People who smoke certain U.S. cigarette brands are exposed to higher levels of cancer-causing tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), the major carcinogens and cancer-causing agents in tobacco products, than people who smoke some foreign cigarette brands. This was one of the findings from the first-ever study to compare TSNA exposures among smokers from different countries. CDC researchers compared mouth-level TSNA exposures and urine biomarkers among smokers from the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia. Results of this study are published in the June issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.
“We know that cigarettes from around the world vary in their ingredients and the way they are produced,” said Dr. Jim Pirkle, deputy director for science at CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Laboratory Sciences. “All of these cigarettes contain harmful levels of carcinogens, but these findings show that amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines differ from country to country, and U.S. brands are the highest in the study.”
The types of tobacco in cigarettes vary by manufacturer and location of production. The U.S. cigarette brands studied contained “American blend” tobacco, a specific mixture of tobacco from the U.S. that contains higher TSNA levels. The Australian, Canadian, and U.K. cigarette brands were made from “bright” tobacco, which is lighter in color and flue cured. Changes in curing and blending practices could reduce U.S. smokers’ exposure to one type of cancer-causing compound, however, this would not necessarily result in a safer product.
Study collaborators enlisted 126 persons from Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. who smoke cigarettes daily to participate in the study. Cigarettes smoked by study participants represented popular brands in each country.
Scientists measured chemicals in cigarette butts collected by each smoker over a 24-hour period to determine how much of a certain TSNA entered the smokers’ mouths during that period. They also collected urine samples from study participants to find out how much breakdown product from this TSNA appeared in the urine. Comparing the results from these two types of sampling showed a correlation between the amount of one TSNA that enters the mouth and the amount of its breakdown product that appears in the urine. This is the first time this relationship has been documented.
понедельник, 7 июня 2010 г.
вторник, 1 июня 2010 г.
Malaysia gov't faces tobacco wrath over ban delay
A tobacco giant that exhausted its inventory of small cigarette packets in anticipation of a ban threatened Thursday to take legal action against the Malaysian government for reportedly deciding to delay the prohibition.
The Malaysian affiliate of Philip Morris International voiced disappointment with what it called a "precipitous" decision that would be "a devastating blow not only to our business but to foreign investor confidence in Malaysia."
Tobacco companies in the Southeast Asian country have been phasing out parts of their inventory and manufacturing equipment in recent months ahead of a government ban on cigarette packets containing fewer than 20 cigarettes that was supposed to take effect June 1.
However, the financial newspaper The Edge reported Thursday that the government had decided to postpone the ban. The Malaysian Insider news website later quoted Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai as saying that authorities feared the ban would spark a surge in demand for illegally produced cigarettes.
Health Ministry officials said they could not immediately comment on the reports, and that Liow was traveling late Thursday and could not be contacted.
"In the absence of clarity surrounding this decision, (we) will have no choice but to evaluate all possible avenues, including legal recourse, to recover any losses the company may suffer," Richard Morgan, the managing director of Philip Morris in Malaysia, said in a statement.
"How can any corporation plan for its future and maintain its viability in an environment of such legal uncertainty, where decisions that are supposedly set in concrete can be overturned so rapidly and without any consultation?" the statement added.
The government had been planning the ban for years as part of efforts to curb smoking among young Malaysians who consider smaller cigarette packs more affordable.
The Malaysian Insider quoted Liow as saying the government would make a final decision in "a few months" on when the ban might be enforced.
The Malaysian affiliate of Philip Morris International voiced disappointment with what it called a "precipitous" decision that would be "a devastating blow not only to our business but to foreign investor confidence in Malaysia."
Tobacco companies in the Southeast Asian country have been phasing out parts of their inventory and manufacturing equipment in recent months ahead of a government ban on cigarette packets containing fewer than 20 cigarettes that was supposed to take effect June 1.
However, the financial newspaper The Edge reported Thursday that the government had decided to postpone the ban. The Malaysian Insider news website later quoted Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai as saying that authorities feared the ban would spark a surge in demand for illegally produced cigarettes.
Health Ministry officials said they could not immediately comment on the reports, and that Liow was traveling late Thursday and could not be contacted.
"In the absence of clarity surrounding this decision, (we) will have no choice but to evaluate all possible avenues, including legal recourse, to recover any losses the company may suffer," Richard Morgan, the managing director of Philip Morris in Malaysia, said in a statement.
"How can any corporation plan for its future and maintain its viability in an environment of such legal uncertainty, where decisions that are supposedly set in concrete can be overturned so rapidly and without any consultation?" the statement added.
The government had been planning the ban for years as part of efforts to curb smoking among young Malaysians who consider smaller cigarette packs more affordable.
