Regents vote in favor of tobacco ban on Ohio campuses

Ohio higher education officials voted unanimously Monday to urge the state’s public campuses to ban all sales and use of tobacco products, including smoking outdoors. The Ohio Board of Regents’ resolution comes after a review showed such policies bring health benefits to both smokers and nonsmokers and cut costs for education institutions, said Chairman James Tuschman. Tuschman said Ohio can set an example, since it often serves as a test market for new tobacco products aimed at young people. “It is the right thing to do,” he said. The Regents’ recommendation extends to all Ohio’s campuses, including Ohio State, one of the nation’s largest universities. Currently, OSU bans only indoor smoking and some outdoor smoking around its health facilities.

The university said Monday it will review the issue. At least seven public colleges or universities in Ohio currently have tobacco bans, including Miami University, Hocking College, and the health science campus of the University of Toledo. Regent Patricia Ackerman said she backed the resolution “as someone who smoked my first cigarette at age 14, as someone who went to college and viewed as a true act of liberation making that first official act of freedom purchasing a pack of cigarettes.” Statistics show Ackerman was not alone: 40 percent of smokers either begin or become regular smokers starting in college. The board is led by Chancellor Jim Petro, who picked up the smoking habit on campus.

 “I began smoking in college and continued to smoke for 40 years. It has adversely affected my health,” said Petro who was diagnosed in 2009 with laryngeal cancer that could have been caused by smoking. He is cancer-free now. “By approving this resolution and recommending that policies be implemented on our campuses, the Board of Regents can have a significant and positive effect on a student’s life.” Ohio Health Director Ted Wymyslo said reaching young people is critical. Ohio, like many states, has cut funding to his smoking prevention programs amid several years of tight budgets.

 “It’s particularly important to get to that younger age and stop that habit that we’ve seen,” he said. “That means we have to have a culture change.” The state Health Department has prepared model policies and tips to help colleges and universities implement tobacco-free policies — but the decision will ultimately be up to each institution’s board of trustees. Such bans can include outdoor smoking, smoking in vehicles, use of chewing tobacco and candy-style products on campus, and prohibitions against tobacco sales and advertising. Perhaps half of campuses nationwide have enacted or are considering going tobacco free, sometimes over the objections of student smokers, staff and faculty.

Tobacco company Reynolds American 2Q net income surges more than 35 pct on higher prices

http://cigarettesonline.66ghz.com - the cheapest cigarettes online for discount price.

The nation's second-biggest tobacco company on Tuesday reported net income of $443 million, or 78 cents per share, for the three-month period ended June 30. That's up from $327 million, or 56 cents per share, a year ago when the company recorded charges related to a legal case that hurt its results. Adjusted earnings were 79 cents per share, beating analysts' expectations of 76 cents per share. Its shares fell 40 cents to $45.34 in morning trading.

 The maker of Camel, Pall Mall and Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes said revenue excluding excise taxes fell 4 percent to $2.18 billion from $2.27 billion a year ago. Analysts polled by FactSet expected revenue of $2.24 billion. The Winston-Salem, N.C., company said heavy promotional activity by its competitors drove its cigarette volumes down nearly 7 percent to 18.1 billion cigarettes, compared with an estimated total industry volume decline of 1.7 percent. Its R.J. Reynolds Tobacco subsidiary sold 4 percent less of its Camel brand and volumes of Pall Mall fell 3.6 percent. Camel's market share fell slightly to 8.3 percent of the U.S. market, while Pall Mall's market share fell 0.2 percentage points to 8.4 percent.

 The company has promoted Pall Mall as a longer-lasting and more affordable cigarette as smokers weather the weak economy and high unemployment, and has said half the people who try the brand continue using it. Reynolds American and other tobacco companies are also focusing on cigarette alternatives such as snuff and chewing tobacco for future sales growth as tax hikes, smoking bans, health concerns and social stigma make the cigarette business tougher.

 Volume for its smokeless tobacco brands that include Grizzly and Kodiak rose nearly 11 percent compared with a year ago. Its share of the U.S. retail market grew 1.7 percentage points to 32.4 percent. Reynolds American also reaffirmed its full-year adjusted earnings forecast in the range of $2.91 and $3.01 per share. Analysts expected earnings of $2.95 per share.

Amended tobacco statute provides due process

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled last week that a lower court was correct in upholding a decision to fine a tobacco seller and temporarily suspend its state endorsements for illegal sales to minors. At issue is the state's tobacco endorsement statute, which was amended by lawmakers in 2007 to address due process concerns. Like the former version of the statute, the amended statute provides that if a licensee's employee is convicted of violating state law while acting within the scope of employment, the State may impose a civil penalty.

