Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) wants to ban a smoking device that several House Republicans have trumpeted for helping them quit smoking.
The battery-operated device, known as an electronic cigarette, looks like a normal cigarette, but contains no tobacco and instead of smoke emits a nicotine vapor when the user inhales. Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) have all been spotted using the device on Capitol Hill.
But the device, which is sold over the Internet and at select mall kiosks, needs to be tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before it is deemed safe for general use, Lautenberg wrote in a letter to the FDA on Monday.
“Manufacturers and retailers of these products claim that e-cigarettes are safe, and even that these products can help smokers quit traditional cigarettes,” he wrote.
“However, there have been no clinical studies to prove these products are effective at helping smokers quit, nor have any studies verified the safety of these products or their long-term health effects.”
Stearns shot back at Lautenberg on Monday, saying that there is no evidence that the device is harmful.
“Before the FDA takes any immediate action, it should put forward scientific evidence that these products are harmful or unsafe,” he said in a statement.
“These e-cigarettes are smokeless and do not produce carcinogens. The nicotine in e-cigarettes is controlled in a capsule that can help in smoking cessation by allowing the user to reduce gradually the nicotine level, hopefully to zero.”
Stearns has sent electronic cigarettes to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama to help them quit smoking. He’s been seen using the device in the Speaker’s Lobby, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) banned smoking two years ago. Her office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
A longtime opponent of smoking, Lautenberg authored the law that banned smoking on airplanes and a law that banned smoking in federal facilities that serve children.
пятница, 29 мая 2009 г.
вторник, 26 мая 2009 г.
Celebrities smoking cigarettes.
I have come across over a couple of things about celebrities smoking cigarettes that can be categorized neither as absurd nor as strange. They are not even funny, though. Fine, here we go.
1.There are celebrities, especially movie stars, that smokes on screen like they are addicted but aren’t in actual place.
2.Smoking celebrities, sometimes sports stars, endorse cigarettes very rarely, if ever; but they are declared smokers in their private lives with some needing to have a drag in between shots.
3.Celebrities raising their voices in support of smoking cessation movements of course draw big attention but are rarely taken seriously.
4.Celebrity smoking influences adolescents to follow suit. Youngsters want to replicate their demigods.
5.Celebrities of the bygone era have remote chances of having picked up the habit watching their heroes.
Well, these are just some of my gibberish talks that I guess might have crossed everyone’s minds. But is it true that celebrities really desist from endorsing cigarettes of all hues? Is it because they are conscious of their social responsibilities? Of course, I, for one, want to believe this line. Pictures of celebrities smoking appear glamorous and civilized, regardless of the context of the scene in a movie and thus it strikes a cord with teens. They are shown at parties with a cigarette which pushes young people to emulate them. The brands they smoke, cheap Marlboro cigarettes, Camel, Winston, Virginia Slims, Salem etc, become a point of campus discussion.
There are two prominent websites dedicated to smoking celebrities; rather one is a yahoo group. These are definitely not promoted by any of them but their fans who also are into smoking. These two sites list smoking stars from real life and on screen. The website I stumbled upon is on female celebrities who chain smoke on screen. You get a blow by blow account of ‘when and what’ they smoke and in which movie! Wow, so much to that!
How does it all relate to the rest of us? After all, we only get to see one face of them, enjoying a good smoke. Do we come to know of their efforts to keep fit or do we know that not many of them are smokers at all? Well, do you want to emulate them – then ponder these points, too.
1.Can you afford 40-60 Marlboro cigarettes a day if you don’t buy them from a tax free online store or a discount sale?
2.Cheap cigarettes at discount price may be an option but is it a license to smoke more?
3.Many celebrities only smoke socially; they just don’t like to be left out because they don’t smoke.
4.Celebrities can easily afford high cost healthcare, just in case.
Neither cheap discount cigarettes of reputed brands nor generics bought at cheap price tobacco shop can be castigated as being cheap quality. Most of these generics and branded cheap cigarettes are regulated in their respective countries of manufacture and because of price and tax difference between your and origination country that they become cheap. Cheap Marlboro cigarettes, however guaranteed they are, are not your insurance to smoke more. Neither menthol nor Lm falls into the category, for that matter. The bottom line is here: celebrity endorsement or not, cheap or not, cigarettes are always known to give smokers a momentary relief but a long time trouble.
