Australia Mulls Further Restrictions on Cigarette Sales

Local lawmakers in Australia have proposed studying a ban on the sale of tobacco products to people born after the year 2000, a week after the country’s highest court signed off on some of the world’s toughest cigarette packaging laws. The upper house of parliament in the Australian state of Tasmania unanimously passed a motion to explore a ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2000, a parliament spokesman said Wednesday, effectively opening another front in the legal tug-of-war between the government and Big Tobacco.

 The non-binding vote, which passed late Tuesday, expresses the body’s strong support for such a ban if it were to be proposed in formal legislation. The measure came less than a week after Australia’s High Court rejected a challenge by multinational tobacco companies seeking to block harsh new cigarette labelling laws, which are set to take effect here in December. Under that so-called “plain packaging” legislation, brand logos will be banned from cigarette packages and replaced instead with graphic images including mouth ulcers, cancerous lungs and gangrenous limbs.

The move has captured the attention of industry lobbyists and health care advocates, who had been closely scrutinizing the legal battle for its potential global ramifications. It was unclear whether last week’s he court’s decision directly inspired the tobacco ban proposal, which was put forth by Tasmanian State MP Ivan Dean, an independent, but it appears to be an attempt to build on the momentum and widespread international attention garnered by the case. Mr. Dean, formerly a police officer and small town mayor, argued that banning people born after 2000 from ever being able to legally buy cigarettes was the most effective way to continue to drive down smoking rates in a country that already has some of the highest taxes in the world on tobacco products.

 “This would mean that we would have a generation of people not exposed to tobacco products,” Mr. Dean said, according to a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Tasmania, a remote and rugged island south of the Australian mainland that was once home to one of the most feared penal colonies in the British Empire, has the highest smoking rates in the country, according to the non-profit organization Cancer Council Tasmania. One in four young Tasmanians smokes, compared with one in five in the rest of the country. State government officials were quick to signal their willingness to explore the proposal.

Tasmanian Health Minister Michelle O’Byrne said that a smoking ban was worthy of serious consideration, although she admitted that it would be difficult to unilaterally enact such a policy in only one of Australia’s five states. “I think an arbitrary ban on smoking would be very difficult to police, particularly an island state,” she told the A.B.C. “However, saying that those people who sell cigarettes legally cannot sell cigarettes to a certain age is appropriate. We do it now.” Others, however, are far more skeptical of the idea. The health spokesman for the opposition Tasmanian Liberal Party, Jeremy Rockliff, was quoted by The Sydney Morning Herald as having mocked the idea as an example of draconian government overreach. “What’s next,” he asked. “50 lashes for people who break the rules?“

Sector Snap: Court ruling boosts cigarette makers

Shares of tobacco companies traded higher Friday after a federal appeals court ruled in the industry's favor, blocking the Food and Drug Administration requiring large, graphic health warnings about the risks of smoking on cigarette packages. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed a lower court ruling that the requirement ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections.

The court tossed out the requirement and told the FDA to try another approach. Shares of Reynolds American Inc., maker of Kool and Camel cigarettes, rose 21 cents to $45.25 in afternoon trading. Shares of Altria Group Inc., which sells Marlboro cigarettes, rose 29 cents to $33.74 in midday trading. Altria was not part of the lawsuit. Shares of Lorillard Inc., which makes Newport cigarettes, bucked the trend, declining 28 cents to $127.77. Citi analyst Vivien Azer said the decision was a net positive for the tobacco industry, which has been grappling with FDA regulation since the passage of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies sued the government to block the mandate to include warnings showing the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy. The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual. The nine graphic warnings proposed by the FDA include color images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, and a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss.

These are accompanied by language that says smoking causes cancer and can harm fetuses. The warnings were to cover the entire top half of cigarette packs, front and back. The court wrote that the FDA "has not provided a shred of evidence" showing that the warnings will "directly advance" its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke. The Justice Department said it would review the appeals court ruling. Public health groups are urging the government to appeal the decision.

E-cigarettes: No smoke, but fiery debate

People who smoke electronic cigarettes often don't think of it as smoking at all — the preferred term is "vaping," a reference to the small, battery-operated devices that heat nicotine into a vapor that's inhaled. The gadgets, which have been on the market for four years, mimic the look of cigarettes, but because they contain no tobacco and far fewer chemicals are widely seen as safer. Yet as prices drop and more people are using them to quit smoking or circumvent smoke-free laws, new studies are questioning their use.

Researchers say they may addict kids to nicotine or irritate bystanders with their vapor, but the industry says they do far more good than harm. Young adults view the new nicotine-containing products positively and half say they'd try them if offered by a friend, particularly because they come in flavors, according to a University of Minnesota study published last month online in the American Journal of Public Health. Researchers interviewed 66 Americans, ages 18 to 26, about snus (a Swedish type of smokeless tobacco), dissolvable tobacco products and e-cigarettes, which come in bubble gum, cherry and chocolate flavors.