 However, the amended statute differs by establishing an employee's conviction as a rebuttable presumption of negligence to support a finding of liability. The plaintiff in the case, Holiday Alaska Inc., sells tobacco at more than 25 stores in Alaska, and each store holds a tobacco license endorsement from the State. However, five separate incidents of Holiday employees illegally selling tobacco to minors were reported. Each case resulted in conviction: One employee was found guilty by default judgment, three pled guilty, and one was found guilty at trial. The State filed a notice of intent to suspend the five stores' endorsements based on the employee convictions, seeking to impose a $300 civil fine and a 20-day endorsement suspension against each store. Holiday requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in each case. An administrative law judge held two hearings.

 The ALJ first considered the allegations against Holiday resulting from four of the convictions and issued a consolidated decision; he later considered the allegations against Holiday resulting from one additional employee's conviction and issued a separate decision. Throughout the proceedings Holiday asserted various constitutional challenges, which the ALJ denied because he could not "rule on a constitutional challenge that seeks to nullify the statute." However, the judge allowed Holiday to present evidence relevant to its constitutional challenges to construct a factual record for appeal. The ALJ later concluded that Holiday did not overcome the statutory presumption of negligence established by the convictions, and therefore was liable for each violation and subject to penalty under the tobacco endorsement statute.

 The judge considered Holiday's internal procedures as evidence justifying mitigation of the penalty, but did not find the policies rebutted liability entirely. He recommended imposing a $300 penalty and suspending the tobacco license endorsement for 13-20 days in each case, with reductions in three instances based on the mitigating evidence of internal policies. The commissioner adopted the ALJ's recommendations as the final agency decision. Holiday appealed to the superior court. The court upheld the commissioner's decision without modification, specifically rejecting Holiday's constitutional arguments. Holiday appealed, presenting only one issue: whether the state's tobacco endorsement statute, as amended, violates its due process rights.

 In its ruling filed Friday, the state's high court affirmed the superior court's conclusion that the amended statute provides due process. The amendment actually "enhances" procedural protections, it said. Justice Daniel E. Winfree explained that the amended statute grants the licensee the right to notice of minor offense charges pending against any employee, "allowing the licensee to overcome the rebuttable presumption that its employee's conviction constitutes proof of a negligent sale of tobacco products to a minor, and allowing the licensee to present mitigating evidence of its efforts to curtail negligent sales."

 He added, "These additional procedural protections serve to further diminish the risk of erroneous deprivation." The Court also noted that Holiday presented no reason why an employee would be less motivated under the amended statute to fight an erroneous charge. "A conviction may cost the employee his or her job, and the penalty represents a measurable percentage of an hourly worker's earnings, providing significant motivation to fight an erroneous charge," Winfree wrote in the Court's 10-page ruling. "And the statutory change requiring notice to a licensee of charges against an employee enables the licensee to provide counsel to fight erroneous charges. "Indeed, in this case Holiday provided several of its employees with legal representation and at least one employee went to trial."

NY should increase smoking prevention funds

Faced with the results of new study on smoking and lung cancer in New York, the state needs to direct more money to anti-smoking campaigns -- and focus that money in areas where it will have the greatest impact. The American Cancer Society this week revealed data showing a big difference between lung cancer rates in different part of the state. The eye-opening news for us is that the rate of both smoking and lung cancer is higher upstate than downstate and the rates in Cayuga County are even higher than the upstate average.

This should cause concern for both local and state health officials. In Cayuga County, the health department, the Tobacco Free Partnership and the Tobacco Free Coalition are doing all they can to reduce smoking locally through public education increasing awareness of the problem and reducing the social acceptability of smoking, and by providing programs to help people quit. These are all laudable goals, especially considering that lung cancer is one of the most preventable types of cancer.

But more clearly needs to be done to reduce the number of people getting sick, and the state has cut its funding for public education and smoking-cessation programs by more than 50 percent in recent years as it deals with a wildly out of balance budget. But putting money into anti-smoking programs isn't good policy just because saving lives is the thing to do. It also makes good fiscal sense because the cost of treating patients for smoking related illnesses far exceeds the cost of prevention.

Simply put, spending millions to reduce smoking can save billions in health-care costs. Armed with this new data, state leaders need to agree to increase funding for anti-smoking programs, with a higher percentage of those funds going to places with greater numbers of smokers.

Los Angeles officials vote to ban marijuana shops

A countdown to the closure of hundreds of medical marijuana shops in Los Angeles is set to begin after a drawn-out legal battle led the city council to vote unanimously to shutter the shops – but it may not be over. After Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signs the ordinance as expected, pot shops will have 30 days to shut down lucrative operations that blossomed around the nation's second biggest metropolis. On Tuesday, the city council voted 14-0 to ban them. As many as 900 dispensaries will be affected by the new ordinance, but it's unclear what will happen if they disobey the order. Legal questions remain unanswered by the state's highest court.

