Underage tobacco sales reported at record lows

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM
AP Tobacco Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — New statistics show that the sale of tobacco to minors in the U.S. were held near all-time lows last year under a federal-state inspection program intended to curb underage usage.
The violation rate of tobacco sales to underage youth at retailers nationwide has fallen from about 40 percent in 1997 to 9.1 percent in the last fiscal year, according to a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration report released Tuesday. The rate, which reached an all-time low of 8.5 percent in 2011, is based on the results of random, unannounced inspections conducted at stores to see whether they’d sell tobacco products to a customer under the age of 18.
A U.S. Surgeon General’s report issued last year found that more needs to be done to prevent young Americans from using tobacco, including stricter smoking bans and higher taxes on tobacco products. According to that report, almost one in five high school-aged children smokes. That’s down from earlier decades, but the rate of decline has slowed. It also said that more than 80 percent of smokers begin by age 18 and 99 percent of adult smokers in the U.S. start by age 26.
The inspection program, named for late U.S. Rep. Mike Synar of Oklahoma, is a federal mandate requiring each state to document that the rate of tobacco sales to minors is no more than 20 percent at the risk losing millions in federal funds for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention and treatment services.
Frances Harding, director of the federal agency’s Center for Substance Abuse, said that while the program has made “remarkable strides,” far more needs to be done to curb underage tobacco use.
In the last fiscal year, 33 states and Washington, D.C., reported a retailer violation rate below 10 percent, according to the Tuesday report. It was the seventh time that no state was found to be out of compliance. Maine reported the lowest rate of 1.8 percent, and Oregon reported the highest rate at 17.9 percent.
The latest federal data shows that about 14 percent of minors reported buying their own cigarettes in stores in 2011, down from 19 percent a decade earlier, suggesting that children may instead be getting their cigarettes and tobacco products from places other than convenience stores or gas stations.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/08/27/health/underage-tobacco-sales-reported-at-record-lows

E-cigarettes health: Carcinogens found in e-cigarettes a danger, study finds

E-cigarettes health reports recently reveal that this seemingly “healthy” cigarette alternative may not be as good for users as many would like to believe, and that they might even include a similar number of dangerous carcinogens as regular cigarettes when smoking, Yahoo! reports this Tuesday, Aug. 27. The study highlights in its finding that researchers found that up to 3 out of 10 e-cigarettes had levels of acrolein and formaldehyde that were almost the same as those in standard cigarettes, a shocking discovery for some.
The e-cigarettes health study comes at a time when these electronic cigarettes have become an increasingly well-known substitute for smokers (many of whom may be trying to quit). Although the device also uses heat which vaporizes the nicotine into the body when inhaled, it does not contain the unhealthy tobacco.
Smokers that want to try to avoid some of the dangers and health risks associated with smoking, or in the process of kicking the bad habit, often use e-cigarettes as another option to still get their nicotine fix, while avoiding many of the serious health risks linked to regular cigarette smoking, most notably cancer.
Yet France’s National Consumer Institute magazine released some shocking new findings this Monday, reporting that a majority of e-cigarettes on the market today still hold “a significant quantity of carcinogenic molecules” that could pose a similar danger to these electronic smokers.
The study discovered via its researchers that 3 out of every 10 e-cigarettes still contained high levels of some carcinogenic substances, including that of formaldehyde and acrolein.
Though a banning may not be in order, raising public health awareness or putting limits to the e-cigarettes might be a sensible option, notes the magazine’s editor-in-chief
“This is not a reason to ban them, but to place them under better control.”
Added another statement on the rising popularity of e-cigarettes and the highly believed health benefits of the substituent device in terms of this new study:
“E-cigarettes are more than just a fad,” reads a piece from the report. “E-Cigarettes’ appeal stems from a variety of perceived advantages over traditional cigarettes, most commonly the perceptions that e-cigarettes are healthier, cheaper, and can be used almost anywhere … Yet they may have some hidden dangers, including those of carcinogens and other dangers.”
Do you have any insight into the e-cigarette health news? Do you agree with the study’s finding that dangerous carcinogens may lurk in these seemingly more healthy e-cigarettes?
http://www.examiner.com/article/e-cigarettes-health-carcinogens-found-e-cigarettes-a-danger-study-finds

