smoking bans, Glantz said. That is likely due to a mix of short- and long-term factors: less secondhand smoke, more smokers quitting, and a snowball effect that further reduces smoking rates.
By focusing on emergency calls from casinos, which players visit for specific time periods, the new study was better able to isolate the near-instantaneous effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The study, published last month in the journal Circulation, did not track outcomes or reasons for the calls. Instances of wheezing, runny eyes, and elevated blood pressure weren’t recorded either, noted Jennifer Ibrahim, an associate professor of public health at Temple University, who studies tobacco and public health law.
“It is probably 10 times that for people who are experiencing symptoms, but might not need a trip to a hospital,” she said.
Tobacco companies have worked for years to exempt casinos from smoke-free laws, said Glantz and Ibrahim, who have each examined the links.
Delaware bans smoking in casinos. New Jersey exempts them, but defers to localities, and Atlantic City restricts smoking to 25 percent of the floor. Pennsylvania allows smoking in up to 50 percent of the casino floor and preempts all local smoke-free laws except Philadelphia’s – but supersedes it specifically for the gaming floor, where the city would prohibit smoking.
Glantz argues that lawmakers who say they are concerned about costs ought to read the research. “A heart attack is a lot of money,” he said, much of it paid by taxpayers.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-15/news/42083527_1_casinos-secondhand-smoke-smoking-rates

Study: Methol cigarettes are a gateway product for young people and smoking

by 
Young people are heavy users of menthol cigarettes, and their popularity is undermining efforts to reduce smoking in youths.
That is the conclusion of a new University at Buffalo study that comes out as the Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to limit or ban the sale of menthol cigarettes because of rising concern that the flavoring is more likely to encourage young people to start smoking and that menthol smokers are more addicted.
Authors of the UB study say their work adds to the scientific evidence and should be reviewed by the FDA, which just pushed back the deadline for public comment on potential government regulation to Nov. 22.
The results, which were published online in the journal Tobacco Control, are based on national data from 2004 to 2010 of about 390,000 people age 12 and older. Among the conclusions:
— Menthol cigarette use was more common among 12– to 17-year-olds. Among smokers, nearly 57 percent in this age group used menthol cigarettes. By comparison, about 31 percent of older persons used mentholated cigarettes.
— Those most likely to smoke menthol cigarettes were young, female and black.
— For adolescents, the percentage who smoked non-menthol cigarettes decreased, while menthol smoking rates remained constant. For all young adults, the percentage who smoked non-menthol cigarettes also declined, while menthol smoking rates increased.
— Two brands, Camel menthol and Marlboro menthol cigarettes, experienced notable increased use among adolescent and young adult smokers, particularly non-Hispanic whites.
“Overall menthol cigarette smoking has either remained constant or increased in all the age groups we studied, while non-menthol smoking has decreased,” said Gary Giovino, lead researcher and chairman of the UB Department of Community Health and Health Behaviors.
“Our study indicates that mentholated cigarettes are a ‘starter product’ for kids,” he said. “Menthol lessens the harshness of the smoke. It sweetens the poison.”
Giovino said some young people also believe menthol cigarettes are safer because they don’t feel as harsh as non-menthol cigarettes.
Funding for the research was provided by Legacy, a non-profit organization focused on reducing tobacco use.
“Our findings support that the presence of menthol cigarettes in the marketplace has slowed progress in reducing smoking prevalence in the U.S. This is of great concern given the tremendous health effects of smoking cigarettes,” Andrea Villanti, co-author of the study, said in a statement.
She is associate director for regulatory science and policy at Legacy’s Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies.
When the government passed the Family Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009, the FDA banned all flavored cigarettes except for menthol to discourage minors from purchasing the products. But the law required the federal agency to review the science behind menthol cigarettes.
A committee concluded in 2011 that removing menthol cigarettes from the market would benefit public health.
In July, the FDA released a report on current science on menthol cigarettes, and it concluded that there is little evidence to suggest that menthol cigarettes are more or less harmful than non-menthol cigarette.
However, it said menthol probably encourages young people to start smoking and leads to greater addiction than non-menthol cigarettes.
The science is clear that menthol cigarettes pose a threat to public health, and they should be banned, according to a recent statement from Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science at the American Cancer Society.
Cigarette-makers take a different stance.
The best available scientific evidence demonstrates that menthol cigarettes have the same health effects as non-menthol cigarettes, and consumers should have the right to make a personal choice to use any legal product, according to a statement by Lorillard Inc., maker of Newport menthol cigarettes.
Newport is the top-selling menthol and second-largest-selling cigarette brand overall in the United States, the company says.
http://medcitynews.com/2013/09/study-methol-cigarettes-are-a-gateway-product-for-young-people-and-smoking/#ixzz2f4Mr21ZV