Banning ‘light’ on cigarette packs does little

More and more nations are banning the words “light” and “mild” from cigarette packs, but this may not be enough to dispel smokers’ misbeliefs that the products are safer, according to a study.

In the study, published in “Addiction,” researchers found that after the UK, Australia and Canada banned the terms as deceptive, there was a dip in the number of people who mistakenly believed that cigarettes marketed as “light” or “mild” carried fewer health risks — but the decline was only temporary.

“The findings from our study confirm our earlier work showing that merely removing the terms ‘light’ and ‘mild’ from cigarette packs is insufficient to change people’s beliefs that those products are safer,” said lead researcher Hua-Hie Yong, at the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, Australia.

This week, US health officials released graphic images that tobacco companies will be required to include on cigarette packages no later than September 2012.

In 2003, the European Union and Brazil banned the terms “light” and “mild” from cigarette packaging, and other countries have since followed suit. A US law that bars the words “light,” “low tar” and “mild” from tobacco products went into effect almost exactly one year ago. “Light” cigarettes deliver less nicotine and lower levels of toxic chemicals when the smoke is analszed by a machine.

In real life, though, studies show that smokers inhale comparable amounts of nicotine and chemicals regardless of the brand — and critics have long charged that tobacco products dubbed “light” or “mild” confuse people into thinking there are fewer risks.

For the study, Yong’s team looked at results from international surveys done annually between 2002 and 2009 in Australia, Canada, the UK and the United States. A total of 21,600 smokers were asked the extend to which they agreed with statements such as, “Light cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes.” Shortly after “light” bans went into effect, misperceptions about the cigarettes generally dipped in Australia, Canada and the UK. But the false beliefs began to creep back in within several years.

Cigarettes Go up in Price Second Time in June in Belarus

June 26, the retail price of imported cigarettes, produced by Belarusian manufacturers, as well as imported cigarettes, increased for the second time this month. According to the decree № 95 of the Ministry of Economy dated June 24, prices shall rise by 0.7 - 90%. However, as last time, the prices of cigarettes, manufactured in Belarus by Neman tobacco factory in Hrodna, remain unchanged.

Thus, the most significant price rise affected cigarettes Vogue, produced by Neman tobacco factory in Hrodna. They went up by 90% to Br9.5 thousand per pack. Rider and Velvet cigarettes became 50% more expensive (up to Br3.5 thousand and Br3.8 thousand respectively). Kent Nanotek will cost Br6 thousand per pack (33.3% more) since June 26, Karona - Br2.4 thousand (27.7%), Alliance - Br2.45 (25.6%), Pall Mall Superslims - Br3.9 thousand (25.4%), Kent - Br5 thousand (13.9%), Viceroy - Br3.2 thousand (6.7%), Pall Mall - Br3.5 thousand (2.3%), Lucky Strike - Br3.9 thousand (0.8%).

Cigarettes of Tabak-Invest Company rose in price by an average of 20%. For example, a pack of Golden Gate cigarettes would cost 28.2% more expensive - Br2.5 thousand, West - 25.4% (Br3.6 thousand), Monte Carlo - 23.2% (Br3.5 thousand), Winston - 12.4% (Br3.9 thousand), Camel - 9.9% (Br5 thousand).

Foreign-made cigarettes became expensive as well: Davidoff - by 25.3% up to Br9.5 thousand per pack, Dunhill - 25% to Br10 thousand, Vogue - by 23.2% to Br10 thousand, Sobranie - by 0,7% to Br17 thousand.

