Electronic cigarettes set to light up our lives

In a world where everything is set to become faster, cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and digital or electronic to boot, how can this possibly affect cigarette smoking, I hear you ask? Well actually, it is a far more environmentally-friendly option to consider. 

An electronic cigarette is an alternative to the cigarette, providing small amounts of the chemical nicotine with each inhalation. The device takes the form of a tiny rod which is slightly longer than a normal cigarette. The mouthpiece of the device contains a replaceable cartridge filled with liquid. The main substances contained in the liquid are nicotine, propylene glycol, and is enhanced with optional flavours or aromas. When the user inhales through the device, the air flow is detected by a sensor. 

A microprocessor then activates an atomizer, which injects tiny droplets of the liquid into the flowing air and vaporises the nicotine. This produces a vapour mist which is inhaled by the user. The addition of propylene glycol to the liquid makes the mist better resemble normal cigarette smoke. The microprocessor also activates an orange light emitting diode, or LED, at the tip to simulate real smoking. Electronic cigarettes generally use a rechargeable battery as a power source. Battery life varies between devices, with some lasting a day between charges, and others lasting a week. 

Cartridges for electronic cigarettes are usually offered in a variety of formulations, with different flavours, namely fruit, mint, and coffee, and nicotine concentrations. At the upper range of nicotine concentrations, electronic cigarette smoking is equivalent in nicotine delivery to average tobacco cigarettes. Most companies also offer a range of milder options, including completely nicotine-free cartridges. Depending on the device, the solution cartridges are good for between one hundred to six hundred inhalations. An empty cartridge can be replaced with a new cartridge or it can be refilled with solution. This solution is sometimes called e-liquid and is often sold in bottles of ten millilitres. 

Electronic cigarettes are generally considered to be a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking, since most of the harmful materials produced by the combustion of tobacco in traditional cigarettes is not present in the atomised liquid of an electronic cigarette. They can also be used as a way to curtail an addiction to nicotine. Various toxicological studies of the electronic cigarettes have been conducted, with some concluding that electronic cigarettes are less harmful than traditional tobacco cigarettes, because they can deliver nicotine into the lungs without the carcinogens and toxicants. Nevertheless, the device still delivers nicotine. 

With all the negative publicity surrounding the act or smoking, including a “Smoking Kills” campaign around the world, the emphasis on providing a healthier option, especially amongst teenagers is becoming a top priority. The electronic cigarette may well lead the way towards this end. The upside of this is that anyone can light up now, among family and friends who are non-smokers, and be socially acceptable at the same time. In the United Kingdom, electronic cigarette use is currently unrestricted, with celebrity nightclub “Chinawhite” allowing use of the devices indoors, where traditional cigarette smoking is prohibited.

Bar workers who smoke also benefit from smoking ban

The health of bar workers, who actively smoke cigarettes, significantly improves after the introduction of a smoking ban, reveals research published ahead of print in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The findings are based on 371 bar workers from 72 Scottish bars, whose symptoms and lung function were assessed before the implementation of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, and then two and 12 months afterwards. 

In all, 191 workers underwent all three assessments, and the proportion reporting any respiratory symptoms fell from 69% to 57% after one year. The proportion of those with sensory symptoms (runny nose, red eyes, sore throat) also fell from 75% to 64%. 

Among non-smokers the proportion of those with phlegm and red eyes fell, respectively, from 32% to 14%, and from 44% to 18%. 

But the effects were also seen among those who continued to smoke themselves. The proportions of smokers reporting wheeze fell from almost half (48%) to one in three (31%), and those reporting breathlessness fell from 42% to 29%. 

The authors conclude that their findings reinforce the benefits on health of a smoking ban in public places, but they also show that those who continue to smoke also stand to gain. 

It is thought that the ban may have boosted the numbers of smokers indulging their habit at home, so exposing their children to greater levels of environmental tobacco smoke. More attention now needs to be paid to this, the authors warn. 