The Malaysian Insider quoted Liow as saying the government would make a final decision in "a few months" on when the ban might be enforced.
понедельник, 10 мая 2010 г.
Tobacco funding: time to quit
Tobacco companies are not philanthropic institutions. As long ago as 1967 the late Senator Robert Kennedy said, "the cigarette industry is peddling a deadly weapon. It is dealing in people's lives for financial gain".
The Australian tobacco industry is dominated by three big companies (or in modern political parlance, three "great big" companies), British American Tobacco, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco - all overseas-owned, with decisions made not in Sydney or Melbourne but in London and New York.
These are tough and ruthless multinational corporations, promoting and selling a product that kills one in two of its regular users. They have known for sixty years that their product is lethal. During this time almost one million Australians have died because they smoked - while the tobacco companies have denied and downplayed the evidence, doing their utmost to oppose and delay any action that might be effective in reducing smoking. Around the world their products cause five million deaths a year - a figure which will only increase as their drive into developing countries bears lethal fruit.
The new Chief Executive of Imperial Tobacco, Alison Cooper, was recently reported in the UK media as still refusing to accept that smoking causes cancer. Small wonder that only last week a survey of the reputations of the UK's largest 150 companies had Imperial Tobacco at 147 and British American Tobacco at a rock bottom 150.
There is massive evidence from once-confidential industry documents now available following litigation in the US that for decades tobacco companies have acted more cynically than even tobacco campaigners might have thought - summarised by a quote from an industry executive - "We don't smoke this shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid."
And as if all this were not enough, the industry has been found guilty of racketeering in the US.
Tobacco companies have only one aim, in London, New York or Canberra. In line with their responsibility to their shareholders, they spend money with the sole purpose of benefiting their interests.
So why would anybody want to take money from this pariah industry?
The Australian Electoral Commission website reports that in recent years both the Philip Morris company and British American Tobacco have been generous donors to the Liberal Party and the National Party. During the year 2008/9 Philip Morris contributed $158,000 to the Liberal and National parties around Australia.
No doubt in addition to direct contributions there is also much indirect funding from groups supporting and representing tobacco companies, but this is much harder to pin down.
The only reason for these contributions is to further the interests of tobacco companies. The website of the British American Tobacco company is quite explicit about political donations: "Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company or Group..."
A review of tobacco industry political donations in the US, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, concluded that, "tobacco industry monetary contributions are closely related to the way a legislator votes on tobacco issues", and "The more campaign contributions received by a Congress member, the more likely he/she votes pro-tobacco on tobacco-related bills".
Political donations are not simply about an intention to buy direct support: they are also about much less tangible benefits gained through indirect support, influence, contacts, access and credibility.
The Greens and Democrats took the lead in refusing tobacco industry funding, followed by the ALP. The other major parties understand the dangers of smoking; they know exactly why tobacco companies want to give them money; it is hard to imagine that they would knowingly take money from drug dealers - and yet they seem content to accept contributions from an industry whose products cause more than 80 per cent of Australia's drug deaths. Surely there is something awry with the moral radar of anyone who accepts this kind of blood money.
The argument we sometimes hear that this is a "legitimate industry" is old and tired. If cigarettes were a new product they would not be allowed on the market. Our parliaments have decreed that the product is so harmful that it should not be sold to children and adolescents, should not be advertised, and that its sales should be subject to ever-increasing controls. This is no ordinary product, no ordinary industry.
The Australian government now leads the world in action to reduce smoking, complementing strong action in most jurisdictions (other than the Northern Territory, whose lack of interest in tobacco remains a mystery).
It is time for all political parties to refuse tobacco funding, or for legislation that forbids such contributions from companies that still seek to oppose the work and recommendations of governments and health authorities, and whose products cause 15,000 Australian deaths each year when used precisely as intended. Then we can be assured that all parties are making policy on this vital public health issue free of the taint of association with tobacco companies, and free of any suspicion that their policies might be influenced by these disreputable, lethal donors.
The Australian tobacco industry is dominated by three big companies (or in modern political parlance, three "great big" companies), British American Tobacco, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco - all overseas-owned, with decisions made not in Sydney or Melbourne but in London and New York.
These are tough and ruthless multinational corporations, promoting and selling a product that kills one in two of its regular users. They have known for sixty years that their product is lethal. During this time almost one million Australians have died because they smoked - while the tobacco companies have denied and downplayed the evidence, doing their utmost to oppose and delay any action that might be effective in reducing smoking. Around the world their products cause five million deaths a year - a figure which will only increase as their drive into developing countries bears lethal fruit.
The new Chief Executive of Imperial Tobacco, Alison Cooper, was recently reported in the UK media as still refusing to accept that smoking causes cancer. Small wonder that only last week a survey of the reputations of the UK's largest 150 companies had Imperial Tobacco at 147 and British American Tobacco at a rock bottom 150.