Smokers have mixed reaction to cigarette label debut

Rotten teeth and cancer of the mouth, a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole in his neck, the top half of a cadaver after an autopsy. Would those images be enough to stop you from smoking? The Food and Drug Administration believes so. The FDA on Tuesday unveiled nine new graphic health warnings, one of which will appear on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States and in every cigarette advertisement by September 2012.
The warnings represent the most significant change to cigarette labels in more than 25 years.
The images on the packs are intended to convey the danger of smoking, which is responsible for about 443,000 deaths a year in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs our economy nearly $200 billion every year in medical costs and lost productivity.
The new labels will mean a pack-a-day smoker will see graphic warnings on the dangers of cigarettes more than 7,000 times a year. And every pack will contain a smoking cessation phone number, 1-800-QUIT-NOW, to call for help quitting smoking.
The FDA expects about 213,000 smokers will quit in the first year.
Meanwhile, the four biggest tobacco companies are threatening legal action. They say the rule infringes on their property and free-speech rights.
The bold measure, FDA officials say, will help prevent children from smoking, encourage adults who do to quit and ensure every American understands the dangers of smoking.
But some local smokers expect the warning to have little impact on their habit.
"The whole idea is OK, but it's not going to matter to people who have been smoking for a long time, like me," said 50-year-old Dena Kulp of Manheim.
Kulp, a receptionist at a manufacturing plant, began smoking when she was 15 years old.
"When I was growing up there wasn't much education about the effects of smoking, but my mom tried to discourage me from doing it," Kulp said.
Her mother, Kulp said, was 68 when she died of lung cancer.
Kulp thinks the FDA campaign might work for kids, but not for adults.
"I think the pictures and the warnings will freak them out," she said. "But for me, I don't think the labels will make me quit. I've tried many things but nothing has worked so far."
The FDA selected the images after analyzing the results from an 18,000-person study and considering more than 1,700 comments from diverse groups, including the tobacco industry, retailers, health professionals and individual consumers.
Is the makeover of the cigarette packs productive or simply gross?
Some say the new look falls on the grisly side.
"Those images really shocked me," said 42-year-old Wanda Gonzalez of Manor Township, a customer service representative.
"You don't really think about the dangers and the ugliness until you actually see it," she said.
Gonzalez said it is right for the government to force the labels on the cigarette companies.
"It has to be mandatory. The cigarette companies are not going to talk bad about themselves," she said.
Sandy Davido, 32, said the messages on the labels won't tell her anything she doesn't already know.
"I know smoking is a bad thing," the Lancaster resident said. "But we choose to ignore it."
Others say the images are somewhat educational, showing smoke drifting toward a young child's face with a warning that tobacco smoke can harm your children.
Lancaster business owner Porfirio Gonzalez, 53, said it's all about the kids.
"If this is going to make us stop and think and teach the little ones to stay away from smoking then that is all that matters," he said.
However, 21-year-old Rob McKee believes the warning messages will not prevent young people from smoking.
"It's not going to happen. Teens are not going to look at the packs. If they want to smoke they are going to do it regardless of the warnings," said McKee, a supermarket clerk.
Store manager Denise Dengler, 47, said she is not going to quit just because of a picture on the package.
"This is not a good idea. It will not make any difference," she said.
Like McKee, she doesn't think it has the possibility of stopping new people from trying it.
"Besides, this whole thing could drive up the price of cigarettes," she said.
The new warnings, which were proposed in November 2010, were required under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which was passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009.

Gov. Christie to delay implementing N.J.'s medical marijuana law

Gov. Chris Christie last night said he won’t allow medical marijuana for chronically ill patients until the federal government assures him they won’t prosecute anyone for working in the program. It is a new stipulation by the governor, who has been accused of intentionally trying to delay the law.

"The federal government is saying medical marijuana is against the law," Christie said in an appearance on the "On the Line" call-in show, which was televised tonight on New Jersey Network and streamed live on NJ.com. "Until I get that assurance, I cannot ask people to do things that they might get prosecuted by federal prosecutors."

"What happens if they get arrested and I ordered them to do it, that’s wrong," Christie said.
Christie said his office has written two letters to U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman and not received a response.
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), a sponsor of the medical marijuana law, said he wasn’t aware the governor had put a halt to rolling out the medical marijuana law.
"I thought the program was moving forward. It was the whole reason we compromised," Gusciora said, referring to an agreement he struck with the administration that would curb some of the components of the law that Christie said were too permissive.
"It’s disappointing — he should go ahead. It’s more of his national ambitions getting the better of him,’’ Gusciora said.
Gusciora said he intended to introduce legislation next week that would decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana, similar to laws enacted in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.
State Attorney General Paula Dow has been waiting since April for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to explain whether people who legitimately work to make medical marijuana available would be shielded from federal prosecution. Possession and distribution of the drug is a federal crime, even though 16 states passed laws making it available to select patients.

Abbott can’t shake the stink of the tobacco lobby

As every smoker knows, one of the worst things about the tobacco habit is the smell – it clings to you no matter what you do. That's the problem the Liberal Party now has. They've been in the pocket of the tobacco lobby for so long that they can't shake off the stink, no matter how hard they try.

The Liberal Party's last-minute turnaround on plain packaging of cigarettes, after much huffing and puffing, won't help them escape from the clutches of the tobacco companies who fill their party coffers. The question for Mr Abbott is: when will he kick the habit of taking money from the tobacco companies?

The Labor Party announced in 2004 that it would not on principle take money from Big Tobacco. Since then the tobacco companies have lavished more than $1.5 million on the Coalition parties. This does not include donations to individual electorate campaigns who are under the disclosable limit of 10,000.