Smokers and the Affordable Care Act: Q&A

WebMD Health News
By Kathleen Doheny
Reviewed by Lisa Zamosky
The Affordable Care Act has ended some age-old health insurance practices such as denying people with pre-existing conditions. But it does allow insurance companies to charge people who use tobacco 50% more for their premiums.
Supporters say the higher premiums make sense because smokers and other tobacco users have higher health care costs. Critics say the higher rate is more likely to make people lie about their tobacco use or go without coverage than it is to encourage them to quit their habit. Smokers without insurance also put their partners and children at risk.
Here’s what smokers and others need to know.

What does the Affordable Care Act allow insurers to charge tobacco users?

Companies can charge tobacco users up to 50% more. States, though, can mandate a lower percentage or no surcharge.

What is ”tobacco use,” and how is a smoker or tobacco user defined?

Tobacco use is the use of any tobacco product, including cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, snuff, and pipe tobacco, four or more times a week within the past 6 months. (Religious or ceremonial use of tobacco is allowed, such as by Alaska natives or Native Americans). It’s an honor system.

Will every state charge the maximum?

Seven states and Washington, D.C., will not charge smokers higher insurance premiums. The states are: California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Connecticut voted against the higher premiums only for the small group Marketplace, not the individual Marketplace. The other states outlawed higher premiums for both individuals and small business policies.
Three states — Arkansas, Colorado, and Kentucky — will allow companies to charge tobacco users less than 50%.
The remaining states are expected to allow the full 50% additional charge.
The highest possible premiums, though, won’t be effective for the first year because of a limitation in the software systems. That is being fixed.
Tobacco users in a small business plan don’t have to pay the higher premium if they enroll in a quit-smoking program; tobacco users in an individual plan may get a break on the premium if they enroll in a program. The law, however, does not require companies to offer the break in the individual Marketplace.

Will the Affordable Care Act require coverage of quit-smoking programs?

Yes.
The law requires all new private health insurance plans and Marketplace plans to cover services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, with no cost-sharing fees. That includes tobacco cessation treatments.

What will quit-smoking treatments or programs include?

That is unclear.
Insurance companies don’t have a consistent approach to quit-smoking programs, says Erika Sward, a spokeswoman for the American Lung Association. “What we have seen is a patchwork quilt.”
While the Affordable Care Act requires that new plans cover services recommended by the task force, the task force does not give specifics. It recommends that doctors ask adults about tobacco use, provide cessation programs, and provide counseling for women who smoke during pregnancy.
But there are no ”typical” tobacco cessation programs, according to a survey conducted by Georgetown University researchers.
What’s needed, Sward says, is a comprehensive approach. According to the American Lung Association, tobacco cessation benefits should include the choices recommended by the Public Health Service. These include:
   -Nicotine — from a patch, gum, lozenge, nasal spray, or inhaler
   -Medications — bupropion (Zyban) and varenicline (Chantix)
-Counseling — individual, group, and phone
In one area, the law is specific: It requires that pregnant women on Medicaid be offered the treatments recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. Those include asking about tobacco use and offering counseling, with no recommendation aboutmedication use in pregnancy.

Who supports higher premiums for tobacco users?

The insurance industry supports higher rates because smokers have much higher health care costs than nonsmokers, according to Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade industry group.
“There is clear documentation of so much greater health care costs [for tobacco users], and we think that should be reflected in the rates,” she says.
In 2004, smoking cost the U.S. $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care costs, or $4,260 per adult smoker, according to the CDC.
More than half of Americans favor charging smokers more for insurance, according to a Gallup poll released in mid-August.