"There's a danger e-cigarettes could lure in kids who might not otherwise smoke," says anti-smoking activist John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. He pushed for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate them. The FDA, after finding trace amounts of toxic and carcinogenic ingredients in several samples, sought to regulate e-cigarettes as drug delivery devices. A federal judge ruled in 2010 that it lacked such authority, so the FDA is moving to regulate them as tobacco products.

"Many people use them as a bridge product" to avoid smoke-free laws — and as a result, they delay or avoid quitting, says David Abrams, executive director of the Shroeder Institute, operated by the anti-tobacco group Legacy. He co-authored a study in the same issue of the public health journal that found 70% of Americans believe e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes. A third peer-reviewed study found that e-cigarettes may emit aerosols, VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and nicotine, posing a "passive vaping" risk to bystanders.

The study, by German researchers, appeared in July in Indoor Air. Nonsense, an industry group says. "There's no smoke. It's water vapor. You don't smell anything," says Thomas Kiklas, director of the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association. "There's no there there" to the argument of harmful vapor, he says. Kiklas says e-cigarettes contain only five ingredients: nicotine, water, glycerol, propylene glycol (used in inhalers) and flavorings. He says the samples FDA tested a few years ago had minuscule amounts of other ingredients, but the products have improved. He says U.S. retailers try not to sell to kids, and he rebuffs the argument that sweet flavorings are meant to lure them, adding nicotine gum also comes in cherry.

"Our demographic is 40 and above," he says. "The amount of good we're doing is phenomenal," he adds, because the devices help thousands of people quit cigarettes. "The technology works. Smokers have embraced it." Celebrities, so often trendsetters, have been seen vaping on screen. In The Tourist,Johnny Depp took puffs from a slim stick, saying, "It's not a real cigarette — it's electronic." On the Late Show in 2010, actress Katherine Heigl whipped out her electronic cigarette, telling David Letterman it helped her stop smoking: "You're blowing out water vapor, so you're not harming anyone around you and you're not harming yourself.

Even some in the medical community see possible benefits: "E-cigarettes may hold promise as a smoking cessation method," concluded Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health in a study published in April 2011 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. He and two co-researchers found that two-thirds, or 67%, of the 222 smokers queried said they smoked less after using e-cigarettes for six months and nearly a third, or 31%, said they kicked the tobacco habit.

NH court reverses ruling in light cigarette case

The New Hampshire Supreme Court Tuesday reversed a class-action certification in a lawsuit filed by consumers who claim tobacco giant Philip Morris violated the state's Consumer Protection Act by falsely labeling a brand of cigarettes as "Marlboro Lights." The Supreme Court says there were ample academic studies and news reports suggesting that smokers of light cigarettes inhaled the same amount of tar and nicotine as smokers of other cigarettes.

 The lawsuit was filed 10 years ago by longtime Marlboro Lights smoker Karen Lawrence, but was on hold for several years awaiting U.S. Supreme Court rulings on a variety of related topics. A superior court judge certified it as a class-action suit in 2010 and the Supreme Court ruling addresses only whether that certification was in error. The case has yet to go to trial. Tuesday's ruling cites studies dating to 1976 that indicate smokers of light cigarettes compensated by smoking more or inhaling deeper. The justices ruled unanimously that plaintiffs would have to be polled individually about the information they were exposed to and their individual smoking habits — making the case inappropriate for a class action.

 Attorney Chuck Douglas, who represents Lawrence, said he and other lawyers representing her were discussing whether they would proceed with her case. He said Lawrence survived lung cancer, but stressed the case wasn't about cancer but about advertising statements he says violate the state's Consumer Protection Act. "I wish the case had been able to go forward because these folks are entitled to compensation for the representations that were false," said Douglas. Philip Morris spokesman Murray Garnick said the ruling joins those of 15 other courts that have rejected the cases on a variety of legal grounds. "The court recognized correctly that there are too many individual issues for this case to be treated as a class action," Garnick said.

Tobacco Companies Win Challenge to U.S. Cigarette Label Law

Tobacco companies defeated a U.S. law forcing cigarette packaging and advertisements to display images such as diseased lungs, persuading a federal appeals court that the requirements violate their free speech rights. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today ruled that Food and Drug Administration regulations mandating visual-image warnings of smoking’s health risks, along with the telephone number 1-800-QUIT-NOW, are “unabashed attempts to evoke emotion” and “browbeat consumers” to stop buying the companies’ products. “These inflammatory images and the provocatively named hotline cannot rationally be viewed as pure attempts to convey information to consumers,” U.S. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote in her majority opinion. Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. sued the FDA last year, claiming the mandates for cigarette packages, cartons and advertising, passed as part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act, violated the First Amendment. The companies said in court papers that complying with the requirements would cost them a total of about $20 million. The mandate, scheduled to go into effect next month, was put on hold by a lower-court judge while the appeals court considered its legality.

