Significant increase in fires due to improper disposal of smoking materials

By: Michael Yoshida, WDAZ
Officials with the Grand Forks Fire Department say they’ve seen a significant increase in fires caused by careless use of smoking materials. A deck fire on Monday was the latest, and in the last year there have been about ten accidental fires, one resulting in death. These fires can cause damages ranging in cost from $1,000 to excess of $100,000. Often times, fire marshals find that the cause of fires is careless and improper disposal of smoking materials. Officials say that if you choose to smoke, be responsible and aware.
Fire Marshal Brandon Boespflug said, “Every one of these fires are preventable. The deaths caused by these fires are preventable, and the key is if you’re going to smoke, smoke smart.”
Some tips for fire safety while smoking include using proper ashtrays, and not using your foot to put out smoking materials. For more safety information click here.
http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id/19010/#sthash.c6JZoybR.dpuf

Letter: Tobacco tax is working

By:  Gina Johnson, Red Wing
In July 2013, a new law went into effect raising our state tobacco tax by $1.60, causing the average price of cigarettes to raise to $7.50 a pack.
Many people were concerned about how tobacco users who have limited income would manage. As a public health professional, I am pleased to see many tobacco users are now getting professional help to quit tobacco.
A recent study done by QUITPLAN Services, a free tobacco cessation program available to any Minnesotan, shows that this tax hike is reducing the smoking rates. The increased price of cigarettes has caused an increase in many smokers to seek out professional cessation support to help them quit.
QUITPLAN Services saw an increase of 256 percent in the first two weeks of July 2013 compared to the same time period in July 2012.
This data proves that price increases work, and that our communities are one gigantic step closer to becoming tobacco free.
Thank you to everyone who supported the $1.60 increase!
Gina Johnson is the Clearway Minnesota tobacco grant coordinator with Goodhue County Human and Health Services.
http://www.republican-eagle.com/content/letter-tobacco-tax-working#sthash.xxzIkHT6.dpuf
 

Letter of the Day (Aug. 13): Electronic cigarettes

An article last month (“Up in vapor,” July 13) described research related to electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation. As one who conducts research related to electronic cigarettes, I feel compelled to provide additional findings.
First, the Italian researchers cited in the article also conducted an experiment with smokers by randomly assigning them into using electronic cigarettes with or without nicotine (published in PLOS ONE). They found that smokers who used electronic cigarettes with nicotine reduced and quit smoking at the same rate as those who used electronic cigarettes without nicotine. This suggests the limited ability of nicotine-delivering electronic cigarettes to aid smoking cessation.
Second, researchers have studied the effect of secondhand electronic cigarette smoking. This work, published in Inhalation Toxicology, found that nonsmokers who stayed in the same room with electronic cigarette users showed elevated nicotine concentration in the blood, comparable to that of secondhand cigarette smoke.
The Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007 protects nonsmokers, particularly those who work at bars and restaurants, from the harmful effect of secondhand smoking. Given the known effects of secondhand electronic cigarette smoking, the Legislature should consider expanding the act.
KELVIN CHOI, Minneapolis
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/219329381.html