1.There are celebrities, especially movie stars, that smokes on screen like they are addicted but aren’t in actual place.
2.Smoking celebrities, sometimes sports stars, endorse cigarettes very rarely, if ever; but they are declared smokers in their private lives with some needing to have a drag in between shots.
3.Celebrities raising their voices in support of smoking cessation movements of course draw big attention but are rarely taken seriously.
4.Celebrity smoking influences adolescents to follow suit. Youngsters want to replicate their demigods.
5.Celebrities of the bygone era have remote chances of having picked up the habit watching their heroes.
Well, these are just some of my gibberish talks that I guess might have crossed everyone’s minds. But is it true that celebrities really desist from endorsing cigarettes of all hues? Is it because they are conscious of their social responsibilities? Of course, I, for one, want to believe this line. Pictures of celebrities smoking appear glamorous and civilized, regardless of the context of the scene in a movie and thus it strikes a cord with teens. They are shown at parties with a cigarette which pushes young people to emulate them. The brands they smoke, cheap Marlboro cigarettes, Camel, Winston, Virginia Slims, Salem etc, become a point of campus discussion.
There are two prominent websites dedicated to smoking celebrities; rather one is a yahoo group. These are definitely not promoted by any of them but their fans who also are into smoking. These two sites list smoking stars from real life and on screen. The website I stumbled upon is on female celebrities who chain smoke on screen. You get a blow by blow account of ‘when and what’ they smoke and in which movie! Wow, so much to that!
How does it all relate to the rest of us? After all, we only get to see one face of them, enjoying a good smoke. Do we come to know of their efforts to keep fit or do we know that not many of them are smokers at all? Well, do you want to emulate them – then ponder these points, too.
1.Can you afford 40-60 Marlboro cigarettes a day if you don’t buy them from a tax free online store or a discount sale?
2.Cheap cigarettes at discount price may be an option but is it a license to smoke more?
3.Many celebrities only smoke socially; they just don’t like to be left out because they don’t smoke.
4.Celebrities can easily afford high cost healthcare, just in case.
Neither cheap discount cigarettes of reputed brands nor generics bought at cheap price tobacco shop can be castigated as being cheap quality. Most of these generics and branded cheap cigarettes are regulated in their respective countries of manufacture and because of price and tax difference between your and origination country that they become cheap. Cheap Marlboro cigarettes, however guaranteed they are, are not your insurance to smoke more. Neither menthol nor Lm falls into the category, for that matter. The bottom line is here: celebrity endorsement or not, cheap or not, cigarettes are always known to give smokers a momentary relief but a long time trouble.
четверг, 21 мая 2009 г.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council
As members of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturer's Council (CTMC), Canada's three leading tobacco companies discuss and take action on issues of common interest relating to the industry. The CTMC in particular provides financing to three initiatives which are all managed by third parties.
The issue of smoking and youth, for example, is a great concern to us. In order to assist retailers in understanding and complying with the law, the three major companies support and fund a retail-initiated and retail-based program called Operation I.D. that aims to eliminate underage tobacco access.
Public smoking is another issue of interest. Financed by the CTMC and others, the Fair Air Association supports the hospitality industry in their efforts to respond to financially crippling and unilateral smoking bans. It informs them about existing alternatives such as new technological advances and research in the ventilation industry.
The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council also supports an adult smokers’ association and a Web site designed to provide adult smokers with the tools to advocate on tobacco regulations or issues that affect them directly. The association and its Web site, called www.mychoice.ca is a platform which provides adult smokers with the information and tools to participate in the public policy discussion on tobacco control.
The issue of smoking and youth, for example, is a great concern to us. In order to assist retailers in understanding and complying with the law, the three major companies support and fund a retail-initiated and retail-based program called Operation I.D. that aims to eliminate underage tobacco access.
Public smoking is another issue of interest. Financed by the CTMC and others, the Fair Air Association supports the hospitality industry in their efforts to respond to financially crippling and unilateral smoking bans. It informs them about existing alternatives such as new technological advances and research in the ventilation industry.
The Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council also supports an adult smokers’ association and a Web site designed to provide adult smokers with the tools to advocate on tobacco regulations or issues that affect them directly. The association and its Web site, called www.mychoice.ca is a platform which provides adult smokers with the information and tools to participate in the public policy discussion on tobacco control.
четверг, 14 мая 2009 г.
Tobacco companies target girls
Tobacco marketing in South Korea has been deliberately aimed at girls and young women. Research published in the open access journal Globalization and Health has shown that transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) are using tactics long used with devastating effect in Western countries to snare new female smokers in Asia. Kelley Lee from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine led a team of researchers who studied internal documents from the tobacco industry that reveal the scheme to seduce a generation of girls. She said, "Since the opening of the South Korean tobacco market in the late 1980s, females have been targeted by TTCs as an important source of future market growth and profitability. The rise in smoking rates among females within certain age groups since the late 1980s suggests that these efforts have been successful".
The tactics used recall advertising campaigns carried out in the United States and Europe since the 1920s that link smoking with feminism and the liberation of women. According to Lee, "Product design associating smoking with body image and female emancipation, familiarly deployed elsewhere, have been extensively used in South Korea to appeal to female smokers. So-called "ultra light", "low tar" and "superslim" cigarettes have been particularly effective, falsely suggesting certain brands offer a healthier or safer option, as well as appealing to female concerns about weight gain. Tighter restrictions on the use of such descriptors, alongside public education on the fallacy of such claims, are badly needed in South Korea".
South Korea's cigarette market was opened to the world in 1988 under the threat of US trade sanctions. In 1989, the country passed laws banning tobacco advertising, marketing and sponsorship directly targeted at women and children. During the authors' literature search, they found evidence of the companies' efforts to circumvent this law by, for example, using images of couples in their adverts – something not covered by the country's guidelines, but known to appeal to the female market. One TTC wrote "Although obviously targeted to women, the campaign extension would also not be as overt in markets sensitive to female targeting".
Lee concludes, "The implementation of comprehensive tobacco control measures in South Korea, as set out under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, is urgently needed to protect and promote the health of Korean women and girls".
The tactics used recall advertising campaigns carried out in the United States and Europe since the 1920s that link smoking with feminism and the liberation of women. According to Lee, "Product design associating smoking with body image and female emancipation, familiarly deployed elsewhere, have been extensively used in South Korea to appeal to female smokers. So-called "ultra light", "low tar" and "superslim" cigarettes have been particularly effective, falsely suggesting certain brands offer a healthier or safer option, as well as appealing to female concerns about weight gain. Tighter restrictions on the use of such descriptors, alongside public education on the fallacy of such claims, are badly needed in South Korea".
South Korea's cigarette market was opened to the world in 1988 under the threat of US trade sanctions. In 1989, the country passed laws banning tobacco advertising, marketing and sponsorship directly targeted at women and children. During the authors' literature search, they found evidence of the companies' efforts to circumvent this law by, for example, using images of couples in their adverts – something not covered by the country's guidelines, but known to appeal to the female market. One TTC wrote "Although obviously targeted to women, the campaign extension would also not be as overt in markets sensitive to female targeting".
Lee concludes, "The implementation of comprehensive tobacco control measures in South Korea, as set out under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, is urgently needed to protect and promote the health of Korean women and girls".
понедельник, 11 мая 2009 г.
Cigarettes less likely to burn.
The latest salvo from Canada's four-year-old Federal Tobacco Control Strategy calls for all cigarettes manufactured or sold in Canada to be of a reduced ignition propensity. Bill C-260, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act, says that as of October 1, 2005, all cigarettes--imported or otherwise, must conform to the Standard Test Method for Measuring the Ignition Strength of Cigarettes adopted in 2002 (ASTM E2187-02b). Are the manufacturers ready?
The standard says manufactured cigarettes--which make up 85% of all tobacco products sold in Canada--can burn their full length no more than 25% of the time during 40 replicate tests on 10 layers of filter paper. The test uses standard filter paper as a heat sink, allowing a cigarette to self-extinguish once its coal has cooled. Health Canada chose the 25% standard because it is the strictest standard demonstrated to be achievable over 20 years of research, since a US Congress-mandated study determined that a low-ignition-propensity (LIP) cigarette was commercially feasible.