ITC rides non-cigarette segments for fast growth

Conglomerate ITC, which leads the cigarette market, is slowly and steadily strengthening its position in non-tobacco segments as well. It is a growth story, powered by a strategy of diversification, which many analysts are betting on. Avi Mehta, analyst at IIFL, believes that the company’s diversification strategy will pay off and they will be able to break even in fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) and other businesses this fiscal. “Other FMCG growth remains buoyant at 20% plus on a year-on-year basis.

Moreover, market leadership in high-quality packaging material should sustain growth in the paper business. This should compensate for the weakness in hotel segment,” said Mehta. ITC has also been trying to establish itself in the 64-mm small-filter cigarette segment. This will help company sustain its volume despite global headwinds. “ITC’s launch of sub-65mm cigarettes should aid conversion from bidis/contraband cigarettes and help increase the share of cigarettes versus other forms of tobacco consumption.

This should sustain volume growth in cigarettes,” said Mehta. “We expect ITC to grow at the rate of 17%, driven by the company’s diversified business model and ability to invest in growing businesses,” said an analyst at Angel Broking. In the consumer space, ITC has already managed to establish a strong presence with various brands across categories. Apart from cigarettes, the company also has a strong presence in FMCG, hotels, paperboards, packaging and agri business. And the growth momentum in these verticals is expected to continue. 

“The company’s segment-wise revenues have been growing at a faster pace, and will touch Rs5,000 crore turnover in a short time. This is expected to triple in the next five to seven years,” said an analyst at Firstcall Research. Now the company is also mulling to enter the nutrition, health and well-being segments. The plan is to invest Rs25,000 crore over 40 projects across the country in the next seven years. Credit Suisse in a report says that there is more steam left in consumer staple companies such as ITC. The financial services company states that it is overweight on the consumer sector and maintains an ‘outperform’ rating on ITC.

Decrease Seen In Cigarette Consumption, Increase In Alternatives

Gone are the days of “Mad Men” and big tobacco. Smoking cigarettes doesn’t quite have the cultural significance it had in the past in the U.S., with public health advocates promoting the benefits of quitting smoking. However, a study found that there’s been a shift in the tobacco products that are used in the country. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that there has been a decrease in cigarette consumption, but increases in other types of smoked tobacco. Over the past 11 years, there has been a decline in the consumption of cigarettes. In particular, from 2010 to 2011, there was a 2.5 percent decrease. On the other hand, from 2010 to 2011, there has been an uptick in the use of pipe tobacco (482 percent) and large cigars (233 percent).

“While consumption patterns of traditional cigarettes have continued to decline, when we take into account these alternative cigarette like products, we’re seeing a lack of change in the overall consumption of burned tobacco that is being inhaled,” explained study author Terry Pechacek, associate director for science with the CDC Office on Smoking and Health in Atlanta, in a New York Times article. The CDC believes that the increase could possibly be due to loopholes in tax structure and the classification system. For example, tobacco companies added weight to small cigars so that they could be classified as large cigars, allowing the company to save on taxes.

The New York Times also reports that the Government Accountability Office has advised changing federal tobacco excise taxes to prohibit differential taxation. Companies like Altria Group have stated that they would not be supportive of instituting a tax system of more than one level. “Altria and its tobacco operating companies believe that little cigars and roll your own tobacco should pay the same tax as cigarettes, as Congress intended,” David Sylvia, a spokesman for Altria, wrote in an email to Bloomberg. “The companies support legislation at both the state and federal level to ensure that taxes on little cigars and roll your own are taxed the same as cigarettes.”

The study, published in a recent edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, included data from the Treasury Department who had calculated consumption for all types of smoked tobacco products. The researchers found that, due to differences in taxes for pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco as opposed to cigarettes, there was an increase in sales for pipe tobacco. Pipe tobacco is seen as a cheaper option than manufactured cigarettes. “The disparity in tax treatment of tobacco products is undercutting our ability to effectively reduce tobacco use and save lives,” remarked Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, in a statement to USA Today. “More smokers who might otherwise quit are now resorting to other types of tobacco products, including cigars and pipe tobacco, because of lower taxes resulting in overall lower costs.

The CDC’s findings are consistent with a Government Accountability Office report issued in April that found the same disparities in consumption of smoked tobacco products.” According to USA Today, while cigarettes are sold for $4 to $5 per pack, little cigars are sold for approximately $1.40 a pack. “This report demonstrates that the tobacco industry is as resourceful, and as predatory, as ever,” Thomas Glynn, director of international cancer control at the American Cancer Society, told USA Today. “It also provides us with some insight into the tobacco industry’s future plans.

When manufactured cigarettes may, at some point in the future, no longer be their primary source of income, they will look to other ways — such as cigars, roll-your-own, various forms of smokeless tobacco — of maintaining their customer’s nicotine dependence.” The researchers find the little cigars worrisome, as they are available in a number of flavors, like grape and chocolate, which can be appealing to children and teens. “They look like cigarettes,” commented Michael Tynan, co-author of the CDC report, in the USA Today article. “They smoke like cigarettes. They taste better than a cigarette, because they have flavors. They are cheaper than cigarettes, because of the tax issues. But they are just as deadly.