Secondhand Smoke, Asthma Link Remains

By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Children with asthma were more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke than those without the disease, researchers found.
From 1999 to 2010, the overall rate of exposure to secondhand smoke among children without asthma declined from 57.3% to 44.2%, but the exposure rate remained nearly constant over the same time period for children with asthma, only declining from 57.9% to 54%, according to Kenneth Quinto, MD, of the National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Md, and colleagues.
And the latest statistics, from 2007 to 2010, show that children with asthma who were female, Mexican-American, from families with income below 350% of the federal poverty line, and ages 6 to 11 had greater exposure to environmental tobacco smoke than those without asthma, they wrote in a National Center for Health Statistics data brief.
Past research has tied secondhand smoke exposure to exacerbated asthma symptoms in children and increased risk of mental illness in healthy adults. Other research has also tied neonatal smoke exposure from smoking mothers to hearing loss and behavior problems in the child.
Quinto and co-authors also cautioned that secondhand smoke exposure in all children was associated with risks of middle ear infection, bronchitis, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, worse lung function, and the development of asthma. They added that in 2007 to 2010, one in 10 children had asthma.
The authors gathered data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2010 to measure trends in environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children with and without asthma, and to stratify rates of exposure by sex, race, income, and age group. Income was broken down by earnings 350% or greater than the poverty line, 185% to less than 350% of the poverty line, and less than 185% of the poverty line.
Exposure to secondhand smoke was classified as serum cotinine levels between 0.05 ng/mL and 10 ng/mL in children who didn’t smoke themselves. Children were considered smokers if they were 12 to 19 years old and answered “yes” when asked if they had used tobacco in the 5 days prior to the survey or if their serum cotinine levels were greater than 10 ng/mL. “Serum cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine,” the authors noted.
Children were considered to have asthma if a parent affirmed on the survey that a healthcare professional had diagnosed them with asthma and if they still had asthma.
By age group, there was no significant difference in secondhand smoke exposure for children with and without asthma ages 3 to 5 and 12 to 19 in the 2007 to 2010 data. However, children ages 6 to 11 with asthma were exposed to secondhand smoke significantly more often than those without asthma in that time (58.8% versus 44.7%, P<0.05).
In families with household incomes lower than 350% of the poverty line, children with asthma were significantly more likely to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke than those without asthma (P<0.05 for both groups). There was no significant difference in smoke exposure in families earning 350% or more above the poverty line.
Mexican-American children with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to have been exposed to secondhand smoke (38.2% versus 27.4%, P<0.05). White, black, and other race children had no significant differences in exposure between those with and without asthma.
Additionally, girls with asthma were more likely than girls without asthma to have been exposed to secondhand smoke (57.6% versus 43.6%, P<0.05), while there was no significant difference seen in boys.
The authors cautioned that future research should look to explain the reasons for group differences.

Study Says Smoking Bans Don't Hurt Bars, Restaurants

A new study suggests a statewide law banning smoking in public places would not harm the restaurant and bar industry and the people who work in it.
The study has been done in North Carolina, the nation’s leading state for tobacco production. It is the home of major tobacco companies including the nation’s largest one, Phillip Morris. It’s also the home of RTI International, a think tank that has explored various health issues including those that are smoking-related.
Missouri is one of eight states without anti-smoking laws that has been studied by RTI. The lead author of the study, Brett Loomis, says the findings are straightforward.
He says local smoking ban ordinances in Missouri “were unrelated to any changes in restaurant and bar employment in those communities and revenues in eating and drinking places also were unaffected by the law.”
RTI looked at eleven years of employment and revenue records for Missouri bars and restaurants, the businesses most often targeted by local ordinances approved in almost cities-and the businesses most likely to oppose local ordinances.
The study has been indirectly underwritten by Pfizer, which makes an anti-smoking drug. Loomis says the company attended no meetings, had nothing to do with gathering and analyzing information. He says it had no influence on the findings.
Read the Summary
Read the Full Report
http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/study-says-smoking-bans-dont-hurt-bars-restaurants/d/story/wZ7rRs6YMUGa5lsirLp2Jw

