EXCERPTS from [Costa Rica] The Tico Times, March 26, 2012, "President signs anti-smoking bill", by Matt Levin.

Her signature marks the end of a struggle to ratify stricter tobacco laws. A previous bill was written in 2009, the same year that a Health Ministry poll showed 93 percent support for stricter laws.

Chinchilla remarked that this moment should have come years ago, but she applauded those who refused to let the bill die.

“I recognize all health institutions, which did not lower the flag and fought for the passage of this law,” the president said at a ceremony at Casa Presidencial in Zapote, in southeastern San José.

The law becomes official once it is published in the government newspaper, La Gaceta, which Chinchilla said would happen “as soon as possible.” A 90-day adjustment period then begins as officials determine reglamentos, or regulations, that explain how the law will be enforced. Health Ministry officials are working on the regulations with the Alcoholism and Drug Dependency Institute (IAFA) and the National Anti-Tobacco Network, among others.

The bill bans smoking in places such as bars, restaurants, public buildings, bus stops and taxi stands. Taxes will increase ₡20 ($0.04 cents) per cigarette. The bill mandates cigarette packs display text and photo warnings on at least 50 percent of the box. Central American neighbors Guatemala, Honduras and Panama already approved similar measures, as did six countries in South America.

After the signing ceremony, the media amassed around doctors and lawmakers who pushed for the bill in an effort that Roberto Castro, director of the National Anti-Tobacco Network, likened to David versus Goliath. The influence of tobacco companies had influenced smoking policy in the country since the late 1980s (TT, March 9).

Access Without Exclusion Party member Rita Chaves, who headed the committee in charge of the bill, called the law an “important advancement” for the country.

“We are very satisfied,” said Teresita Arrieta, of IAFA. “And now we’re waiting anxiously for the implementation of the law.”

The battle by lawmakers to pass a stricter anti-tobacco law overcame its final hurdle on Tuesday when the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala IV) ruled the bill is constitutional.

In a 5-2 decision, the court said the legislation did not contain any procedural errors or articles that could be deemed unconstitutional.

Two magistrates who approved the bill questioned why the Sala IV reviewed the legislation in the first place.

On Feb. 27, Costa Rican lawmakers passed the 100-percent smoke-free environment bill in a 45-2 vote, sending it to the president to sign. However, in a controversial move, the Sala IV accepted a last-minute petition by 10 opposition legislators to assess the bill’s constitutionality before Chinchilla could sign it into law.

Judges Luis Jinesta and Ana Virginia Calzada stated the Sala IV never had authority to review the bill since it already had passed the Legislative Branch. Still, tobacco reforms held up under scrutiny – and for the reasons anti-tobacco advocates had cited all along.

The judges wrote that there’s no proof the bill’s tax increase would encourage contraband, an argument made by tobacco companies Philip Morris and British American Tobacco. Smokers’ rights are not infringed upon since the law does not ban the sale of tobacco products, the Sala IV affirmed. It only limits where products can be used in an effort to protect public health. The smokers’ rights argument had been made repeatedly by leaders of the country’s Restaurant Chamber, which oversees bars and clubs in Costa Rica.

In addition, the Sala IV referenced the effectiveness of the law in other countries in regards to protecting the public. The smoke-free bill follows guidelines set by the World Health Organization, already put into practice in nine other Latin American countries.

The law’s execution faces several challenges. Health Minister Daisy Corrales said the country needs to train more police officers to monitor the law, which doles out heavy fines to offenders and could lead to the temporary closure of businesses caught violating the decree. The country also will take action to combat contraband cigarettes.

Corrales said 60 percent of funds that will come from the cigarette tax will go toward the Social Security System to treat tobacco-related illnesses and create programs to help smokers quit.

Representatives for the tobacco industry and the Restaurant Chamber both stated to media Tuesday night that they would accept the ruling.

EXCERPTS from media release of March 26, 2012, Edward L. Sweda, phaionline.org, regarding U.S. Supreme Court's denial of Reynolds American's petition for certiorari in the case of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mathilde Martin, No. 11-754.

Tobacco companies face the prospect of having to pay billions of dollars in liability to Florida smokers after the U.S. Supreme Court today denied Reynolds American’s petition for certiorari in the case of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mathilde Martin, No. 11-754.

The company had appealed a $28.3 million judgment against Reynolds for the death of Benny Ray Martin, the husband of Mathilde Martin. Her case is one of thousands of “Engle Progeny” lawsuits in Florida, cases that followed the landmark 2006 ruling by the Florida Supreme court in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).

Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (a project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston) was ecstatic to learn of the denial of Reynolds’ cert petition. “At long last, Reynolds and the other major tobacco companies will be held accountable for their massive and reprehensible misconduct that harmed thousands of Florida smokers. As Reynolds’ own lawyers have concluded, denial of its cert petition is a very big deal indeed,” Sweda said.

In arguing in December 2011 that its petition should be granted, Reynolds’ attorneys (Paul D. Clement of Bancroft PLLC, Gregory G. Katsas of Jones Day and Eric E. Murphy of Jones Day) claimed that in “their conduct of Engle progeny litigation, the Florida state courts are engaged in serial due-process violations that threaten the defendants with literally billions of dollars of liability.” (emphasis added) Moreover, “the massive liability imposed on the Engle defendants – which currently stands at over $375 million in adverse judgments – will… steadily increase as Engle progeny trials continue with no end in sight.” (emphasis added).

TPLP Director, Mark Gottlieb, noted that, “while cigarette companies’ statements are often thought to be disingenuous, in the case of Reynold’s Petition to the Court, it is absolutely true that the Engle cases create ‘massive liability’ with ‘no end in sight.’” Gottlieb added: “But the industry’s liability is not limited to these cases. Verdicts like the Evans case in Boston ($81 million) and Schwarz in Oregon ($25 million) can and should become more commonplace beyond the Sunshine State.”

Currently, of the 61 Engle Progeny cases that have reached a verdict (not counting mistrials), 41 have been plaintiff verdicts (one of which was overturned on appeal on statute of limitations grounds and is being further appealed) and 20 have been defense verdicts, with thousands of cases awaiting trial. “Today is a great day for thousands of Florida residents who turned to the American judicial system to seek justice,” Sweda concluded.

EXCERPTS from March 20, 2012, Singapore, Keynote address at 15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, "Galvanizing global action towards a tobacco-free world".

This conference is being held at a time when we are at a crossroads in our efforts to rid the world of a killing addiction. In principle, the balance is entirely in our favour. In a perfectly sane, reasonable, and rational world, with a level playing field, the anti-tobacco community would surely speak with the loudest voice and carry the biggest stick.

Evidence for the physical harm, and economic costs, of tobacco use keeps growing, and I am certain that this conference will expand the evidence base even further.

Tobacco use is the world’s number one preventable killer. We know this statistically, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In a world undergoing economic upheaval, with populations ageing, chronic diseases on the rise, and medical costs soaring, tackling a huge and entirely preventable cause of disease and death becomes all the more imperative.

We know that tobacco directly harms the user’s health in multiple ways. We know that tobacco products kill their consumers.

We know that tobacco smoking, like a drive-by shooting, kills innocent bystanders who are forced to breathe air contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. We know what tobacco exposure during pregnancy does to the fetus, another innocent, blameless, and entirely helpless victim.

We know that tobacco use is not a choice. It is a powerful addiction. The true choice is between tobacco or health.

We have evidence, and we have instruments. As a tool for fighting back, we have the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, with 174 parties now committed to implementing the treaty’s articles and obligations. These parties govern nearly 90% of the world’s 7 billion people. If safety from tobacco lies in numbers, we have them.

But we also know that implementation falls short, for many reasons, in many countries. We have addressed this problem as well. We have a practical, cost-effective way to scale up implementation of provisions in the treaty on the ground. That is, the best-buy and good-buy measures for reducing tobacco use set out in the MPOWER package.

We have abundant country experiences that demonstrate the effectiveness of these measures. Evidence also shows how these measures can have a value-added impact.