They contain the same toxic chemicals.” Studies have also found that new smokers consist of many young people and almost all smokers start the habit before they are 20 years of age. “The rise in cigar smoking, which other studies show is a growing problem among youth and young adults, is cause for alarm,” noted Tim McAfee, director of CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, in a prepared statement. “The Surgeon General’s Report released this past March shows that getting young people to either quit smoking or never start smoking is the key to ending the tobacco epidemic, because 99 percent of all smokers start before they’re 26 years old.” According to the CDC, tobacco use can lead to heart disease, various forms of cancer, lung disease, and other chronic health conditions. In terms of health care costs, cigarette use has led to $193 billion in costs annually. redOrbit (http://s.tt/1jQB5)

Grisly warnings on cigarette packs in UAE from tomorrow

One of four images will occupy half the space on both sides of the pack. A third of the remaining space will display written warnings. "This policy has been proven effective in countries that have applied this measure," said Dr Wedad Al Maidoor, head of the tobacco control committee at the Ministry of Health. "Young smokers will seriously start to think about the dangers of smoking and either stop or cut down the number of cigarettes they are smoking." The graphics will also prevent tobacco companies from using packaging to advertise their product, Dr Al Maidoor said.

"With their packaging, they are fooling the customer into thinking [smoking] is something that is cool and nice - that it is a part of your life," she said. "Now this will be taken very seriously. The graphic cannot be removed or peeled off - it's part of the packaging." According to Dr Al Maidoor, the UAE is the first country in the GCC to introduce this policy. However the process was not easy, she said. "Tobacco companies were very resistant, and they are still resistant in the other GCC countries," she said.

"They are giving the message that no matter what you do, people will still smoke. But that is not true and we've seen how these policies can work." Future plans include having completely plain packaging - where nothing but the graphic image will be in colour and the brand name will be significantly smaller. "The human brain is more attracted to the colour than the pictures, but by having plain packaging more focus will be placed on the image," she said.

The Ministry of Health is still in talks with the Ministry of Finance to increase the taxation on cigarettes, a move that was first announced in 2010. "The Ministry of Finance said they need more time," Dr Al Maidoor said. "First they want to control smuggling and then raise the tax. They're approaching it step by step." The lobbying of tobacco companies remains a major challenge, she added, but said officials are determined to make the new system work.

Heavy Smoking May Be a Genetic Thing

Patients who start smoking at a younger age appear to have a genetic susceptibility to heavy smoking as adults, researchers found. In a meta-analysis, smokers who started at age 16 or younger and had at least one mutation in a nonsynonymous single-nucleotide polymorphism in CHRNA5 -- rs16969968 -- had a significantly greater risk for heavy smoking in adulthood than those who started smoking later (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.55, P=0.01), according to Laura Bierut, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., and colleagues.

"The finding of a stronger genetic risk in early-onset smokers supports public health interventions to reduce adolescent smoking," they wrote in the Aug. 6 issue of Archives of General Psychiatry. The results are supported by earlier studies in animal models showing that "the developing adolescent brain [is] particularly vulnerable to addictive effects of nicotine and by human studies suggesting that adolescent neurodevelopment is a particularly vulnerable period for the development of addiction," the authors explained.

The researchers analyzed a sample of 33,348 ever-smokers from 43 studies and stratified participants into early-onset -- those who started smoking at 16 or younger -- and late-onset smokers or those who started after age 16. Additionally, participants had presence of the rs16969968 genotype, or an analogous SNP called rs1051730, measured against heavy and light smoking status. The analogous gene was included, the authors wrote, because it provided "statistically equivalent results and there is biological evidence that rs16969968 alters receptor function."

"An unresolved issue is whether rs16969968 plays a role in the heightened susceptibility to nicotine dependence in early-onset smokers," they added. Heavy smoking status was defined as more than 20 cigarettes per day, while light smoking was defined as 10 or fewer cigarettes per day, with moderate smoking status excluded from the analysis. They found that the overall risk for heavy smoking in participants who initiated smoking early was significant at an odds ratio of 2.63 (95% CI 2.49 to 2.78, P

Smoking during pregnancy causes respiratory problems in offspring

Another impact of maternal smoking on offspring has emerged. A new study evaluated the incidence of bronchiolitis (inflammation of the smaller breathing tubes in the lungs) in infants born to mothers who smoked during their pregnancy. Researchers affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Louisville, and the University of Pittsburgh published their findings online in the journal Pediatrics.

The researchers designed a study to identify factors associated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and/or intubation for children with bronchiolitis. They conducted a 16-center, prospective study of hospitalized children aged less than two years with bronchiolitis. For three consecutive years from November 1 2007 until March 2010, the investigators collected clinical data and a nasopharyngeal aspirate from the children. They oversampled children from the intensive care unit (ICU); samples of nasopharyngeal aspirate were tested by polymerase chain reaction for 18 pathogens.