Cigarette Taxation Helps to Reduce Drinking Among Groups Considered Vulnerable

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the U.S., while heavy drinking ranks as the third leading cause of preventable death. Cigarette taxation has been recognized as one of the most significant policy instruments to reduce smoking. Given that smoking and drinking often occur together, a first-of-its-kind study has examined cigarette taxation and found that increases are associated with modest to moderate reductions in alcohol consumption among vulnerable groups.
Results will be published in the January 2014 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research and are currently available at Early View.
“Smoking and heavy drinking co-occur at alarmingly high rates,” said Sherry McKee, associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine as well as corresponding author for the study. “Tobacco can enhance the subjective effects of alcohol and has been shown to increase the risk for heavy and problematic drinking. Smokers drink more frequently and more heavily than non-smokers, and are substantially more likely than non-smokers to meet criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence. The co-occurrence of smoking and drinking is of particular clinical significance given evidence that health consequences exponentially increase with combined versus singular abuse of alcohol and tobacco.”
“Smoking and drinking are strongly linked for a host of reasons including complementary pharmacologic effects, shared neuronal pathways, shared genetic associations, common environmental factors, and learned associations,” added Christopher W. Kahler, professor and chair of the department of behavioral and social sciences at Brown School of Public Health. “However, it is possible to intervene through behavioral treatments, pharmacotherapy, and policy to affect both behaviors in a positive way.”
“Cigarette taxes have broad population reach and have been recognized as one of the most significant policy instruments to reduce smoking,” said McKee. “Increases in cigarette taxes predict decreases in smoking initiation, increases in quitting, and reductions in cigarette-related morbidity and mortality. By increasing the price of cigarettes, taxes are thought to encourage smokers to reduce their use of cigarettes or quit altogether, and discourage non-smokers from starting to smoke.”
McKee and her colleagues examined data gathered through personal interviews with 21,473 alcohol consumers as part the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a survey conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Analyses evaluated whether increases in cigarette taxes between Waves I (2001-2002) and II (2004-2005) were associated with reductions in quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption. These analyses were conducted by gender, hazardous drinking status, age, and income group, and were further adjusted for demographics, baseline alcohol consumption, and alcohol price.
“We hypothesized that the public health benefits of cigarette taxes would extend beyond smoking to reduce alcohol consumption,” said McKee. “Results suggest that increases in cigarette taxes were associated with reductions in alcohol consumption over time among male smokers. The protective effects were most pronounced among subgroups who are most at risk for adverse alcohol-related consequences, including male heavy drinkers, young adults, and those with the lowest income.”
“These findings suggest that if states increase taxes on cigarettes, they are not only likely to reduce smoking — based on a large body of literature — but they also may have a modest impact on heavy drinking rates among men, those with lower income, and those who drink most heavily,” said Kahler. “In other words, policies that target one specific health behavior may have broader benefits to public health by affecting additional health behaviors that tend to co-occur with the targeted health behavior.”
Kelly Young-Wolff, post-doctoral research fellow at Stanford Prevention Research Center, and one of the study’s co-authors, agreed, adding that these results support research that targets the interactions of tobacco and alcohol. “Results from our study can pave the way for a productive line of future research aimed at reducing secondary public health harms such as alcohol-related violence, drunk driving, and alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.”
“While the study does not show a causal association,” added Kahler, “in the context of laboratory, clinical, and policy studies conducted to date, it suggests that policy makers and clinicians may have significant opportunities to address heavy drinking and smoking together.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130810063508.htm