The city has fumbled with its medical marijuana laws for years, trying to provide safe and affordable access to the drug for legitimate patients while addressing worries by neighborhood groups that streets were being overrun by dispensaries and pot users. "Relief is on the way," said Councilman Jose Huizar, who introduced the so-called "gentle ban." Many cities have struggled with medical marijuana ordinances, but none has had a bigger problem than Los Angeles, where pot shops have proliferated. At one point, the city ordered closure of the shops – a process that failed amid lawsuits and conflicting rulings by appellate courts.

This time around, the city has a stronger case if pot shop owners sue, city officials said. A recent appellate court ruling seems to support the new ordinance that refers to a marijuana collective as three or fewer people. The ban allows hospices and home health agencies to provide medical pot. Letters will be sent to the dispensaries advising them of the ban. "A judge could file an injunction but we think that is unlikely," said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney. The ban further adds to confusion for Californians, who in 1996 approved medicinal use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

The state Supreme Court has decided to clarify the drug's hazy legal status by addressing whether local governments can ban medical marijuana clinics, but a hearing has yet to be set. Meanwhile, federal authorities have cracked down on pot clinics around the state, saying such operations remain illegal under U.S. law. Los Angeles passed an ordinance two years ago that was supposed to shutter hundreds of pot dispensaries while capping the number in operation at 70. But legal challenges from collectives and that ordinance's expiration last month led to another surge of pot shops. City officials said 762 collectives have registered with the city and as many as 200 more could exist. "We need to start with a clean slate," Councilman Mitchell Englander said before the vote. "Los Angeles has experimented with marijuana and has failed."

The new ban could be temporary for some dispensaries. A motion made by Councilman Paul Koretz called for city staff to draft an ordinance that would allow about 180 pot shops to reopen after a moratorium was enacted years ago. That motion isn't expected to be considered for several months. After the vote Tuesday, some medical marijuana advocates shouted expletives, while others questioned where they could get the drug in the future. "This is an outrage that the city council would think a reasonable solution to the distribution of medical marijuana would be to simply outlaw it altogether," said Don Duncan, California Director with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group.

 Duncan said the vote will harm tens of thousands of patients. At least 178 California cities from Calistoga to Camarillo and 20 counties already have banned retail pot shops, according to the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access. Reflecting the murky language of the state's medical marijuana laws, a handful of dispensaries have successfully challenged local prohibitions in court, along with laws that merely sought to regulate dispensaries. Most recently, an appeals court in Southern California struck down Los Angeles County's 2-year-old ban on dispensaries, ruling that state law allows cooperatives and collectives to grow, store and distribute pot. But in a separate case, an appeals court said federal law pre-empts local municipalities from allowing pot clinics.

The vote came a day after a priest, drug counselors and others decried crime and other social problems they say surround neighborhood marijuana dispensaries. Among those who spoke was a woman who complained about having to push her baby's stroller through clouds of marijuana smoke near dispensaries in her East Hollywood neighborhood. Daniel Sosa, a medical marijuana advocate, told council members it's fruitless to approve a ban that won't have any merit, and will likely lead to more lawsuits. "If you can't enforce it, why are you going to pass something?" Sosa asked the council.

Los Angeles officials vote to ban marijuana shops

A countdown to the closure of hundreds of medical marijuana shops in Los Angeles is set to begin after a drawn-out legal battle led the city council to vote unanimously to shutter the shops — but it may not be over. After Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signs the ordinance as expected, pot shops will have 30 days to shut down lucrative operations that blossomed around the nation's second biggest metropolis. On Tuesday, the city council voted 14-0 to ban them. As many as 900 dispensaries will be affected by the new ordinance, but it's unclear what will happen if they disobey the order. Legal questions remain unanswered by the state's highest court.

The city has fumbled with its medical marijuana laws for years, trying to provide safe and affordable access to the drug for legitimate patients while addressing worries by neighborhood groups that streets were being overrun by dispensaries and pot users. "Relief is on the way," said Councilman Jose Huizar, who introduced the so-called "gentle ban." Many cities have struggled with medical marijuana ordinances, but none has had a bigger problem than Los Angeles, where pot shops have proliferated. At one point, the city ordered closure of the shops — a process that failed amid lawsuits and conflicting rulings by appellate courts.

This time around, the city has a stronger case if pot shop owners sue, city officials said. A recent appellate court ruling seems to support the new ordinance that refers to a marijuana collective as three or fewer people. The ban allows hospices and home health agencies to provide medical pot. Letters will be sent to the dispensaries advising them of the ban. "A judge could file an injunction but we think that is unlikely," said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney. The ban further adds to confusion for Californians, who in 1996 approved medicinal use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

The state Supreme Court has decided to clarify the drug's hazy legal status by addressing whether local governments can ban medical marijuana clinics, but a hearing has yet to be set. Meanwhile, federal authorities have cracked down on pot clinics around the state, saying such operations remain illegal under U.S. law. Los Angeles passed an ordinance two years ago that was supposed to shutter hundreds of pot dispensaries while capping the number in operation at 70. But legal challenges from collectives and that ordinance's expiration last month led to another surge of pot shops. City officials said 762 collectives have registered with the city and as many as 200 more could exist. "We need to start with a clean slate," Councilman Mitchell Englander said before the vote. "Los Angeles has experimented with marijuana and has failed."