The study group was comprised of 2,207 children; 379 (17%) were admitted to the ICU, and 161 (42%) of those children required continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and/or intubation; 59 (37%) required CPAP, 64 (40%) required intubation, and 38 (23%) required both. The median age of the subjects was four months; 59% were male; 61% were Caucasian, 24% were black, and 36% were Hispanic. In addition to collecting clinical information, the researchers conducted interviews to obtain patient demographics, medical histories, environmental histories, and acute illness details. The parents were asked if the mother of the child smoked cigarettes during the pregnancy.

Significant factors for the prediction of CPAP/intubation were: age less than two months (4.3-fold increased risk), maternal smoking during pregnancy (1.4-fold increased risk), birth weight less than 5 pounds (1.7-fold increased risk), breathing difficulty began less than one day before admission (1.6-fold increased risk), presence of apnea (cessation of breathing; 4.8-fold increased risk), inadequate oral intake (2.5-fold increased risk), severe retractions (11.1-fold increased risk), and room air oxygen saturation less than 85% (3.3-fold increased risk).

The authors concluded that they had identified several demographic, historical, and clinical factors that predicted the use of CPAP and/or intubation, including children born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy. They also identified a unique subgroup of children who required mechanical respiratory support less than one day after respiratory symptoms began.

Centerville bans smoke shops

Smoke shops have joined taverns and tattoo parlors in the banned category in Centerville. In a 3-2 vote, the City Council on Tuesday added a definition of tobacco specialty businesses to the municipal zoning code, then voted to prohibit those stores from every type of zone. The speciality businesses are defined under state law as those that make more than 35 percent of their annual gross receipts from the sale of tobacco products.

Council members Ken Averett and Lawrence Wright voted for the zoning ordinance prohibiting smoke shops, while John Higginson and Sherri Lindstrom voted against it. Because of the deadlock, Mayor Ronald Russell cast the tie-breaking vote. Council member Justin Allen was not at the meeting. Higginson, who said he doesn’t smoke and wishes no one did, said his vote was based on "people’s right to open a store." Cigarettes and other types of tobacco will still be available at convenience stores and other outlets in Centerville. And the ban does not affect the city’s only existing specialty store, the Smoke Shop, at 356 N. Market Place Drive.

"We’re not taking away somebody’s right to smoke," Wright said. The council action was prompted by HB95S1, a bill passed earlier this year by the Utah Legislature that requires new smoke shops to get a city business license to operate and restricts where they can operate. Under the law, a retail tobacco specialty business cannot be within 1,000 feet of a community location — a school, child care facility, church, library, public park or playground, youth center and public arcade — or within 600 feet of property zoned or used for agriculture or residential use.

Those limitations significantly reduce the area where a smoke shop could go, according to Cory Snyder, community development director. In addition, HB95S1 allows a city to enact more restrictive requirements, and Centerville Planning Commission members last month unanimously recommended a ban. A report on the reasons for the recommendation notes that the city’s general plan "desires a tax base of ‘high quality’ business uses." In addition, the commission also found that "other similar or problematic uses, such as taverns, privates clubs, tattoo parlors, are also not ‘permitted uses’ of any zoning district," the report says.

Charges filed against naturopaths for marijuana authorizations at Hempfest

The state Department of Health has charged two naturopaths with unprofessional conduct for operating an “assembly line” practice of authorizing medical marijuana at last year’s Hempfest. The charges, filed Tuesday, appear to be the first disciplinary action taken against a state medical professional for a medical marijuana authorization, said Tim Church, a DOH spokesman.

The two naturopaths, Carolyn Lee Bearss and Dimitrios Jimmy Magiasis were featured in a Seattle Times story last August in which a reporter received a medical marijuana authorization for $150 at a Hempfest tent. Bearss recommended marijuana as treatment for the reporter’s lower-back pain without seeing medical records after an appointment that lasted 11 minutes. The naturopaths were independent contractors for a company owned by 4Evergreen Group, one of the largest regional clinics specializing in medical marijuana authorizations.

During Hempfest, the two naturopaths saw a combined 216 patients and recommended marijuana for 214 of them, according to the DOH charges against Bearss and Magiasis. The charges accuse the naturopaths of stretching the definition of “intractable pain” – one of the qualifying conditions under the state medical cannabis law — and of failing to explore other treatment options, as also required.

“This assembly line type of practice failed to meet the standard of care because individualized treatment options were not adequately rendered to the patient,” according to the charges. The state medical marijuana law protects medical professionals from criminal or disciplinary charges if they follow a set of rules, including completing an exam and documenting other ways used to treat “the terminal or debilitating medical condition” other than marijuana.

Pa. town tax collector dealt marijuana

A 21-year-old central Pennsylvania tax collector has been relieved of his duties after police say he sold marijuana to an undercover officer. Carlisle tax collector George Hicks disputes the allegations, saying he uses marijuana for medical reasons.