Under the authority of Canada's Tobacco Act, anyone manufacturing a tobacco product that does not conform to the new standards faces fines of up to $300,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Compliance would be monitored through sampling and analysis, and targets all cigarettes manufactured or imported in the country.
This method of testing, say critics like John Wildgust, head of corporate affairs at JTI-Macdonald Corp, is misleading. The use of filter paper instead of furniture mock-ups, no crevice testing and no artificial airflow means, "the testing required under the current regulation does not correspond to real-world situations--involving, for example, flammable fabrics or other conditions under which cigarettes may be normally used. We are concerned that consumers may mistakenly believe that these products are 'fire-safe' and...
The standard says manufactured cigarettes--which make up 85% of all tobacco products sold in Canada--can burn their full length no more than 25% of the time during 40 replicate tests on 10 layers of filter paper. The test uses standard filter paper as a heat sink, allowing a cigarette to self-extinguish once its coal has cooled. Health Canada chose the 25% standard because it is the strictest standard demonstrated to be achievable over 20 years of research, since a US Congress-mandated study determined that a low-ignition-propensity (LIP) cigarette was commercially feasible.
Under the authority of Canada's Tobacco Act, anyone manufacturing a tobacco product that does not conform to the new standards faces fines of up to $300,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Compliance would be monitored through sampling and analysis, and targets all cigarettes manufactured or imported in the country.
This method of testing, say critics like John Wildgust, head of corporate affairs at JTI-Macdonald Corp, is misleading. The use of filter paper instead of furniture mock-ups, no crevice testing and no artificial airflow means, "the testing required under the current regulation does not correspond to real-world situations--involving, for example, flammable fabrics or other conditions under which cigarettes may be normally used. We are concerned that consumers may mistakenly believe that these products are 'fire-safe' and...
четверг, 7 мая 2009 г.
Altria stubs out Marlboro Ultra Smoothx
NEW YORK - Altria Group Inc's Philip Morris USA has cancelled its Marlboro Ultra Smooth cigarettes, highlighting challenges it faces in trying to grow its tobacco business despite a decline in U.S. cigarette sales, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Altria gets nearly all its revenue from Philip Morris USA after spinning off its Philip Morris International operations, the Journal reported.
Philip Morris's sales volume fell 4.6 percent last year, worse than the 4 percent decline in the overall U.S. cigarette market, the Journal reported. Underlying sales volume fell 3.6 percent, the Journal added.
The company expects overall cigarette sales to fall at an annual rate of 2.5 percent to 3 percent in coming years, the Journal reported.
Philip Morris has turned to developing tobacco products that are not as risky to their user's health, the Journal said. Ultra Smooth cigarettes include an activated carbon filter that delivers nicotine but with potentially less exposure to the carcinogens of conventional cigarettes, the Journal reported.
A Philip Morris spokesman was unavailable for comment.
Altria gets nearly all its revenue from Philip Morris USA after spinning off its Philip Morris International operations, the Journal reported.
Philip Morris's sales volume fell 4.6 percent last year, worse than the 4 percent decline in the overall U.S. cigarette market, the Journal reported. Underlying sales volume fell 3.6 percent, the Journal added.
The company expects overall cigarette sales to fall at an annual rate of 2.5 percent to 3 percent in coming years, the Journal reported.
Philip Morris has turned to developing tobacco products that are not as risky to their user's health, the Journal said. Ultra Smooth cigarettes include an activated carbon filter that delivers nicotine but with potentially less exposure to the carcinogens of conventional cigarettes, the Journal reported.
A Philip Morris spokesman was unavailable for comment.
среда, 6 мая 2009 г.
Forida Preventing Fires By Issuing Tickets For Tossing Cigarettes
That last pull on your Marlboro may deliver the desired hit to your lungs, but flicking it out the window of your car could put a hit on your wallet.
Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies are stepping up their enforcement of the littering law, since the area is in the throes of a seemingly never-ending drought. The parched vegetation along the roadsides is just looking for an excuse to flare up.
Getting a ticket for tossing lit cigarettes from the window isn't cheap.
Sheriff's Cpl. Donald Morris said that between Jan. 1 and Tuesday, 30 tickets for tossing butts out the window were issued, costing each guilty flicker $100.