Cigarette Taxes Linked to Binge Drinking

By Elbert Chu, Associate Producer, MedPage Today
Cigarette tax hikes were associated with a drop in the number of binge drinking bouts among male smokers and the amount of alcohol consumed when they did drink, investigators found.
Compared with male smokers who were not hit with any cigarette tax increases, those who were binged seven fewer times a year — a 22% drop — and drank 11% less — roughly a third of a drink — per “episode,” according to a study published online inAlcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
Excessive drinking costs the U.S. about $234 billion each year, noted Sherry A. McKee, PhD, of Yale University School of Medicine and colleagues.
“We were surprised at the strength of the associations between increases in cigarette taxes and reductions in alcohol consumption,” McKee told MedPage Todayin an interview. She and her co-authors noted that to their knowledge, “no prior study has considered the potential for crossover association of cigarette taxation on drinking outcomes using a longitudinal, epidemiological U.S. sample.”
The researchers dug into prospective surveys of 21,473 U.S. alcohol drinkers from theNational Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Two data sets provided the before-and-after cigarette tax increases. One set from 2001 and 2002, and another from 2004 and 2005.
Among the sample, 51% lived in the 31 states that increased cigarette taxes. Increases ranged from seven cents to $1.60 (mean = 61 cents, SD= 42 cents, median = 40 cents).
The investigators also accounted for alcohol prices, education, marriage status, and ethnicity. They further stratified their sample by age, drinking level, sex, and income.
The survey asked respondents about their drinking habits in the previous 12 months on a scale that ranged from “every day” to “never in the last year,” and how many drinks in consumed in each bout. Drinking was classified as “hazardous” when men reported downing more than 14 drinks per session, or women seven drinks. Also labeled as a “hazardous” drinker was anyone who binged at least once in the year they were surveyed.
Only people who said they smoked daily were included as smokers. Smokers who were also hazardous drinkers were more likely male, younger, and less likely to be married, compared with other drinkers.
Women drinkers showed no associated response to increased cigarette taxes. McKee attributed the difference between the sexes to higher rates of male drinkers in the U.S. population. “Eight percent of the population meets the criteria for alcohol use disorder. Out of that, five percent are men and three percent are women,” she told MedPage Today.
In young adults ages 18 to 29, increased cigarette taxes reduced the frequency of binge drinking (b= -0.19, P= 0.02). A similar effect was seen among smokers 50 and older (b = -0.23,P=0.04). Non-smokers showed no changes in their drinking habits.
“Nicotine acts with specific receptors in the brain unrelated to alcohol but have non-nicotine compounds that induce triggers and cues unrelated to nicotine receptors,” said Gregory N. Connolly, DMD, MPH, faculty director for the Center for Global Tobacco Control at the Harvard School of Public Health. “So the researchers may have found something big.
“We do know the opposite is true. Alcohol and the social acceptance of smoking in the bar induces relapse. The bar or pub has become the nicotine classroom for the young,” Connolly continued.
The primary limitation of the study was the reliance on people to accurately recall and record their drinking habits. In addition, the timing of the tax increases was not consistent across all states, nor does the data account for online or bulk purchases of alcohol that could be exempt from taxes.
“Absolute magnitude of increases in cigarette taxes was in the direction expected (greater increases in tax were associated with less heavy and less frequent drinking); however, the pattern of results was unchanged,” the authors wrote. It is unclear whether there’s any upper limit to the effect of increased taxes and associated drinking reductions, McKee said.
To be sure, there are other avenues for future research on other associated behaviors mentioned in the study like the rates of sex crimes and drunk driving among youth.
Although there are attempts to develop a safer cigarette underway, “smoking is the number one leading cause of morbidity in the U.S., and alcohol is the number three preventable cause of morbidity,” McKee said. “This study suggests that there are positive spillover effects to enacting these tax policies. If you can change one, you’re likely to change the other behaviour.”
Smokers are more likely to drink too much alcohol, particularly more vulnerable young men. With both behaviors so closely linked, what are the most effective strategies you use with your patients to curb binge drinking? Let us know by Adding Your Knowledge below. — Sanjay Gupta, MD
http://www.medpagetoday.com/theguptaguide/publichealth/40918

New cigarette tax saves lives in Minnesota

By: Lindsay Aijala, Two Harbors, Lake County News Chronicle
I’m writing in support of the $1.60 increase in the cigarette tax, which was included in the tax bill passed in the recently completed legislative session. The $1.60 per pack increase means that 47,000 Minnesota kids will never become addicted to cigarettes and have to face the life-long health problems that result from the addiction. My family and I have lived in Lake County for most of my life and I have noticed how cigarettes are getting into the hands of high school students and even middle school students. This increase could help the youth in our county from becoming lifelong users.
Thanks to this increase, youth smoking will decrease by 16 percent and save 5,700 Minnesotans from premature, smoking-related deaths. This increase in the cost of a pack of cigarettes is important because tobacco is still a big problem in Minnesota. Smoking costs our state $3 billion a year. The number of deaths in Minnesota caused by smoking is more than alcohol, homicide, car accidents, AIDS, illegal drugs, and suicides combined. This increase has contributed toward my efforts to help others improve their health, including many family and friends.
http://www.twoharborsmn.com/event/article/id/25323/group/Opinion/#sthash.1CHRwcRX.dpuf
 

Employees Who Smoke Cost Businesses $6,000 Extra Per Year; Cigarette Breaks Big Factor In Loss of Productivity