The new ban could be temporary for some dispensaries. A motion made by Councilman Paul Koretz called for city staff to draft an ordinance that would allow about 180 pot shops to reopen after a moratorium was enacted years ago. That motion isn't expected to be considered for several months. After the vote Tuesday, some medical marijuana advocates shouted expletives, while others questioned where they could get the drug in the future. "This is an outrage that the city council would think a reasonable solution to the distribution of medical marijuana would be to simply outlaw it altogether," said Don Duncan, California Director with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group. 


Duncan said the vote will harm tens of thousands of patients. At least 178 California cities from Calistoga to Camarillo and 20 counties already have banned retail pot shops, according to the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access. Reflecting the murky language of the state's medical marijuana laws, a handful of dispensaries have successfully challenged local prohibitions in court, along with laws that merely sought to regulate dispensaries. Most recently, an appeals court in Southern California struck down Los Angeles County's 2-year-old ban on dispensaries, ruling that state law allows cooperatives and collectives to grow, store and distribute pot. But in a separate case, an appeals court said federal law pre-empts local municipalities from allowing pot clinics. 


The vote came a day after a priest, drug counselors and others decried crime and other social problems they say surround neighborhood marijuana dispensaries. Among those who spoke was a woman who complained about having to push her baby's stroller through clouds of marijuana smoke near dispensaries in her East Hollywood neighborhood. Daniel Sosa, a medical marijuana advocate, told council members it's fruitless to approve a ban that won't have any merit, and will likely lead to more lawsuits. "If you can't enforce it, why are you going to pass something?" Sosa asked the council.

Lorillard 2nd Quarter Net Falls 2.4% on Lower Shipments

Lorillard Inc.'s (LO) second-quarter earnings fell 2.4% as declining shipments slowed the tobacco company's sales growth more than expected. The No. 3 U.S. cigarette producer by revenue dominates the market for menthol cigarettes, which are increasingly popular among younger smokers, though overall smoking rates have declined. Lorillard is also making a push into the fast-growing electronic cigarettes market with its $135 million acquisition of Blu Ecigs in April. 

The strategic shift to battery-powered e-cigarettes also comes as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration weighs a possible crackdown on menthol-flavored cigarettes. Lorillard reported a profit of $284 million, down from $291 million a year earlier. Per-share earnings rose to $2.17 from $2.05, due to fewer shares outstanding in the most-recent quarter. Excluding items such as acquisition costs, earnings were $2.19 in the latest period. Sales, excluding excise taxes, rose 4% to $1.21 billion.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had most recently forecast earnings of $2.32 a share on revenue of $1.25 billion. Gross margin was flat at 35.4%. Total wholesale shipments fell 1.2%, and domestic wholesale shipments, which exclude Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions, were down 1.3%. Sales volume for Lorillard's Newport brand, which represents the bulk of its sales, declined 2% and its domestic retail market share remained at 12%. Shares closed Tuesday at $135.25 and were inactive premarket. The stock has gained 26% over the past year.

Atlanta considers wide-ranging smoking ban

Atlanta's city council is set to vote as early as Monday on a wide-ranging smoking ban. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (http://bit.ly/MfKzuD) that the ban would cover playgrounds, athletic fields, aquatic areas, tennis courts, golf courses and walking trails.

 A council committee last week voted 4-1 to send the ordinance to the full City Council for consideration as soon as Monday. The ban would take effect immediately if the council approves it and Mayor Kasim Reed signs it. The city's Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs pushed for the measure with Reed's blessing.

Judge sentences smoking passenger to time-served

Buy cigarettes from this shop: www.onotole.byethost11.com
A federal judge has sentenced a Florida man to time-served and released him after he pleaded guilty to disrupting an airline flight by refusing to extinguish the cigarette he was smoking. Manolin Jesus Villaverde (ma-noh-LEEN' hay-SOOS' vee-yah-VEHR-day) was sentenced Friday in San Antonio after pleading guilty in May to interfering with a flight crew aboard a Continental Airlines flight from Houston to Ontario, Calif.

His refusal to stop smoking Jan. 24 prompted an unscheduled landing in San Antonio. The Miami man had remained in custody for almost six months since and could have been sentenced to up to 20 years in federal prison. Instead, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery sentenced him to five years' probation, assessed him $100 in court costs and ordered him released.

Babies' first breaths tainted by hospital smokers

Horrified midwives have reported the fumes of smokers flouting NHS Fife's no-smoking policy are wafting their way through windows and into wards housing new mums and babies. Cancer patients are also forced to run the gauntlet of people in their dressing gowns, still attached to drips, puffing on cigarettes at the main entrance to Victoria Hospital's flagship new wing in Kirkcaldy. The revolving doors at the entrance are continually jamming because of tossed cigarette ends being blown into the mechanics — despite bins being 20 yards away.

