New Jersey could become the only state in the country to prevent anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing tobacco products under a measure passed Monday by the state Senate.
The bill, backed by a super majority of senators, would levy a $500 fine against retailers who sell tobacco products or electronic cigarettes to those under 21. A second offense would carry a $1,000 fine.
Retail trade groups testified against the measure, which puts the onus on their members to check identifications, rather than on the minors who attempt to purchase cigarettes.
The Garden State already is one of the states with the highest smoking age in the country, 19. Three other states — Utah, Alaska and Alabama — also prohibit sales to anyone under 19.
Two localities, New York City and Hawaii County, Hawaii, have prohibited anyone under 21 from purchasing tobacco products. Now, states are following suit. Utah and Colorado are also debating measures that would raise the smoking age to 21. Both states advanced their own bans in February.
Both measures would take effect in several years, effectively grandfathering in anyone over 18 who already smokes. The Utah bill would take effect in 2016, while the Colorado measure would be implemented in 2017.
Health officials believe raising the minimum age for purchasing tobacco products can substantially cut down on smoking rates. Researchers say 90 percent of regular smokers in the United States have their first cigarettes before they turn 18, and 90 percent of cigarettes obtained by underage smokers are purchased by those between 18 and 20 years old.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 4, 2014
Friday, June 13, 2014
Survey finds concerns over secondhand smoke
A new survey of Tulare County tenants shows support for more protections from secondhand smoke in multi-unit housing, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency announced Wednesday. The survey, done for the American Lung Association in California in April, found that the majority of tenants surveyed favor rules prohibiting smoking in outdoor common areas of complexes (70 percent) and inside apartment units (66 percent). Despite these findings, only 43 percent of Tulare County tenants report currently living in a building with any rules limiting smoking.
Breathing secondhand smoke in multi-unit buildings is a health problem because smoke drifts from neighboring units, patios, balconies and outdoor common areas through open windows, doors and shared ventilation systems. Survey results indicate almost 28 percent of tenants in Tulare County have experienced secondhand smoke drifting into their unit.
“Drifting secondhand smoke is a real health hazard and this survey shows that residents across our county are highly aware of this fact. So looking at these results, it is not surprising that so many tenants want to be protected from secondhand smoke exposure in their homes,” said Dr. Karen Haught, Tulare County Health Officer.
According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a “Toxic Air Contaminant” in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic, all of which can lead to serious illness and death. Restricting smoking in multi-unit housing will protect residents from exposure to a toxic air contaminant, result in financial benefits to landlords and owners through reduced maintenance and turnover costs, and improve the community’s health.
“People should feel safe in their own homes. Yet it is alarming that many residents of Tulare County are experiencing drifting secondhand smoke where they live,” said Kimberly Amazeen, vice president, Programs & Advocacy, American Lung Association in California. “To ensure the health of these tenants, more must be done to give them the protections they need from secondhand smoke.”
The Tulare County Public Health Department is working with residents who want to live in smoke-free environments as well as owners and managers, joining more than 55 municipalities throughout California already addressing the health needs of multi-unit housing tenants.
Tulare County tenants were surveyed as part of polling by the American Lung Association in California for CA4Health, a project of the Public Health Institute funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The poll, conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, included tenants in 12 CA4Health counties: Calaveras, Humboldt, Imperial, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, Tulare, and Tuolumne. In Tulare Count, 154 people were surveyed.
Source: recorderonline.com
Breathing secondhand smoke in multi-unit buildings is a health problem because smoke drifts from neighboring units, patios, balconies and outdoor common areas through open windows, doors and shared ventilation systems. Survey results indicate almost 28 percent of tenants in Tulare County have experienced secondhand smoke drifting into their unit.
“Drifting secondhand smoke is a real health hazard and this survey shows that residents across our county are highly aware of this fact. So looking at these results, it is not surprising that so many tenants want to be protected from secondhand smoke exposure in their homes,” said Dr. Karen Haught, Tulare County Health Officer.