For example, in a study published earlier this year, researchers demonstrated that smoke-free workplaces actually decrease smoking in homes. These findings soundly refute industry-sponsored propaganda.

Just two weeks ago, another major study, involving more than 700,000 deliveries, found that smoking bans have significant health benefits for unborn babies. This proved true for women who smoke but also for women who have never consumed tobacco yet were exposed to second-hand smoke.

And we have an enemy, a ruthless and devious enemy, to unite us and ignite a passionate commitment to prevail.

Unfortunately, this is where the balance no longer tips so strongly in our favour. The enemy, the tobacco industry, has changed its face and its tactics. The wolf is no longer in sheepÂ’s clothing, and its teeth are bared.

Tactics aimed at undermining anti-tobacco campaigns, and subverting the Framework Convention, are no longer covert or cloaked by an image of corporate social responsibility. They are out in the open and they are extremely aggressive.

The high-profile legal actions targeting Uruguay, Norway, Australia, and Turkey are deliberately designed to instil fear in countries wishing to introduce similarly tough tobacco control measures.

What the industry wants to see is a domino effect. When one country’s resolve falters under the pressure of costly, drawn-out litigation and threats of billion-dollar settlements, others with similar intentions are likely to topple as well.

Numerous other countries are being subjected to the same kind of aggressive scare tactics. It is hard for any country to bear the financial burden of this kind of litigation, but most especially so for small countries like Uruguay. This is not a sane, or reasonable, or rational situation in any sense. This is not a level playing field.

Big Tobacco can afford to hire the best lawyers and PR firms that money can buy. Big Money can speak louder than any moral, ethical, or public health argument, and can trample even the most damning scientific evidence. We have seen this happen before.

It is horrific to think that an industry known for its dirty tricks and dirty laundry could be allowed to trump what is clearly in the public’s best interest.

And there are other tactics, some new, others just old butts in new ashtrays.

In some countries, the tobacco industry is pushing for joint government-industry committees to vet or screen all policy and legislative matters pertaining to tobacco control. Don’t fall into this trap. Doing so is just like appointing a committee of foxes to look after your chickens.

More and more, investigations are uncovering the tobacco industry’s hand in court cases filed against tobacco control measures.

Paying people to use a country’s judicial system to challenge the legality of measures that protect the public is a flagrant abuse of the judicial system and a flagrant affront to national sovereignty. This is direct interference with a country’s internal affairs.

Members of civil society,

We need you, now more than ever.

Experience has shown that, when government political resolve falters or weakens under industry pressure, coalitions of civil society can take up the slack and carry the day. We need this kind of outcry, this kind of rage.

Shaping public opinion is vital. If tough tobacco legislation wins votes, politicians will back it, and fight back against industry.

Last year’s high-level UN meeting on noncommunicable diseases [NCDs] adopted a political declaration. To reduce risk factors and create health-promoting environments, heads of state and government agreed on the need to accelerate implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

They recognized that substantially reducing tobacco consumption contributes to reducing NCDs and has considerable health benefits for individuals and countries. They also recognized the fundamental conflict of interest that exists between the tobacco industry and public health.

When I addressed that meeting, I reminded participants that full implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control would deliver the single biggest preventive blow to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and respiratory disease. I called on heads of state and government to stand rock-hard against the despicable efforts of the tobacco industry to subvert this treaty.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have a final comment.

I come from a culture that shows great respect for its elders. So let me say that some of the older people in this audience may recall the Virginia Slims marketing campaign that targeted young professional women.

That campaign sought to hook teenaged girls and young women by portraying smoking as a symbol of emancipation and self-assertive freedom. Its slogan was memorable:  “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

Let me turn that around, addressing my own personal marketing campaign to the tobacco industry.

“We’ve come a long way, bullies. We will not be fazed by your harassment. Your products kill nearly 6 million people each year. You run a killing and intimidating industry, but not in a crush-proof box. Tobacco industry: the number and fortitude of your public health enemies will damage your health.”

Ladies and gentlemen,

I sincerely hope that this conference, including the high-level ministerial panel on countering tobacco industry interference, will again tip the balance entirely in our favour.

This conference is our watershed event. I sincerely hope that this event further damages the health of an industry that aggressively sells a health-destroying addiction.

We can, and must, stop this industry’s massive contribution to sickness and death, dead in its tracks.

I wish you a most productive meeting. Thank you.

The demonstration was sparked in part by a report released in January by ProgressVA that identified more than 50 bills introduced by General Assembly members in recent years that were nearly identical to model legislation from American Legislative Exchange.

The council "has had a track record of supporting legislation that is very partisan indeed," said Isaac Ramsey, a Richmond resident and Occupy participant. "In Virginia, they have attacked health care, education and voting rights."

Kaitlyn Buss, American Legislative Exchange's director of communications, described her group as an "educational resource" for lawmakers with input from the private sector and employers.

"We feel those are the job creators, the people who stimulate economic growth, and those are things we need more than ever right now," she said.

The Occupiers say the council is a largely corporate-funded group that influences public policy by facilitating lobbying of elected officials and by developing model legislation for lawmakers to introduce in state legislatures.

About 25 Occupy Richmond participants started their demonstration in front of the Richmond Times-Dispatch building before moving to Altria Group Inc.'s downtown research and technology center. They put on a street skit outside the research and technology center and held a mock trial in front of the federal courthouse.

The demonstrators directed their ire at ... tobacco giant Altria because the company has provided financial support for the council.

A spokesman [David Sutton] for Altria said the company's involvement in the council is just one of many ways it makes its views known on public policy. ...

He was suspended from school for three days and prohibited from participating in the state tournament. ...  also was required, per school policy, to complete a drug and alcohol class, according to Skyview wrestling coach Rich Malia.

"It was pretty traumatic for both him and his parents," Malia said.

The incident underscores the ongoing and growing issue of tobacco use among youth in Montana. Montana males, both adults and kids, are using smokeless tobacco at alarming rates — about twice the national average, according to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

In Montana, 13.5 percent of students in ninth through 12th grades reported using smokeless tobacco, according to the 2011 Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Additionally, 5.2 percent of students in seventh and eighth grades reported using smokeless tobacco.

The popularity of smokeless tobacco coincides with the tobacco industry's creation of an array of smokeless-tobacco products in response to the nation's move toward clean indoor air policies and laws. The products, such as Snus, are made even more appealing by fun, bright, colorful packages and candylike flavors such as spearmint, peppermint and winterchill. The products are sold throughout Montana, with the tobacco industry spending an average of $34 per Montanan per year, according to the Montana Tobacco Use Prevention Program.

The spike in smokeless-tobacco use in Montana comes when getting a nicotine fix is more convenient and less noticeable than ever. No longer is smokeless tobacco associated with a bulging mouthful of intense-tasting, wet, smelly, brown crud and drooling spit.

The current product of choice among youth is Snus, a tiny pouch filled with tobacco that kids can discretely tuck under their lip. Gone is the telltale bulge in the check and the tobacco juice. Snus curbs the craving as nicotine absorbs into the gums. Kids like it because it is not easily detected and they can stay buzzed 24/7.

It turns out that Snus is no longer just for the cheek and lip. The latest craze to capitalize on the nicotine punch of the pouches is to use it not with the mouth but with the feet. There is a growing trend among high school kids of cutting slits between their toes and tucking a pouch there. The nicotine absorbs directly into the blood, giving them a nicotine high at school or during practice. No one is the wiser.

The trend has caught the attention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Montana Department of Health and Human Services and an addiction counselor for Billings School District 2.

"The kids are telling me they put it between toes, put on their shoes and socks and no one can detect it," said Tammy Perkins, a Rimrock Foundation addiction counselor at Senior High. "There's no big ol' pouch in their mouth." Perkins said the method is particularly popular among student athletes.

Stacy Campbell, section supervisor for Healthy Lifestyles with the Montana Department of Health and Human Services, tells a similar story. "I don't think it's a rampant problem in Montana by any stretch of the imagination. We've heard of it. There are kids in Montana doing it, but usage itself is a huge issue. However they absorb it, to me, isn't the issue. The issue is the usage."