Who is against higher premiums for tobacco users?

Many health organizations, including the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, are against higher rates for smokers and other tobacco users.
The higher premium, besides being discriminatory, may backfire, Sward says.
“We really urge the carrot over the stick approach,” she says. “We know smokers want to quit and they need help to do so. It’s in everyone’s best interest that smokers have access to a good cessation program.”
SOURCES: Erika Sward, spokeswoman, American Lung Association.Susan Pisano, spokeswoman, America’s Health Insurance Plans.Alicia Hartinger, Health and Human Services.U.S. Public Health Services.U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceGallup.
 

The Real Reason Big Tobacco Loves E-Cigs

By Kyle Stock
Apparently, the nicotine business never changes—with smoke or without. Big Tobacco fought government overseers for decades, but eventually traditional cigarettes became heavily regulated products. Now the Food and Drug Administration is working on a package of regulations for e-cigarettes devices, which vaporize liquid nicotine with heat, rather than burning it via tobacco leaves. Among other things, the FDA is considering a ban on online sales of e-cigarettes to cut down on sales to minors, and discussing whether to curtail advertising. A roster of proposed rules is expected in October.
The regulatory chatter comes as the e-cigarette market is finally expected to top $1 billion this year. Tobacco giant Altria Group (MO) is just this month rolling out its e-cigarette, dubbed “MarkTen.” Reynolds American (RAI) is also rushing to ship its VUSE product. Meanwhile, Lorillard (LO) booked $57 million in e-cigarette revenue in the first three months of the year.
Bloomberg Industries estimates that at their current pace, e-cigarette sales will top that of traditional smokes by 2047. The estimate comes with a big caveat: the assumption that politicians won’t heap a bunch of new taxes on e-cigarettes—levies that have served as a sort of emphysema to the body of the cigarette business.
VIDEO: E-Cigarettes Take on Public Stigma of Smoking
Currently, e-cigarettes are subject to ordinary sales taxes—just like, say, pencils. Big Tobacco loves that. Here’s why: In the average state, 11 percent of cigarettes are smuggled, according to a recent report by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank. “Smuggled” in this case has a few meanings. It includes smokes that are illegally ferried from states and countries with lower taxes, as well as counterfeit cigarettes.
“Once a tax gets too high, it acts in the same way that Prohibition did: You get substantial black-market activity,” says Scott Drenkard, an economist at the Tax Foundation.
Meanwhile, the preponderance of smuggled cigarettes is alarming and the Mackinac Center says counterfeits—often stuffed full of sawdust and “human excrement”—are a growing problem. Here’s a look at the share of cigarettes that are smuggled in the top five states:
STORY: Cigarettes: The Most Stable International Currency
• New York 61 percent ($4.35 taxes per pack)
• Arizona 54 percent ($2.00)
• New Mexico 53 percent ($1.66)
• Washington 49 percent ($3.03)
• Rhode Island 40 percent ($3.46)
As tobacco giants roll out their e-cigarette offerings, the new smokeless devices are where they’ll focus their efforts. And as long as the government doesn’t burn them with a bunch of new taxes, they will probably be happy to keep e-cigarettes off billboards or Web stores or whatever requirements regulators throw their way.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-26/the-real-reason-big-tobacco-loves-e-cigs

