Posts

E-Cigarette Sales to Hit $1 Billion

By ALAN FARNHAM
E-cigarettes—a relative novelty three years ago–are about to hit $1 billion in sales, according to Wells Fargo securities analysts.
While that’s only 1 percent of sales of traditional cigarettes, the number of consumers who say they’ve tried e-smokes is growing fast. The sale of e-cigarettes totaled just $500 million last year.
According to the most recent survey by the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, in 2011 about 21 percent of adults who smoke traditional cigarettes said they had tried the electronic alternative, up from about 10 percent in 2010.
“Overall,” says a CDC press release, “about 6 percent of all adults have tried e-cigarettes, with estimates nearly doubling from 2010.”
“E-cigarette use is growing rapidly,” said CDC director Tom Frieden in a February 2013 release announcing the survey’s findings. “There is still we do not know about these products.”
E-cigarettes, in their most popular form, look like conventional tobacco cigarettes. They do not, however, contain leaf tobacco and they do not burn. As described by CDC, they are battery-powered devices that provide inhaled doses of nicotine vapor and flavorings. Because they do not burn and do not produce smoke, their advocates consider them more socially acceptable than traditional cigarettes.
Their detractors do not. The Long Island Rail Road declared earlier this month that e-cigarettes violate LIRR’s smoking ban, which declares it unlawful for railroad patrons to “burn a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any tobacco substitute.”
SAFER SMOKE OR NEW BAD HABIT?
In the eyes of some, the mere appearance of someone smoking—even smoking a non-tobacco, electronic substitute—creates the dangerous impression that smoking is okay.
“The use of e-cigarettes in public areas in which cigarette smoking is prohibited could counter the effectiveness of [smoke-free compliance] policies by complicating enforcement and giving the appearance that smoking is acceptable,” the CDC report says.
Gregory Conley, legislative director at the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, scoffs at that attitude, saying, “It looks like smoking…so it must be evil.”
Conley’s association, he says, represents some 5,000 e-cigarette users. Conley says e-cigarettes “annoy people who don’t understand that they’re a great advertisement for smoking-cessation” and “people who believe no one should be allowed to have nicotine in any form.”
NO PROOF E-CIGARETTES COMBAT ADDICTION
The question whether e-cigarettes can be viewed as an aide to quitting smoking, for conventional tobacco users, is a contentious one. Eli Alelov, CEO of LOGIC Technology, makers of LOGIC e-cigarettes, says e-cigarettes are not a health product, and that he’s not claiming they are. At the same time, however, he points out, an e-cigarette contains no tar and no tobacco. It produces no second-hand smoke. Regulations prevent his suggesting that his product is healthier or safer, he says. “So, we leave that up to the public: they can use their logic.”
Alelov says that the people who hate e-cigarettes most include both big tobacco and the tax man. E-cigarettes aren’t taxed the same as regular cigarettes, so “the states hate us, because they’re losing money,” Alelov said.
Five years from now, he thinks, 30 to 40 percent of traditional smokers will have switched to e-cigarettes—perhaps as many as 20 million customers. In five years e-cigarette sales will grow to $15 billion to $20 billion a year, he thinks.
As for what further restrictions might be coming down the pike, Alelov says he’s not particularly worried about any regulations the FDA may eventually promulgate. (The FDA currently does not regulate e-cigarettes, but it is expected to in the future.) He expects the FDA’s regulations, when they come, would apply to packaging, labeling, and minimum age of the buyer.
Alelov says there are some venues where he, personally, won’t smoke an e-cigarette. They include McDonalds, movie theaters and children’s playgrounds. Everywhere else, however — everywhere that nicotine gum or nicotine patches are permitted — he feels e-smokes should be, too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/electronic-cigarette-sales-billion/story?id=19815486
 

Reading the smoke signals on e-cigarettes: Can you puff away on a plane, train or in your local bar?

By / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Where there’s smoking, there’s no longer fire — but there’s plenty of heated debate.
Electronic cigarettes, known to smokers as e-cigarettes, are lighting up the city as puffers snuff out their butts in favor of the refillable, rechargeable alternative, which produces a not-so-smelly vapor instead of pungent smoke.
But should tokers treat these devices like cigarettes themselves, keeping the habit out of restaurants, bars, barbershops and airplanes? Or should they light up wherever the mood strikes, taking advantage of industry claims that the synthetic nicotine sticks are as harmless to passersby as nightclub fog machines?
Depends on who — and where — you ask.
Trains, planes and buses are out of the question.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority told the Daily News it allows no e-cigs on the E train or any of its rides, for that matter.
“We would interpret our prohibition on smoking as applying to electronic cigarettes,” a spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail.
The Long Island Rail Road also extends it cigarette ban to e-cigarettes.
The U.S. Department of Transportation says no smoking — or “vaping,” as e-cigarette enthusiasts call it — on airplanes.
But that’s where the formal prohibitions end. The city Parks Department doesn’t consider vaping to be smoking, meaning Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on puffers in parks is not airtight.
More importantly, the city’s Department of Health says Bloomberg’s defining Smoke Free Air Act, which prohibits smoking inside public places, does not govern electronic smoking. That means as far as the city is concerned, any bar, restaurant, movie theater, nightclub, bowling alley, nail salon or shopping mall is fair game for vaping.
That is, of course, if business owners choose to allow it.
Some do, and some don’t: Starbucks recently snuffed out the chance for patrons to enjoy coffee and e-cigarettes, while lower East Side bars Iggy’s, Whiskey Ward and Coal Yard don’t have a problem with it. On the other hand, many Times Square bars and Broadway theaters say no to e-smoking.
It’s a legal area that’s grayer than a smoker’s lungs, according to Phil Roseman, co-owner of VapeNY, Manhattan’s first electronic-cigarette shop.
“What we tell our customers is that you can vape anywhere you like,” says Roseman, whose newly opened lower East Side storefront sells the battery-powered devices for about $40 a pop, as well as flavored refills like coffee, vanilla and “juicy fruit.” “I’ve taken it on planes, into restaurants and movie theaters, and never had a problem.”
The store has been doing brisk businesses, as more and more nicotine addicts decide they don’t want to pay $15 for a pack of real cigarettes when there’s a cheaper, less-taxed, and more socially permissable alternative.
Not to mention, one that doesn’t stink up the whole apartment.
“I can use this e-cigarette as much as I want and my wife doesn’t complain about the smell,” says lower East Side resident Mike Chan, 41, a VapeNY regular who spends about $30 a month on the liquid refills, down significantly from his cigarette-smoking days.
That’s not to say all New Yorkers are welcoming the glowing tip of these electronic devices.
“There was a time when I was wasted, vaping an e-cigarette, and someone came up to me and told me to put it out,” says Alex Catarinella, 26. “I blew smoke in his face and then pretended to put out my cigarette on his chest. He jumped!”
Writers and regular e-smokers Christelle Gérand, 27, and Joel Johnson, 35, toured the city with the Daily News and vaped openly in bars, restaurants, a dry cleaner and even a grocery store without anyone telling them to cut it out.
“I am surprised at how many places don’t seem to mind — especially bars,” says Johnson.
One place that will never turn e-smokers away is the Henley Lounge, planned to open in SoHo in September. The local e-cigarette company hopes to screen films and host talks, all while passing out samples of its Henley e-cigs.
“Our job with this company is to educate people that nicotine is like caffeine,” says Henley co-founder Talia Eisenberg. “Yes, it’s addictive, but it’s not going to hurt you.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rules-e-cigarettes-article-1.1412964?pgno=1#ixzz2ajJYNc2i
 