Snus, considered a "starter kit" to cigarette smoking, has been available in Montana for about six years but has "definitely increased greatly" over the past five years, Campbell said.

With tobacco use among high school youth already well-documented, state health officials are bracing for the next wave of tobacco products aimed at youth and putting parents and educators on notice. The products that are Montana-bound are Camel Sticks, Camel Strips and Camel Orbs.

The smokeless-tobacco sticks, sold in matchbook-like packs under the brand names Marlboro and Skoal, are aimed at adult smokers and snuff users who want a smokeless, spit-free alternative. The sticks are coated with finely milled tobacco and come in different flavors such as "cool mint." They carry the same potential health risks as other tobacco products and bear similar warnings.

The strips are a film strip for the tongue and also are made from finely ground, flavored tobacco. The products melt in the mouth within three to 30 minutes.

Orbs look similar to a Tic Tac. They, too, are made of finely ground tobacco with mint or cinnamon favoring. They are loaded with nicotine and dissolve in the mouth, like a breath mint. They can poison children. Given the candylike quality, youth are easily and readily attracted to them, Campbell said.

The Sticks, Strips and Orbs were test-marketed in a few locations and re-released in March 2011. They were recently pulled from the market to redesign the packaging. The new package just recently hit Colorado, so it won't be long before the products are in Montana stores, Campbell said.

"Is there an uptick in kids using new products?" Campbell asked rhetorically. "Oh, yeah, across the board. The issue is that the tobacco companies know that so they manufacture it in flavors kids will like. Do you seriously think a 50-year-old person that smokes is going to go in and buy those? No!"

Since much of the tobacco advertising is now restricted by law, cigarette companies focus on retail marketing and display advertising, with the tobacco industry paying retailers for product placement near candy and at levels viewed by children, Campbell said.

The tobacco industry outspends Montana's tobacco prevention program by a margin of four to one, annually spending $33 million marketing tobacco in Montana.

Smokeless-tobacco products can contain up to four times as much nicotine as in a cigarette, Campbell said.

"The addiction is created so quickly, it doesn't take much," she said. "These are definitely starter products. They taste good. They're less harsh and less intense. If a kid puts a cherry-flavored little pouch of tobacco in their lip, it won't be as abrasive. It does become addictive."

A bill before the Rhode Island legislature would accomplish just that for state beaches there. Massachusetts lawmakers would do visitors to Horseneck and other places a favor by following suit.

Cigarettes are right up their with jellyfish, seaweed, green flies and sandwich-snatching seagulls in their ability to put a damper on a good beach day. There’s not much to be done about those other four, but cigarettes can and ought to be banned on the beach.

An enterprising Portsmouth college student set out last year to gauge support for steps to rid beaches of this nuisance. Starting at her home-town Sandy Point Beach, she polled beach visitors about cigarettes. Most she has talked to think beaches would be well rid of cigarettes.

That’s hardly a surprise.

Good clean salt air is part of beaches’ allure and nothing quite taints that pleasure like a beach neighbor lighting up a smoke 20 feet upwind.

Worse perhaps is what happens to the butts.  ... The Coastal Conservancy reports that 38 percent of trash removed from beaches and coastlines last year was smoking related.

Laden with toxins and bacteria, cigarette filters are especially revolting bits of flotsam — bite size for toddlers and shore creatures. And for sheer pain, crab bite and jellyfish sting are no match for the misery of stepping on a buried but still smoldering butt.

...  People pay dearly to visit the beach and the price of admission to these public places ought to assure pristine air and sand.

Cigarettes foul both of these so ought to be forbidden.

Campaign contributions, which once totaled more than $10 million in a single election cycle, added up to a mere $3.2 million during the 2010 election cycle. And federal-level lobbying expenditures in 2010 represented less than a quarter of what they were a dozen years before, in 1998, the Center for Responsive Politics' research indicates.

The industry, which includes employees and political action committees associated with tobacco companies, has taken to channeling money through harder-to-track organizations connected to candidates. These include leadership PACs, which members of Congress may sponsor, and 527 groups, which are barred from donating to candidates but may campaign and advertise on their behalf.

As contributions to candidates and committees declined by more than $6 million between the 2002 and 2010 election cycles, contributions to leadership PACs remained fairly consistent, totaling more than $600,000 each year, the Center's research indicates. During the 2010 cycle, the industry gave more than $740,000 to leadership PACs -- nearly a quarter of the amount it gave to all candidates and committees.

The industry has also been generous to 527 committees. During the 2010 election cycle, the tobacco industry gave about $5.4 million to such organizations, according to the Center's research, while its contribution to candidates and other political committees totaled $3.2 million.

And in the wake of last year's Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission ruling, which made it legal for corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates, critics of the industry believe it will become even harder to track the tobacco companies' political involvement.
Tobacco companies, like corporations in general, may now contribute unlimited amounts of money to non-profit organizations that in turn may advertise for or against political candidates without revealing their source donors.

"One thing the tobacco industry has done is stay out of the public view and disguise its efforts in politics," Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco and director of the Center for Tobacco Research and Control told OpenSecrets Blog. "With the rise of this undisclosed money, it is hard to know what they're doing."

Danny McGoldrick, vice president of research for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told OpenSecrets Blog that tobacco companies' campaign contributions to candidates and federal lobbying expenditures may have declined, but they are dispatching their resources to other places.

"They are always looking for creative ways to exert their influence," McGoldrick said. "The Citizens United decision opened avenues for many groups. You can expect them to take any opportunity they can to influence the legislative process."

Two of the largest tobacco companies in the country, Altria Group and Lorillard Tobacco, declined to comment on their political involvement. Dosal Tobacco declined to comment on the company's campaign contributions and others such as Reynolds American, Cigar Association of America and Commonwealth Brands did not return OpenSecrets Blog's messages.

The tobacco industry's political influence also has geographic significance, as some of the top tobacco producing and manufacturing states including, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, are considered swing states as the 2012 election cycle revs up.

Many of the top recipients of donations from the tobacco industry have been congressmen from these states and the leadership PACs sponsored by the congressmen.

The two highest ranking leaders in the House of Representatives -- Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) -- are among top tobacco industry recipients. During the 2010 election cycle, Boehner received nearly $50,000 from people and PACs associated with the tobacco industry and Cantor received $27,850. The two lawmakers' leadership PACs together received more than $158,000 from the industry.

Boehner, a smoker himself, reportedly called the regulation of the tobacco industry by the Food and Drug Administration, which was approved in 2009, a "boneheaded idea" and voted against it, while Cantor voted in favor of the bill. One of the largest contributors to Cantor's campaign was Virginia-based tobacco company Altria Group, which was one of the only tobacco companies that favored the regulation.

Although the leader of Republican Party has close ties to tobacco companies, a spokesman for Boehner, Michael Steel, told OpenSecrets Blog in an email that "Rep. Boehner makes public policy decisions based on what he believes is best for his constituents and the American people."

The offices of both Cantor and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who received the most in contributions from tobacco interests during the 2010 election cycle, did not return repeated phone calls and emails.

Although it's clear that tobacco interests usually support members [of] the Republican Party, they also donate to Democrats. And by funding leadership PACs of Democrats instead of their campaigns, they have been able to make it seem like they are maintaining their Republican leanings.

During the 2010 election cycle, the industry contributed only $4,700 to the campaign of Rep. [sic. -- Senator] Mark Warner (D-Va.), but it gave $54,500 to his leadership PAC -- near the top among all leadership PACs in terms of money received from the tobacco industry.

"The tobacco industry has a very strong Republican bias, but they give the Democrats enough to keep them shut and keep it from becoming a campaign issue," Glantz said. "They go with who's in power, but they are nicer to the Republicans when they are in power than the Democrats."

Besides campaign contributions, many congressmen have other personal interests in the success of tobacco companies. About 23 members of Congress hold assets in three of the biggest tobacco companies, the Center's research of 2009 financial disclosure reports indicates.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) holds between $100,001 to $250,000 in Altria Group stock. Most members of Congress who have investments in Altria are Republicans, but Democrats such as Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) each reported tobacco company assets valued at more than $2,000. Federal lawmakers will release their 2010 disclosure reports later this month.