According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a “Toxic Air Contaminant” in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic, all of which can lead to serious illness and death. Restricting smoking in multi-unit housing will protect residents from exposure to a toxic air contaminant, result in financial benefits to landlords and owners through reduced maintenance and turnover costs, and improve the community’s health.
“People should feel safe in their own homes. Yet it is alarming that many residents of Tulare County are experiencing drifting secondhand smoke where they live,” said Kimberly Amazeen, vice president, Programs & Advocacy, American Lung Association in California. “To ensure the health of these tenants, more must be done to give them the protections they need from secondhand smoke.”
The Tulare County Public Health Department is working with residents who want to live in smoke-free environments as well as owners and managers, joining more than 55 municipalities throughout California already addressing the health needs of multi-unit housing tenants.
Tulare County tenants were surveyed as part of polling by the American Lung Association in California for CA4Health, a project of the Public Health Institute funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The poll, conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, included tenants in 12 CA4Health counties: Calaveras, Humboldt, Imperial, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, Tulare, and Tuolumne. In Tulare Count, 154 people were surveyed.
Source: recorderonline.com
Friday, May 16, 2014
NY Senate debating public ban on e-cigarettes
State lawmakers are considering whether to include electronic cigarettes in the state's indoor public smoking ban. The Senate Health Committee panel heard testimony Monday from health experts who said that the nicotine liquid and the vapor e-cigarettes produce could be hazardous to both consumers and the public.
The state's Clean Indoor Air Act prohibits smoking traditional cigarettes in nearly all workplaces in the state. Proponents of the ban hope that e-cigarettes will also be included, as they are in New York City as of late last month. Research hasn't yet produced a definitive answer on whether secondhand vapor is a threat to the public, but health experts believe that e-cigarette companies are marketing to teenagers and young adults with flavors like cherry, chocolate and gummy bear.
"Federal law recognizes that the purpose of these flavorings is to addict children to nicotine and create a new generation of tobacco users," said Dr. Harlan Juster, director of the health department's bureau of tobacco control.
Sen. Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat, said he has seen e-cigarettes with the image of Hello Kitty, a cartoon cat. According to the state health department, only 12 percent of high school-age kids reported having smoked a cigarette within 30 days in a 2012 survey, down from 27 percent in 2000. The health department says 88 percent of adult smokers began before the age of 18.
E-cigarettes are marketed as safer than regular cigarettes and a transitional measure to bypass quitting cold turkey, but still contain nicotine, the addictive ingredient in traditional cigarettes. Medical and public health professionals have seen no evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers quit, according to Lawrence Eisenstein, president of the state Association of County Health Officials.
Lawmakers also heard from opponents who said the ban would infringe on the rights of business owners. "The Association sees this as another attempt by government to dictate how New Yorkers run their business," said Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.
Opponents suggest waiting for the Food and Drug administration's review of e-cigarettes before any legislation banning indoor smoking of e-cigarettes is enacted.
Source: Poststar
The state's Clean Indoor Air Act prohibits smoking traditional cigarettes in nearly all workplaces in the state. Proponents of the ban hope that e-cigarettes will also be included, as they are in New York City as of late last month. Research hasn't yet produced a definitive answer on whether secondhand vapor is a threat to the public, but health experts believe that e-cigarette companies are marketing to teenagers and young adults with flavors like cherry, chocolate and gummy bear.
"Federal law recognizes that the purpose of these flavorings is to addict children to nicotine and create a new generation of tobacco users," said Dr. Harlan Juster, director of the health department's bureau of tobacco control.
Sen. Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat, said he has seen e-cigarettes with the image of Hello Kitty, a cartoon cat. According to the state health department, only 12 percent of high school-age kids reported having smoked a cigarette within 30 days in a 2012 survey, down from 27 percent in 2000. The health department says 88 percent of adult smokers began before the age of 18.
E-cigarettes are marketed as safer than regular cigarettes and a transitional measure to bypass quitting cold turkey, but still contain nicotine, the addictive ingredient in traditional cigarettes. Medical and public health professionals have seen no evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers quit, according to Lawrence Eisenstein, president of the state Association of County Health Officials.