By Zulai Serrano z.serrano@hngn.com
A new study reveals U.S. businesses pay almost $6,000 per year extra for each employee who smokes, according to Ohio State University researchers.
The researchers took an in depth look at the financial burden for companies that employ smokers, and the findings may surprise you.
“By drawing on previous research on the costs of absenteeism, lost productivity, smoke breaks and health care costs, the researchers developed an estimate that each employee who smokes costs an employer an average of $5,816 annually above the cost of a person who never smoked. These annual costs can range from $2,885 to $10,125,” University said in a news release.
One aspect researchers looked into was the loss of productivity.  According to the findings, smoke breaks were the biggest reason businesses were losing money, followed by health-care expenses that exceed insurance costs for nonsmokers.
The analysis used studies that measured costs for private-sector employers, but the findings would likely apply in the public sector as well, said lead author Micah Berman, who will become an assistant professor of health services management and policy in The Ohio State University College of Public Health.
“This research should help businesses make better informed decisions about their tobacco policies,” Berman said in a news release, who also will have an appointment in the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State. “We constructed our calculations such that individual employers can plug in their own expenses to get more accurate estimates of their own costs.”
The University made it clear the study focused solely on economics, and did not address ethical and privacy issues related to the adoption of workplace policies covering employee smoking.
However, researchers added providing smoking-cessation programs would be an added cost for employers.
“Employers should be understanding about how difficult it is to quit smoking and how much support is needed,” Berman said. “It’s definitely not just a cost issue, but employers should be informed about what the costs are when they are considering these policies.”
The research is published online in the journal Tobacco Control, click here to read the study.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/9653/20130808/employees-who-smoke-cost-businesses-6-000-extra-per-year.htm

Most youth who use smokeless tobacco are smokers, too

By Anne Harding, Reuters
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Most young people in the U.S. who use newer smokeless tobacco products are smoking cigarettes too, according to new research.
“These findings are troubling, but not surprising, as tobacco companies spend huge sums to market smokeless tobacco in ways that entice kids to start and encourage dual use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco,” Vince Willmore, vice president of communications at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, told Reuters Health in an email.
“From 1998 to 2011, total marketing expenditures for smokeless tobacco increased by 210 percent – from $145.5 million to $451.7 million a year, according to the Federal Trade Commission,” he added.
Swedish-style “snus,” introduced to the U.S. in 2006, and dissolvable tobacco products, introduced in 2008, are arguably less harmful than conventional chewing tobacco because they contain fewer nitrosamines, and have been promoted as safer alternatives.
But public health experts have been concerned that these products could serve as a “gateway drug” to use of conventional smokeless tobacco and to cigarette smoking.
To better understand the prevalence of smokeless tobacco use among young people, Dr. Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and his colleagues looked at data from the 2011 National Youth Tobacco Survey, which included nearly 19,000 sixth- to 12th-graders from across the country.
Overall, the researchers found, 5.6 percent of young people reported using any type of smokeless tobacco. Five percent used chewing tobacco, snuff or dip, just under two percent used snus and 0.3 percent used dissolvable products.
Among young people who were current smokeless tobacco users, about 72 percent reported smoking cigarettes too, while almost 81 percent of young people who used only snus or dissolvables were also smoking cigarettes.
Just 40 percent of smokeless tobacco users said they had plans to quit using tobacco, according to findings published in Pediatrics.
“We found higher current use than we expected. It’s just not experimentation, it looks like it’s taken hold among adolescents,” Connolly told Reuters Health.
“The most distressing finding was that this is not resulting in children or in young adolescents switching from smoking to these new products that may or may not be safer when used alone. They’re using both in very high numbers.”
Little information had been available on trends in the use of novel smokeless tobacco products, so studies like this one are important, Dr. Neal Benowitz, who has studied the health effects of smokeless tobacco at the University of California, San Francisco, told Reuters Health.
“To me the fact that 72 percent of users concurrently smoke cigarettes is a serious issue,” he said. “These would be safer alternatives only if people used them exclusively, and as soon as you’re talking about dual use you virtually negate any reduction of harm.”
Benowitz, who was not involved in the current research, noted that studies have shown use of smokeless tobacco among U.S. youth can indeed be a gateway to cigarette smoking.
“The most disturbing finding is that a huge percentage of youth smokeless tobacco users also smoke cigarettes,” Willmore said.
“This indicates that smokeless tobacco compounds the problem of overall tobacco use in the United States, rather than helping to solve it as some tobacco companies claim.”
RJ Reynolds, which makes Camel Snus and dissolvable tobacco products including Camel Orbs, Sticks and Strips, did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
“The tobacco industry is facing the 21st century with a whole new strategy, and that is to bring in new products that they claim to be safer,” Connolly told Reuters Health.
He pointed out that under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is charged with regulating tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco.
“When we look at this data I think it is very disturbing to realize that the law has not kept them out, and at least in this data set they’re gaining traction among young people,” Connolly said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/13INoAt Pediatrics