There is massive evidence from once-confidential industry documents now available following litigation in the US that for decades tobacco companies have acted more cynically than even tobacco campaigners might have thought - summarised by a quote from an industry executive - "We don't smoke this shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid."
And as if all this were not enough, the industry has been found guilty of racketeering in the US.
Tobacco companies have only one aim, in London, New York or Canberra. In line with their responsibility to their shareholders, they spend money with the sole purpose of benefiting their interests.
So why would anybody want to take money from this pariah industry?
The Australian Electoral Commission website reports that in recent years both the Philip Morris company and British American Tobacco have been generous donors to the Liberal Party and the National Party. During the year 2008/9 Philip Morris contributed $158,000 to the Liberal and National parties around Australia.
No doubt in addition to direct contributions there is also much indirect funding from groups supporting and representing tobacco companies, but this is much harder to pin down.
The only reason for these contributions is to further the interests of tobacco companies. The website of the British American Tobacco company is quite explicit about political donations: "Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company or Group..."
A review of tobacco industry political donations in the US, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, concluded that, "tobacco industry monetary contributions are closely related to the way a legislator votes on tobacco issues", and "The more campaign contributions received by a Congress member, the more likely he/she votes pro-tobacco on tobacco-related bills".
Political donations are not simply about an intention to buy direct support: they are also about much less tangible benefits gained through indirect support, influence, contacts, access and credibility.
The Greens and Democrats took the lead in refusing tobacco industry funding, followed by the ALP. The other major parties understand the dangers of smoking; they know exactly why tobacco companies want to give them money; it is hard to imagine that they would knowingly take money from drug dealers - and yet they seem content to accept contributions from an industry whose products cause more than 80 per cent of Australia's drug deaths. Surely there is something awry with the moral radar of anyone who accepts this kind of blood money.
The argument we sometimes hear that this is a "legitimate industry" is old and tired. If cigarettes were a new product they would not be allowed on the market. Our parliaments have decreed that the product is so harmful that it should not be sold to children and adolescents, should not be advertised, and that its sales should be subject to ever-increasing controls. This is no ordinary product, no ordinary industry.
The Australian government now leads the world in action to reduce smoking, complementing strong action in most jurisdictions (other than the Northern Territory, whose lack of interest in tobacco remains a mystery).
It is time for all political parties to refuse tobacco funding, or for legislation that forbids such contributions from companies that still seek to oppose the work and recommendations of governments and health authorities, and whose products cause 15,000 Australian deaths each year when used precisely as intended. Then we can be assured that all parties are making policy on this vital public health issue free of the taint of association with tobacco companies, and free of any suspicion that their policies might be influenced by these disreputable, lethal donors.
понедельник, 3 мая 2010 г.
Australian cigarette tax is all smokes and mirrors
THE first cigarette I smoked was a Peter Stuyvesant, described in its advertisements as "the international passport to smoking pleasure".
Hiding under the family home at Holland Park, I didn't really get the feeling I was on the Champs-Elysees. Perhaps the copy writers had it wrong.
Maybe I should have tried Benson and Hedges – "when only the best will do".
I remember the packaging – the pale blue of Belair packets, the heavily seriphed type of the Chesterfield packs, the white and blue of Rothmans, the red circle on white of Lucky Strikes and the dark red of the Lark brand which boasted "charcoal filters".
All gone, victims of another piece of political grandstanding by a Federal Government obsessed with the creation of shimmering PR images designed to dance on the political horizon until the federal election. Cigarettes will from 2012 be sold in plain packaging and the price will go up by $2.60 or more a packet. Wow! Another first for Australia!Watching Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on television announcing this, I cringed. The tobacco companies, he crowed, would hate the move and would fight it. "Bring it on" was the message from Action Man Rudd.
"PM gets tough on Tobacco Giants" was the message the PM's office was shovelling. Was this the same Man of Steel who'd tossed his ETS out the window the moment the political wind shifted?
Was it the same tower of strength who hung Environment Minister Peter Garrett out to dry when there was overwhelming evidence that despite the Prime Minister's office having been advised that the ceiling insulation scheme was fatally flawed, it insisted that it be rushed out into the suburbs regardless?
The same, and now he is challenging the tobacco companies to the best of 15 rounds to be fought bareknuckle with no quarter given, this titanic struggle to take place beneath the banner of a health initiative.
It's a stunt, and a transparent one. Of course the tobacco companies will fight it as Rudd hoped they would. They're defending their individual brands but in provoking this conflict, the PM is trying to portray himself as the fearless warrior unsheathing his sword to wage a holy war against the ravages of smoking-related disease.