Hicks was arrested Tuesday on two felony charges of possession with intent to deliver and released on bail. Cumberland County prosecutors say Hicks twice sold drugs to an undercover officer. Police say they have video and audio evidence to support the charges.

District Attorney David Freed says the sales took place in an office a few doors from where Hicks worked as tax collector. A judge granted an injunction temporarily relieving Hicks of his duties. The borough is taking over his duties.

Smoking ban bounces back to full council

A bill proposing to ban all tobacco products in county parks almost turned into a resolution weeks ago, which would take away its enforcement component. Rather, the bill was sent back to committee and now has morphed into an anti-smoking bill. “It would have been a lot easier if it was a total ban, but we are looking for a win-win situation here,” Kaua‘i County Councilman Dickie Chang said at the council meeting Wednesday.

The council’s Parks and Recreation Committee, on its second round of dealing with the bill, on Wednesday recommended by a 3-2 vote that the full council approve the bill next week. Bill 2437 has been bouncing around the council since Chang first introduced it on May 23, when it passed first reading. The Parks and Recreation Committee deferred the bill June 20, and on July 5 the bill squeezed out of the committee by a 3-2 vote. On July 11, at the full council for final and second reading, both sides of the issue — the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawai‘i and those who opposed the ban — were not satisfied with the bill’s final version. Instead of working on further amendments, the council sent the bill back to committee for additional work.

On Wednesday, Councilman Tim Bynum said the majority of major hotels, resorts and condominiums have been converting to non-smoking facilities. As a result, they have designated public parks and beaches as smoking areas for their guests. One of those hotels on the island’s Eastside has gone to the extent of placing on public property a receptacle for cigarette butts, he said. The bill is supposed to be back at full council for second reading next Wednesday. As it is now, the bill would no longer have a straight ban on tobacco products, and would impose a fine on those who “smoke or carry a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or use any spark, flame or fire-producing device to light any of the aforementioned smoking devices.”

In other words, chewing tobacco or using it for different purposes would still be legal in county parks, as long as there is no fire or smoking involved. However, the bill, once a straight ban, would still allow smoking in a designated area in county parks — the parking lot. But smokers would have to move “at least 20 feet farthest downwind from the nearest park user who is using the park area adjacent to the parking lot,” according to the bill. And if a park’s parking lot is being used as the primary venue for an event, such as Wednesday’s Sunshine Market at Kapa‘a New Town Park, there would be no smoking allowed there.

First offenders would be fined at least $100. The fine grows to at least $200 on a second offense and between $300 and $500 on subsequent offenses. Valerie Saiki, representing the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawai‘i, had opposed the bill’s final version when it had reached full council July 11.

Cigarettes worth Rs 3 crore stolen from godowns

Burglars in Bengal seem to have found a new object of fancy - cigarettes. Godowns across the state that stock a city-based tobacco major's cigarettes have reported the theft of goods worth nearly Rs 3 crore over the last nine months. None of the cases has been cracked yet and the burglars have remained elusive. On July 16, a gang of burglars raided a cigarette godown at Andul Station Road.

 "They broke into the godown and fled with cigarettes worth of Rs 29 lakh," said godown owner Sanjib Singh. He pointed out that without a vehicle, the burglars couldn't have possibly fled with such a huge quantity of cigarettes. The burglars didn't take more than an hour to empty the entire stock. Singh lodged a complaint with Howrah (rural) police, but they are yet to make progress in the case.

 A few days before that, on May 26, a similar burglary took place at a Baranagar godown. "It was a Saturday evening and my brother downed the ground-floor shutters of my godown at Sashibushan Niyogi Garden Road," said Partho Pal, the distributor and godown owner. "The godown was closed on Sunday and when I opened it on Monday morning, the entire stock was gone," he added. The stock cost around Rs 12 lakh. He lodged a complaint with Baranagar police, but any headway is yet to be made. The biggest theft was reported on June 24 from a godown in Garfa from where cigarettes worth Rs 40 lakh went missing.

Monoranjan Das, the godown owner, said he lodged a complaint with Garfa police, and the detective department's anti-burglary section is now probing the case. On the same night, cigarettes worth Rs 8 lakh were stolen from a godown in Baruipur and burglars had even tried to break into Sanjib Singh's Andul godown. Probe revealed that similar burglaries had taken place in cigarette godowns in Baguiati, Basirhat, Asansol, Durgapur and Tarakeswar as well. Intriguingly, all the distributors work for a city-based tobacco major.

At Baguiati, police retrieved CCTV footage of the burglars, but none could be identified. Investigating officers suspect that a big and powerful racket is behind the crime and 'traditional' burglars or history-sheeters are not involved, making it difficult for police to track them down.

Second-hand smoke creating a stink

Cigarettes online, mail order from Europe in packs and cartons. 
Condominium board members that are feeling pressure from members to address the issue of second-hand smoke will be pleased to learn that there is a combined effort on the part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and others to advocate and encourage multifamily housing owners and operators to adopt smoke-free policies to protect residents from the dangers of second-hand smoke and to reduce property maintenance costs.