Most U.S. youth exposed to tobacco advertising in stores

ATLANTA, July 31 (UPI) — U.S. researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say a lot of kids continue to see tobacco ads and be influenced by them.
Dr. Shanta Dube, lead health scientist for surveillance in the Epidemiology Branch, Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and colleagues examined the proportion of adolescents exposed to pro-tobacco advertising and assessed the association between this exposure and susceptibility to smoking.
The researchers used data from the 2011 National Youth Tobacco Survey to calculate the proportion of susceptible middle-school and high-school students exposed to pro-tobacco advertisements via stores, magazines and the Internet. Susceptibility to smoking cigarettes was defined as “never smoked but open to trying cigarettes,” Dube said.
In 2011, 81.5 percent of middle-school students and 87 percent of high-school students were exposed to tobacco advertisements in stores; 48 percent of middle-school students and 54 percent of high-school students were exposed to such advertising in magazines.
Exposure to tobacco advertisements on the Internet was similar at about 40 percent for both middle-school and high-school students.
Of those surveyed, 22 percent of middle-school students and 24 percent of high-school students were susceptible to trying cigarettes.
Exposure to magazine advertising declined from 71.8 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in 2009 among susceptible middle-school students; but exposure increased to 55 percent in 2011. Tobacco advertising seen through the Internet among susceptible high-school students increased from 26 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2011.
The study was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/07/31/Most-US-youth-exposed-to-tobacco-advertising-in-stores/UPI-26521375321062/#ixzz2ajGPXhMN

Are e-cigarettes healthier?