And the industry's political influence is far from restricted to the federal level.

With more regulation and tax hikes proposed on the state level in recent years, tobacco companies have been directing their lobbying resources to the states, McGoldrick told OpenSecrets Blog.  Their state lobbying expenditures have been rising as federal lobbying efforts are now a fraction of what they were in the late 1990s.

"They are all over the place," McGoldrick said. "They are (at state capitols) in good numbers and frequently."

A lawyer representing the small Florida-based tobacco company, Dosal Tobacco, told OpenSecrets Blog he has seen the bigger tobacco companies change their focus from the federal to the state level to lobby against a tax hike.

"We have seen an increase -- in Florida at least -- in lobbying by the major tobacco companies," said Mike Huey, government counsel for Dosal.

The companies might be increasing their presence at state legislatures, but many of the federal lobbyists hired by the tobacco industry are Washington insiders. About 78 percent of the lobbyists worked for the federal government prior to becoming lobbyists, according to the Center's research.

And one of the biggest battles facing the industry today remains on the federal level.

The Food and Drug Administration, now responsible for regulating the tobacco industry, is debating a ban on menthol cigarettes, which make up about 90 percent of sales for the third-largest tobacco company, Lorillard.

The industry is ramping up its lobbying efforts in response. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Lorillard spent $900,000 -- nearly half of its lobbying expenditures during the 2010 cycle -- in what may foreshadow a broader lobbying expenditure uptick throughout the year.

EXCERPTS from Reuters, June 3, 2011, "U.S. judge declines to shut tobacco racketeering case", no writer listed.

The West now consumes fewer and fewer of the world's cigarettes: richer countries have changed – from smoking 38 per cent of the world total in 1990, they cut down to 24 per cent in 2009. Meanwhile, the developing world's share in global cigarette sales has increased sharply, rising to 76 per cent in 2009.

An investigation by The Independent on Sunday reveals that tobacco firms have taken advantage of lax marketing rules in developing countries by aggressively promoting cigarettes to new, young consumers, while using lawyers, lobby groups and carefully selected statistics to bully governments that attempt to quash the industry in the West.

In 2010, the big four tobacco companies – Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco – made more than £27bn profit, up from £26bn in 2009.

The price of their profits will be measured in human lives. In the 20th century, some 100 million people were killed by tobacco use. If current trends continue, tobacco will kill a billion people in the 21st century.

In striving for greater profits, the big tobacco firms have pushed the average price of cigarettes up in rich countries such as Britain – where 20 cigarettes now cost more than £6 a pack – while hammering down the price paid to tobacco growers in poorer countries such as India and Malawi. Although around 77 per cent of the price of a pack is tax, the amount charged by tobacco companies has also increased.

A major investigation by the Office of Fair Trading last year found that a dozen tobacco manufacturers and retailers in the UK had colluded in price fixing, ensuring that packs remained at higher prices to maximise profits. The largest fine was one of £115m for Imperial Tobacco, makers of Lambert & Butler and Golden Virginia. The fine made a minimal dent in its profits for 2010, which topped £4.39bn.

Meanwhile in Malawi, where tobacco farming is heavily relied upon for the economy, the country's anti-corruption bureau has accused tobacco companies of colluding to keep prices paid to farmers for the raw product low. Tobacco auction rooms have become a battleground between government and industry, as a kilo of leaves plummeted from an average of £1.06 per kg in April 2009 to 47p per kg this year. The knock-on effect of this on farms is near-slave wages for workers and a temptation to use cheap (or free) child labour.

Anna Gilmore, professor of public health at the University of Bath, said: "What most people don't realise is that, although sales are falling in the West, industry profits are increasing. These companies remain some of the most profitable in the world. This is thanks in part to their endless inventive ways of undermining and circumventing regulation. They're trying to reinvent their image to ingratiate themselves with governments, but behind the scenes it's business as usual."

This year's World No Tobacco Day [May 31] is focusing on persuading more countries to sign a global treaty drawn up by the World Health Organization to ensure public health protection from smoking. Although 172 countries have signed up to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control since it was produced six years ago, 20 per cent of them have still done nothing at all to implement its recommendations, and major countries, including the US and Indonesia, are still not even signatories.

In Indonesia alone there are 21 million child smokers. There is little to stop companies promoting cigarettes to young people. In countries such as Nigeria, Ukraine and Brazil, tobacco companies have sponsored club nights or parties aimed at attracting new young users. In Russia, attempts to entice women smokers have included packaging made to look like jewel-encrusted perfume bottles and even selling cigarettes branded by the fashion house Yves Saint Laurent.

Dr Armando Peruga, programme manager for the WHO's tobacco free initiative, said: "We need to do more. We need to stop the tobacco industry promoting themselves as normal corporate citizens when they are killing people every day. We are lagging behind in establishing comprehensive bans on advertising, marketing, promotion and sponsorship."

When countries in these emerging markets try to clamp down on tobacco, the battle often ends up in the court room. In Uruguay, for example, the government had been leading the way under President Tabaré Ramón Vázquez Rosas, a former oncologist. In 2006 it became the first in the region to ban smoking in public places and now it wants 80 per cent of every pack of cigarettes to be taken up with health warnings.

In response, Philip Morris has sued the government. It is thought that the company will demand at least $2bn in damages if Uruguay loses.

Courtroom bullying like this has a broader intimidatory effect on other governments in the region, which were already less inclined towards legislating further against smoking.

Laurent Huber, director of the Framework Convention Alliance on tobacco control, said: "In countries like Uruguay, the tobacco industry uses its vast wealth to tie up public health measures in court battles. Win or lose, this has a chilling effect on other governments."

These tricks are by no means confined to the less-regulated emerging countries. In Australia, which will become the first country to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes by law, the industry has been accused of scaremongering against the measures by threatening to flood the market with cheap fags.

In Britain, the industry is also prone to taking any measures necessary to keep regulation at bay. This autumn a group of tobacco companies is taking the Government to court over its proposals to ban cigarette displays in all shops.

More often in the UK, though, Big Tobacco's attempts to alter public opinion are more subtle. A study from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), out this week, scrutinises the credibility of economic arguments used by the industry to fight back against legislation. For example, when Christopher Ogden, chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, said in 2010 that the smoking ban had severely threatened the pub and bingo industry because of lost jobs and livelihoods, the reality was a little different. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows a net increase in the number of people visiting pubs since the smoking ban. When England went smoke-free in 2007, the number of premises licensed for alcohol increased by 5 per cent, and it has continued to grow every year since.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH, said: "In line with our international treaty obligations, the UK government has not only banned advertising and put health warnings on packs, but also committed to protect public health policies from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry. To get round this, the industry uses front groups to covertly lobby politicians, arguing that smoke-free legislation has destroyed the pub trade, and that putting tobacco out of sight in shops will both be ineffective and put corner shops out of business.

"The next big battle is over putting cigarettes in plain packs. Already the same arguments are being used. The evidence is thin or non-existent, but no matter, the danger is that policy makers will be misled that where there's smoke, there's fire."

"... SHS [Secondhand Smoke] is composed of more than 4,000 chemicals, such as nicotine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic amines, and carbon monoxide, and many of these substances are known to cross the placenta and reach the fetus. Although SHS exposure is a diluted form of exposure, certain toxic chemicals are present at higher proportions in SHS than in mainstream smoke. Furthermore, it has been reported that tobacco smoke can affect the developing fetal nervous system by reducing oxygen and nutrient flow to the fetus, and that prenatal nicotine exposure alters neurotransmission systems and causes structural and functional changes in the central nervous system."

"In this study, we found that prenatal SHS exposure is associated with a significant decrease in cognitive function in 6-month infants. This finding provides evidence of the adverse effect of maternal SHS exposure during pregnancy on child neurodevelopment."

"This study shows that the exposure of non-smoking mothers to SHS [secondhand smoke] has a significant deleterious effect on infant cognitive ability."