A new 63 page manual for owners or management agents of federally assisted public and multi-family housing has been published that provides eye-opening facts for community leaders, managers and operators. Smoke Free Housing is a 63 page compilation of material that includes specific information that can be helpful in limiting or eliminating smoking on multifamily buildings, as well as links to additional resources.

Portland State University's off-campus smoking ban

Among the things it claims to value, right up there with "learning and discovery" and "openness and reflection," Portland State University lists "a climate of mutual respect." PSU, then, would surely -- surely! -- be loath to prohibit an unpopular minority from engaging in a perfectly legal activity in a manner that harms no one else. And as for seeking such a prohibition on other people's property, forget about it, right?

 Just kidding! Mutual respect doesn't apply to smokers. Everyone knows that. Thus has PSU approached Portland Parks & Recreation about banning cancer sticks in the South Park Blocks in the middle the campus. PSU manages this chunk of the Park Blocks, mowing the grass and maintaining trees, says university spokesman Scott Gallagher. But the city owns the land, a detail that would complicate any push to create a tolerance-free zone for smokers.

Thank goodness for that. Gallagher says the potential ban is an extension of PSU's healthy campus initiative, which has drawn a bead on smoking. Also, campus surveys indicate that 75 percent of students would like PSU's campus to become smoke-free. An even greater percentage would probably like PSU to become tuition-free. But popular ideas don't always make good policy. Anyway, why should a smoker who has no connection to PSU have to snuff out his cigarette while strolling the Park Blocks near campus? Some, no doubt, would argue that even fleeting exposure to second-hand smoke in an open-air environment is dangerous, but we're not buying that.

Dosage matters. Others might point to littering, which, though wrong, is something many nonsmokers do, too. Ultimately, though, the push would have little to do with actual harm, either to bystanders or to the environment. Instead, it would be a naked expression of socially acceptable intolerance. Which is why Portland Parks & Recreation should remind PSU that the Park Blocks are not a part of the university's campus and won't go smoke-free. Students and others who don't approve of smoking can always give smokers a wide berth. Respectfully, of course.

Smoking Opportunity In Universal Corporation

Buying any business that is already or may be commoditized in the future is always dicey. But it is precisely that fundamental risk that creates opportunities in companies that sell undifferentiated products. Investors consistently over- or under-react to news about the product (be it tobacco, corn, or whatever), which enhances price volatility, thereby increasing the chances that the company may be bought at a bargain.

Today's case in point is Universal Corporation (UVV) one of the world's largest leaf tobacco merchants. To set the stage here, picture buyers from UVV contracting with farmers all over the globe for them to sell their tobacco leaves to UVV. Universal then processes, packages, and supplies the larger, more famous name-brand cigarette companies. In recent years Philip Morris (PM) and Imperial Tobacco (ITYBY.PK) each made up over 10% of UVV revenues.

 There are some who have, in the past, tried to compare Universal to its own customers such as PM or ITYBY because they are, after all, in the tobacco business. This is likely always going to achieve the same result. It will always tell you that UVV is undervalued compared to the name-brand peers. Of course it is cheaper when looking at all the typical measures such as PE, PB, PCF, PS if you look at those same metrics for Philip Morris International. Philip Morris has spent billions of dollars over decades building raving fans of its tobacco brands. Most people have never heard of UVV. It is in the commodity business of leaf procurement compared to the biggies with their loyalty or affinity brands. Now, of late UVV has had some additional competition from its own customers as they have begun to send out their own buyers to tobacco farmers, in an age-old effort to "cut out the middleman." We fully acknowledge this is a possible threat as the efforts may be successful in further pinching UVV's tight margins. We'll just be very conservative, demanding a large margin-of-safety to outweigh such dangers. We won't compare UVV to PM. UVV has been around since 1918, so let's just simplify things and compare it to itself over time.

For our analysis, we will make another conservative, simplifying assumption that going forward the world tobacco market will shrink at about 0.5% per year. We think this is exceedingly reasonable in that UVV has demonstrated a negative annual growth rate of negative 0.2% for the past ten years. Before we ever even bother looking at the income statement, we dive into the balance sheet. This is rare indeed in our world where quarterly EPS seems to be the holy grail of numbers. But our staid approach fits our staid personalities and likely best serves our staid clients.

The balance sheet for UVV is quite solid. Its long term debt makes up only 25% of its total capital. We are kitchen-sink types of guys and gals, so we add in a few of UVV's other liabilities that are long term in nature to come up with a LTD/Total Capital ratio of just over 28% -- not bad at all for a recession-resistant business. The majority of the debt comes due several years into the future (though some is due in 2013) so we should not have to worry about troubled refinancing turning into a liquidity event. Working capital per share is astounding at $56.