People will stop smoking, we are told, if cigarettes are sold in plain packets. Crap. People will keep smoking because smoking is addictive and it's really hard to stop. I know what I'm talking about here.
People stop smoking because they are afraid it will kill them.
If this move is going to stop people smoking then why is the Government hoping that increasing the price will tip billions of extra dollars into the Treasury's coffers?
The other insupportable claim that is being woven around the announcement is that if cigarettes are sold in plain packaging, people who have not previously smoked will not take up the habit. Crap. People smoke because it's always been viewed as slightly outrageous and not something that "really nice" people do. It's marginally rebellious. It's a nose-thumb at society and its anti-smoking regulations.
Attractive packaging may well sway smokers in their selection of brand, the gold of the B&H exerting more visual allure than the blue and white of the Winfields, but it won't drive them to take smoking up in the first place.
If the Government is right in its approach, which is plainly an attempt to deflect attention away from the policy disasters now mounting around it, then it has unwittingly stumbled upon the answer to the social evil of binge drinking. Henceforth, all alcohol must be served in plain packaging. No more exotic beer labels or fine artwork on wine bottles which will now just read Fourex beer or Lindemans chardonnay.
This move, if the Government's case for tobacco is well-founded, will cause young people to lose all interest in drinking because it's the packaging that's been attracting them, not the product which lies within.
Putting up the price of cigarettes merely means more kids will go hungry. Thirty-eight per cent of unemployed people smoke, as do 50 per cent of indigenous Australians. They're not going to stop because it's become more expensive, which means the extra money will have to come from somewhere.
The tobacco companies will take legal action which will drag on. In due course, the PM's initiative may be disallowed by the courts but it doesn't matter.
The extra money will continue to be squeezed from smokers and the packaging issue can be held up as a "health initiative" until the election, which is all that was ever intended of it. If this is not the most cynical government in Australian political history, will someone please tell me which was.
Hiding under the family home at Holland Park, I didn't really get the feeling I was on the Champs-Elysees. Perhaps the copy writers had it wrong.
Maybe I should have tried Benson and Hedges – "when only the best will do".
I remember the packaging – the pale blue of Belair packets, the heavily seriphed type of the Chesterfield packs, the white and blue of Rothmans, the red circle on white of Lucky Strikes and the dark red of the Lark brand which boasted "charcoal filters".
All gone, victims of another piece of political grandstanding by a Federal Government obsessed with the creation of shimmering PR images designed to dance on the political horizon until the federal election. Cigarettes will from 2012 be sold in plain packaging and the price will go up by $2.60 or more a packet. Wow! Another first for Australia!Watching Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on television announcing this, I cringed. The tobacco companies, he crowed, would hate the move and would fight it. "Bring it on" was the message from Action Man Rudd.
"PM gets tough on Tobacco Giants" was the message the PM's office was shovelling. Was this the same Man of Steel who'd tossed his ETS out the window the moment the political wind shifted?
Was it the same tower of strength who hung Environment Minister Peter Garrett out to dry when there was overwhelming evidence that despite the Prime Minister's office having been advised that the ceiling insulation scheme was fatally flawed, it insisted that it be rushed out into the suburbs regardless?
The same, and now he is challenging the tobacco companies to the best of 15 rounds to be fought bareknuckle with no quarter given, this titanic struggle to take place beneath the banner of a health initiative.
It's a stunt, and a transparent one. Of course the tobacco companies will fight it as Rudd hoped they would. They're defending their individual brands but in provoking this conflict, the PM is trying to portray himself as the fearless warrior unsheathing his sword to wage a holy war against the ravages of smoking-related disease.
People will stop smoking, we are told, if cigarettes are sold in plain packets. Crap. People will keep smoking because smoking is addictive and it's really hard to stop. I know what I'm talking about here.
People stop smoking because they are afraid it will kill them.
If this move is going to stop people smoking then why is the Government hoping that increasing the price will tip billions of extra dollars into the Treasury's coffers?
The other insupportable claim that is being woven around the announcement is that if cigarettes are sold in plain packaging, people who have not previously smoked will not take up the habit. Crap. People smoke because it's always been viewed as slightly outrageous and not something that "really nice" people do. It's marginally rebellious. It's a nose-thumb at society and its anti-smoking regulations.
Attractive packaging may well sway smokers in their selection of brand, the gold of the B&H exerting more visual allure than the blue and white of the Winfields, but it won't drive them to take smoking up in the first place.
If the Government is right in its approach, which is plainly an attempt to deflect attention away from the policy disasters now mounting around it, then it has unwittingly stumbled upon the answer to the social evil of binge drinking. Henceforth, all alcohol must be served in plain packaging. No more exotic beer labels or fine artwork on wine bottles which will now just read Fourex beer or Lindemans chardonnay.