Such an offense is a violation of the Florida litter law and the fine was hiked in October, Morris said. It is a nonmoving violation, so it doesn't go on a violator's driving record, and doesn't result in points on a license, he said.
"A $100 fine might appear to be steep, but look at the magnitude of the situation," said Morris, who supervises the traffic unit in northwest Hillsborough County. "If you throw a cigarette butt and it ignites a brush fire, you've got the cost of firefighters, the traffic slowdown and the potential harm to the firefighters.
"Most people," he said, "don't realize that little cigarette butt can cause that amount of damage and be a threat to people's lives."
With the state firmly in the grip of a drought, and with wildfires springing up virtually every day, sheriff's officials decided to step up enforcement, he said.
"We are averaging as many as 15 brush fires a week," said Hillsborough Fire Rescue spokesman Ray Yeakley. "We can't always determine the exact cause, but the biggest offender is people flicking cigarette butts out of their cars."
Conditions are dry now, and with no rain in the near future, they are going to get drier, he said. That means fires that start along the roads will spread and intensify much quicker.
Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies are stepping up their enforcement of the littering law, since the area is in the throes of a seemingly never-ending drought. The parched vegetation along the roadsides is just looking for an excuse to flare up.
Getting a ticket for tossing lit cigarettes from the window isn't cheap.
Sheriff's Cpl. Donald Morris said that between Jan. 1 and Tuesday, 30 tickets for tossing butts out the window were issued, costing each guilty flicker $100.
Such an offense is a violation of the Florida litter law and the fine was hiked in October, Morris said. It is a nonmoving violation, so it doesn't go on a violator's driving record, and doesn't result in points on a license, he said.
"A $100 fine might appear to be steep, but look at the magnitude of the situation," said Morris, who supervises the traffic unit in northwest Hillsborough County. "If you throw a cigarette butt and it ignites a brush fire, you've got the cost of firefighters, the traffic slowdown and the potential harm to the firefighters.
"Most people," he said, "don't realize that little cigarette butt can cause that amount of damage and be a threat to people's lives."
With the state firmly in the grip of a drought, and with wildfires springing up virtually every day, sheriff's officials decided to step up enforcement, he said.
"We are averaging as many as 15 brush fires a week," said Hillsborough Fire Rescue spokesman Ray Yeakley. "We can't always determine the exact cause, but the biggest offender is people flicking cigarette butts out of their cars."
Conditions are dry now, and with no rain in the near future, they are going to get drier, he said. That means fires that start along the roads will spread and intensify much quicker.
понедельник, 4 мая 2009 г.
Tourists unwittingly 'smuggling' cigarettes
Holidaymakers to some European Union countries are unknowingly breaking the law by bringing back more cigarettes than they are allowed to. Unlike the rest of the EU, only 200 cigarettes can be brought back from Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. It means tourists can be charged with smuggling if they go over the limit and face fines of up to £800.
Britain, along with a number of other western European countries, applied the rules in 2004 and 2007 when the eastern countries with low cigarette taxation joined the EU.
A greater amount of cigarettes can be brought back from other EU countries, as long as it can be proved they are for personal use. But some Britons are falling foul of the rules. Tourist Dave Hunt had 1,800 cigarettes confiscated by customs officials at Gatwick airport after coming back from the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.
The 35-year-old said: 'I didn't realise I couldn't bring that many in. These are EU countries and we're meant to have free trade between them so why have they made up these strange rules?'
HM Revenue and Customs maintains that travellers are receiving adequate warnings of the limits, with posters at airports and leaflets.
Britain, along with a number of other western European countries, applied the rules in 2004 and 2007 when the eastern countries with low cigarette taxation joined the EU.
A greater amount of cigarettes can be brought back from other EU countries, as long as it can be proved they are for personal use. But some Britons are falling foul of the rules. Tourist Dave Hunt had 1,800 cigarettes confiscated by customs officials at Gatwick airport after coming back from the Bulgarian capital, Sofia.
The 35-year-old said: 'I didn't realise I couldn't bring that many in. These are EU countries and we're meant to have free trade between them so why have they made up these strange rules?'
HM Revenue and Customs maintains that travellers are receiving adequate warnings of the limits, with posters at airports and leaflets.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)
