The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids describes a $1 tax increase on cigarettes as a win-win-win scenario - a win for states' budgets, a win for health care and a political win.
According to a recent news release, raising West Virginia's tax on cigarettes by $1 from the current 55 cents would generate an additional $117.6 million annually, "keep 19,100 kids from becoming addicted smokers" and save about $475 million in health care costs over the short and long term.
While a national poll found 67 percent of voters of all stripes support a $1 tobacco tax increase, according to Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, West Virginia legislators from the tri-county are split on the proposal.
The Journal surveyed via e-mail the eight state delegates and four state senators representing Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties. Of those who responded, five opposed the tax increase and three did not.
The Journal asked, "What do you think about raising the tax on cigarettes by $1, and do you think such a proposal would have any chance of passage in the West Virginia Legislature?"
Delegate Jonathan Miller, R-Berkeley, wrote:
"Raising the tobacco tax harms the poor. It is a tax increase on poor people, and during this recession, we definitely shouldn't be raising taxes on the poor.
"Poor people addicted to tobacco don't need to be punished for their addiction, and especially not during this recession.
"West Virginia state government collects plenty of tax money from its citizens. We don't need to collect any more money from our citizens, and we definitely don't need to soak the poor any more. Instead of raising taxes on poor people, we should spend our money wisely.
"If we want to spend taxpayer money in an attempt to reduce tobacco use, we should find a way to pay for that with the amount of money we have now, not raise taxes on the poor.
"Lastly, some will claim raising the tobacco tax is a way to stop people from smoking. Trying to stop people from using tobacco is not the purpose of government taxing its citizens. Government taxes people to pay for government services, not to coerce them to engage or not to engage in a particular activity. It is morally wrong for the government to use the force of taxation to manipulate people's behavior."
Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, responded:
"I applaud and support efforts to stop or discourage teen smoking. However, I have zero interest in voting for any tax or fee increase of any kind. Our economic times are tough for smokers and non-smokers alike. Government can and should be ran more efficiently rather than increase any tax burdens on consumers or business.
"Actually, I would entertain one exception, and that's to eliminate the food tax by increasing the tobacco tax. West Virginia smokers would actually see their additional tax returned via their savings when purchasing food. And, I'll admit that I'm not completely sold on this idea, but it's worthy of careful consideration.
"Also, it's always been my understanding that a $1 increase would generate $80 million in West Virginia, not $117 million. The food tax generates $25 million for every 1 percent of tax ($75 million). New Jersey thought tobacco tax revenues would increase but ended up with a loss of $30 million.
"Basically, when our state government stops wasting taxpayers' dollars on programs like prevailing wage, then and only then will I support any tax or fee increases to balance our state's budget."
Delegate Daryl Cowles, R-Morgan, replied:
"I do NOT support a tax increase on cigarettes in West Virginia at this time.
"It might be important to note the attorney general of West Virginia, Darrell McGraw, won a huge settlement from tobacco companies - an amount in excess of $800 million.
"This money was to be spent on prevention, education, cessation, health care costs of smokers, etc. over a 29-year period.
"The money was cashed-out by the Legislature for 50 cents on the dollar by selling bonds with the immediate proceeds used for bailing out retirement funds, teacher pensions and other unrelated programs.
"To now further tax smokers - after misappropriating their settlement award, granted on their behalf and due to their suffering - is simply not proper.
"The irony of the Legislature complaining about Darrell McGraw not sending other settlement monies to the Legislature for appropriation is interesting. But that is a story for another day."
Delegate John Overington, R-Berkeley, said:
"I would be opposed to the $1 cigarette tax increase unless there would be an equal or greater reduction elsewhere, such as a food tax reduction. We are increasing the penalty for selling to and possessing cigarettes for minors."
Delegate Walter Duke, R-Berkeley, responded in part:
"I do not think West Virginia could afford to raise the cigarette tax by an additional $1. I do not think it is good fiscal policy to link revenue with efforts to reduce the activity which brings in the revenue in the first place. It seems you would be working at cross purposes.
"I do support efforts (even spending of tax dollars) to get people to never start smoking and to get people to quit smoking."
In her response, Delegate Tiffany Lawrence, D-Jefferson, refers to a bill that was introduced Monday (Feb. 15) to ban smoking in the state Capitol, including lawmakers' offices:
"West Virginia has the second highest use of tobacco products in the nation. Due to this alarming statistic, I have long been an advocate of reform. As a member of the House Health and Human Resources Committee, I was a part of the discussion that took place yesterday surrounding this interesting debate. I do believe that this piece of legislation will spur more discussion as we move forth in the final weeks of the legislative session."
Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, replied:
"I'm very much in favor of increasing the tax on tobacco products by at least that amount. Sadly, I think this effort has little chance of success in an election year."
Delegate Terry Walker, D-Jefferson, wrote succinctly, "This would have my support."
Chuck Hamsher, a spokesman for Coalition for a Tobacco-Free West Virginia, said specific poll results for West Virginia are not available, but that national poll results tend to reflect state results, although there are some variations from state to state.
The national survey of 847 registered voters was conducted from Jan. 20 to 24 by International Communications Research and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points, according to the news release.
понедельник, 22 февраля 2010 г.
понедельник, 15 февраля 2010 г.
To quit, 'nicotine-free' smokes as good as lozenges
Trying to quit smoking? So-called nicotine-free cigarettes may be as helpful as nicotine lozenges, hints a small study.
Smokers who used the nicotine-free cigarettes before quitting were as likely not to be smoking six weeks later as those who used nicotine lozenges, authors report in the journal Addiction. (Such cigarettes actually have a tiny amount of nicotine.)
And nicotine-free cigarettes and the lozenges both beat low-nicotine cigarettes, Dr. Dorothy K Hatsukami, at the University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center in Minneapolis, and colleagues note.
Nicotine-free cigarettes have 0.05 milligrams of nicotine per cigarette, while low-nicotine cigarettes each have 0.3 milligrams. For comparison, light cigarettes have between 0.7 and 1.0 milligrams of nicotine.
While scientists have tried various ways to reduce the amount of nicotine smokers inhale to help them cut down, they have been concerned that smokers may just smoke more cigarettes to make up for what they're missing.
The idea of nicotine-free cigarettes is to make that much less likely, because it would take so many such cigarettes.
Hatsukami's team compared smoking habits and rates of quitting in 165 mostly middle-age men and women who had smoked for an average of about 15 years, reported multiple previous attempts to quit, and appeared highly motivated to try again.
The investigators supplied nicotine-free cigarettes to 53 participants and identical looking low-nicotine cigarettes to another 52. Each group was to solely smoke supplied cigarettes for 6 weeks, then quit. The remaining participants went cold turkey and used nicotine lozenges for 6 weeks.
Urine and lung tests in those who completed the study showed 19 in the nicotine-free group and 12 in the lozenge group abstinent after 6 weeks. Just 7 in the low-nicotine group were not smoking at that point.
Compared with the low-nicotine group, the nicotine-free smokers had lower levels of tobacco-related toxins and symptoms of withdrawal, though both groups reported similar cravings.
As scientists have suspected, low-nicotine cigarette smokers were more likely to compensate their withdrawal by smoking more cigarettes. Nicotine-free cigarette smokers were not.
Although nicotine-free cigarettes "can be used potentially as a cessation tool," the authors note, the results from this one small study aren't enough to suggest that smokers should use nicotine-free cigarettes instead of nicotine lozenges, Hatsukami told Reuters Health by email.
Part of what limits the conclusions scientists can draw from the study is that a third of the smoking group and half the lozenge dropped out during the course of it.
Still, the results are "encouraging," write Mitch Zeller and Saul Shiffman of Pinney Associates, Bethesda, Maryland, in an accompanying editorial, and should be followed up to explore "how nicotine reduction might affect smokers."
Pinney has consulted for GlaxoSmithKline, which has a smoking control division. Members of the study team have served as expert witnesses in lawsuits against tobacco companies, and have consulted for various drug companies.
Smokers who used the nicotine-free cigarettes before quitting were as likely not to be smoking six weeks later as those who used nicotine lozenges, authors report in the journal Addiction. (Such cigarettes actually have a tiny amount of nicotine.)
And nicotine-free cigarettes and the lozenges both beat low-nicotine cigarettes, Dr. Dorothy K Hatsukami, at the University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center in Minneapolis, and colleagues note.
Nicotine-free cigarettes have 0.05 milligrams of nicotine per cigarette, while low-nicotine cigarettes each have 0.3 milligrams. For comparison, light cigarettes have between 0.7 and 1.0 milligrams of nicotine.