This move, if the Government's case for tobacco is well-founded, will cause young people to lose all interest in drinking because it's the packaging that's been attracting them, not the product which lies within.
Putting up the price of cigarettes merely means more kids will go hungry. Thirty-eight per cent of unemployed people smoke, as do 50 per cent of indigenous Australians. They're not going to stop because it's become more expensive, which means the extra money will have to come from somewhere.
The tobacco companies will take legal action which will drag on. In due course, the PM's initiative may be disallowed by the courts but it doesn't matter.
The extra money will continue to be squeezed from smokers and the packaging issue can be held up as a "health initiative" until the election, which is all that was ever intended of it. If this is not the most cynical government in Australian political history, will someone please tell me which was.
понедельник, 26 апреля 2010 г.
Electronic cigarettes allow students to side-step no smoking rules
Ryan Prystash has gotten his nicotine fix a couple of times in the residence halls.
But not with regular cigarettes, chewing tobacco or cigars.
Instead, he smokes electronic cigarettes.
“I started about a month ago,” said Prystash, a New Baltimore freshman.
With the e-cig, there is no fire, tar, ash or carbon monoxide.
It’s about the same size as a regular cigarette, only with a few modifications.
The end where the cigarette is normally lit is where the battery is located. The part which is held by the smoker is the cartridge containing water laced with nicotine.
“The cartridges can be plugged into an outlet,” he said. “I even charged one of them from my laptop.”
Prystash said using the cigarettes inside a residence hall has caused some confusion.
“I was smoking in my room when an RA passed by,” Prystash said. “She started freaking out until I pulled it apart and showed her what it was.”
He said the RA then allowed him to continue smoking.
However, the popularity of the product does present an issue of how it conforms to the rules in no-smoking areas of campus.
“We have had no complaints yet,” said Shaun Holtgreive, associate director of Residence Life. “The FDA is still figuring out how to regulate them.”
Currently students can smoke e-cigs on campus without being held to the standards of regular cigarettes, he said.
“We don’t have enough info now,” Holtgreive said. “We’ll probably make a decision about them by next fall.”
The starter pack costs around $60, and comes with two batteries and six cartridges, which contain different flavors, Prystash said.
“It’s a good alternative for those trying to quit,” said Jonathan Grinter, a Farmington Hills freshman.
Grinter said he hasn’t received any complaints about his electronic smoking yet.
“I’ve smoked mine in class, the dorm and outside,” Grinter said. “They don’t smell and last longer than the real thing.”
But not with regular cigarettes, chewing tobacco or cigars.
Instead, he smokes electronic cigarettes.
“I started about a month ago,” said Prystash, a New Baltimore freshman.
With the e-cig, there is no fire, tar, ash or carbon monoxide.
It’s about the same size as a regular cigarette, only with a few modifications.
The end where the cigarette is normally lit is where the battery is located. The part which is held by the smoker is the cartridge containing water laced with nicotine.
“The cartridges can be plugged into an outlet,” he said. “I even charged one of them from my laptop.”
Prystash said using the cigarettes inside a residence hall has caused some confusion.
“I was smoking in my room when an RA passed by,” Prystash said. “She started freaking out until I pulled it apart and showed her what it was.”
He said the RA then allowed him to continue smoking.
However, the popularity of the product does present an issue of how it conforms to the rules in no-smoking areas of campus.
“We have had no complaints yet,” said Shaun Holtgreive, associate director of Residence Life. “The FDA is still figuring out how to regulate them.”
Currently students can smoke e-cigs on campus without being held to the standards of regular cigarettes, he said.
“We don’t have enough info now,” Holtgreive said. “We’ll probably make a decision about them by next fall.”
The starter pack costs around $60, and comes with two batteries and six cartridges, which contain different flavors, Prystash said.
“It’s a good alternative for those trying to quit,” said Jonathan Grinter, a Farmington Hills freshman.
Grinter said he hasn’t received any complaints about his electronic smoking yet.
“I’ve smoked mine in class, the dorm and outside,” Grinter said. “They don’t smell and last longer than the real thing.”
понедельник, 19 апреля 2010 г.
Stub it out
Japan’s smoking rate has fallen to a record low amid rising health awareness and tighter regulations.
WOW! The huge billboard in front of Yokohama Park across the intersections must have cost a bomb. It depicts a picture of a little girl beside a smouldering cigarette held in a man’s hand. The caption reads: “For the health of others, do stop smoking while walking.”
When my son was a toddler, his hair was nearly singed and my hand almost burnt by the cigarettes of smokers jostling in crowded places. Inhaling the secondary smoke made us cough, too.