Source: British Medical Journal

Dangers of 'reduced-harm' cigarettes

For many years, thousands of Australians smoked “light” and “mild” cigarettes in the belief they were consuming products that were less harmful than regular brands. The evidence, however, showed that smoking “light” and “mild” cigarettes was just as harmful as consuming regular brands. In 2005, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission determined that the promotion of “light” and “mild” cigarettes was misleading and ordered that such brands be withdrawn from sale and that the tobacco industry fund compensatory advertising for its deceptive conduct.

Despite the experience of “light” and “mild” brands, the tobacco industry continues to claim that it is developing cigarettes that are less harmful, with some of these products already available overseas. There is insufficient regulation to prevent so-called “reduced-harm” cigarettes from becoming available in Australia.

This position statement summarises the evidence that shows there is no such thing as an independently verified “reduced-harm” cigarette. It includes key recommendations for helping to ensure Australians are not misled into consuming “reduced-harm” cigarettes, including the need for government to establish a mechanism to ensure that any communication about cigarettes – including about their contents or emissions – is evidence-based, complete and in the public interest.

Tobacco Firms Sponsor College Fraternity Parties

Tobacco companies have found a new way to promote their products -- sponsoring parties at fraternities, the Fresno Bee reported May 22. 

At California State University, Fresno, the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, a maker of snuff and chewing tobacco, has held promotional giveaways at fraternity parties. According to state records on tobacco-marketing activities, the company handed out free samples of their products at five parties so far this year, and 16 last year.

"It's an effective way to get young people hooked, and that's why the tobacco industry is doing it," said Susan Pearman, program manager for Individual Mentors and Peers Advocating to Control Tobacco, a Fresno health-education project aimed at preventing young adults from becoming tobacco users.

University officials said the promotions at the off-campus fraternities aren't illegal and the school has no authority to stop them.

"The university can't impose guidelines or restrictions on fraternity social events. We can take action against a group for misconduct at an event, but we do not regulate the structure or format or sponsorship of an event," said Connan Campbell, Greek system adviser at Fresno State.

Health officials are monitoring tobacco's fraternity sponsorship and hope to encourage students to stop them. But fraternity members counter that there is no difference between a tobacco company sponsoring a party and a beer distributor. They argue that they are adults and are aware of the dangers associated with addiction to nicotine.

In addition to U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, Philip Morris USA has agreed to voluntarily inform the state when it plans to sponsor activities at California fraternities or bars that cater to a younger adult clientele. This year, the two companies combined are holding 1,200 promotions. Other cigarette companies have not voluntary disclosed their marketing plans to the state.