 Staff have been encouraged to point out the no-smoking rule and ask patients and visitors to extinguish their cigarettes, but those who do are often subjected to a barrage of abuse or simply ignored. While requests have been made for smoking shelters away from the hospital, health bosses have called for legislation making it an offence to smoke anywhere in the grounds. They will look at what action they can take to prevent the smoke from seeping inside. David Stewart, chair of NHS Fife's operations division — which runs the Vic — said: ''This is not just patients. It's visitors.

At 2pm there are more people standing out there smoking than you get at Stark's Park on a Saturday afternoon. It's unbelievable.'' He added: ''I have shared my concern on this issue on a number of occasions and I raised it at a meeting with MSPs. The advice I got was we should provide a smoking shelter. That seems reasonable but I want legislation making it an offence to smoke on the entire hospital site. ''The Government is passing legislation to make it an offence to smoke in your car and I would have thought it would be easier to make it illegal to smoke at a hospital.''

 While notices around the Victoria's grounds remind visitors of the no-smoking policy, there is no sanction for those who flout it — making it difficult to enforce. The policy itself prevents the erection of smoking shelters and Mr Stewart said there is no simple answer. ''I wish there was because it really annoys me,'' he said. ''There are patients coming down in their dressing gowns, standing outside at the doors smoking. "It becomes even worse when they stand underneath the canopy. There's a smoking bin 20 yards away yet they throw their cigarettes down on the ground and they get blown inside through the revolving doors.''

Director of nursing Caroline Inwood said a review of the smoking policy is under way and the possibility of offering patients nicotine replacement therapies is also being looked at. ''We have to strike a balance because we have to recognise smoking is an addiction,'' she said. ''We can't just say 'stop smoking' without giving some support.'' Unlike Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, there are no staff dedicated to enforcing the no-smoking rule and Tannoy announcements have been ruled out amid fears patients would be disturbed as the main entrance is so close to the wards.

Anti-Smoking Bill Lingers in Parliament

Read here the latest news about cigarettes and tobacco: http://www.freetobacco.info/
A clause forbidding smoking in public places will remain intact to mitigate illnesses caused by passive smoking as legislators continue to review the draft tobacco bill. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), passive smoking is the exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) which is a mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke and side stream smoke released from a smoldering cigarette or other smoking device and diluted with ambient air. A joint chamber of Deputies-Senatorial committee selected on June 20 is presently re-assessing a version of the draft scrutinised by the Senate.

 MP Agnes Mukazibera, the chairperson of the committee on education, technology, culture and youth, told The New Times, on Thursday, that both chambers had agreed to ban public smoking. "Smoking in places like schools, bars, hospitals ,churches, the stadiums and others will certainly not be acceptable. Instead, the proprietor (of an establishment) should make arrangements to establish a smoking area to protect non-smokers." The bill stipulates the following no-smoking zones: children's homes, places of worship, prisons, police stations and cells, offices and office buildings, court premises, factories, cinema halls, theatres, hospitals, clinics and other health institutions, restaurants, hotels, bars or other eating places.

 Smoking will also be prohibited in public service vehicles, aircrafts, commuter boats, passenger vehicles or any other public conveyance and children's education facilities. No smoking signs must be placed near bus stops, airports, air fields, and other public transport terminals, indoor markets, shopping malls and retail and other wholesale establishments. The WHO estimates that over 50 percent of children worldwide are exposed to SHS in their homes. Dr. Stephenson Musiime, a consultant Paediatrician at King Faisal Hospital, said: "Smoking, be it active or passive, has long term effects on almost all body systems, especially the heart and respiratory diseases and not forgetting different types of cancers.

It can even affect a baby before it is born." According to Dr. Musiime, the bill is vital. "The earlier it does the better for all of us," he said. Former health Minister, Dr. Richard Sezibera, initially tabled the bill before the chamber of deputies in 2009, in line with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) which Rwanda ratified in 2005. Previous studies by the health ministry suggested that over 880,000 Rwandans smoke with 58.9 per cent assuming the habit between the ages of 11 and 15. Article 8 of the WHO's FCTC, adopted by all WHO Member States in May 2003, states that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.

Tobacco contains over 400 toxic substances and research indicates that there are over 25 related diseases affecting the lungs, the heart and blood veins. A ministry of health official in charge of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), Francois Habiyaremye, cited some of the smoking related illnesses that include cancer of the bladder, larynx, esophagus, mouth, throat, lungs, among others. Smoking also causes heart diseases including heart attack, coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis. Other smoking-related ailments are asthma, childhood respiratory ailments, cataracts, diabetes, angina, gum disease, gangrene, impotence, loss of smell and taste, osteoporosis (in women), peripheral artery disease, pneumonia, premature aging and stomach ulcers. "Smoking kills yet people fail to understand the repercussions.