By 
John Sweet once smoked two packs of cigarettes per day until a chance visit to a Clearwater flea market in early May led him to the latest nicotine alternative.
For $50 he purchased a battery-powered electronic cigarette — a device that comes in many shapes and sizes and in different price ranges.
With the push of a button, the e-cigarette heats a nicotine-infused propylene glycol fluid, turning it into a vapor that’s inhaled. E-cigarette users call the act “vaping,” not smoking.
These e-cigarettes, or e-cigs for short, often look like real cigarettes, but without the lingering smoky odor. Other devices — invented and manufactured in China — look like large ink pens.
“On the spot (after seeing the e-cigarette), I decided to quit,” Sweet said.
Sweet, 44, last week upgraded his cheaper realistic-looking e-cig at Johnny Vapenhiemer E-Cigs, a Paddock Mall kiosk. He said the cheaper e-cig had a short battery life and he wanted something better.
Sweet loves vaping because it is one-fifth the cost of smoking. And despite health warnings, it’s healthier than smoking traditional cigarettes, he said.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration in the Philippines issued an advisory, warning that e-cigs have not been tested and second-hand emissions could be harmful.
“E-cigarettes contain volatile substances, including popylene glycol, flavors and nicotine, and are emitted as (a) mist or aerosol into indoor air,” according to the June 26 advisory.
The advisory stated the FDA in that country cannot exclude adverse health risks from second-hand emission exposure. However, that agency conceded that e-cig devices produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes.
In the United States, the FDA is moving to release for public comment a proposed rule to regulate additional categories of tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes. FDA officials said they cannot comment on the contents of the proposed rule. Official noted in a statement that “further research is needed to assess the potential public health benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes and other novel tobacco products.”
At the e-cig kiosk in Paddock Mall, owner Johnny Mays — who calls himself Johnny Vapor, master vaporologist — defended the world’s fastest-growing tobacco trend.
Mays held a 48-page e-cigarette study commissioned by the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA).
He inhaled an e-cig, one of two that comes in a kit with a battery charger and bottle of fluid, called e-juice, for $64.95. Mays carries e-juice in 60-plus flavors, from tobacco to strawberry.
Users squirt a few drops of fluid into a small tank. The battery heats the e-juice to 92 degrees. With a push of a button, users inhale vapor through a mouthpiece.
Mays says the industry is misunderstood and that e-cigs are much safer than traditional cigarettes.
“Cigarettes have thousands of harmful chemicals; e-juice has one chemical,” Mays said as he helped Sweet pick a red e-cigarette kit.
June’s advisory came three years after the agency attempted to block the sale of e-cigarettes all together in the United States. The FDA claimed that an e-cigarette was a drug device and should be regulated as a heavily scrutinized medicine, not a tobacco product.
The federal court ruled e-cigarettes do fall under the FDA’s tobacco regulations. After all, nicotine comes from the leaf and stems of tobacco.
Tom Kiklas, co-founder of TVECA, maintains that e-cigarettes are not being touted as a cessation product, like nicotine lozenges, patches and gum. Therefore, e-cigs can be marketed like any other tobacco product.
The American Lung Association doesn’t buy Kiklas’ claims. Erika Sward, American Lung Association’s vice president of national advocacy, said e-cigs have not been thoroughly studied and no one really knows the chemical content in the e-juice. She also criticized the FDA and the Obama Administration for not moving fast enough in regulating e-cigarettes.
“The American Lung Association is very concerned about the potential health impacts of e-cigarettes,” said Sward, adding another big concern is the product is being marketed to children. “When I see a product with a cotton candy flavor, I don’t think that is for adults.”
Sward said there is also ample proof that e-cigarette companies are marketing the products as a tobacco cessation aide.
Kiklas said manufacturers of cessation products, not the tobacco industry, is leading the charge against e-cigarettes. Most tobacco manufacturers are — or soon will be — joining the e-cigarette market after tobacco sales declined by 5 percent last year.
Kiklas said regular tobacco cigarettes have 7,000 chemicals, 600 of which become carcinogens when ignited. E-cigarettes only have five basic ingredients: nicotine, flavoring, water, glycerol and propylene glycol — less than one half of 1 percent of the harmful chemicals, he said. Propylene glycol has caused concern among e-cig opponents because it is an ingredient in anti-freeze. Kiklas said the ingredient, which has long been approved by the FDA, is in many products, including asthma inhalers and food since the 1930s.
Health officials said since the product is not regulated — or even properly studied — then who knows officially what e-juice contains from one manufacturer to another. The Florida Department of Health’s Tobacco Free Florida agency stated it “is wary of any perceived benefits.” The agency noted there is no credible medical or scientific research to support the safety of e-cigs.
“Preliminary research from the FDA revealed that some e-cigarettes contain toxic substances and carcinogens, which are known to cause cancer,” the state health department noted.
The group Americans for Nonsmoker’ Rights (ANR) cited the Indoor Air journal study. The study showed nicotine causes the formation of carcinogens — including formaldehyde — when exhaled indoors, and could remain on surfaces for weeks. Users could then absorb the carcinogens.
“The authors (of the study) concluded the e-cigarettes are a new source of chemical and aerosol exposure and their potential impact is a concern that should be investigated,” the statement noted.
ANR’s immediate concern is the use of e-cigs at smokefree locations, like the workplaces and restaurants.
Evelyn James, health education specialist with the Florida Department of Health in Marion County (once called the Marion County Health Department), said e-cigarettes have not been studied.
James urged potential users not to “replace one product that has been proven to be bad for you” for another that has not even been tested.
The FDA’s June advisory comes as the popularity of e-cigarettes is starting to gain worldwide momentum.
E-cigarettes is a $500 million industry, a minute share of the annual $80 billion U.S. tobacco market. The e-cigarette market has grown globally by 30 percent in the past three consecutive years.
Marion County resident Jan Spagnol, an opiate user who has been clean for one year, said during her recovery, she has relied heavily on cigarettes. Last week, she purchased an e-cig kit from Mays to ratchet down her nicotine intake.
E-juice comes in different strengths, ranging from 24 milligrams of nicotine per milliliter down to zero. One 12 milliliter bottle, which costs $8.99 at the Paddock Mall kiosk, will last a one-pack-per-day light cigarette smoker about two weeks.
The e-cigarette device itself can be reused. The consumer will also have to buy a replacement tank for $6.99 about once a month, depending on usage.
In the end, a one-pack-per-day light cigarette smoker will spend about $25 per month vaporing, compared to about $150 per month smoking.
“I wanted a way to wean myself off cigarettes,” she said, adding that nicotine patches was one option.
She decided against patches because e-cigarettes allow her to still inhale and exhale, retaining that oral fixation associated with cigarettes.
“After I quit smoking, I really will be clean and sober,” she noted.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20130717/ARTICLES/130719745/-1/entertainment02?p=5&tc=pg

