Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

August 30th, 2015:

Shop quits selling tobacco products and backs youth ban

GOOD FIGHT: Lois Ireland in her shop on Flinders Island, where she has taken a stand against tobacco products. Picture: ROGER LOVELL

GOOD FIGHT: Lois Ireland in her shop on Flinders Island, where she has taken a stand against tobacco products. Picture: ROGER LOVELL

A TASMANIAN shopkeeper who stopped selling cigarettes after a customer died of lung cancer has urged the State Government to push ahead with a ban on selling tobacco to young people.

Lois Ireland, who owns a general store on Flinders Island, has become a lone voice among retailers desperate to protect their tobacco trade.

“I had never liked selling cigarettes, but when a customer died of lung cancer five years ago it was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Mrs Ireland, owner of the Bowman and Co general store at Whitemark.

Electronic cigarette nicotine delivery can exceed that of combustible cigarettes: a preliminary report


Introduction Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) aerosolise a liquid that usually contains propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerine, flavourants and the dependence-producing drug, nicotine, in various concentrations. This laboratory study examined the relationship between liquid nicotine concentration and plasma nicotine concentration and puffing behaviour in experienced ECIG users.

Methods Sixteen ECIG-experienced participants used a 3.3-Volt ECIG battery attached to a 1.5-Ohm dual-coil ‘cartomiser’ loaded with 1 mL of a flavoured propylene glycol/vegetable glycerine liquid to complete four sessions, at least 2 days apart, that differed by nicotine concentration (0, 8, 18 or 36 mg/mL). In each session, participants completed two 10-puff ECIG-use bouts (30 s puff interval) separated by 60 min. Venous blood was sampled to determine plasma nicotine concentration. Puff duration, volume and average flow rate were measured.

Results Immediately after bout 1, mean plasma nicotine concentration was 5.5 ng/mL (SD=7.7) for 0 mg/mL liquid, with significantly (p<0.05) higher mean concentrations observed for the 8 (mean=17.8 ng/mL, SD=14.6), 18 (mean=25.9 ng/mL, SD=17.5) and 36 mg/mL (mean=30.2 ng/mL; SD=20.0) concentrations; a similar pattern was observed for bout 2. For bout 1, at 36 mg/mL, the mean post- minus pre-bout difference was 24.1 ng/mL (SD=18.3). Puff topography data were consistent with previous results and revealed few reliable differences across conditions.

Discussion This study demonstrates a relationship between ECIG liquid nicotine concentration and user plasma nicotine concentration in experienced ECIG users. Nicotine delivery from some ECIGs may exceed that of a combustible cigarette. The rationale for this higher level of nicotine delivery is uncertain.

Dubai seizes 5 tonnes of bad tobacco

Dubai’s law enforcers seized nearly five tonnes of tobacco which do not carry dates of expiry and source of origin, newspapers reported on Sunday.

The stuff, worth around Dh500,000, was seized in raids ion 16 shops in various parts of the emirate as part of a crackdown on items that pose health hazards to the public.

Dubai’s Department of Economic Development launched the raids on many tobacco shops within a campaign to ensure they comply with local rules.

The tobacco impound at the 16 shops is used in pipes and it bags were found without expiry dates or any data on their contents or source of origin.

“We will continue these raids on tobacco and other shops because the safety of consumers is our top priority,” Ibrahim Bahzad, Director, Intellectual Property division at DED, told ‘Emarat Al Youm’ Arabic language daily.

7 Reasons E-Cigarettes Are Bad

Dieter Holger

E-cigarettes, also known as electronic cigarettes, have become a popular alternative to smoking the real deal, but the pros and cons of turning to this futuristic alternative are still under debate. Are e-cigarettes really any better than smoking a cigarette? Here are seven reasons e-cigarettes pose dangers to our health.

The effects of e-cigarettes are nowhere near as well-documented as cigarettes.

The e-cigarette industry is already worth billions of dollars, but there is nowhere near as much information on e-cigarettes as tobacco products. This should raise alarms, as the tobacco industry lived under a veil of scientific obscurity for decades until the detrimental health effects of cigarettes became well-known. Many people think e-cigarettes are a safer alternative, but that belief remains scientifically unproven, and evidence continues to come out saying e-cigarettes have toxic effects.

E-cigarettes contain plenty of cancerous chemicals.

By smoking e-cigarette vapor, people hope to avoid the cancerous chemicals inhaled from burning tobacco. Yet, e-cigarettes carry their fair share of toxic chemicals, too. Here’s a summary from the American Lung Association.

“In 2009, the FDA conducted lab tests and found detectable levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals, including an ingredient used in antifreeze, in two leading brands of e-cigarettes and 18 various cartridges. A 2014 study found that e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen. It is urgent for FDA to begin its regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, which would require ingredient disclosure to FDA, warning labels and youth access restrictions.”

Also, a 2013 study from the German Cancer Institute detected 8 different toxic chemicals in various e-cigarette liquids. And because the e-cigarette industry remains largely unregulated, the chemicals found in e-cigarettes aren’t uniform across the market. Some products may be less toxic than others, but without enough research or regulation it’s hard to know.

E-cigarettes are just as addictive as smoking tobacco.

E-cigarettes and tobacco products have the same highly addictive drug: nicotine. E-cigarettes derive nicotine from traditional cigarettes, delivering the same drug in a smokeless (vapor) form. In July, Daily Mail reported on a study by the American University of Beirut and the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products which demonstrated e-cigarettes contained highly addictive forms of nicotine. E-cigarettes might not have the same carcinogenic materials as cigarettes (like tar), but its nicotine still fosters addiction.