You may find pleasure, relaxation and even appear cool or modern for a few moments. But, it is your life at stake. Smoking affects you in some way or the other and leads to your death before you get to live your full life," Habiyaremye warned. "Passive smoking is just as harmful as active smoking. This means that along with suicide, you are trying to commit murder. WHO estimates show that 29 per cent of our burden in Rwanda is Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) and among four main common risk factors of these diseases is tobacco use. "We don't have consistent data" on the number of patients admitted in Rwandan hospitals as a result of smoking related illnesses but legislation on tobacco use would be vital on curbing the danger. "Since 2005, the Minister of Health has been using instructions to protect non-smokers and the environment against the consequences of smoking. Rwanda is experiencing a huge reduction in the number of smokers and even farmers," Habiyaremye added.

 "We have to strengthen the no tobacco campaign through the media, mobilisation, sensitisation, participation of all sectors and advocate for complete involvement of private and public institutions." According to a 2007 WHO document on protection from exposure to SHS, there is no evidence that smoke-free workplaces increases children's exposure to tobacco smoke at home. "A growing body of evidence suggests that legislation banning smoking in public places and workplaces leads to a reduction in smoking in the home.

Smoke-free workplaces are associated with a greater likelihood of workers implementing smoke-free policies in their homes," reads part of the document. The document also rejects the notion that total smoke-free environments are not enforceable. It states that unclear laws that designate square footage or percentages for non-smoking and smoking sections; prohibit smoking only during certain hours in specific establishments, and create confusion for institutions implementing the law, and for employees and customers and inspectors enforcing the law.

Public housing factors in youths' tobacco use

Cigars and tobacco news: http://www.tobacco-news.net/category/cigars/
Black youths who live in public housing communities are more likely to use tobacco than other black teens, a University of Missouri study has found. Mansoo Yu is an assistant professor in the Master of Public Health program and in the School of Social Work, which is part of MU's College of Human Environmental Sciences. He and his research team surveyed 518 urban black youths ranging in ages from 11 to 20 who lived in public housing in three U.S. cities.

The survey measured attitudes toward tobacco use, depressive symptoms and delinquent behaviors. They found that those living in public housing were more likely to be fearful, live around crime and have poorer social relationships — all factors that contribute to smoking. The study concluded the black urban youth population is 2.3 times more likely to use tobacco than other black youths. That could lead to other problems, Yu said. "As previous research suggests, early use of tobacco increases individuals' chances of using more serious drugs later," he said in a statement.

"In addition, early drug use is related to other serious problems, such as delinquent behaviors and family and social problems." The findings show that tobacco-prevention programs should target young children in public housing communities, Yu said. "Early interventions are critical for these individuals since the likelihood of being exposed to risky behaviors dramatically increases as the children age," he said.

"In public housing communities, adolescents may have easier access to drugs and social activities where drugs are used." Yu's co-authors included researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago, Boston College and the University of South Carolina. The study, "Understanding tobacco use among urban African-American adolescents living in public housing communities: A test of problem behavior theory," was published in the journal Addictive Behaviors.

Tobacco cessation program offered by Memorial Hermann

Those wanting to quit smoking should look no further than Memorial Hermann Hospital in Katy. Freshstart tobacco cessation classes will be held from 2-3 p.m. July 23, July 30, Aug. 6 and Aug. 13 at 1635 North Loop W. in Classroom A of the South Tower. The Freshstart program incorporates current guidelines for tobacco cessation support into face-to-face group sessions.

Using an evidence-based approach, Freshstart is geared toward helping participants increase their motivation to quit, learn effective approaches for quitting and how to stay nonsmokers. All four classes are required to successfully complete the program.

IU begins smoke-free campaign

House Enrolled Act 1149, Indiana’s first statewide smoke-free-air law, went into effect July 1. The new Act mandates nearly all public places in Indiana be smoke-free, including university campuses. Now, however, smokers within eight feet of a public entrance will be cited with an infraction. “It’s the same level of violation as a traffic ticket, so it will more than likely be enforced in that way,” Jerry Minger, IU Director of Public Safety said.

 The IU Police Department will be issuing citations. The IUPD task force will not increase, but Police Chief Keith Cash said certain locations may see more attention. “There used to be a smoking area by the library and the IMU, so we will be sure to address issues in those areas,” Cash said. Depending on circumstance, fines will range between $25 to $100. Individuals caught violating Act 1149 may be referred to both University officials and the Monroe County Court system. Students caught smoking will be assigned to the Dean of Students, and employees caught smoking will be assigned to Human Resources.