Doctors can help prevent teen smoking, panel says

Kim Painter, Special for USA TODAY
Children and teens may hear about the dangers of smoking from parents, teachers and friends, but they may be less likely to take up the deadly habit if they hear the message from at least one more important person: their doctor.
That’s the conclusion of an influential panel publishing new recommendations today in two medical journals, the Annals of Internal Medicineand Pediatrics. In a number of studies, kids were less likely to try smoking if they got some kind of counseling or education from their doctors or other health care providers, says the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
“We didn’t recommend any particular intervention, because a variety of things seem to help,” says panel member David Grossman, a pediatrician and researcher at the Group Health Research Institute and the University of Washington-Seattle. “The important thing is that the message is coming from a physician and that’s an important voice … even to kids.”
The report says “even very minimal interventions,” such as a doctor’s office mailing a series of prevention guides to parents and kids, could make a difference.
Stopping kids from ever smoking could have a huge health impact, the panel says: Smoking kills about 443,000 people a year in the United States, and 90% of smokers start before age 18.
The American Academy of Pediatrics already urges doctors to talk to parents, children and teens about smoking.
But the task force, the academy and other experts also say that broader strategies — enlisting families, communities, mass media and lawmakers — are needed to chip away at smoking initiation rates. As of 2011, about 18% of high school students and 4% of middle school students were smokers, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
While those numbers have been falling, the fact that nearly one in five teens still leave high school as smokers is unacceptable, says Michael Steinberg, an internist who directs a tobacco dependence program at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.
“We need to do everything we can to reduce a young person’s opportunity to try their first cigarette or to go from experimenting to becoming addicted,” he says.
In an opinion piece published alongside the task force’s report in the Annals, Steinberg endorses one increasingly proposed strategy: raising the legal age to buy cigarettes to 21. A proposal to do that is under discussion in New York City, and several states and counties have already raised the age from 18 to 19, over the protests of smokers’ rights advocates and some retailers. The small town of Needham, Mass., was the first to raise the age to 21, with a phased-in plan that started in 2005, and some other Massachusetts towns are following suit, says Jonathan Winickoff, a Harvard Medical School pediatrician who spearheads anti-smoking efforts for the pediatrics academy.
Raising the age to 21 could cut teen smoking rates dramatically, largely because younger teens often get cigarettes from older teens and young adults, Winickoff says. “And if you make it to 21 without smoking, your chances of ever becoming a smoker drop to about 2%,” he says.
Some of the steepest drops in teen smoking have occurred since the federal government started requiring states to beef up enforcement of existing under-18 sales bans, says the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The share of retailers caught selling to minors dropped from 40% in 1997 to 8.5% in 2011, the agency says. Numbers for 2012 will be released Tuesday.
• Parents, educators and others who want to talk children and teens about smoking can get help from the CDC at www.cdc.gov/tobacco/youth/
• Teens who want help can go to teen.smokefree.gov, a government website with information on text and app-based tools, or Tobacco-Free Teens, a free app in Apple iTunes stores developed by researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/26/teen-smoking-doctors/2687711/

Ronald Motley, Lawyer Who Led Tobacco Lawsuits, Dies at 68

By Jef Feeley
Ronald L. Motley, a South Carolina lawyer who spearheaded lawsuits against tobacco companies that led them to agree to pay $246 billion in the biggest civil settlement in U.S. history, has died. He was 68.
He died yesterday at Roper Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina, Don Migliori, a partner in his law firm, said in an interview. The cause was complications from organ failure, he said.
Motley pioneered the development of mass-tort litigation to sue tobacco makers in the 1990s such as Altria Group Inc. (MO:US)’s Philip Morris unit and companies that sold asbestos-laden building products, such as Johns Manville Corp. He recovered billions of dollars for workers and consumers who blamed the manufacturers’ products for their illnesses.
“Ron Motley changed the playing field for individuals seeking to hold companies accountable in this country,” said Richard Harpootlian, a Columbia, South Carolina-based plaintiffs’ lawyer who had known Motley for 38 years. “He may well have been the best trial lawyer of his generation.”
The son of a gas-station owner in North Charleston, South Carolina, Motley became one of the U.S.’s most feared plaintiff lawyers. He could be seen striding across courtrooms in his “lucky” ostrich-skin boots and often used props to entertain jurors and annoy opponents.