Of the 35 Engle Progeny trials that have reached a jury verdict since February 2009, 24 have been plaintiff verdicts (69%).

Mr. Huish, who died of small-cell lung cancer in 1993 at the age of 64, had started smoking two decades before warning labels appeared on cigarette packs. He started smoking Lucky Strikes, followed by Camel, Chesterfield, Marlboro and then Marlboro Lights. Mr. Huish’s widow, Anna Louise Huish, brought the lawsuit and is represented by the West Palm Beach firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley.

Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law (TPLP), Edward L. Sweda, Jr. was delighted with the verdict: “This jury was justifiably appalled by what it learned about the tobacco companies’ outrageous misconduct during the decades that John Huish was an addicted customer. Someone who is not addicted would not have smoked two or more packs per day for 46 years, as Mr. Huish did before succumbing to lung cancer.”

TPLP Director Mark Gottlieb noted that, “Jury after jury of ordinary folks have found the way that cigarette makers conduct their business is deserving of punishment. With thousands of these cases in the pipeline in Florida, it’s going to be a long slog for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.”

Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
EXPOSURE TO TOBACCO SMOKE CAUSES IMMEDIATE DAMAGE, SAYS NEW SURGEON GENERAL’S REPORT

Report focuses on how tobacco smoke causes disease

Exposure to tobacco smoke – even occasional smoking or secondhand smoke – causes immediate damage to your body that can lead to serious illness or death, according to a report released today by U.S. Surgeon General Regina M. Benjamin.  The comprehensive scientific report - Benjamin’s first Surgeon General’s report and the 30th tobacco-related Surgeon General’s report issued since 1964 - describes specific pathways by which tobacco smoke damages the human body and leads to disease and death.

The report, How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease, finds that cellular damage and tissue inflammation from tobacco smoke are immediate, and that repeated exposure weakens the body’s ability to heal the damage.

“The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale causing damage immediately,” Benjamin said in releasing the report.  “Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.”

"Over the last two years we have stepped up efforts to reduce tobacco use, including implementing legislation to regulate tobacco products, investing in local tobacco control efforts and expanding access to insurance coverage for tobacco cessation" said Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. "This will remain a key priority of this Administration."

The report also explains why it is so difficult to quit smoking. According to the research, cigarettes are designed for addiction. The design and contents of current tobacco products make them more attractive and addictive than ever before. Today’s cigarettes deliver nicotine more quickly and efficiently than cigarettes of many years ago.

Tobacco smoke contains a deadly mixture of more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, of which hundreds are toxic and at least 70 cause cancer. Every exposure to these cancer-causing chemicals could damage DNA in a way that leads to cancer. Exposure to smoke also decreases the benefits of chemotherapy and other cancer treatments. Smoking causes more than 85% of lung cancers and can cause cancer almost anywhere in the body. One in three cancer deaths in the U.S. is tobacco-related.

The report describes how the delicate lining of the lungs becomes inflamed as soon as it is exposed to the chemical mixture in cigarette smoke. Over time, the smoke can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack. The report describes how chemicals from tobacco smoke quickly damage blood vessels and make blood more likely to clot. The evidence in this report shows how smoking causes cardiovascular disease and increases risks for heart attack, stroke, and aortic aneurysm.

Smoking causes many other harmful effects throughout the body, including making it harder for diabetics to control their blood sugar.  Smoking makes it harder for women to get pregnant and can cause a miscarriage, preterm delivery, low birth weight, as well as damage to fetal lungs and brain tissue. Babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome, the report finds.

 “This report makes it clear – quitting at any time gives your body a chance to heal the damage caused by smoking,” the Surgeon General said. “It’s never too late to quit, but the sooner you do it, the better.”

Fortunately, there are now more effective ways to help people quit than ever before. Nicotine replacement is available over the counter and doctors can prescribe medications that improve the chances of successful quit attempts. Smokers can also call 1-800-QUIT-NOW for help.

To help communicate the report findings as widely as possible, the Surgeon General unveiled an easy-to-read guide with practical information about how tobacco smoke causes disease, A Report of the Surgeon General: How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You.

Copies of the full report, executive summary, and the easy-to-read guide may be downloaded at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/tobaccosmoke/index.html.To order printed copies of these documents, go to http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco and click the Publications Catalog link under Tools & Resources.

    Tallahassee, FL:  Attorney James Gustafson has just finished up a huge and historic wrongful death suit against R.J. Reynolds. A Florida jury awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and another $72 million in punitive damages to Diane Webb, whose father, James Cayce Horner, smoked up to two packages of cigarettes a day until he died of lung cancer. ...

    And maybe it’s because Gustafson’s own father also died of lung cancer that he speaks so clearly and eloquently about the damage done by big tobacco. "These smokers were part of our greatest generation," says Gustafson. "They made it through the Depression, they fought and won World II, they created a giant of an industrial nation and it was on their backs that this country was built."

    "These are people who started smoking decades before there were warning labels on cigarettes," says Gustafson. "James Horner, Diane Webb’s dad, started smoking as a teenager in 1934 and smoked for 32 years before there was ever a warning label put on these packages."

    "James Horner watched his wife die of lung cancer, his son-in-law had a heart attack because of cigarettes and then finally he died," says Gustafson.

    And although smoking killed Gustafson’s father, he says he never really knew just how deplorable big tobacco’s conduct has been until he started working on this trial. "The depth of their deceit is just unfathomable—it is just bottomless," says Gustafson.

    "My dad smoked unfiltered Lucky Strikes and then switched to filtered cigarettes," says Gustafson. "But I now know that filters are a fraud. If anything they make cigarettes more dangerous because they make the smoker puff harder."

    "The R.J. Reynolds internal documents are spectacular in their deceit," says Gustafson. "Sometimes juries are skeptical about wrongful death suits for smokers, they wonder why you’re doing this," says Gustafson. "But in these cases, the conduct of big tobacco is so bad you can literally see the jury turning against the company."

    "We are not proving these cases with our own documents, we’re proving these cases with their own documents," adds Gustafson.

Mexican women who do not smoke but are exposed to smoking, known as environmental smoke exposure, are at three times higher risk for breast cancer than non-smoking women not exposed to passive smoking, according to findings presented at the Third AACR [American Association for Cancer Research] Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities, being held Sept. 30-Oct.3, 2010.

"Everyone should avoid secondhand smoke," said Lizbeth López-Carrillo, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology, at the National Institute for Public Health, Mexico City, Mexico.

... "We have found that environmental exposure to tobacco increases a woman's risk for breast cancer in the same way that active smoking does."

More than 6 million Mexican women between the ages of 12 and 65, who have never-smoked, are being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, according to background information from the National Surveys of Addictions. Previous research has shown that active smoking is linked to a 20 percent increase in the risk for breast cancer — the leading cause of cancer in women in Mexico — with the highest incidence among those women in the Mexican states bordering the United States. However, the association between environmental tobacco smoke and breast cancer risk, particularly among postmenopausal women, is less established.

Therefore, López-Carrillo, and colleagues conducted a study to estimate the risk for breast cancer due to lifetime exposure to passive smoking among pre- and postmenopausal women residing in Mexican states bordering the United States.

They examined 504 women with confirmed breast cancer and compared them with 504 healthy women of similar age. During direct interviews, the women were asked about their active and passive lifetime smoking exposure at the home and the workplace. Women with either active or passive tobacco exposure were compared to those women who had never smoked and had no passive smoking exposure.

Compared with women who had never smoked and had no passive smoking exposure, women with passive smoking exposure had a threefold higher risk for breast cancer. The link between passive smoking and breast cancer remained regardless of menopausal status.

Among women who actively smoked, the researchers found an increased breast cancer risk; however, this association was only significant if women began smoking between puberty and the birth of their first child.

"Active and passive smoke exposure is a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer," López-Carrillo said. "Reducing not only active smoking, but also passive smoking, will prevent new breast cancer cases in this population."

Photo caption: Even a single cigarette produces enough smoke to alter genes in the lungs, according to a new study.