While scientists have tried various ways to reduce the amount of nicotine smokers inhale to help them cut down, they have been concerned that smokers may just smoke more cigarettes to make up for what they're missing.
The idea of nicotine-free cigarettes is to make that much less likely, because it would take so many such cigarettes.
Hatsukami's team compared smoking habits and rates of quitting in 165 mostly middle-age men and women who had smoked for an average of about 15 years, reported multiple previous attempts to quit, and appeared highly motivated to try again.
The investigators supplied nicotine-free cigarettes to 53 participants and identical looking low-nicotine cigarettes to another 52. Each group was to solely smoke supplied cigarettes for 6 weeks, then quit. The remaining participants went cold turkey and used nicotine lozenges for 6 weeks.
Urine and lung tests in those who completed the study showed 19 in the nicotine-free group and 12 in the lozenge group abstinent after 6 weeks. Just 7 in the low-nicotine group were not smoking at that point.
Compared with the low-nicotine group, the nicotine-free smokers had lower levels of tobacco-related toxins and symptoms of withdrawal, though both groups reported similar cravings.
As scientists have suspected, low-nicotine cigarette smokers were more likely to compensate their withdrawal by smoking more cigarettes. Nicotine-free cigarette smokers were not.
Although nicotine-free cigarettes "can be used potentially as a cessation tool," the authors note, the results from this one small study aren't enough to suggest that smokers should use nicotine-free cigarettes instead of nicotine lozenges, Hatsukami told Reuters Health by email.
Part of what limits the conclusions scientists can draw from the study is that a third of the smoking group and half the lozenge dropped out during the course of it.
Still, the results are "encouraging," write Mitch Zeller and Saul Shiffman of Pinney Associates, Bethesda, Maryland, in an accompanying editorial, and should be followed up to explore "how nicotine reduction might affect smokers."
Pinney has consulted for GlaxoSmithKline, which has a smoking control division. Members of the study team have served as expert witnesses in lawsuits against tobacco companies, and have consulted for various drug companies.
пятница, 12 февраля 2010 г.
No Booze, Cigarettes, or Fancy Cars for Welfare Recipients -- if State Representative Frank Antenori Has Anything to Say About it
Welfare recipients may want to hurry up and buy that Bentley they've been saving up for because -- if state Representative Frank Antenori has his way -- there soon will be restrictions on how much money people receiving government assistance can spend on cars and other items.
Antenori introduced HB 2770, which would prohibit welfare recipients from not only using their money to purchase expensive cars but from "consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or illegal drugs."
Awesome. Now we can expect 40-year-old welfare recipients to be hanging out outside of gas stations playing "hey mister" to get a pack of Newports.
The bill would limit the amount of money a welfare recipient could spend on a car to $5,000, as well as limit him or her to only subscribing to basic cable and cell phone services (but only if the cell phone is the recipient's only phone).
Welfare getters may want to hurry up and buy that 72-inch plasma TV, too. If the bill becomes law, folks on government assistance would only be allowed to spend $300 on a boob tube.
If someone needs the government's help to provide the basics like food and clothing, do we really have to worry about them spending gobs of government loot (they are only doled out pittances in this state, for Christ's sake) on fancy cars and TVs. Cigarettes and booze maybe (we would sure want to stay as drunk as possible if we were on welfare). And, Representative Antenori, meth's already illegal to purchase.
We called Antenori to see how the hell the government is supposed to enforce this proposed law, but he hasn't gotten back to us.
Oh, we forgot to say what political party Antenori's in. Nevermind, it's obvious.
Antenori introduced HB 2770, which would prohibit welfare recipients from not only using their money to purchase expensive cars but from "consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or illegal drugs."
Awesome. Now we can expect 40-year-old welfare recipients to be hanging out outside of gas stations playing "hey mister" to get a pack of Newports.
The bill would limit the amount of money a welfare recipient could spend on a car to $5,000, as well as limit him or her to only subscribing to basic cable and cell phone services (but only if the cell phone is the recipient's only phone).
Welfare getters may want to hurry up and buy that 72-inch plasma TV, too. If the bill becomes law, folks on government assistance would only be allowed to spend $300 on a boob tube.
If someone needs the government's help to provide the basics like food and clothing, do we really have to worry about them spending gobs of government loot (they are only doled out pittances in this state, for Christ's sake) on fancy cars and TVs. Cigarettes and booze maybe (we would sure want to stay as drunk as possible if we were on welfare). And, Representative Antenori, meth's already illegal to purchase.