According to the AEC data, since 1998 the Liberal Party has received $1,618,353 from British American Tobacco (BAT) and $1,440,595 from Phillip Morris. During last year's election the Liberal Party received $145,035 from British American Tobacco and $147,035 from Phillip Morris.
As Health Minister Nicola Roxon stated in parliament last week, BAT makes political donations to political parties in only three countries in the world, and Australia accounts for nearly all that spending – 97% of BAT's donations go to the Liberal Party and the National Party.

During last year's election, the tobacco companies funded a $5.5 million anti-Labor ad blitz with the help of Liberal strategists, headed by Jason Aldsworth of the Civic Group – a former Liberal parliamentary candidate – and including former Howard government adviser Mark Domitrak (now head of corporate affairs at BAT) and former Howard adviser Chris Argent (now corporate affairs director at Phillip Morris).

Phillip Morris International and BAT spent $2.2 million each, and Imperial Tobacco Australia spent $1.1 million.

This funded campaign was coordinated under the sham organisation, The Alliance of Australian retailers, who are controlled by tobacco companies under the guise of representing retailers. It was brought into existence solely as a medium for tobacco companies to influence public opinion, and was payed $200,000 a month retainer. In emails to and from the parties involved, entitled "Your Commission", Jason Aldsworth of the Civic Group was asked whether he would like the commission to be transferred "to your bank, or hold it for drinks in Barbados?" Mr. Aldsworth responded "...Maybe the bank for this one - we'll use the next one for the drinks tab in Barbados" and provided the account details for the Civic Group.

Rome Township couple released pending federal court marijuana hearing

A Rome Township couple busted last week for growing more than 8,000 marijuana plants appeared Tuesday afternoon in United States District Court on federal charges.

Edwin Keith Schmieding and Linda Diane Schmieding, both 60, were released on $10,000 unsecured bonds that were set during their appearance before Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen.

A condition of their bonds is that the husband and wife live in separate homes while the case is pending, said Gina Balaya, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Detroit.

The couple had been held in the Lenawee County Jail on $1 million bonds on marijuana manufacturing and conspiracy counts before the case was transferred to federal court. State charges are being dismissed, Balaya said.

The Schmiedings also face marijuana manufacturing and conspiracy counts in federal court. Preliminary examinations were scheduled for 1 p.m. on July 5.

Police involved in the bust expressed surprise at the size of the operation after searching the couple’s property the evening of June 6.

“This is probably the most extensive marijuana growing operation that I can remember in the Hillsdale and Lenawee area,” said Michigan State Police Inspector Gene Adamczyk. “This will put a crimp in some marketing somewhere.”

A total of 8,259 marijuana plants were seized from greenhouses and fields on the Schmieding’s property on Rome Road, where they operated a commercial flower farm in the past.

Linda Schmieding reportedly told an officer during the raid last week that they were making about $500 a week from marijuana.

Michigan State Police Lt. Steven Galbreath, commander of the OMNI Team 3 narcotics unit, said the potential street value was more than $8 million, assuming a harvest of one pound per plant and a retail sale price of $1,000 per pound.

An anonymous caller told an OMNI team member on May 17 that Edwin Schmieding and another man were growing and selling marijuana for $800 a pound, according to an affidavit filed Monday in federal court by Special Agent Lloyd Hopkins of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

His affidavit said OMNI officers entered a field next to the Schmieding property on Rome Road on June 6 and saw several marijuana plants inside a greenhouse. They then obtained a search warrant and swept onto the property at about 7:45 p.m.

The Schmiedings were detained at their home. According to Hopkins, Edwin Schmieding led officers to a storage box inside his attached garage and unlocked it with a key. Inside were 56 bags of processed marijuana, marked by weight, he said in the affidavit.

Police also reported seizing 100 bags of marijuana seeds marked by dates going back to 2006.

Linda Schmieding was questioned separately and told a Michigan State Police detective that she knew her husband was growing marijuana and that she helped plant and cultivate it, Hopkins stated in the affidavit.

She said her husband was selling to patients and “she thought he was also selling to dispensaries,” said Hopkins’ affidavit. She also said a third person was taking marijuana to Toledo.

Linda Schmieding first told the officer they were making about $100 a month from marijuana, the affidavit said, then later told the officers “that they were receiving $500 per week, then refused to answer further questions.”

Edwin Schmieding had retained Adrian attorney James Daly to defend him against state charges that are now being dismissed. Daly said the defense will be taken over by an attorney experienced in federal court. Detroit attorney James Gerometta was listed as representing the Schmiedings on documents posted on the federal court’s website Tuesday afternoon.