... “How many cigarettes can I smoke before I start to do some damage?”

The sobering answer: Zero.

That’s the conclusion of a new study from researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College and Cornell University in New York.

The researchers recruited 121 healthy volunteers to pee into a cup and submit to a bronchoscopy, a procedure that included removing cells from the lining of the part of the airway that would first come into contact with inhaled smoke.

Smoking status was determined based on levels of nicotine and cotinine (a chemical produced in the body as nicotine is metabolized) found in their urine. The 40 people with undetectable levels of nicotine and cotinine were classified as nonsmokers; those with low levels were considered occasional smokers or people exposed to secondhand smoke; and those with high levels were considered regular smokers.

By comparing the lung biopsies from regular smokers to those from nonsmokers, the researchers identified 372 genes whose expression was triggered by tobacco smoke. Then they checked to see what those genes were doing in the occasional smokers. It turned out that 128 of those genes (34%) had been activated -- presumably by cigarettes -- including 41 (11%) that were “significantly modified,” according to the study.

Next, the researchers checked to see how much nicotine and cotinine had to be in the urine before changes in the lung cell genes were noticeable. For nicotine, that level was a mere 1.8 nanograms per milliliter -- too low to be picked up in tests. In other words, “there was no detectable level” of nicotine that was considered harmless, the researchers wrote. For cotinine, the threshold was 11 ng/ml, only slightly higher than the amount that the most sensitive tests can detect.

Digging further, the researchers found that the two groups of genes that responded most strongly in the occasional smokers were the same two groups that are most active in regular smokers. “These changes in gene expression are likely the earliest biologic abnormalities in the small airway epithelium that lead to clinically detectable lung disease,” they wrote.

Considering that so many people are exposed to secondhand smoke or partake in an occasional cigarette, the findings are significant, they concluded.

The study was published online this month in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

EXCERPTS from The Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 19, 2010, 13 charged with violating Va. restaurant-smoking ban, Staff reports, including contributions form John Reid Blackwell, and The Associated Press.

Falls Church, Va. -- ... Responding to months of complaints, police charged nine smokers with lighting up in several Vietnamese restaurants in Eden Center. Four more people were charged with allowing smoking in their establishments.

Falls Church officials said those arrested were issued citations and fines.

They are first known citations since the state limited smoking in restaurants. Violators can face $25 fines.

Gary Hagy, director of the Virginia Department of Health's division of food and environment services, said yesterday that he is aware of no other citations issued for violations of the restaurant smoking law in Virginia.

Spokesmen for the Richmond, Chesterfield County and Henrico County police departments said yesterday that those departments have not issued any citations.

The law [amendment to the Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act passed in 1990], which took effect Dec. 1, generally prohibits smoking in restaurants but allows certain exceptions. For example, restaurants may allow smoking indoors only if they have separately enclosed and vented smoking and nonsmoking rooms with a public entrance into the nonsmoking area.

Hagy said about 92 percent of full-service and fast-food restaurants in the state have indicated that they are nonsmoking since the law took effect.

Since Dec. 1, health inspectors have visited more than 23,000 restaurants, and 97 percent of them have been in compliance with the law, Hagy said.

"Several months ago, we issued a policy . . . to our people that restaurants should know the law by now," he said. "If they have one that has not complied, then they [local health officials] should report that information to their local law enforcement."

EXCERPTS from EurekAlert, August 18, 2010, "Berkeley study shows ozone and nicotine a bad combination for asthma", based on Atmospheric Environment, Article in Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 29 July 2010.

Another reason for including asthma on the list of potential health risks posed by secondhand tobacco smoke, especially for non-smokers, has been uncovered. Furthermore, the practice of using ozone to remove the smell of tobacco smoke from indoor environments, including hotel rooms and the interiors of vehicles, is probably a bad idea.

A new study by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) shows that ozone can react with the nicotine in secondhand smoke to form ultrafine particles that may become a bigger threat to asthma sufferers than nicotine itself. These ultrafine particles also become major components of thirdhand smoke - the residue from tobacco smoke that persists long after a cigarette or cigar has been extinguished.

"Our study reveals that nicotine can react with ozone to form secondary organic aerosols that are less than 100 nanometers in diameter and become a source of thirdhand smoke," says Mohamad Sleiman, a chemist with the Indoor Environment Department of Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD) who led this research.

"Because of their size and high surface area to volume ratio, ultrafine particles have the capacity to carry and deposit potentially harmful organic chemicals deep into the lower respiratory tract where they promote oxidative stress," Sleiman says. "It's been well established by others that the elderly and the very young are at greatest risk."

Results of this study have been reported in the journal Atmospheric Environment in a paper titled "Secondary organic aerosol formation from ozone-initiated reactions with nicotine and secondhand tobacco smoke." Co-authoring this paper with Sleiman were Hugo Destaillats and Lara Gundel, also with EETD's Indoor Environment Department, and Jared Smith, Chen-Lin Liu, Musahid Ahmed and Kevin Wilson with the Chemical Dynamics Group of Berkeley Lab's Chemical Sciences Division. The study was carried out under a grant from the University of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

The dangers of mainstream and secondhand tobacco smoke, which contain several thousand chemical toxins distributed as particles or gases, have been well documented. This past February, a study, also spearheaded by Sleiman, Destaillats and Gundel, revealed the potential health hazards posed by thirdhand tobacco smoke which was shown to react with nitrous acid, a common indoor air pollutant, to produce dangerous carcinogens. Until now, however, in terms of forming ultrafine particles, there have been no studies on the reaction of nicotine with ozone.

Released as a vapor by the burning of tobacco, nicotine is a strong and persistent adsorbent onto indoor surfaces that is released back to indoor air for a period of months after smoking ceased. Ozone is a common urban pollutant that infiltrates from outdoor air through ventilation that has been linked to health problems, including asthma and respiratory ailments.

Says co-author Gundel, "Not only did we find that nicotine from secondhand smoke reacts with ozone to make ultrafine particles – a new and stunning development – but we also found that several oxidized products of ozone and nicotine have higher values on the asthma hazard index than nicotine itself."

Says co-author Destaillats, "In our previous study, we found that carcinogens were formed on indoor surfaces, which can lead to exposures that are likely to be dominated by dermal uptake and dust ingestion. This study suggests a different exposure pathway to aged secondhand or thirdhand smoke through the formation and inhalation of ultrafine particles. Also, our group had previously described the formation of secondary organic aerosols in reaction of indoor ozone with terpenoids, commonly present in household products. But this is the first time that nicotine has been tagged as a potential candidate to form ultrafine particles or aerosols through a reaction with ozone."

To identify the products formed when nicotine in secondhand smoke is reacted with ozone, Sleiman and his co-authors utilized the unique capabilities of Berkeley Lab's Advanced Light Source (ALS), a premier source of x-ray and ultraviolet light for scientific research. Working at ALS Beamline 9.0., which is optimized for the study of chemical dynamics using vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) light and features an aerosol chemistry experimental station, the researchers found new chemical compounds forming within one hour after the start of the reaction.

"The tunable VUV light of Beamline 9.0.2's custom-built VUV aerosol mass spectrometer minimized the fragmentation of organic molecules and enabled us to chemically characterize the secondhand smoke and identify individual constituents of secondary organic aerosols," says Sleiman. "The identification of multifunctional compounds, such as carbonyls and amines, present in the ultrafine particles, made it possible for us to estimate the Asthma Hazard Index for these compounds."

... Says Sleiman, "In addition, we need to do further investigations to verify that the formation of ultrafine particles occurs under a range of real world conditions. However, given the high levels of nicotine measured indoors when smoking takes place regularly and the significant yield of ultrafine particles formation in our study, our findings suggest new link between asthma and exposure to secondhand and thirdhand smoke."

Uganda’s tobacco industry is spawning an environmental disaster, as farmers turn to fruit trees for wood fuel to cure the tobacco leaves.

Driving through tobacco growing areas, outside the Murchison Falls National Park one barely encounters natural forests.

The native trees have been cut down and no efforts have been made to replace them.