We called Antenori to see how the hell the government is supposed to enforce this proposed law, but he hasn't gotten back to us.
Oh, we forgot to say what political party Antenori's in. Nevermind, it's obvious.
понедельник, 8 февраля 2010 г.
Smoking was a part of life
I received the first two seasons of the television series "Mad Men" as a birthday present last August. The show is set in the 1960s and is centered on a New York advertising agency. It has taken me nearly five months to finish the first season, since watching television is a rare indulgence. But "Mad Men" is a very smart show and a set piece that seems, at least to me, to capture the look and feel of big-city life in the early 1960s.
One of the first things that caught my eye was everybody smoked cigarettes. Everywhere and all the time. People smoked at the table before they ate dinner, between courses and while clearing the table. In the 1960s the "little woman" cleared the table while the men repaired to the living room for drinks and more cigarettes. At least on "Mad Men," they do.
The men and women of "Mad Men" smoke in their offices, at meetings, on the subway and of course at the three-martini lunches that apparently were commonplace then. I have never partaken of three martinis, for lunch or at anytime. I am certain that a nap would be immediately required if I did.
A memoirist's piece in the New Yorker the other day reminded me of my own smoky milieau. He was revisiting childhood haunts hoping to catch olfactory memories and recalls the housekeeper ironing his dad's shirts with a cigarette hanging from her mouth. Thing is, those of us of a certain age — say approaching the double-nickel such as yours truly — grew up in smoke-filled rooms, though probably not to the extremes as in "Mad Men," where everything is viewed through a veil of smoked-exhaled gauze.
Both of my parents smoked until I was a teenager, when they kicked it. Growing up, we boys dodged cigarette ashes flicked out the window that flew back in through the open windows into the back seat in our Ford Falcon, which didn't have air-conditioning. That amenity wasn't required in New Hampshire in the early 1960s. My maternal grandfather smoked a pipe. Nearly all my aunts and uncles smoked. I started out smoking grapevine at age 10 or so but didn't take up nicotine until graduate school. More on that later.
I even made my mom an ashtray at camp one year, gave her a store-bought on another occasion. Apparently I lacked imagination in the gift-giving department. When I joined the workforce, at this newspaper in the late 1960s, folks smoked everywhere, and they did at subsequent places I worked. I spent a few years in college (and many more years later in life) at the Daily Sentinel in Nacogdoches, working as a photographer.
I'm not sure the old downtown office could have operated without tobacco smoke. Publisher Vic Fain wandered around puffing on his cigar as our late-morning deadline beckoned, back when the Sentinel was an afternoon paper. Daddy Bear Weaver, who pasted up the pages, had his own cigar going. I think he smoked a considerably cheaper vintage than Vic's. All the fellows shooting the page negatives or burning the plates were smoking cigarettes or chewing tobacco. The advertising manager checked ad proofs while puffing on a pipe.
About then I took up the habit, I am sorry to say, as much out of defense as anything else. I smoked a pipe for years, which I'm certain made me look terribly foolish. Then it was on to a closet cigarette habit after which I went through years of stopping and starting. It is a tough addiction to break. I fully empathize with anyone who tries to do so.
Over time, smoking indoors finally became something that simply is not done, thank goodness, except in one's own home — and even then fairly rarely. I have one friend who smokes inside his house. He's elderly, set in his ways and has been given permission from his doctor. His company, intellect, conversation and sense of humor are worth having to Febreze my clothes when I leave.
I gave up smoking many years ago and only rarely miss it — but never enough to start back, even when I watch "Mad Men." I wonder sometimes how we all managed to breathe during those years of living in a cloudy haze of tobacco smoke — especially those folks who never took up the habit. But we did survive, some of us even to a ripe old age.
One of the first things that caught my eye was everybody smoked cigarettes. Everywhere and all the time. People smoked at the table before they ate dinner, between courses and while clearing the table. In the 1960s the "little woman" cleared the table while the men repaired to the living room for drinks and more cigarettes. At least on "Mad Men," they do.
The men and women of "Mad Men" smoke in their offices, at meetings, on the subway and of course at the three-martini lunches that apparently were commonplace then. I have never partaken of three martinis, for lunch or at anytime. I am certain that a nap would be immediately required if I did.