Tobacco tax: Myth vs. facts

To the editor:
We were disappointed to read the opinions expressed in the July 6 editorial. We would like to provide your readers with accurate information based on fact (references readily available).
The following points address several myths presented by Mr. Peterson:
Myth: The new tobacco tax will help pay for the Vikings Stadium. Fact: The revenue from the tobacco tax will go into the general fund. Some of the money from a one-time tax on cigarette inventory in stores may go to the stadium.
Myth: Raising the tobacco tax is unfair to smokers. Fact: The cost of treating tobacco-related disease far exceeds the amount of tobacco tax collected by smokers. Every man, woman and child in Minnesota pays $554 in excess health care costs due to smoking whether they smoke or not.
Myth: Smokers won’t quit even if the price increases. Fact: Research shows that a $1.60 per pack tax increase will help more than 36,600 current Minnesota smokers quit. In our state, we are fortunate that all smokers have access to free cessation services through QUITPLAN. In addition, low-income smokers suffer disproportionately from the health effects of smoking, and are 70 percent more responsive to price increases.
Myth: Tobacco tax revenue isn’t reliable. Fact: Every state that has significantly raised its tobacco tax has seen an increase in state revenue and health benefits for residents.
The new tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products is estimated to generate approximately $400 million over the next two years and will save our state more than $1.65 billion in long-term health care costs.
Myth: Raising the tobacco tax will force people over the border. Fact: In most places, the price difference isn’t substantial enough to cause people to cross the border to buy cigarettes. Some may cross occasionally, but the number of individuals who do this is statistically very low. Most smokers will continue to buy their cigarettes in Minnesota.
Research has consistently shown that raising the price of tobacco is one of the most effective ways to help smokers quit and prevent kids from starting. Saving Minnesota lives and our kids from a lifetime of addiction is “fair” and a great idea in our book (of facts).
Southwest Community Health Improvement Program (C.H.I.P) members
Paula Bloemendaal
Val Dallenbach
Judy Pitzl
Kris Wegner
http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/540688/Tobacco-tax–Myth-vs–facts.html?nav=5072

Higher cigarette prices do save lives

These findings are a result of a World Health Organization (WHO) study of 41 countries where smoking policies have been in place since 2007.
From their MPOWER model – which stands for Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies, Protecting people from tobacco smoke, Offering help to quit tobacco use,Warning people about the dangers of tobacco, Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, and Raising taxes on tobacco – the WHO was able to predict that 7.4 million deaths could be prevented by 2050.
The research has shown that increasing taxes on cigarettes by up to 75% had the greatest impact on smoking, even more so than anti-smoking policies. While smoke-free air laws in 20 of the focus countries had averted 2.5 million premature deaths, tax rises prevented 3.5 million smoking-related deaths.
“Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death in the world, with six million smoking-attributable deaths per year today, and these deaths are projected to rise to eight million a year by 2030, if current trends continue,” said Douglas Bettcher, WHO director of the department of non-communicable diseases.
However, even with greater scientific evidence that smoking kills, some people are still resistant to change. And South Africans are no exception.
An uphill battle
Readers’ responses to an article on Heath24 earlier this year, titled ‘SA set to go 100% smoke-free’, are redolent of the resistance faced by advocates for a smoke-free society.
The article covered the announcement by the South African government that new legislation would make all indoors and some outdoor areas 100% smoke-free.
According to the proposed legislation, smoking will be prohibited in:

  • Stadiums, arenas, schools and childcare facilities
  • Health facilities
  • Outdoor eating or drinking areas
  • Places where outdoor events take place
  • Covered walkways and covered parking areas
  • Outdoor service areas and queues
  • Beaches, within 50 metres of a demarcated swimming area
  • Five to 10 metres of entrances, doorways, windows and ventilation inlets

What some of our readers have to say:
Martin said: “I shall continue to smoke in my office, and people needing to see me will continue to wait outside… I’m sorry, cigarettes contribute so little to general air pollution. Look at cars, industries etc. – there are your culprits… my guys suck up welding fumes all day, but smoking is banned, WTF?!?”
Dieter asked: “Is he [the minister of health] that bored with life that they would do something like that? What about overweight people, are they gonna make them stop eating as well? Get a job you’re good at!”
Raven said: “So, my freedom of choice is removed. Where do I sign to have this law scrapped?”
Charmain Nel said: “People give me the sh*ts when all they talk about is smoking. First do something about the DRINKERS WHO KILL PEOPLE. I have never KILLED WHEN SMOKING. The ones that are having a fit are all DRINKERS, which is why nothing gets done. LEAVE US SMOKERS ALONE!”
But with more studies concretely pointing to the dangers of smoking, both for smoker and non-smokers, it’s clear that researchers are not ready to leave the matter alone.
Scientifically speaking
Scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in the USA, recently proved that third-hand smoke can also kill over time.
They proved that the smelly residue (third-hand smoke), which sticks to almost all surfaces long after the second-hand smoke has cleared out, can actually cause significant long-term genetic damage to human cells.
The researchers said that chemical compounds found in third-hand smoke are among the most potent carcinogens around and are capable of causing most cancers in humans.
And estimated 30% of South Africans are smokers, and about 60% of all lung cancer deaths in South Africa are due to tobacco smoking, according to the national Lung Cancer Association.
“By taking the right measures, this tobacco epidemic can be entirely prevented,” concluded WHO’s Douglas Bettcher.
Hayden Horner
http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Stop-smoking/News/Higher-cigarette-prices-do-save-lives-20130717

Forum editorial: Take deep breath and relax

Some folks in North Dakota are in a snit because anti-smoking funds are being used to promote the cause at specific events, such as the Fargo-Moorhead gay pride festival. They should take a deep breath, preferably at a nearby smoke-free bar, and calm down.
ND Quits and the state health department are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They are using funds, some state and federal, some from the multi-year settlement with tobacco companies, to get smokers to quit or others to never start. They are developing and implementing strategies to educate about the known dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke. The efforts can include targeting groups with high rates of tobacco use, such as the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population, which is 70 percent more likely to smoke than the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Since the federal dollars for state smoking-cessation programs come from the CDC, it logically follows that the state effort should include the at-risk LGBT community. It’s no different than spending a portion of the budget for information and education programs aimed at youth, women or oil workers – groups, by the way, that are in the anti-smoking agencies’ sights. ND Quits operates under a clear mandate from the people of North Dakota, who overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that set up an agency to manage and spend tobacco settlement dollars. That came a few years ago after an intransigent Legislature refused to act responsibly, even as anti-smoking sentiment took hold in the state.
More silliness about the application of anti-smoking money came from the North Dakota Policy Council’s Zack Tiggelaar. He said that while he supports efforts to encourage smokers to quit, “… is it something the public and taxpayers should be funding?” The answer, as made crystal clear by North Dakota voters, is “yes.”
He added: “The government shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to support specific causes.”
Where has he been? North Dakota has special state tax that goes to research sponsored by the Lignite Energy Council. That’s pretty specific. The state funds loans and grants for beginning farmers. That’s specific. The Renaissance Zone program for cities uses tax incentives (public money) to stimulate private development. Yet another specific cause.
Purists of the council’s ilk might wag a finger, but such programs evolved from long-standing public policy, and ND Quits is operating within the same ethic.
Oh, and by the way, those partnerships – whether associated with lignite research, farm and city investment or smoking cessation – work. The money is well spent.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Cigarette smoking at new low among youths, survey finds

Cigarette smoking hit the lowest point ever recorded among American eighth-graders and high school sophomores and seniors last year, a newly released report shows.