Legal Fees

As part of the tobacco industry settlement, in which companies agreed to make payments to U.S. states to resolve claims that cigarettes caused public-health dangers, Motley’s firm was guaranteed at least $1 billion in legal fees, the New York Times reported in 1998.
William S. Ohlemeyer, a former in-house lawyer for Phillip Morris, who tried a tobacco case against Motley in Indiana, said he was a formidable opponent.
“It was impressive to watch him operate in the courtroom,” Ohlemeyer, now a partner at the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, said in an interview. “He was a spectacular trial lawyer who worked hard for his clients.”
Filmmakers hired actor Bruce McGill to portray Motley in the movie “The Insider,” an account of tobacco scientist Jeffrey Wigand’s decision to blow the whistle on the tobacco industry’s knowledge about nicotine’s addictiveness. The film starred Russell Crowe as Wigand and Al Pacino as a TV journalist who covered Wigand’s story.

Asbestos Cases

Motley started his career as an assistant prosecutor in Greenwood, South Carolina. In the mid-1970s, he made a name for himself by filing the first suits against Manville and other companies that sold products such as insulation containing asbestos. Studies have shown the material can cause cancer and lung problems.
Motley and his law firm, Motley Rice LLC, have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for workers injured by exposure to asbestos, said Jack McConnell, one of his former partners who is now a federal judge in Providence, Rhode Island. McConnell tried asbestos and other cases with Motley for 25 years before joining the bench.
“He could take very complicated liability evidence from the corporation’s own files and explain it to lay jurors in a simple and straightforward fashion,” McConnell said. “He despised it when people were hurt through corporate misconduct, and he thrived on getting them justice.”

Remembering Mother

For Motley, representing smokers who developed lung cancer was a personal matter, McConnell said. Motley’s mother was an ex-smoker who died from the disease in 1984.
“Ron said on many occasions that he was out to avenge his mother’s death from tobacco through the litigation,” McConnell said.
To make his case, the raven-haired Motley sometimes turned to unusual courtroom props. In an asbestos case in Baltimore, Motley donned a white lab coat and used a toy doctor’s kit as part of his cross-examination of a company’s medical expert, McConnell said. During closing arguments in that case, Motley used a squirt gun to spray a defense exhibit.
Defense attorneys for asbestos makers called him “the man who took down Manville,’” McConnell said. The company, now owned by billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (A:US), sought bankruptcy protection in 1982 because of billions of dollars in asbestos liability.

Golden Retrievers

Motley’s lifestyle reflected his success. He owned a mansion on Kiawah Island off the coast of Charleston, a $15 million yacht named Themis for the Greek goddess representing justice, and a pair of golden retrievers named Chrysotile and Amosite, after different kinds of asbestos. In 1999, the lawyer hired the soul group Earth, Wind & Fire to perform at what was then his third wedding.
Motley’s hard-drinking lifestyle was documented in books, such as “Civil Warriors” by Dan Zegart.
“Ron’s vices were well known,” Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, a former U.S. senator from South Carolina, said of his friend yesterday in an interview. “He liked that bottle too much. But it didn’t stop him from being one of the best trial lawyers in history.”
Health problems confined him to a wheelchair the last several years, Migliori said.
Ronald Lee Motley was born on Oct. 21, 1944, in Charleston to Woodrow Wilson Motley and the former Carrie Montease Griffin. His father operated an Amoco gasoline station.
Motley received his bachelor’s degree in 1966 from the University of South Carolina in Columbia and, in 1971, a law degree. After serving as a prosecutor, Motley joined the law firm of Solomon Blatt Jr., a state legislator, in Barnwell, South Carolina. Motley began taking asbestos claims from workers at the nearby Charleston Naval Shipyard while at the firm.
Survivors include his wife, Stephanie Motley, and his daughter, Jennifer Motley Lee. His son, Mark, died in 2000.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware, at jfeeley@bloomberg.net;
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-22/ronald-motley-lawyer-who-spearheaded-tobacco-suits-dies-at-68