A memoirist's piece in the New Yorker the other day reminded me of my own smoky milieau. He was revisiting childhood haunts hoping to catch olfactory memories and recalls the housekeeper ironing his dad's shirts with a cigarette hanging from her mouth. Thing is, those of us of a certain age — say approaching the double-nickel such as yours truly — grew up in smoke-filled rooms, though probably not to the extremes as in "Mad Men," where everything is viewed through a veil of smoked-exhaled gauze.
Both of my parents smoked until I was a teenager, when they kicked it. Growing up, we boys dodged cigarette ashes flicked out the window that flew back in through the open windows into the back seat in our Ford Falcon, which didn't have air-conditioning. That amenity wasn't required in New Hampshire in the early 1960s. My maternal grandfather smoked a pipe. Nearly all my aunts and uncles smoked. I started out smoking grapevine at age 10 or so but didn't take up nicotine until graduate school. More on that later.
I even made my mom an ashtray at camp one year, gave her a store-bought on another occasion. Apparently I lacked imagination in the gift-giving department. When I joined the workforce, at this newspaper in the late 1960s, folks smoked everywhere, and they did at subsequent places I worked. I spent a few years in college (and many more years later in life) at the Daily Sentinel in Nacogdoches, working as a photographer.
I'm not sure the old downtown office could have operated without tobacco smoke. Publisher Vic Fain wandered around puffing on his cigar as our late-morning deadline beckoned, back when the Sentinel was an afternoon paper. Daddy Bear Weaver, who pasted up the pages, had his own cigar going. I think he smoked a considerably cheaper vintage than Vic's. All the fellows shooting the page negatives or burning the plates were smoking cigarettes or chewing tobacco. The advertising manager checked ad proofs while puffing on a pipe.
About then I took up the habit, I am sorry to say, as much out of defense as anything else. I smoked a pipe for years, which I'm certain made me look terribly foolish. Then it was on to a closet cigarette habit after which I went through years of stopping and starting. It is a tough addiction to break. I fully empathize with anyone who tries to do so.
Over time, smoking indoors finally became something that simply is not done, thank goodness, except in one's own home — and even then fairly rarely. I have one friend who smokes inside his house. He's elderly, set in his ways and has been given permission from his doctor. His company, intellect, conversation and sense of humor are worth having to Febreze my clothes when I leave.
I gave up smoking many years ago and only rarely miss it — but never enough to start back, even when I watch "Mad Men." I wonder sometimes how we all managed to breathe during those years of living in a cloudy haze of tobacco smoke — especially those folks who never took up the habit. But we did survive, some of us even to a ripe old age.
четверг, 4 февраля 2010 г.
Earnings Preview: Reynolds American Inc.
Reynolds American Inc. reports its fourth-quarter and full-year results on Thursday. The following is a summary of key developments and analyst opinion related to the period.
OVERVIEW: The nation's second-biggest cigarette company, Reynolds sells Camel, Pall Mall and Natural American Spirit cigarettes and it owns American Snuff Co., which makes Kodiak and Grizzly brand smokeless tobacco.
Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in October that tax increases and the tough economy cut the volume of cigarettes it shipped by 11 percent.
For the fiscal year that ended Dec. 31, Reynolds American forecast annual profit of $4.60 to $4.70 per share. Analysts on average predict earnings of $4.69 per share on $8.39 billion in revenue.
Last week, Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. cigarette maker — Philip Morris USA, which sells Marlboro cigarettes, Black & Mild cigars and Copenhagen and Skoal smokeless tobacco products — reported that raising prices on cigarettes and cigars and cutting costs helped its fourth-quarter profit climb 7 percent even as cigar and cigarette volumes fell.
BY THE NUMBERS: For the fourth quarter, analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters on average expect Reynolds American to post a profit of $1.11 per share on revenue of $2.07 billion. A year earlier, it earned 89 cents per share, on revenue of $2.18 billion.
ANALYST TAKE: Credit Suisse analyst Thilo Wrede wrote in a Jan. 19 that he expects Reynolds' promotion of Pall Mall to help offset declines in its other brands. Reynolds is promoting Pall Mall as longer-lasting and more affordable.
Wrede said Altria's promotion of Copenhagen Wintergreen smokeless tobacco could hurt Reynolds' Grizzly smokeless brand. Altria introduced Copenhagen Wintergreen in many states at prices lower than Grizzly sells for.