Last year, only 5% of high school sophomores said they had smoked cigarettes daily in the previous 30 days, compared with 18% of sophomores who were smoking daily at one point in the 1990s. The numbers have also plunged for eighth-graders and high school seniors, hitting their lowest point since the surveys began.
The change is just one of the findings in a vast new report on the well-being of American children, compiled by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. The report draws together research from a host of government agencies and research groups, including smoking surveys from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Besides being less likely to smoke, U.S. children are also less likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke than in the past, the report showed.
Danny McGoldrick, vice president for research for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, credited tobacco taxes, laws limiting where people can smoke and smoking prevention programs with reducing the numbers. However, the surveys show progress has slowed in recent years, with teenage smoking rates falling only slightly from 2011 to 2012.
“We need to invest in more of what has worked in the past to accelerate these declines,” McGoldrick said.
Other findings from the report included:
• Birth rates have continued to drop among teenagers, falling for the fourth year in a row, according to preliminary data. As of two years ago, there were 15 births for every 1,000 teenagers ages 15 to 17 — a striking decrease from four years earlier, when the rate was 22 per 1,000.
• Last year, nearly a quarter of high school seniors reported binge drinking in the previous two weeks, a slight increase after earlier declines.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0712-kids-wellbeing-20130712,0,7542363.story

How Obama’s tobacco tax would drive down smoking rates

By Sarah Kliff, Washington Post
President Obama’s proposal to nearly double the federal tobacco tax would help fund a universal pre-K program. And, if history is any guide, it would likely have a marked impact on driving down the country’s smoking rates.
“Increasing the price of tobacco is the single most effective way to discourage kids from smoking,” CDC director Tom Frieden told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “We estimate this would result in at least 230,000 fewer kids smoking than would have smoked if the tobacco tax does not go into effect.”
Researchers have conducted over 100 studies that have “clearly and consistently demonstrated that higher cigarette and other tobacco product prices reduce tobacco use,” Frank Chaloupka, a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, writes. While tobacco is an addictive substance, demand tends to be surprisingly elastic: Price increases have reliably shown to decrease cigarette purchases.
The Congressional Budget Office recently looked at what would happen if the country implemented a 50-cent per pack tax on cigarettes. It estimates, given the research we have on tobacco taxes, that the price increase would lead to 1.4 million fewer smokers by 2021.
Many of those gains would be concentrated among younger Americans, who would take up smoking at lower rates:
A few years after the hypothetical tax increase took effect, the number of 12- to 17-year-olds who smoked cigarettes would be about 5 percent lower than it would be otherwise, the number of 18-year-old smokers would be 4.5 percent lower, the number of 19- to 39-year-old smokers would be almost 4 percent lower, and the number of smokers age 40 or older would be about 1.5 percent lower.
The CBO data suggests that a cigarette tax is more successful at reducing tobacco use among shorter-term smokers, vs. older Americans who may have been smokers for a longer period of time.
Even among those who don’t fully quit, tobacco taxes do appear to effect the intensity of smoking. A 2012 study in the journal Tobacco Control interviewed thousands of smokers over a time period where states increased their tobacco taxes. It found that the most intense smokers — those who smoked 40 or more cigarettes per day — saw the steepest decline in cigarette consumption.
“The dramatic reductions in daily smoking might be driven,at least in part, by heavier smokers’ desire to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke per day,” lead study author Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg writes. “This could be because of their comorbid health problems and/or advice from influential persons (eg, doctors/friends/family) to try to quit and/or reduce smoking.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/11/how-obamas-tobacco-tax-would-drive-down-smoking-rates/