FDA, Experts Disagree about E-Cigarettes

by Inside Science News Service, Benjamin Plackett
In recent years a new type of cigarette has begun to repopulate our restaurants, our subway trains and our movie theaters. It doesn’t burn tobacco, it doesn’t emit smoke and it lasts a lot longer than a traditional cigarette. It’s currently unregulated, but that may soon change, and experts are already debating the best approach.
The Food and Drug Administration can’t currently regulate electronic cigarettes because they don’t technically contain tobacco – even though the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco – something that has angered e-cigarette opponents.
“A lot of people feel like [the e-cigarette manufacturers] are exploiting a loophole,” said the director of Smoking Cessation Services at Columbia Univ. Medical Center, Daniel Seidman.
Electronic cigarettes turn nicotine and other chemicals into a vapor that’s inhaled by the user. Just one of the battery-powered devices provides as many as 300 puffs, roughly equivalent to the number of drags from an entire pack of conventional cigarettes.
The smoker inhales a mix of water vapor and nicotine among other chemicals including propylene glycol. For all of the differences between e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes still contain nicotine, which is addictive, and it is unclear exactly how much nicotine the e-cigarette smoker inhales.
However, e-cigarettes are thought to be less carcinogenic than regular cigarettes because they are non-combustible and do not contain tar. A 2010 study in the British Medical Journal found that “the scarce evidence indicates the existence of various toxic and carcinogenic compounds, albeit in possibly much smaller concentrations than in traditional cigarettes.”
So it seems there are several unknowns about e-cigarettes, notably the concentration of nicotine and whether they cause cancer – though we do know they likely cause heart disease and strokes.
Despite this uncertainty, the FDA recently decided to tweak their definition of a “tobacco product” to bring e-cigarettes under their jurisdiction.
“The FDA intends to propose a regulation that would extend the agency’s ‘tobacco product’ authorities – which currently only apply to cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco,” FDA spokesperson Jennifer Haliski wrote in an email.
Michael Siegel from Boston Univ.’s School of Public Health is a firm believer in the power of e-cigarettes to help smokers quit – or at the very least to provide a less harmful alternative to cigarettes for a nicotine hit.
“They’re safer because there’s no tobacco in the product, there’s also no burning, it’s just heated up. When you take away the tobacco and combustion then you’re taking away the bulk of the problem,” said Siegel. But he added that “It’s not a question of whether e-cigarettes are going to be regulated, it’s more about how they’re going be regulated.”
Siegel remains worried that the wrong kind of regulation from the FDA could end up harming the e-cigarette’s potential to help smokers.
Seidman suggested that there isn’t any proof of e-cigarettes successfully weaning smokers off tobacco. Of the few scientific studies published on the matter, there’s no real consensus.
Many of the smokers in survey-based studies continue to smoke cigarettes even when they’ve tried to shift to e-cigarettes, said Seidman. “There’s a health concern if you end up maintaining your addiction. You can’t smoke [cigarettes] in a lot of public places. This is a marketing strategy for the manufacturers. It keeps the addiction alive.”
The FDA declined to comment on the difficulties involved with drafting rules for a product about which there has been so little conclusive evidence. This has led to speculation about what form these new FDA enforced regulations might take, a subject on which the FDA was also predictably tightlipped. “FDA cannot comment on the contents of the proposed rule,” said Haliski.
“They could say let’s apply everything we know about cigarettes to electronic cigarettes,” said Siegel.
Then again, they could come up with an alternative framework specifically designed for e-cigarettes. Siegel said that the way FDA personnel speak of a “risk continuum” of different tobacco products leads him to be “cautiously optimistic that they won’t lump the same regulations [on e-cigarettes]. I think we’ll see a different set of regulations,” said Siegel.
Both Siegel and Seidman agree that creating a uniform quality standard is one of the most important needs from the FDA’s impending ruling, so that consumers know that the cartridges won’t leak and that the chemicals are of a pharmaceutical grade.
In the meantime, Seidman worries that e-cigarettes simply assist smokers who wish to bring e-cigarettes into places such as airports, where the smoker would otherwise be forced to forgo a smoke.
Tobacco industry giants are launching their own brands of e-cigarettes.
“There are people who say anything the cigarette companies do is evil,” said Siegel. He suggested that “they’ve just recognized a market and they want a piece of the pie.”
But Seidman said the tobacco industry learned its lessons from selling cigarettes and “their strategy is to add e-cigarettes to the equation rather than subtract traditional tobacco.”
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/08/fda-experts-disagree-about-e-cigarettes