E-cigarettes have negative effects on lungs.

A supposed benefit of e-cigarettes is inhaling vapor instead of smoke. However, e-cigarette vapor is turning out to have a destructive effect on lungs. A recent July analysis by the University of Athens claimed that “using an e-cigarette caused an instant increase in airway resistance that lasted for 10 minutes.” Put simply, smoking e-cigarettes unhealthily constrains your airways.

Additionally, a study published in May by Indiana University showed that even nicotine-free e-cigarette vapor had damaging effects on the endothelial cells of the lungs. Endothelial cells protect the lungs from infections, so damaging them can’t be good for your immune system.

E-cigarettes won’t help you quit.

A lot of people vape e-cigarettes because they think it will help them kick their addiction. But recent research, including a comprehensive study by UC San Francisco, show that e-cigarettes don’t provide any extra help in quitting smoking. After surveying 849 smokers, the researchers found that users of e-cigarettes weren’t more likely to quit smoking.

“We found that there was no difference in the rate of quitting between smokers who used an e-cigarette and those who did not,” said head researcher Dr. Pamela Ling, a professor at the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UC San Francisco.

E-cigarettes might create the equivalent of secondhand smoke.

Even if you don’t smoke, avoiding smokers is good for your health. But the American Lung Association point out e-cigarettes can also create the equivalent of toxic secondhand smoke, secondhand vapor.

“Also unknown is what the potential harm may be to people exposed to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (all carcinogens) coming from those secondhand emissions. Other studies have shown that chemicals exhaled by users also contain formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other potential irritants. While there is a great deal more to learn about these products, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about, especially in the absence of FDA oversight.”

E-cigarettes could be a gateway into tobacco products for youth.

The tobacco industry spends millions of dollars advertising to youth, and it turns out e-cigarettes might be helping convince young people to smoke nicotine. Here’s a summary of studies from the American Lung Association.

“The American Lung Association is concerned about e-cigarettes becoming a gateway to regular cigarettes, especially in light of the aggressive industry marketing tactics targeted at youth—including the use of candy flavors and the glamorization of e-cigarette use. Studies are showing a dramatic increase in usage of e-cigarettes, especially among youth. For the first time ever, a national study released in December 2014 found e-cigarette use among teens exceeds traditional cigarette smoking. The study also found that e-cigarette use among 8th and 10th graders was double that of traditional cigarette smoking. CDC studies have also shown e-cigarette use among high school students increased by 61 percent from 2012 to 2013.”

Another study, conducted this August by the University of Southern California, found that teenagers who try e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke tobacco. The researchers sampled 2,500 9th graders who had never had smoked a cigarette, finding those who tried vaping e-cigarettes were 23 percent more likely to smoke a tobacco cigarette over those who had never tried an e-cig. On top of that, one-fourth of the surveyed youth who tried e-cigarettes admitted to smoking tobacco cigarettes within the last 6 months.

Blocking other countries’ anti-smoking efforts is wrong

The United States should not stand in the way of other countries trying to protect themselves from the No. 1 cause of preventable death.

But that’s just what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are demanding as the Obama administration negotiates the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Kentuckian McConnell and others in Congress are defending the continued use of trade agreements to block anti-smoking measures — and brandishing one of their all-time favorite political props: the American tobacco farmer.

It’s safe to assume, however, that their larger concern is the cigarette makers that pour millions of dollars into politics and have made McConnell the Senate’s leading recipient of tobacco-industry money.

McConnell and his allies insist that tobacco should be treated in trade deals like any other agricultural commodity and warn that allowing tobacco to be singled out will put other commodities and industries at risk in the future.

This logic has one big problem: Tobacco is not like any other agricultural commodity or, for that matter, any other legal product. Tobacco stands alone because, used as directed, it will kill you.

If current trends hold, in 15 years, a whopping 85 percent of the projected 8 million people who will die annually from tobacco-related diseases will be in poor or low-income countries, according to the World Health Organization.

The tobacco industry has moved aggressively into the developing world as Americans and Europeans shun smoking.

Luring customers with massive advertising campaigns, the industry also uses trade and investment agreements to beat back public health and education measures, such as warning labels and higher taxes, that have reduced smoking here.

Under past agreements, anti-smoking measures can be challenged and struck down as barriers to free trade.

The expensive prospect of tangling with the industry was enough to back down poor countries such as Togo and Namibia.

Even New Zealand and Canada retreated from tobacco regulations after trade litigation threats. And Australia is embroiled in defending its cigarette-packaging requirements in a legal dispute brought by Philip Morris International.

No wonder at least some of the 11 other TPP countries want an exclusion protecting their anti-smoking efforts from challenge under the trade agreement’s dispute-resolution clause.

McConnell, a TPP booster, has been successfully pushing against a tobacco exclusion and renewed his objections in a July 30 letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Like most trade deals, the TPP is being negotiated in secret, so the U.S. position is unclear. Politico has reported that the U.S. is open to a provision protecting antismoking regulations.

Let’s be clear: No one’s talking about limiting trade or tobacco exports, in leaf or cigarette form. Other countries seek only autonomy to combat smoking’s health and financial costs through widely accepted public health policies.

Kentucky exports about $300 million worth of tobacco leaf annually.

The 15 percent of Kentucky growers who stayed in the business have long been aware of the market risks. After receiving $5 billion through the tobacco settlement and $10 billion as compensation for the end of quotas, American farmers who decided to keep growing tobacco did so with their eyes wide open.

The 1998 tobacco settlement also compensated states for caring for sick smokers. Kentucky has invested half of its settlement in agriculture diversification, to help free farmers from having to financially depend on poisoning other people’s children.