Cigarette sales decline in Virginia

As Gov. Timothy M. Kaine seeks to double the state’s tax on cigarettes to get more money for health care, state statistics show that cigarette sales declined after the previous two rounds of tax increases.
State tax officials note that other factors, including anti- smoking campaigns and societal changes in smoking habits, also may have contributed to the decline.
Cigarette packs sold in Virginia in fiscal years 2004-2007 decreased from 719.6 million in 2004 to 617 million in 2005 to 597 million in 2006 and to 581 million in 2007.
The state tax on a pack of cigarettes went from 2.5 cents a pack to 20 cents a pack on Sept. 1, 2004, as part of then-Gov. Mark R. Warner’s $1.4 billion tax increase. It then went to 30 cents a pack on July 1, 2005.
Kaine is proposing to increase the state tax to 60 cents a pack on July 1. He estimates that doubling the state cigarette tax would generate an extra $155 million a year to help offset state costs in Medicaid. The state’s cigarette tax revenues were $168 million in fiscal 2007, down from $172 million in the preceding year.
Del. Harry R. Purkey, R-Virginia Beach, chairman of the House Finance Committee, says the panel likely will take up Kaine’s proposed tax increase this week. He rated its chances as iffy.
While he hasn’t polled the committee’s members, Purkey said, “I think it has a difficult chance of passing. It has some supporters, but there is an awful lot of opposition from the public as well as the business community.“
“Virginia’s current cigarette excise tax covers less than half the $400 million in Medicaid costs that smoking creates,“ Kaine said Jan. 14 in his State of the Commonwealth Address.
“I believe that the taxes on smoking should more closely match the budget costs that Virginia taxpayers incur because of smoking.“
Bill Phelps, spokesman for Richmond-based Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, said cigarette sales nationally have been declining 2 percent to 3 percent a year for the last 10 years. The decline in Virginia has been about 2 percent a year.
Asked if tax increases are the reason, Phelps said, “There are a lot of factors involved.“ He said some smokers are switching to smokeless tobacco products. Altria recently paid $10 billion for UST Inc., a major manufacturer of snuff.
The governor’s proposal comes as Congress prepares to again consider raising the federal tax on cigarettes by 61 cents a pack—from 39 cents to $1—to cover an additional 4 million children under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. President George W. Bush vetoed that increase in 2007.
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network says the federal tax increase “would prevent more than 900,000 smoking-related deaths and deter nearly 1.9 million U.S. children from becoming lifelong tobacco users.“
Kaine says that even with an increase to 60 cents a pack, Virginia’s state tax on cigarettes still would be about half the national average.
Altria and its Philip Morris subsidiary, one of the area’s largest employers, oppose the increase.
“We think it’s unfair to single out one industry to bear the tax burden, particularly here in Virginia where Altria is a major employer,“ Phelps said. Altria and Philip Morris employ more than 5,000 people, most in the Richmond area.
“This will have a negative impact not just on the manufacturers, but on retailers as well as tobacco growers,“ Phelps added.
According to an internal study prepared for Altria, states approved 57 excise tax increases between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal 2007. Only in 16 cases did the states’ tax revenues meet projections, the study showed.
Virginia projected a $63 million annual increase in revenue, but the actual increase was $10 million below that, the study showed.
State tax officials said, however, that manufacturers pre-purchased tax stamps before the September 2004 increase to avoid the higher tax, so the figures are not representative.
Including money that tobacco companies are paying the state in a tobacco settlement, Virginia realizes about $460 million a year from tobacco taxes, Phelps said.
Dave DeBiasi, a spokesman for the American Lung Association and other health organizations opposed to smoking, said Virginia’s economy is not likely to grind to a halt if the tax increase slows sales. More than 1.2 billion people smoke worldwide, he said.
His group, Virginians for a Healthy Future, is pushing for an 89 cents a pack increase in the state tax, which would bring Virginia up to the national average of $1.19 a pack. While applauding Kaine for his attempt to raise the tax, DeBiasi said 30 cents would not reduce consumption because the cigarette companies likely would absorb the increase.
But an increase of 89 cents per pack would motivate 43,000 Virginia smokers to quit and stop about 82,000 kids from starting the habit, he said.
The Harvard School of Public Health reported in June that “the apparent magnitude of the overall drop in tobacco use in the U.S. may be illusory” because while cigarette sales are dropping, sales of small cigars, roll-your-own tobacco products and moist snuff are rising.

UK Department of Health has announced certain ideas to reduce the number of people who smoke, like plain cigarette packets with no branding or logos, minimum pack sizes of 20 and a ban on the advertising of cigarette papers.

The new Department of Health consultation document 'The Future of Tobacco Control', which coincides with World No Tobacco Day, aims to start a debate around further measures that would stop people smoking and prevent young people starting to smoke. 
The ideas and proposals in the consultation include: 
* removing branding and logos from all tobacco packaging;
* having a minimum pack size of 20 - to stop young people, who can only afford packs of 10, buying cigarettes; 
* restricting access to cigarette vending machines by young people - whether by banning vending machines altogether or through systems that only allow adult purchase; 
* restricting the display of tobacco products in shops. which may include putting cigarettes under the counter; and 
* banning the advertising of smoking paraphernalia, such as cigarette papers.. 
The take up of smoking in young people is lower than a decade ago, but over 200,000 of all under 16's start smoking each year. As a result they are 3 times more likely to die of cancer due to smoking than someone who starts in their mid-20s. 
The four main themes laid out in the consultation are:
• protecting children and young people from smoking
• further reducing smoking rates and health inequalities caused by smoking
• helping smokers to quit
• helping those who cannot quit.
A new NHS Smokefree advertising campaign is also revealed for the first time today. It highlights to parents who smoke that children with smoking parents are three times more likely to become smokers than those with parents who are non-smokers.