WHAT'S AHEAD: Wall Street will watch how growing scrutiny from the Food and Drug Administration, new federal marketing restrictions and the need to spend more on promotions affect tobacco companies.Reynolds joined Lorillard Inc. and smaller tobacco companies to sure the government over several of the new restrictions. A federal judge overturned two.
STOCK PERFORMANCE: During the fourth quarter, Reynolds shares rose 19.3 percent to $52.97. Over the last 52 weeks, the stock has traded between $31.55 and $55.15.
OVERVIEW: The nation's second-biggest cigarette company, Reynolds sells Camel, Pall Mall and Natural American Spirit cigarettes and it owns American Snuff Co., which makes Kodiak and Grizzly brand smokeless tobacco.
Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in October that tax increases and the tough economy cut the volume of cigarettes it shipped by 11 percent.
For the fiscal year that ended Dec. 31, Reynolds American forecast annual profit of $4.60 to $4.70 per share. Analysts on average predict earnings of $4.69 per share on $8.39 billion in revenue.
Last week, Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. cigarette maker — Philip Morris USA, which sells Marlboro cigarettes, Black & Mild cigars and Copenhagen and Skoal smokeless tobacco products — reported that raising prices on cigarettes and cigars and cutting costs helped its fourth-quarter profit climb 7 percent even as cigar and cigarette volumes fell.
BY THE NUMBERS: For the fourth quarter, analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters on average expect Reynolds American to post a profit of $1.11 per share on revenue of $2.07 billion. A year earlier, it earned 89 cents per share, on revenue of $2.18 billion.
ANALYST TAKE: Credit Suisse analyst Thilo Wrede wrote in a Jan. 19 that he expects Reynolds' promotion of Pall Mall to help offset declines in its other brands. Reynolds is promoting Pall Mall as longer-lasting and more affordable.
Wrede said Altria's promotion of Copenhagen Wintergreen smokeless tobacco could hurt Reynolds' Grizzly smokeless brand. Altria introduced Copenhagen Wintergreen in many states at prices lower than Grizzly sells for.
WHAT'S AHEAD: Wall Street will watch how growing scrutiny from the Food and Drug Administration, new federal marketing restrictions and the need to spend more on promotions affect tobacco companies.Reynolds joined Lorillard Inc. and smaller tobacco companies to sure the government over several of the new restrictions. A federal judge overturned two.
STOCK PERFORMANCE: During the fourth quarter, Reynolds shares rose 19.3 percent to $52.97. Over the last 52 weeks, the stock has traded between $31.55 and $55.15.
понедельник, 1 февраля 2010 г.
Plan To Ban Logos From Cigarette Packets
Cigarettes could be sold in plain packets under new plans to halve the number of people who smoke.
Health Secretary Andy Burnham pledged to reduce the number of nicotine addicts from eight to four million in the next 10 years.
He said: "Now that we've banned advertising and will soon see an end to attractive displays in shops, the only remaining method of advertising tobacco is the packaging.
"So we will carefully consider whether there is evidence for making tobacco companies use plain packets."The packs would just show the brand name in text.
The Government also wants to target the estimated 200,000 young people who take up smoking every year.
Mr Burnham said: "Government should and will do everything in its power to protect young people.
"One day, in the not-too-distant future, we'll look back and find it hard to remember why anyone ever smoked in the first place."
But smokers' lobby group Forest said the plans would lead to more laws and would "further erode our ability to choose how we wish to live our lives".
Other commitments to be announced by the Government include a review of the law to consider whether or not entrances to buildings should be included in the smoking ban, and clamping down on tobacco vending machines.
Health Secretary Andy Burnham pledged to reduce the number of nicotine addicts from eight to four million in the next 10 years.
He said: "Now that we've banned advertising and will soon see an end to attractive displays in shops, the only remaining method of advertising tobacco is the packaging.
"So we will carefully consider whether there is evidence for making tobacco companies use plain packets."The packs would just show the brand name in text.
The Government also wants to target the estimated 200,000 young people who take up smoking every year.
Mr Burnham said: "Government should and will do everything in its power to protect young people.
"One day, in the not-too-distant future, we'll look back and find it hard to remember why anyone ever smoked in the first place."
But smokers' lobby group Forest said the plans would lead to more laws and would "further erode our ability to choose how we wish to live our lives".
Other commitments to be announced by the Government include a review of the law to consider whether or not entrances to buildings should be included in the smoking ban, and clamping down on tobacco vending machines.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)