Occasionally, one sees smaller manmade forests of eucalyptus trees that belong to a few individuals who, after growing food crops still have land to spare.

Larger manmade forests belong to the leading tobacco company British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd. The company sells the wood to the tobacco farmers.

Caught between the short term need for revenue and employment opportunities that the tobacco industry presents, the government has turned a blind eye to the unfolding environmental impact of the plant.

In 2009, the country exported 32,000 tonnes of tobacco leaves that fetched $57 million in revenue.

The previous year, the industry exported 29,042 tonnes fetching $66 million.

Also, over 90 per cent of Uganda households rely on wood fuel as a source of energy, which adds to the challenge of redeeming the forest cover.

In addition, there is increased demand for timber for the construction and furniture making industries.

A 1992 Panos study on deforestation in developing countries revealed that 69 per cent of wood consumed by tobacco companies goes to fuel used in curing tobacco, and 15 per cent to poles and sticks for constructing barns.

The most affected countries include Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Brazil and Uganda. Zimbabwe is the only country in Africa that uses the flue method — which makes use of coal, petrol or oil — to cure tobacco leaves.

Despite tobacco being an industrial crop with a considerable number of farmers producing it, the National Agricultural Research Organisation, Uganda’s lead research body, cannot regulate the crop as it is outside its mandate.

This leaves the sector in the hands of private multi billion dollar companies.

Julius Mukalazi, director of research at the Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute in West Nile, said the effect is disastrous as these companies have exhausted the natural forest trees and are now cutting down mango trees.

“In future we may not have fruits,” said Dr Mukalazi. “Batu and other companies need to come up with mitigating programmes such as agroforestry, growing woodland for firewood and fodder for livestock, which should be integrated under Naro.”

However, when asked about their plan for reforestation, Batu was unresponsive.

The British American Tobacco Company introduced tobacco to the farmers in West Nile in 1927 as a cash crop.

As supply grew, the British built a factory in Jinja in the east in 1928.

The region is also suitable for growing fruits like mangoes, avocados, citrus and passion fruits, which also have industrial uses.

Cereals, cassava, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes and pumpkins can also be grown in the area to boost food security.

The surplus can be sold in ready markets in DR Congo and Southern Sudan.

The region is also suitable for apiary and cash crops like coffee and cotton, but the farmers prefer growing tobacco because of the incentives that the tobacco companies provide. ...

Unlike other environmental control efforts, the problem in this case is a multibillion dollar industry.

For example, while Uganda’s activists fight tobacco advertisements in the mass media, tobacco companies are offering scholarships, contracts to farmers who are assured of payment after harvest, besides taking part in corporate social responsibility projects that portrays them favourably in the public eye.

According to the Forestry Policy of 2001, Uganda’s natural forest cover stands at 4.9 million hectares which is 24 per cent of the total land area, out of which government owns 1.9 million hectares either under the Forestry Department or in national parks that fall under the Uganda Wildlife Authority.

Incidentally, only 740,000 hectares of forests stands today.

It is estimated that 800,000 cubic metres of logs are cut each year.

An Alachua County [Florida] jury has awarded a total of $17.5 million in damages to Amanda Jean Hall, who sued the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. after the death of her husband.

It was, attorneys said, the largest single civil verdict in the county, topping the previous high award of $10 million.

Arthur Lamar Hall began smoking at 14 and continued until one year before his death of lung cancer in 1995, family members testified in the case. Despite several attempts, he had been unable to quit smoking.

Jurors were asked to determine whether Hall was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine and if that was the cause of his death.

After seven hours of deliberation Thursday, they delivered a verdict that said Jean Hall and her family should be awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. When they returned to the courtroom at about 10:30 p.m., jurors also said they planned to award punitive damages against Reynolds Tobacco.

Friday morning they resumed deliberations to decide how much the company should pay for what the plaintiff's attorneys said was half a century of deceiving the American people about the health dangers of cigarette smoking.

Attorney Mark Avera asked jurors to consider the net worth of R.J. Reynolds in determining punitive damages. In fiscal year 2007, it was $8.88 billion; in fiscal year 2008 it was $7.9 billion.

"Send a message to RJR's boardroom that they will be held accountable for their poor choices," he said.

Speaking in behalf of the tobacco company, attorney Dennis Murphy said RJR's corporate management "has heard your message and we accept your verdict on compensation."

The "old guard" of the firm is now gone, he said, and message being put out by R.J. Reynolds has changed.

"Don't punish the company just for making profits," he asked.

Six jurors spent four hours determining how much the tobacco company should be assessed in punitive damages. The sum they settled on was $12.5 million.

When they returned to the courtroom and their verdict was announced, Jean Hall began to cry.

The widow of 15 years said she'd done a lot of crying since the first part of the verdict came in last night.

"I'd hand every bit back to them (the tobacco company), if I thought it would bring Lamar back for just one day," she said.

Attorney Rod Smith of the law firm Avera & Smith, representing the Hall family, said he fully expects R.J. Reynolds to appeal the verdict, as the tobacco company has done in other civil litigation.

Of a dozen cases tried since the Florida Supreme Court threw out a class action suit brought in behalf of all Florida smokers in 2006, ten of the verdicts have come in behalf of the plaintiffs.

In the 2006 ruling, the court held that each smoker's case against a tobacco company had to be decided individually.

...  Jean Hall said that the past two weeks of the trial represent the only time she has been inside a courtroom.

She had been getting ready for church one Sunday about three years ago and saw an ad on TV about bringing suit against a tobacco company. That's when she decided to step forward.

"She is one of the most courageous women I know," Smith said.

"I believe this verdict tells Big Tobacco that North Central Florida is not tobacco country," he added. "This case sets the precedent for the many individual cases to come."
Web Editor's Note:  RJR's attorney claimed "the message" from RJR management has changed -- Question, but they're still manufacturing and marketing addiction and death -- right?

A six-person Tampa, Florida state court jury on Wednesday [March 10, 2010] awarded $5 million in damages to the widower of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 62.  The jury apportioned responsibility for Charlotte Douglas’ death at 18% for Philip Morris, 5% for R.J. Reynolds, 27% for Liggett, and 50% for Ms. Douglas.   If the verdict is upheld on appeal, the plaintiff will receive $2.5 million. 

Ms. Douglas, who died in 2006, approximately two years after being diagnosed with cancer, smoked various brands.  She also made multiple quit attempts, including the use of nicotine patches and nicotine gum.

Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP), based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, welcomed the victory for the Douglas family, noting that the “verdict brings the total number of plaintiff victories in ‘Engle progeny’ cases in Florida to 9 out of 11 trials that have gone to a jury verdict over the past 13 months.  We anticipate even more victories for plaintiffs in these Florida lawsuits in the coming weeks and months.”

 The Douglas family was represented by Attorneys Howard Acosta, Kent Whittemore, Bruce Denson and Hutch Pinder.

The Board of Directors of Altria Group, Inc. ... today announced the election of John T. Casteen III to the Board of Directors. With the addition of Mr. Casteen, the Altria Board increases from nine to ten directors.

Mr. Casteen has served as the President of the University of Virginia since 1990. He will step down from that position on August 1, 2010 and become President Emeritus at that time.

"I am delighted to welcome John Casteen to our Board of Directors," said Michael E. Szymanczyk, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Altria. "With his broad public and private sector experience, I know he will make significant contributions."

Mr. Casteen previously served as the Dean of Admission at the University of Virginia from 1975 to 1982, Virginia Secretary of Education from 1982 to 1985, and president of the University of Connecticut from 1985 to 1990.

Mr. Casteen's business career has included service as a director of the following companies: Connecticut Bank and Trust Company; New England Education Loan Marketing Corporation (Nellie Mae); Sallie Mae; Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc.; College Construction Loan Insurance Association (Connie Lee); Allied Concrete Company; Jefferson Bank Shares, Inc.; Jefferson National Bank; and Wachovia Corporation. He currently serves as director at Sage Publications, Inc.; Jefferson Science Associates, LLC; and the Virginia University Research Partnership, Inc.