Lawmakers also heard from opponents who said the ban would infringe on the rights of business owners. "The Association sees this as another attempt by government to dictate how New Yorkers run their business," said Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.
Opponents suggest waiting for the Food and Drug administration's review of e-cigarettes before any legislation banning indoor smoking of e-cigarettes is enacted.
Source: Poststar
Friday, April 18, 2014
Smoking Ban Faces Opposition
The smoke will soon be clearing from the corners of campus due to the recent progression of UVM’s smoke-free initiative. “I’m indifferent on the matter, but I can imagine that there’s going to be quite a few disgruntled smokers when that ban comes into play next year,” sophomore Abigail Earle said.
The University’s current goal is for campus to be fully tobacco-free by Jan. 1, 2015, according to their website. The University is going tobacco-free in an attempt to create a “healthier” environment for students, according to their website.
The goal is also to “protect” both smokers and non-smokers from the various health risks that both first and second hand smoking can experience, according to an email to students from Tom Gustafson and Jan Carney April 14. Gustafson is vice president of University Relations and Carney is associate dean of public health.
Despite this concern, many smokers remain “irked” by the prospect of not being able to “light up” whenever they wish.“I think it’s kind of futile, I mean I am a smoker, so I am not too happy about it obviously,” senior Jesse Arnaud said. “In New York they have a smoking ban there in beaches and parks and it doesn’t really work too well.”
Pharmacology professor Karen Lounsbury said she is “hesitant” to promote the ban be- cause she feels that “people should have the right to do what is legal.” She went on to say she believes that imposing the smoke-free ban on the whole campus “seems a bit impractical.” Lounsbury has been teaching cigarette toxicology at UVM since 1998.
“I think that the money going into the ban would be better spent on a health awareness campaign which informs students on the potential side effects of smoking rather than an outright ban,” she said.
The health concern comes from reports that 26 percent of UVM students who currently smoke started the habit after living on-campus, according to the University Benefit Advisory Council. Cigarette tar can cause immediate effects such as bronchitis and chronic heart disease, as well as long term effects caused by the mutations of cells which leads to lung cancer,” Lounsbury said.
Second hand smoke can also be “hazardous” to health, she said. Several students have com- plained about being subjected to this second hand smoke while walking across campus.“I’m very much against second hand smoke, and hate being caught behind a smoker on my way to class,” first-year Leah Ricitelli said.
While a smoke-free campus may benefit stu- dent health,it is also attractive to environmentalists.“It would be great to be able to walk through a rainstorm and not see a river of cigarette butts wash by and go right into the storm drain,” senior Matt Gargiulo said.
Source: http://www.vermontcynic.com
The University’s current goal is for campus to be fully tobacco-free by Jan. 1, 2015, according to their website. The University is going tobacco-free in an attempt to create a “healthier” environment for students, according to their website.
The goal is also to “protect” both smokers and non-smokers from the various health risks that both first and second hand smoking can experience, according to an email to students from Tom Gustafson and Jan Carney April 14. Gustafson is vice president of University Relations and Carney is associate dean of public health.
Despite this concern, many smokers remain “irked” by the prospect of not being able to “light up” whenever they wish.“I think it’s kind of futile, I mean I am a smoker, so I am not too happy about it obviously,” senior Jesse Arnaud said. “In New York they have a smoking ban there in beaches and parks and it doesn’t really work too well.”
Pharmacology professor Karen Lounsbury said she is “hesitant” to promote the ban be- cause she feels that “people should have the right to do what is legal.” She went on to say she believes that imposing the smoke-free ban on the whole campus “seems a bit impractical.” Lounsbury has been teaching cigarette toxicology at UVM since 1998.
“I think that the money going into the ban would be better spent on a health awareness campaign which informs students on the potential side effects of smoking rather than an outright ban,” she said.