Providence vs. Big Tobacco

By , Mayor of Providence, RI

In January of 2012, I was pleased to sign two local ordinances designed to limit the ability of the tobacco industry to harm Providence’s young people. Together, these laws banned the sale of flavored tobacco products in the City of Providence, as well as sales involving the redemption of coupons and multi-pack discounts that are designed to circumvent state pricing restrictions.
Tobacco use poses a major public health threat for our young people. Nearly all tobacco use begins in childhood and adolescence — in fact, according to a 2012 Surgeon General report, approximately 88 percent of regular smokers begin by age 18. Each day, over 3,800 people under 18 smoke their first cigarette. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, an estimated 23,000 children currently under the age of 18 could die prematurely from a smoking-related illness.
In Providence, we’re fighting back.
Fruit and candy flavored tobacco products appeal to young people who wrongly think that these products are less harmful than traditional cigarettes. The FDA banned most fruit and candy flavored cigarettes in September of 2009, and our ordinance closes the loophole that allows the tobacco industry to sell other fruit and candy flavored tobacco products, like cigars, chewing tobacco and other emerging tobacco-based products, here in the City of Providence.
Similarly, research has shown that the single most effective deterrent to smoking — particularly for young people — is the cost of a pack of cigarettes. According to the American Lung Association, a 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth consumption by approximately seven percent. But in Rhode Island and elsewhere, the tobacco industry circumvents state minimum price laws through creative “buy-two-get-one-free” gimmicks. Our ordinance closes this loophole too.
Predictably, big tobacco has challenged us in court. In December of 2012, the U.S. District Court rejected the tobacco industry’s arguments, siding with the city in our efforts to protect vulnerable, young people from the dangers of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
I encourage you to learn more about the harmful effects of smoking and what you can do to support our efforts by visiting here.
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Policymakers have no excuse for not taking this issue on, and I’m proud that Providence is working with a wide variety of stakeholders — our City Council, community groups, advocacy organizations and public health campaigns — to stand up for our young people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angel-taveras/providence-anti-tobacco-laws_b_3786575.html