 Faculty who violate Act 1149 will be referred to the Office of Academic Affairs. Because this is a new policy, penalties for multiple infractions have not been defined yet. The month of July will serve as a “warning month” to educate individuals about the policy. September will also serve to educate students on IU’s smoke-free policy. “It’s too soon to tell whether it will have any impact on University environment,” Minger said. “People are more educated than they could be in rural areas, and in those areas there will be much more of a learning curve to deal with.”

Why we need to protect children from second-hand smoke

Cigarettes shop with cheap price: cigarettehome.livejournal.com(copy the link in browser)

Yesterday was a reassuringly positive day. I tabled the second reading of my Smoke-free Private Vehicles Bill, which aims to legislate against people smoking in the car when children are on board. Whilst no peer voiced objection to the principle that children need protection, there was some debate over the method through which this could be achieved. Before diving into the debate surrounding behaviour change versus nanny state, let’s review the problem. Children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke as they have smaller lungs, faster breathing, and less developed immune systems.

These factors make them more susceptible to respiratory and ear infections triggered by second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke results each year in more than 165,000 new episodes of disease of all types amongst children, 300,000 primary care consultations, 9,500 hospital admissions and around 40 sudden infant deaths. And all of this comes at a considerable economic cost. The direct annual UK health cost is more than £23 million in children’s primary care visits, asthma treatment and hospital admissions. The scale of the issue is profound. In a British Lung Foundation survey in 2011, 1,000 children aged eight to 15 were asked if they had, at some point, been exposed to cigarette smoke in a car.

Worryingly, more than half of respondents, 51%, said they had. And because the car is a confined space, smoking in the car exposes children to high concentrations of second-hand smoke. Research has shown that a single cigarette smoke in a moving car with the window half open exposes a child in the centre of the back seat to around two thirds as much second-hand smoke as an average smoke-filled pub. There can be no dispute of the facts. Second-hand smoke is detrimental to children’s health, especially when placed in the confines of a car. In the lead up to this bill being tabled, I spoke with a woman named Sharon. She told me about how smoking had impacted her life and the life of her son Ben.

Sharon started smoking at the 14 and only briefly gave up when she was pregnant. Her mother was then diagnosed with a terminal illness and due to stress, Sharon started smoking again. She continued to smoke during Ben’s childhood, even after Ben was diagnosed with asthma at three years old. Sharon remarked though that she would never have dreamed of taking Ben into a pub, as before the public smoking ban came in three years ago, it was a murky, smoke-filled environment which was clearly unhealthy for a growing boy. “You can see the smoke in the room,” she told me, “but you can’t see the smoke in your car. The window is open and the smoke appears to go”. We know that this is not the case. The Department of Health recently ran a campaign, to raise awareness of this very issue – the dangers of invisible smoke and the impact this can have on children’s health. Its aim was to reach parents like Sharon, who didn’t know that cigarette smoke has harmful particulates which linger in the air and are breathed in by children.

 Educational campaigns and awareness raising are a crucial part in changing behaviour and the bill isn’t a criticism of this campaign. Rather legislation alongside future and existing educational campaigns is the best possible means of achieving its objectives of making everyone aware of the health risks of smoking in cars with children and of urging responsible behaviour. Efforts to encourage seatbelt use in cars were most successful when legislation was introduced. According to World Health Organisation figures, seatbelt wearing rates increased in the UK from 25% to 91% after legislation was introduced alongside awareness campaigns.

 The Smoke-Free Private Vehicles Bill is a public health bill, aimed at protecting children. It isn’t here to stigmatise smokers, chip away at our civil liberties or promote a nanny state. What is more important to you, the freedom to smoke in your car when a child is present, or the freedom being given back to children who will no longer be forced to breathe in second-hand smoke? The way we protect children will of course continue to be debated. But let’s not lose sight as to why we need to protect children: they’re vulnerable; they’re unable to speak for themselves; they’re buckled into the car without anywhere to go and the damage done by second-hand smoke will stay with a child their entire life. Safeguarding the health of our children is one of most important responsibilities as a society and if legislation and education can offer the best possible chance of this, it would be neglectful of us not to pursue these options.

Clerks cited for selling tobacco to minors

North Carolina wants tobacco vendors to pay better attention to the ages of their customers. State Alcohol Law Enforcement announced Monday that they had issued citations for underage sales to 243 store clerks in more than 1,800 random enforcement checks, conducted across 90 counties last year. The Raleigh district office of ALE issued 30 citations after checking 299 establishments. The office is responsible for 10 counties, including Wake, Durham, Orange and Chatham.

“We’re trying to curb underage tobacco purchases and make sure retail outlets are following the law,” ALE Director John Ledford said in a news release. “Many of the retail outlets followed the law and did not sell to a minor, and we commend them for their diligence.” Clerks are penalized when they either fail to request an ID from customers or sell tobacco products after seeing that a patron is younger than 18. A citation, assuming the clerk has no prior convictions, can result in up to 30 days of community service and a fine up to $1,000.