The health concern comes from reports that 26 percent of UVM students who currently smoke started the habit after living on-campus, according to the University Benefit Advisory Council. Cigarette tar can cause immediate effects such as bronchitis and chronic heart disease, as well as long term effects caused by the mutations of cells which leads to lung cancer,” Lounsbury said.
Second hand smoke can also be “hazardous” to health, she said. Several students have com- plained about being subjected to this second hand smoke while walking across campus.“I’m very much against second hand smoke, and hate being caught behind a smoker on my way to class,” first-year Leah Ricitelli said.
While a smoke-free campus may benefit stu- dent health,it is also attractive to environmentalists.“It would be great to be able to walk through a rainstorm and not see a river of cigarette butts wash by and go right into the storm drain,” senior Matt Gargiulo said.
Source: http://www.vermontcynic.com
Friday, February 21, 2014
Colorado and Utah to raise smoking age to 21
A proposal to raise the tobacco age to 21 in Colorado is up for its first review in the state Legislature.
The bipartisan bill would make Colorado the first with a statewide
21-to-smoke law. It's before the House Health, Insurance, and
Environment Committee Thursday afternoon.
People who are currently between the ages of 18 and 20 would be grandfathered in, meaning the measure wouldn't be fully implemented until today's 17-year-olds are 21.
It's not clear how many of Colorado's current smokers are younger than 21. However, a paper published last year in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine said that 9 out of 10 daily smokers have their first cigarette by 18 years of age.
A Senate committee has approved a bill raising the age Utah young people can legally buy cigarettes from 19 to 21. The Senate Health and Human Services committee voted 4-1 on Thursday to approve the measure. It now advances to the full Senate. Ogden Republican Sen. Stuart Reid sponsors the bill and says it may prevent young people from getting addicted to tobacco.
Opponents say the bill infringes on the freedom of young adults. Utah is one of a handful of states that ban sales for those under 19 years old, instead of 18. Reid's bill could make Utah the first state in the country to raise the age to 21.
People who are currently between the ages of 18 and 20 would be grandfathered in, meaning the measure wouldn't be fully implemented until today's 17-year-olds are 21.
It's not clear how many of Colorado's current smokers are younger than 21. However, a paper published last year in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine said that 9 out of 10 daily smokers have their first cigarette by 18 years of age.
A Senate committee has approved a bill raising the age Utah young people can legally buy cigarettes from 19 to 21. The Senate Health and Human Services committee voted 4-1 on Thursday to approve the measure. It now advances to the full Senate. Ogden Republican Sen. Stuart Reid sponsors the bill and says it may prevent young people from getting addicted to tobacco.
Opponents say the bill infringes on the freedom of young adults. Utah is one of a handful of states that ban sales for those under 19 years old, instead of 18. Reid's bill could make Utah the first state in the country to raise the age to 21.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Altria Q4 Profit Falls as Cigarette Sales Decrease
Altria Group's fourth-quarter profit dropped 56% as the Marlboro maker sold fewer cigarettes and recorded charges related to paying off debt early. Its adjusted earnings and revenue narrowly missed Wall Street expectations, and its shares slipped in premarket trading.
The owner of the nation's biggest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, posted earnings Thursday of $488 million, or $0.24 per share. That's down from $1.1 billion, or $0.55 a share, in the year-ago period. Excluding one-time items, earnings were $0.57 per share, missing Wall Street expectations by a penny.
Altria Group, based in Richmond, Va., said that revenue, excluding excise taxes, fell 1% to $4.4 billion as higher prices helped offset a decline in volumes. Analysts polled by FactSet expected $4.5 billion. The company also said Thursday it expects 2014 full-year adjusted earnings between $2.52 and $2.59 per share. Analysts expect $2.57 per share.
Cigarette volumes fell about 6% to 31.8 billion cigarettes compared with a year ago. Adjusting for trade inventory changes, cigarette volumes fell 4%, on par with the total industry decline.