Ohio State study: Smokers cost employers $6K more annually

By Alexa Carson
Employees who smoke cost their employers almost $6,000 more annually than nonsmokers, according to a recent study conducted by Ohio State researchers.
Lead author Micah Berman, from the College of Public Health and Moritz College of Law, told The Lantern he decided to research this topic when he was asked to give a presentation on policies involving smoking in the workplace, such as smoke-free policies and not hiring smokers. He discovered no studies had been done on the comprehensive costs of employing a smoker versus a nonsmoker.
“It was odd to me that the question hadn’t been answered given that employers were making decisions about smokers in the workplace,” Berman said.
By performing an analysis of previous studies done on individual smoking related expenses to an employer, Berman and his co-authors estimated a $5,816 annual excess expense from discrete costs related to smoking.
These costs include smoke breaks, health care costs, absenteeism and presenteeism, which Berman described as “reduced focus in the workplace due to going through nicotine withdrawal throughout the work day.” The study adjusted for the fact that smokers tend to make less than nonsmokers, and even factored in a “death benefit,” Berman said.
“Companies with defined benefit pension systems may save some money due to the fact that smokers die earlier than non-smokers,” Berman said. “But the cost savings is very minimal.”
Berman said he had expected to find smokers would incur excess costs, but two results of the study surprised him.
“One is the extent of the cost,” said Berman, “and second is the health care costs. Well, everyone’s aware of those, but in fact the majority of the costs weren’t due to health care costs but due to productivity costs from things like smoke breaks.”
Brooke Cavallo, a third-year in strategic communication, said she thinks productivity costs can be an issue between smokers and employers based on what she has seen at work.
“I work in a bar and most of my coworkers do smoke, and we are constantly getting in trouble because they take smoke breaks,” Cavallo said.
Berman said his research takes no position on whether businesses should or should not hire smokers, and focuses on the economical rather than ethical issues related to smoking policies. He believes, however, tobacco cessation programs, which “cost up front but save money over time,” or tobacco-free policies can reduce costs to employers.
Under the tobacco-free policy OSU plans to implement this semester, no tobacco products of any kind are allowed on any OSU property either indoors or outdoors. Previously, the university followed a nonsmoking policy that prevented smoking indoors but had no restrictions on smokeless tobacco or smoking outdoors, except in certain “tobacco-free” areas. The policy began on Aug. 1, but will not be implemented in earnest until January 2014.
Dr. Peter Shields, co-chair of the Tobacco-Free Implementation Committee at OSU, said the “first and foremost reason we are going tobacco free is because we want to have a healthier community.”
Shields is also the deputy director at the OSU James Comprehensive Cancer Center and a professor at the College of Medicine. He said cost was a factor in deciding to implement a tobacco-free policy.
“There are other reasons that follow behind that are not necessarily as important,” Shields said, “and one of those is the cost to the university for faculty and staff who continue using tobacco.”
Berman said he had similar beliefs about the policy.
“I don’t think cost is the most important reason for the adoption of the policy,” Berman said. “But it may end up saving the university money too.”
http://www.thelantern.com/campus/ohio-state-study-smokers-cost-employers-6k-more-annually-1.3051093#.UhTN2mRUM0M

Target Field Says ‘No’ To E-Cigarettes

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. (WCCO) – More smokers are turning to electronic cigarettes as a less-expensive and less-regulated way to get their nicotine. But they’re still so new, governments and businesses are grappling with how to deal with them.
E-cigarettes have a battery-powered heating element that produces vapor rather than smoke. They’re not restricted under Minnesota’s Clean Indoor Air Act, but many businesses – including the Minnesota Twins – are telling customers to put them away.
The team’s senior director of communications, Kevin Smith, says the restriction has been under consideration for some time.
“Because of the proliferation of it, we want to make it crystal clear that Target Field is a non-smoking venue of any kind,” Smith said.
Smith says an increasing number of fans had been spotted using the e-cigarettes, so stadium announcer Adam Abrams now has an extra line in his pre-game announcements.
Twins fan Jay Rudi of Edina appreciates the team’s policy.
“When I bring my family here, I don’t want to have to be breathing in smoke,” Rudi said.
Sina War, owner of Uptown Vapor Shoppe, says her store has been in business since April. She says many people misunderstand how e-cigarettes work.
“We call it ‘vaping’ because it’s vapor,” War said.
It may look and feel like smoking, but the e-cigarettes aren’t loaded with tobacco. They’re filled with liquids, in flavors like Red Bull, cupcake and mango.
Most of those liquids contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco.
“It just smells like what you’re vaping on, so if you’re vaping on lemonade, it just smells like lemonade,” War said.
Nancy Carlson of Minnetonka talked her cigar-smoking husband, Brian, into visiting the Uptown Vapor Shoppe in hopes that he’ll make the switch.
“We have a shed, and he’s banished to the shed in the winter time,” Carlson said.
The FDA has indicated it may start regulating e-cigarettes in the fall. For now, there are few studies into whether they’re actually safe.
“It’s not hurting anyone around you,” War said. “It’s helping the person actually using it.”
Advocates for e-cigarettes wish they could take the word “cigarette” out of it because of the negative connotation.
In California, they’re known as “personal vaporizers,” or PVs.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/08/19/target-field-says-no-to-e-cigarettes/