Mr. Casteen has been a director of the American Council on Education, a director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, trustee and chair of the College Entrance Examination Board, commissioner of the Education Commission of the States, member of the Board of Control for the Southern Regional Education Board, commissioner of the New England Board of Higher Education, and chair of the Association of Governing Boards' council of presidents. From 1991 to 1993, he chaired the National Board on Oceans and Atmosphere. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Smoking has long been known to boost tuberculosis risk, and a new study from Hong Kong suggests that being exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke also increases the likelihood of contracting the disease.

Dr. Chi C. Leung of the Wanchai Chest Clinic in Wanchai and colleagues compared TB risk in older women living with at least one smoker to that of women living in smoke-free homes. The study included 15,486 non-smoking women 65 to 74 years old, all of whom lived with their husbands. All of the women had enrolled at one of the territory's 18 Elderly Health Centers between 2000 and 2003, and about one in four lived with a smoker.

During follow-up, which lasted through the end of 2008 (or until a person died or was diagnosed with TB), 117 women developed active TB and 69 of these cases were confirmed in a laboratory.

Leung's team found that women who had been exposed to secondhand smoke were 1.5 times more likely to develop active TB than women who didn't live with a smoker, while their risk of culture-confirmed TB was 1.7-fold higher.

Secondhand smoke exposure accounted for about 14 percent of active TB cases and about 18 percent of culture-confirmed TB cases.

The researchers also found that the women who lived with a smoker were significantly more likely to have some type of obstructive lung disease, such as emphysema, as well as diabetes, at the study's outset.

The findings appear in the latest issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine [February 8, 2010]

In a written commentary published with the study, Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California San Francisco notes that secondhand smoke has many known harmful effects, including increasing the risk of lung cancer and heart disease in adults and promoting asthma and lower respiratory illness in children. And smoking can promote respiratory infections, such as TB, by impairing the ability of the lungs to fight off infection, he adds.

In China, 60 percent of men smoke, but only 4 percent of women do, Benowitz notes, so secondhand smoke disproportionately affects women.

"Secondhand smoke exposure is another health problem of particular concern for women in less developed countries," he adds. "Therefore, smoking bans should be part of the international women's health advocacy agenda."

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. said yesterday that it has agreed to pay $150,000 to Maryland as part of a settlement with that state's attorney general regarding a former Camel marketing campaign.

The settlement is the latest development involving claims that Reynolds violated the Master Settlement Agreement with a four-page pullout in the Nov. 15, 2007, issue of Rolling Stone.

On Jan. 15, an appellate court in Ohio ruled that Reynolds cannot be blamed for the content of a Camel advertisement in the magazine being placed around a five-page pullout containing cartoon images. The magazine ran four pages of Camel cigarette ads as bookends to five pages of editorial content about indie-rock music.

The day after the filing of the lawsuits in December 2007, Reynolds voluntarily stopped promotions for the campaign.

David Howard, a spokesman for Reynolds, said that Reynolds admitted no wrongdoing. ... the company chose not to spend time or resources "to defend a program that ended two years ago."

There aren't many local musicians who've been able to earn a good, full-time living in Hampton Roads. Guys like Joe Maniscalco are the creative, industrious and fortunate minority.

However, more than 30 years in a workplace clouded with secondhand smoke that curled its way into his lungs has taken a toll. Smoking-related pneumonia and other illnesses have kept Maniscalco off the stage for nearly a year. Ironically, his health plummeted just as the smoking ban that took effect in December was well on its way to being passed.

This Sunday, Maniscalco's fellow musicians and entertainers will come together to raise the roof, raise awareness about the issue of secondhand smoke, and raise some money to help Joe and his family.

The past year has been "the most traumatic financial and emotional roller coaster you could imagine," Maniscalco said.

He was admitted to the hospital about a year ago with pneumonia and a fever of 104 degrees. He stayed in the hospital for a week. Once he was released, he was treated with steroids, but the cure was nearly worse than the disease. The steroids led to skin irritation and retinal tears that caused his eyes to haze over. All this meant more time away from the stage.

Fran Piggott Harding, Maniscalco's longtime business partner and friend, decided it was time to bring the musical community together to help him out. Using Facebook, she started a "Friends of Joe" page and went to work organizing a benefit concert. One of the first people she turned to was another full-time local musician, Warren Seaburg. He was able to relate to what Maniscalco is going through.

"Since about 1991, I've been a cancer survivor, and the cancer was brought on by the same thing," he said.

Seaburg has worked to bring health care benefits to working musicians and said he still has to take off four to five weeks a year because of lasting effects of the cancer. He will be one of the emcees at the benefit concert, and he helped schedule the hours of musical entertainment.

"For me, there wasn't even a second thought. I knew I wanted to help. The support of local musicians has been overwhelming, and it reminds me of when they had a benefit for me when I had cancer and couldn't work. It's hard to describe how emotional it is," he said.

Piggott Harding said the benefit concert is really all about the music that has been Joe's life. The all-day event features 17 entertainers, all donating their time. ...

"The brotherhood of musicians is mind-blowing," Maniscalco said. "Hampton Roads is coming together with an amazing outpouring of love."

And at the end of the evening, the most love of all will be coming directly from Maniscalco. The benefit will end with him taking to the stage to get back to doing what he does best.

Tobacco industry lawyers met secretly with Solicitor General Elena Kagan in an effort to avoid the government's last-ditch attempt to extract billions from companies that illegally concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking, The Associated Press has learned.

Four cigarette makers that control nearly 90 percent of U.S. retail cigarette sales have until Feb. 19 to persuade the government not to go to the Supreme Court and ask the justices to step into a landmark 10-year-old racketeering lawsuit.

In 2006, a judge ruled that the industry concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. Despite that finding, lower courts have said the government is not entitled to collect $280 billion in past profits or $14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking.

As part of any effort to convince the government that it should skip a trip to the Supreme Court, the tobacco companies may have to drop plans to ask the justices to overturn the ruling that the industry engaged in racketeering.

On behalf of the industry, Washington lawyers Michael Carvin and Miguel Estrada made their pitch against seeking Supreme Court review in a mid-December meeting at the Justice Department with Kagan, according to two Washington attorneys outside the government who are familiar with the meeting in her office.

In the meeting, Carvin and Estrada left the impression the industry might be willing to end plans to seek a high court appeal of its own, if the Justice Department would do the same, said the Washington attorneys, who spoke on condition of anonymity so that they could discuss the private meeting with Kagan.

The discussion with Estrada and Carvin resulted in an internal department meeting a few days later. At this meeting, department lawyers discussed the possibility of seeking billions of dollars from the industry as part of a possible negotiated settlement of the suit, according to one of the private attorneys who learned about this second meeting from participants.

The department, the industry or both could request that the Supreme Court take the case, while at the same time asking that the case be delayed while the two sides try to work out a deal.

If the companies also agreed not to seek an appeal, they would be accepting the findings of U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler that they engaged in a scheme to defraud the public by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking, concealing evidence nicotine is addictive and lying about their manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes to create addiction. Last May, a federal appeals court upheld the findings. The companies then pledged to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Kessler ordered the companies to make corrective statements about the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the companies' manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. These statements must appear on company Web sites, cigarette packages and newspaper and television ads.

If Kessler's findings stand, they will set a precedent that other plaintiffs can use for future suits against the tobacco companies.

...  Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, declined comment, as did Carvin. Estrada didn't return telephone calls to his office.

Tobacco company defendants in the lawsuit are Philip Morris USA Inc. and its parent company, Altria Group Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; British American Tobacco Investments Ltd.; and Lorillard Tobacco Co. Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard account for nearly 90 percent of U.S. retail cigarette sales. A former U.S. subsidiary of British American Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., merged with Reynolds in 2004.

The way the federal suit has played out contrasts sharply with state action against the tobacco industry.

The companies have agreed to pay $246 billion over 25 years to settle suits states brought to recover their costs of treating smoking-related illnesses in the Medicaid program, which serves the poor and disabled.

  Updated 13 June 2013