Marlboro volumes fell 5.7%, while volume for its other premium brands fell by more than 11%, and volumes for discount cigarette brands like L&M increased 2%. Its share of the U.S. retail market rose 0.3 percentage points to 50.7%. Marlboro's share of the U.S. market rose 0.2 percentage points to 43.7%.
The Marlboro brand has been under pressure from competitors and lower-priced cigarette brands amid economic uncertainty and high unemployment.
That's on top of the tax hikes, smoking bans and a social stigma that have made the cigarette business tougher. Altria and others are focusing on cigarette alternatives -- such as electronic cigarettes, cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco -- for future sales growth because the decline in cigarette smoking is expected to continue.
Volumes of Altria's smokeless tobacco brands such as Copenhagen and Skoal fell 4.3% from a year ago. Adjusting for one less shipping day and trade inventory changes, Altria says its smokeless volumes grew about 5%. For the quarter, the company's smokeless tobacco brands had about 55% of the market, though smokeless tobacco is a tiny market compared with cigarettes.
Volumes for its Black & Mild cigars rose 8.5% during the quarter. Altria Group also owns a wine business, holds a voting stake in brewer SABMiller, and has a financial services division.
Source: http://www.fool.com
The owner of the nation's biggest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, posted earnings Thursday of $488 million, or $0.24 per share. That's down from $1.1 billion, or $0.55 a share, in the year-ago period. Excluding one-time items, earnings were $0.57 per share, missing Wall Street expectations by a penny.
Altria Group, based in Richmond, Va., said that revenue, excluding excise taxes, fell 1% to $4.4 billion as higher prices helped offset a decline in volumes. Analysts polled by FactSet expected $4.5 billion. The company also said Thursday it expects 2014 full-year adjusted earnings between $2.52 and $2.59 per share. Analysts expect $2.57 per share.
Cigarette volumes fell about 6% to 31.8 billion cigarettes compared with a year ago. Adjusting for trade inventory changes, cigarette volumes fell 4%, on par with the total industry decline.
Marlboro volumes fell 5.7%, while volume for its other premium brands fell by more than 11%, and volumes for discount cigarette brands like L&M increased 2%. Its share of the U.S. retail market rose 0.3 percentage points to 50.7%. Marlboro's share of the U.S. market rose 0.2 percentage points to 43.7%.
The Marlboro brand has been under pressure from competitors and lower-priced cigarette brands amid economic uncertainty and high unemployment.
That's on top of the tax hikes, smoking bans and a social stigma that have made the cigarette business tougher. Altria and others are focusing on cigarette alternatives -- such as electronic cigarettes, cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco -- for future sales growth because the decline in cigarette smoking is expected to continue.
Volumes of Altria's smokeless tobacco brands such as Copenhagen and Skoal fell 4.3% from a year ago. Adjusting for one less shipping day and trade inventory changes, Altria says its smokeless volumes grew about 5%. For the quarter, the company's smokeless tobacco brands had about 55% of the market, though smokeless tobacco is a tiny market compared with cigarettes.
Volumes for its Black & Mild cigars rose 8.5% during the quarter. Altria Group also owns a wine business, holds a voting stake in brewer SABMiller, and has a financial services division.
Source: http://www.fool.com
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Michael Fine: City's historic tobacco ban helps youth
Rhode Island may be the smallest state but we do big things. We are trendsetters in the Tobacco Control Movement. Rhode Island has the second highest cigarette excise tax, the third lowest youth smoking rate and now, our capital city has put Rhode Island on the map once again.
Providence has made major history in the fight against the tobacco industry. Providence has put Rhode Island on the map. In a landmark decision handed down recently, the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Providence’s anti-tobacco laws prohibiting the sale of fruit-flavored tobacco products and eliminating the use of promotional discounting strategies usually aimed at kids, such as buy-one, get-one.
Thanks to a grassroots network of organizations that includes Tobacco Free Providence, the Providence Mayor’s Substance Abuse Prevention Council and the City of Providence Healthy Communities Office, fewer youth will have access to the deluge of new candy-flavored and inexpensive tobacco products.