My husband had smoked for nearly three decades. When he started working after graduating from university, his mother had encouraged him to smoke for the sake of socialising, only to regret later because the house reeked of tobacco smoke and the wallpapers got stained.
My father was a chain-smoker until he quit at the age of 50. Much as I loathe smoking, I overlooked this flaw in Koji when I married him.After Ken was born, Koji was confined to his study room (which I nicknamed “nicotine room”) whenever he needed a smoke. When we went on outings, he sneaked off with his portable ashtray, for a puff.
When we shifted into our present apartment, he lost his “nicotine room”. So he puffed away on the balcony.
Even during winter, he would brave the cold outside to have his cigarette before breakfast. Frustrated, I told him that he should emulate my father’s determination to kick the habit.
“I’ll quit when I reach 50,” Koji replied casually.
A week before his 50th birthday, when we reminded him of his “promise,” he retorted: “I think you said your father quit at 55.”
During that week, Ken and I checked his pockets. Good. He didn’t bring back any cigarette or filter. For the first two weeks, he kept his craving at bay with chewing gums. As an incentive for him to persevere, I rewarded him with a dinner treat and an expensive pair of shoes.
Now Koji detests the smell of tobacco smoke. His brother, brother-in-law and niece had also quit smoking.
Japan has been dubbed a major smoking nation, but its smoking rate has been decreasing since a decade ago.
Last year, a 31-year-old man and his three-year-old daughter filed a lawsuit against Tokyo’s Kita Ward government for failing to take preventive measures against passive smoking in the park, and demanded ¥100,000 (RM3,463) as compensation for the sore eyes and sore throat that they suffered. Following that, the authorities removed all public ashtrays in 20 children’s parks.
Since its nationwide launch on July 1, 2008, smokers need to show their “Taspo” (tobacco passport) card to purchase cigarettes from convenience stores or vending machines. This smart card is issued to those 20 and above, to prevent minors from smoking.
Yet, underaged smokers have been illegally using the card. Two years ago in Fukuoka, a woman (a non-smoker) became the first person to be prosecuted for obtaining a Taspo card for her underaged son to buy cigarettes from a vending machine. Her action was tantamount to giving cigarettes to a minor.
It was not an April Fool’s joke when Japan’s first anti-smoking ordinance took effect in Kanagawa Prefecture, banning smoking in schools, hospitals, government offices and other public places. A ¥2,000 (RM69) fine is imposed for smoking in prohibited public buildings, while managers of such facilities face a ¥20,000 (RM690) fine.
The penalty would also apply to restaurants and hotels from April next year.
Many people welcome this move, though smokers, business operators and the tobacco industry will be affected.
Restaurants, mahjong and pachinko parlours with a floor space of over 100sqm and hotels of over 700sqm must either become non-smoking or create designated smoking areas. Operators of smaller business facilities are required to ensure a smoke-free environment and are not subjected to the penalty yet.
Notwithstanding the smoking and non-smoking sections in major restaurant chains, non-smokers are still exposed to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Nevertheless, major restaurant chains like McDonald’s Co (Japan) Ltd and Yoshinoya Co had prohibited smoking at their Kanagawa outlets, even before the enforcement.
The ban on smoking at swimming beaches (except for designated areas) is expected to be implemented next month. No penalty has been set for offenders but hopefully, the ban would reduce littering and prevent health hazards caused by secondary smoking.
From October, the price of cigarettes is likely to increase by ¥100 (RM3.45) a pack, to offset the market’s falling sales.
With the smoke-free environment campaigns, Tobacco Inc will launch non-flammable, odourless cigarettes next month, initially in Tokyo. Costing ¥300 (RM10.40) and classified as sniffing tobacco, Zero Style Mint comes with a tobacco pipe, mouthpiece and two cartridges. A pack of four refill cartridges costs ¥400 (RM13.80). The 8cm cigarette-like device can last half a day or the whole day, and its nicotine content is one-twentieth that of a regular cigarette.
With such stringent actions, Japan’s smoking rate is expected to drop further.
WOW! The huge billboard in front of Yokohama Park across the intersections must have cost a bomb. It depicts a picture of a little girl beside a smouldering cigarette held in a man’s hand. The caption reads: “For the health of others, do stop smoking while walking.”
When my son was a toddler, his hair was nearly singed and my hand almost burnt by the cigarettes of smokers jostling in crowded places. Inhaling the secondary smoke made us cough, too.
My husband had smoked for nearly three decades. When he started working after graduating from university, his mother had encouraged him to smoke for the sake of socialising, only to regret later because the house reeked of tobacco smoke and the wallpapers got stained.
My father was a chain-smoker until he quit at the age of 50. Much as I loathe smoking, I overlooked this flaw in Koji when I married him.After Ken was born, Koji was confined to his study room (which I nicknamed “nicotine room”) whenever he needed a smoke. When we went on outings, he sneaked off with his portable ashtray, for a puff.