A clerk with prior convictions could serve time in jail. Compliance checks are conducted randomly throughout the year by having an underage person attempt to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products at the establishment, with one ALE agent stationed inside the facility and another outside, said Patty McQuillan, communications officer for the Department of Public Safety. The minors are generally relatives of law enforcement officials from ALE and local agencies. This year’s numbers bring the statewide citation rate to 12 percent, a 2-point decline from the previous year. Citation rates have declined steadily from 49 percent in 1997, the year ALE became the lead agency for tobacco enforcement.

Smoking bans and the home-rule muddle in Indiana

A game of let's pretend when it comes to the state giving up control. Most of us were so focused on the heat wave and power outage Sunday that we let a new Indiana law sneak in on almost unnoticed. July 1 was the effective date of the statewide public smoking ban. Hooray for the public health. But it wasn’t much of a reason to celebrate, alas, for those who value common sense and coherence when comes to the state’s approach to home rule. If you’re keeping score, there are now both a statewide smoking ban and a Fort Wayne smoking ban.

If you live in Allen County, come to think of it, you have a third ban to deal with, because county government came with its own rules. Do we really have to follow all the bans? Yes. But how do we do that when there are contradictory provisions in all three? It’s really simple, although you might want to have a lawyer accompany you at all times just to be sure: Whichever provision is stricter is the one that must be followed. The state law has an exemption for private clubs, for example, while the city ordinance does not. In that case, the city ordinance applies: No smoking in private clubs.

On the other hand, the city allows a small percentage of hotel rooms to be set aside for smokers, but the state bans smoking in all hotel rooms, so the state law kicks in here: No smoking in hotel rooms. The cumulative effect of the “apply the stricter rule” principle is that public smoking is forbidden in more and more places. That’s the “hooray for public health” part. But it’s also the “incoherent home rule” part, because this mix-and-match-the-provisions process makes a complete hash of the very notion of a logical division of power. Well, that’s not precisely true. State officials talk a good home-rule game – they know local control is growing in popularity.

But they don’t really want to give up power, so they grant communities autonomy only reluctantly. And, as often as not, they soon take away some authority elsewhere just to keep things even in the classic one-step-forward, two-steps back strategy. The division of powers is a game of let’s pretend, with no one admitting the state’s still very much in charge. That’s too bad. Some things need statewide control. Pollution, for example, does not stop at the county line. And how bizarre it would be for an act that constitutes murder in one county to be considered a misdemeanor in another. But most things are best dealt with by local officials who have the most knowledge of their communities’ needs and their constituents’ wishes. A good project would be to identify all those areas and cut them off from state influence, cementing home rule on them for all time.

Decriminalise Ganja Smoking Now

This is unacceptable and unfair. There are persons who are pastors who have smoked ganja but, fortunately, they were not caught or, if caught, were only reprimanded. The world would be worse off without these pastors, and Jamaica is losing useful human resources through these draconian and outdated laws. In the United States (US), three presidents have admitted drug use, though William Clinton did not inhale.

Imagine the loss to the US without them. It seems unfair that it is people from poor backgrounds who normally get caught and convicted for use of small amounts of ganja. The criminal act should be reserved for those who cultivate ganja, push ganja sales and export ganja in large quantities. And those who are caught using it in small quantities - whether for smoking or cooking - should be fined only, perhaps $500 or some figure that is similar to that charged for failing to testify at a commission of enquiry.

Concomitantly, there should be a punishment of community service for those who cannot pay the fine, and a compulsory participation in a drug-rehabilitation programme. This new direction should be supported with a public-education campaign concerning ganja smoking.

LAB STUDY SHOWS PROMISE FOR SMOKING VACCINE

Kool cigarettes blog and articles: www.cigarettesflavours.com

If only smoking was as easy to quit as it was to begin. New research on a vaccine-like gene therapy shows that someday it could be. Using lab mice, a team in New York City conducted a study to see if they could find a way to prevent nicotine from reaching its target in the brain. They injected the mice with a gene that produces nicotine antibodies, which was then replicated in the animals’ livers.

“Once produced, the antibody connected with nicotine, trapping it and preventing it from making its way to the brain, where it would otherwise have caused the pleasurable, addictive effects it is so known for,” reports the Los Angeles Times. So just how effective was it? The mice that received the vaccine showed a 47-fold (!) drop in nicotine levels in their blood compared to ones who didn’t get it, which … is pretty darn amazing. While we’re still a long way off from the day such treatment is ready for humans, it sound promising. My lungs are happier already.

• Here’s something awesome that is ready for humans: an at-home HIV test, just approved by the FDA. The mouth swab can tell people if they’re HIV positive or negative in just 20 minutes. And it’s pretty accurate, too.

• A new Pennsylvania law aimed at decreasing head injuries in school-age athletes went into effect earlier this week. It compels coaches, parents and caregivers to respond immediately to kids with suspected concussions, and levies penalties against those who don’t.