Get this, if we take each and every liability the company owes, both long and short, and take it away from the current assets to get a "Net, Net Working Capital" per share we get a positive $27. So, despite claims in a posting on this website from 2011, ironically made near the stock price bottom for the company (3 Reasons to Avoid Universal Corp.), UVV has ample liquidity and a very good balance sheet. The dividend is safe, but history shows that cuts and rebuilding in their dividend amount have occurred from time to time. Operating income for the latest fiscal year covers interest expense by about 8 times, certainly healthy.

The number of shares outstanding has been relatively steady for the past decade, so its use of cash to buy back bits of shares to offset any issuance seems a reasonable way to prevent dilution. The most recent fiscal year revenue was $2.45 billion. Remember we will use a negative 0.5% annual growth rate for their sales. This completely ignores any growth via acquisitions that may occur. We will use a net margin of 4.5% going forward, which is safely in the historical range and even a little conservative. Any efficiency UVV can wring out of the business in the future is not included in this projection.

These simplifying assumptions make the math quite straightforward and we do not fear that they escape reality. Over the long run we completely expect these conservative assumptions to be proven correct. Naming the discount rate is a nasty business, filled with pitfalls and peril. Set too high, meaning too conservative, and the investor stays in cash an awfully long time. If it is set too low, the investor quickly learns the importance of a margin-of-safety - the hard way. Though nearly completely arbitrary and misleading in its presented precision, we calculated a required rate of return for the equity of 9.3% using beta (we'll not bother showing you the inputs as you can make up whatever you want to force the outcome).

To sniff test this result, we looked at the company's capital structure. UVV has 6.75% convertible preferred stock outstanding. They also have some borrowings at 7.1%. We think 9% as the actual cost of equity should suffice and voila, with all the inputs, the equity is intrinsically worth $50. A final, short-hand double check that our estimate of $50 for the price is accurate involves looking at book value. We treated the outstanding preferred stock on the balance sheet as debt and calculated a book value per share of $42.

 Since the global financial meltdown occurred, the stock has traded at an average multiple of 1.2 times book, which is lower than the previous five years. If we take the conservative, historical price-to-book of 1.2 times the very conservative book value of $42 we get a value of, $50 for the stock. We think the stock provides excellent value at its current price. Should the stock grow beyond its intrinsic value we would not hesitate to reduce exposure since it is a company producing a commodity with no real differentiation.

FAQs about Birmingham's Smoke-Free Ordinance

Recent news reports about business defying Birmingham’s smoke-free ordinance have raised questions in the community. The Health Action Partnership offers help to individuals and companies looking for information about the rules and how to report violations. The most commonly asked questions and answers are below.

  Q: What cities are affected by the smoke-free ordinance?
A: The local ordinance passed by the Birmingham City Council does not apply to Birmingham’s suburbs or anywhere outside of Birmingham city limits. Other municipalities have similar laws.

 Q: Where is smoking prohibited?
A: The ordinance prohibits smoking in all enclosed public spaces within the city of Birmingham. This includes bingo halls, private clubs, any enclosed city property, nursing homes, offices, taxis, buses, restaurants, most bars (except certain tobacco stores, or cigar/hookah bars), hotels and motels, polling places, and parking decks. Outdoor arenas, stadiums and amphitheaters are also smoke free within 30 feet of the bleachers or grandstands.

  Q: Can people smoke outside?
  A: Smoking is off limits within seven feet of the entrance of an enclosed public space, bus shelter or bus station, or other public transportation platform. Outside seating or serving areas of restaurants and bars located on public property (such as city sidewalks) are also smoke-free zones.

  Q: Who enforces the smoke-free ordinance?
A: County health officers, fire marshals, and police officers are allowed to enforce the smoke-free ordinance. Owners, operators, managers and employees of establishments where smoking is prohibited should instruct customers not to smoke on the premises, and to ask them to leave if they refuse to stop smoking. Businesses that allow customers to violate the smoke-free ordinance can face severe penalties, including the loss of a business license.

Smoking must be banned from public outdoor spaces

Policies to reduce second-hand smoke exposure have largely been based upon the idea that second-hand smoke is an indoor problem, but growing scientific evidence is shattering this concept. Recent research shows that people in close proximity to smokers in outdoor spaces are exposed to similar levels of second-hand smoke as those inside a home or restaurant.

Cancer causing chemicals such as benzene and arsenic are inhaled and are a health danger. If exposure to second-hand smoke can be comparable in both outdoor and indoor spaces, then protection from inhaling it must be as well. Workers in outdoor dining spaces should be protected from second-hand smoke exposure in the same manner as their indoor restaurant worker peers. Children should be as protected on public playgrounds and parks as they are in public schools.

And, patrons at outdoor events should be as safe from second hand smoke exposure at public concerts and parks as they are in side City Hall. The World Health Organization has issued warnings that there are no safe levels of second-hand smoke. I urge the Woonsocket City Council to ensure that all people who work or play in Rhode Island's public spaces can share the same protections from second-hand smoke.