When we shifted into our present apartment, he lost his “nicotine room”. So he puffed away on the balcony.
Even during winter, he would brave the cold outside to have his cigarette before breakfast. Frustrated, I told him that he should emulate my father’s determination to kick the habit.
“I’ll quit when I reach 50,” Koji replied casually.
A week before his 50th birthday, when we reminded him of his “promise,” he retorted: “I think you said your father quit at 55.”
During that week, Ken and I checked his pockets. Good. He didn’t bring back any cigarette or filter. For the first two weeks, he kept his craving at bay with chewing gums. As an incentive for him to persevere, I rewarded him with a dinner treat and an expensive pair of shoes.
Now Koji detests the smell of tobacco smoke. His brother, brother-in-law and niece had also quit smoking.
Japan has been dubbed a major smoking nation, but its smoking rate has been decreasing since a decade ago.
Last year, a 31-year-old man and his three-year-old daughter filed a lawsuit against Tokyo’s Kita Ward government for failing to take preventive measures against passive smoking in the park, and demanded ¥100,000 (RM3,463) as compensation for the sore eyes and sore throat that they suffered. Following that, the authorities removed all public ashtrays in 20 children’s parks.
Since its nationwide launch on July 1, 2008, smokers need to show their “Taspo” (tobacco passport) card to purchase cigarettes from convenience stores or vending machines. This smart card is issued to those 20 and above, to prevent minors from smoking.
Yet, underaged smokers have been illegally using the card. Two years ago in Fukuoka, a woman (a non-smoker) became the first person to be prosecuted for obtaining a Taspo card for her underaged son to buy cigarettes from a vending machine. Her action was tantamount to giving cigarettes to a minor.
It was not an April Fool’s joke when Japan’s first anti-smoking ordinance took effect in Kanagawa Prefecture, banning smoking in schools, hospitals, government offices and other public places. A ¥2,000 (RM69) fine is imposed for smoking in prohibited public buildings, while managers of such facilities face a ¥20,000 (RM690) fine.
The penalty would also apply to restaurants and hotels from April next year.
Many people welcome this move, though smokers, business operators and the tobacco industry will be affected.
Restaurants, mahjong and pachinko parlours with a floor space of over 100sqm and hotels of over 700sqm must either become non-smoking or create designated smoking areas. Operators of smaller business facilities are required to ensure a smoke-free environment and are not subjected to the penalty yet.
Notwithstanding the smoking and non-smoking sections in major restaurant chains, non-smokers are still exposed to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Nevertheless, major restaurant chains like McDonald’s Co (Japan) Ltd and Yoshinoya Co had prohibited smoking at their Kanagawa outlets, even before the enforcement.
The ban on smoking at swimming beaches (except for designated areas) is expected to be implemented next month. No penalty has been set for offenders but hopefully, the ban would reduce littering and prevent health hazards caused by secondary smoking.
From October, the price of cigarettes is likely to increase by ¥100 (RM3.45) a pack, to offset the market’s falling sales.
With the smoke-free environment campaigns, Tobacco Inc will launch non-flammable, odourless cigarettes next month, initially in Tokyo. Costing ¥300 (RM10.40) and classified as sniffing tobacco, Zero Style Mint comes with a tobacco pipe, mouthpiece and two cartridges. A pack of four refill cartridges costs ¥400 (RM13.80). The 8cm cigarette-like device can last half a day or the whole day, and its nicotine content is one-twentieth that of a regular cigarette.
With such stringent actions, Japan’s smoking rate is expected to drop further.
четверг, 15 апреля 2010 г.
Tobacco-related products under fire
Anti-tobacco activists spread out around the Minnesota Capitol Wednesday in an effort to convince lawmakers to ban products they say are designed to hook children on nicotine.
A bill due up for a legislative committee hearing Thursday would forbid sale of “e-cigarettes,” designed to give users nicotine vapor without tobacco. The bill also would classify “little cigars” as cigarettes.
“The new products, they are sneaky,” said Dr. Mary Boylan of St. Luke’s Cardiothoracic Surgery Associates in Duluth, who spoke at the rally with about 150 people.
Those at the rally, including many young people, talked to legislators about making the changes to a law that already bans tobacco use in public buildings.
“We will save more lives today than I can being in the operating room all day,” Boylan said about changing the law.
One of the new products, legal to sell now, resembled a breath strip, but the doctor said it provides a dose of addictive nicotine.
“They are under the radar screen,” she said.
DFL lawmakers seek
change in health plan
Some Democratic lawmakers want to change a health care program for the poor that was signed into law just three weeks ago Wednesday.
Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, and others announced Wednesday they have a plan to provide permanent health care to poor adults with no children other than the new General Assistance Medical Care program. The plan would take $1 billion of state money to be matched with $1 billion of federal money.
Patients would move off of GAMC onto a newly expanded Medical Assistance Program, and some MinnesotaCare insurance recipients also would move to the new program.
Huntley said the new program would allow rural hospitals to receive better funding when they provide care for the poor. Most rural hospitals would not participate in the new GAMC program, citing its high cost.
But Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s spokesman said Huntley’s plan is based on incomplete tentative information and would cost too much. Brian McClung said the new GAMC program, negotiated between legislative health leaders and the governor, should be given a chance to work before it is scrapped.
Also, McClung said: “There is a significant math problem with this proposal.”
McClung claimed that the Huntley plan was built on use of money from a fund that would be in deficit.
ERA again
An equal rights amendment to the Minnesota constitution is being considered, as it has every year since the federal ERA took effect in 1982.
A Senate committee discussed the matter Wednesday, but took no action. It was unclear if the proposed amendment would be brought up for a vote in the month the Legislature has remaining in its 2010 session.
The amendment proposal would require people be treated the same, regardless of gender.
Refund party
If Dairy Queen’s Blizzard can celebrate its 25th birthday, the Minnesota property tax refund program can do the same, Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, said.
So, as chairman of the House property taxes committee, he hosted that party Wednesday in an attempt to draw attention to the program, which a third of eligible taxpayers do not collect.
“It helps people stay in their homes,” Marquart said.
Sitting behind a “happy birthday” sign, Former Gov. Wendell Anderson said that his signing of the bill, combined with raising taxes a few years earlier, “made Minnesota in the minds of others, the state that works.”
Alec Olson of Willmar, Senate president when the refund passed, said the concept was “rather radical,” but the program “has brought people together.”
The average property tax refund in 2008 was $683.
Also celebrated was a related program, which provides money to renters.
A bill due up for a legislative committee hearing Thursday would forbid sale of “e-cigarettes,” designed to give users nicotine vapor without tobacco. The bill also would classify “little cigars” as cigarettes.
“The new products, they are sneaky,” said Dr. Mary Boylan of St. Luke’s Cardiothoracic Surgery Associates in Duluth, who spoke at the rally with about 150 people.
Those at the rally, including many young people, talked to legislators about making the changes to a law that already bans tobacco use in public buildings.
“We will save more lives today than I can being in the operating room all day,” Boylan said about changing the law.
One of the new products, legal to sell now, resembled a breath strip, but the doctor said it provides a dose of addictive nicotine.
“They are under the radar screen,” she said.
DFL lawmakers seek
change in health plan
Some Democratic lawmakers want to change a health care program for the poor that was signed into law just three weeks ago Wednesday.
Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, and others announced Wednesday they have a plan to provide permanent health care to poor adults with no children other than the new General Assistance Medical Care program. The plan would take $1 billion of state money to be matched with $1 billion of federal money.
Patients would move off of GAMC onto a newly expanded Medical Assistance Program, and some MinnesotaCare insurance recipients also would move to the new program.
Huntley said the new program would allow rural hospitals to receive better funding when they provide care for the poor. Most rural hospitals would not participate in the new GAMC program, citing its high cost.
But Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s spokesman said Huntley’s plan is based on incomplete tentative information and would cost too much. Brian McClung said the new GAMC program, negotiated between legislative health leaders and the governor, should be given a chance to work before it is scrapped.
Also, McClung said: “There is a significant math problem with this proposal.”
McClung claimed that the Huntley plan was built on use of money from a fund that would be in deficit.
ERA again
An equal rights amendment to the Minnesota constitution is being considered, as it has every year since the federal ERA took effect in 1982.
A Senate committee discussed the matter Wednesday, but took no action. It was unclear if the proposed amendment would be brought up for a vote in the month the Legislature has remaining in its 2010 session.
The amendment proposal would require people be treated the same, regardless of gender.
Refund party
If Dairy Queen’s Blizzard can celebrate its 25th birthday, the Minnesota property tax refund program can do the same, Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, said.
So, as chairman of the House property taxes committee, he hosted that party Wednesday in an attempt to draw attention to the program, which a third of eligible taxpayers do not collect.
“It helps people stay in their homes,” Marquart said.
Sitting behind a “happy birthday” sign, Former Gov. Wendell Anderson said that his signing of the bill, combined with raising taxes a few years earlier, “made Minnesota in the minds of others, the state that works.”
Alec Olson of Willmar, Senate president when the refund passed, said the concept was “rather radical,” but the program “has brought people together.”
The average property tax refund in 2008 was $683.
Also celebrated was a related program, which provides money to renters.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)