Flavored cigars, in particular, have exploded in popularity among our kids. National surveys show high-school students are twice as likely as adults to report smoking cigars in the past month, and young adults (ages 18-24) smoke cigars at even higher rates (15.9 percent).
Despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ban on flavored cigarettes in 2009, the tobacco industry continued to market sweet-flavored products to attract teenagers. Flavored cigarettes were simply modified to fit the legal definition of “cigars” by adding a tobacco leaf wrapper. Dissolvable forms of tobacco make it easier to conceal its use. All of these products, despite their colorful and attractive labels, threaten the public’s health.
Knowing that a high price tag also helps keep tobacco products out of the hands of kids, Providence commendably went a step further. Eliminating price promotions, such as the use of coupons, will keep prices high and Providence teenagers from becoming replacements for the tobacco industry’s dying customers. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, “Reducing Tobacco Use,” found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, particularly among kids and young adults with limited financial means.
The court’s decision has national significance. The ruling allows for similar laws to be passed in other cities, towns, and states. It is an important victory in the fight against a Goliath-sized enemy and paves the way for our struggle against binge drinking, gun violence, and diabetes and heart disease caused by poor nutrition and inadequate exercise. We can improve people’s health and strengthen our democracy even in the face of big marketing and expensive lawyers.
I commend Providence, the organizations that fought for the passage of these laws and the community that supported it. There is still much work to be done across the state at the retail point of sale and also on an environmental level.
Promoting smoke-free public places, such as beaches, parks, recreational areas and college campuses, reduces secondhand-smoke exposure and makes it more difficult to find places to smoke. I encourage all Rhode Island cities and towns to learn more about the benefits of healthy policy changes at the local level.
Source: http://www.providencejournal.com
Providence has made major history in the fight against the tobacco industry. Providence has put Rhode Island on the map. In a landmark decision handed down recently, the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Providence’s anti-tobacco laws prohibiting the sale of fruit-flavored tobacco products and eliminating the use of promotional discounting strategies usually aimed at kids, such as buy-one, get-one.
Thanks to a grassroots network of organizations that includes Tobacco Free Providence, the Providence Mayor’s Substance Abuse Prevention Council and the City of Providence Healthy Communities Office, fewer youth will have access to the deluge of new candy-flavored and inexpensive tobacco products.
Flavored cigars, in particular, have exploded in popularity among our kids. National surveys show high-school students are twice as likely as adults to report smoking cigars in the past month, and young adults (ages 18-24) smoke cigars at even higher rates (15.9 percent).
Despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ban on flavored cigarettes in 2009, the tobacco industry continued to market sweet-flavored products to attract teenagers. Flavored cigarettes were simply modified to fit the legal definition of “cigars” by adding a tobacco leaf wrapper. Dissolvable forms of tobacco make it easier to conceal its use. All of these products, despite their colorful and attractive labels, threaten the public’s health.
Knowing that a high price tag also helps keep tobacco products out of the hands of kids, Providence commendably went a step further. Eliminating price promotions, such as the use of coupons, will keep prices high and Providence teenagers from becoming replacements for the tobacco industry’s dying customers. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, “Reducing Tobacco Use,” found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, particularly among kids and young adults with limited financial means.
The court’s decision has national significance. The ruling allows for similar laws to be passed in other cities, towns, and states. It is an important victory in the fight against a Goliath-sized enemy and paves the way for our struggle against binge drinking, gun violence, and diabetes and heart disease caused by poor nutrition and inadequate exercise. We can improve people’s health and strengthen our democracy even in the face of big marketing and expensive lawyers.
I commend Providence, the organizations that fought for the passage of these laws and the community that supported it. There is still much work to be done across the state at the retail point of sale and also on an environmental level.
Promoting smoke-free public places, such as beaches, parks, recreational areas and college campuses, reduces secondhand-smoke exposure and makes it more difficult to find places to smoke. I encourage all Rhode Island cities and towns to learn more about the benefits of healthy policy changes at the local level.
Source: http://www.providencejournal.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)