Cigarette tax approved in Rocky Mount

Despite opposition at a public hearing last week, Rocky Mount Town Council voted Monday night to approve a cigarette tax of 10 cents per pack.

Town Manager James Ervin and Finance Director Linda Woody had recommended a tax of 20 cents per pack that they estimated would generate $250,000 a year in revenue.
But Councilman Jerry Greer said that he believes that a cigarette tax will generate more revenue than anticipated. He said a tax of 10 cents might generate close to $250,000.
"I think 20 cents is too much. Maybe we can do 10 cents now and then go back and look at it in six to eight months," Greer said.
Greer's motion for the 10-cent tax was approved on a 4-2 vote with council members Robert Strickler, Greg Walker, Ann Love and Greer voting for the tax.
The cigarette tax will take effect in July.
Council members Bobby Moyer and Bobby Cundiff dissented.
"If we need the money, then 20 cents,"ﾠMoyer said. "If we don't need the money, we don't need to fool with it."
Ervin said that town council could adjust the tax during the next fiscal year if it desires.
Last year, town council rejected a proposal for a cigarette tax of 10 cents per pack with Greer, Walker and Strickler voting against the proposal.
"It would be hard for me to support any new taxes" during these tough economic conditions, Walker said last year.
"We had 500 people opposed to the cigarette tax," said Greer, citing a petition that was submitted to town council last year.
"I can't support it (a cigarette tax) either," Strickler said last June.
At a public hearing last week, council members were told that a cigarette tax will cause stores to lose money and the town to lose tax revenues.
Johnny Singleton, who operates Riverside Minute Market, told council that customers would go outside the town to buy cigarettes to avoid the tax.
Singleton said that the customers would also buy groceries and other products when they go outside the town to buy cigarettes. They would also eat meals in restaurants outside the town, he said.
As a result, the town would lose sales tax revenues, meals taxes and other revenues, Singleton said.
Singleton said that the tax would be unfair because it would apply only to businesses that sell cigarettes -- not to all businesses and taxpayers
James Angell echoed Singleton's concerns about the tax's impact on stores and town tax revenues.
Angell, speaking for Jones Produce, said that customers would walk or drive a few hundred yards outside the town to avoid the cigarette tax.
"People will go elsewhere to avoid the tax and you will lose meals taxes and other taxes," Angell said.

Lets keep the cigarette tax intact

One of the mysteries of the legislative session continued to spin itself out to the end this week, when Gov. Bobby Jindal fulfilled his promise to veto the renewal of a 4-cent state tax on a pack of cigarettes. As this is written, an override — the first since the last Edwards administration — looks increasingly likely.

We hope the renewal takes effect and everyone gets what they want: The Legislature will have moved in some small way to make sure fewer younger people buy cigarettes, and the governor will have made his anti-tax statement without fear of consequences.

We should remember that the American Cancer Society and other anti-smoking groups started the session with big, if quixotic, hopes for a tax increase on tobacco equivalent to $1.25 on a pack of cigarettes. Most important of all, the tax increase would have raised the price of cigarettes and prevent some young people from acquiring the habit. It would also have raised more than $200 million a year, offsetting some — but not all — of public health-care expenditures related to smoking.

Among the people making this point: Gov. Bobby Jindal. Only he wasn't governor when he did it. It was 1997, and he was Louisiana's health-care whiz kid. The Baton Rouge Advocate resurrected an article from the Louisiana Medical Society Journal in which Jindal, then secretary of health and hospitals, said: "Society must recover those costs which could have been avoided had the individual not chosen the risky behavior only to prevent others from having to bear the costs."

Well, he doesn't actually say the word "taxes." But it's hard to figure how else society would "recover those costs that could have been prevented."

The big tobacco tax increase died hard and early. Soon it became clear that even renewing the existing 4-cent tax would be a fight and, sure enough, the governor vetoed the bill Monday. Protestors from the American Cancer Society, the Louisiana Federation of Teachers and other groups rallied Tuesday at the Capitol in support of the old Bobby and against the new Bobby:

"The public is on the right side of this issue and the Legislature is on the right side of this issue. We're urging the Legislature to override the governor's veto," said Andrew Muhl of the American Cancer Society.

And:

"Why? Why would he take this position when the state needs health care dollars? Why would he push this particular issue?" asked Steve Monaghan of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers.

The governor's stand against new taxes is laudable, but there's such a thing as taking an idea to perilous extremes. We all know what we'd get if the tax renewal goes into effect: more money for health care and fewer kids who take up smoking. But what do we get from blocking the renewal? What advantage is there? The righteous warmth of ideological purity?