Image 01

TobaccoReviews

Tobacco reviews and buying cheap cigarettes

Archive for April 4th, 2019

Cigarettes Sales, New Attempt to Discourage Smoking

Wednesday, April 4th, 2019

New efforts to enforce a prohibition on the tobacco products sale took a favorable hit recently when a federal judge struck down a Worcester law banning storefront signs that promotes the availability of the famous smoking brands. Nobody questions the bad effects of tobacco use, which are noisily annonced everywhere on TV, and even to the cigarettes packs. But it remains a legal habit, and some inhabitants still choose to smoke their favorite brand despite of knowing that it can hurt their health.

A new effort to prohibit it outdoor, as happened with alcohol in the early part of the last century, would likely have the same bad results and make the current extensive illegal drug sales.

So, some have chosen to get around an actual ban by making it as difficult as possible to sell or consume tobacco.

Down in North Andover, for example, the local board of health is considering a policy — already in effect in some two dozen Bay State communities — that would ban local pharmacies from selling smoking products on their shelves. Should such laws become commonplace, look for chocolate bars and other kinds of sweets to become the next target for the self-appointed lifestyle police.

But U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock of Ipswich said that Worcester’s advertising legislation went too far. So, he observed a violation of the First Amendment.

“The broad sweep of the Ordinance suggests that the defendants did not consider how to tailor the restrictions so as not unduly to burden the plaintiffs’ free speech rights and the rights of adults to truthful information about smoking products,” Woodlock wrote in his decision.

The city has not yet made a decision whether it will appeal, but we would hope a higher court does not find that the effort to discourage cigarettes sales cut Americans’ rights.


Women Harder to Quit Smoking

Wednesday, April 4th, 2019

Women tend to find it harder to quit smoking than men, and a new study suggests why — women’s brains respond differently to nicotine, the researchers say. When a person smokes, the number of nicotine receptors in the brain — which bind to nicotine and reinforce the habit of smoking — are thought to increase in number. The study found in men, this is true — male smokers had a greater number of nicotine receptors compared to male nonsmokers. But surprisingly, women smokers had about the same number of nicotine receptors as nonsmokers.

“When you look at it by gender, you see this big difference,” said study researcher Kelly Cosgrove, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine.

The findings are important because the main treatments for people who want to quit smoking are nicotine-replacement therapies, such as nicotine patches and gums. The study suggests women smokers may benefit more from other types of treatment that don’t involve nicotine, including behavioral therapies, such as exercise or relaxation techniques, and non-nicotine containing medications, Cosgrove said.

Elements of smoking not related to nicotine, such as the smell and act of holding a cigarette, may play a greater role in fueling the habit of women smokers, compared with men, Cosgrove said.

Tobacco Growers Poor Due To Cigarettes Tax

Wednesday, April 4th, 2019

For the past 17 years, farmer Bernadette Guya wakes up around 4 a.m. and works for the next 12 hours tending tobacco plants in a one-hectare leased plot in the northern Philippine province of La Union. She spends those hours watering and pruning them, and caring for each leaf by hand to remove pests. Guya earns roughly P50,000 ($1,169) from the sale of tobacco leaves, five months after planting them – a tiny income given the tedious work involved. But for this 39-year old widow, it’s the only way for her to earn a living and feed her four children.

Guya’s plight illustrates how the revival of tobacco growing, which went through a slump until recently, hardly benefits the farmers.

“Planting tobacco is hard work,” Guya said in Filipino. She wanted to plant other less labor-intensive but profitable crop.

Guya, however, doesn’t have the luxury of choice. In fact, of the 50,000 pesos that she earned during the previous cropping season that ended in May 2018, about half went to the trader who loaned her the money to buy fertilizer, pesticides and fuel for the water pump. She netted only P20,000 ($467.62) just barely enough to pay for her children’s schooling and food.

Guya sold all her harvest to the trader who loaned her the capital on the condition that she will plant tobacco. This arrangement leaves no choice but to sell at the price dictated by the trader. This cycle will be repeated in the current cropping season as Guya, bereft of savings, once again borrowed capital from the trader to allow her to plant tobacco last December.

With domestic cigarette consumption growing and big cigarette manufacturing companies picking the Philippines as the key raw material source, tobacco has recently emerged as one of the country’s fastest growing crops. Last year alone, production rose by 10.93 percent or almost twice the average 5.78 percent growth rate for all crops.

It has even brought in more foreign exchange for the country. Tobacco exports rose from 43.6 million kilograms in 2008 to 56.94 million kilograms in 2017, generating nearly $270 million in export receipts.

And yet farmers like Guya hardly benefit from these gains. The inequitable terms of trade facing Guya and other cash-strapped tobacco farmers like her underscores why tobacco growing is associated with rising poverty in spite of bright growth prospects.

From 2003 to 2006, Ilocos Sur, the biggest tobacco producer, also registered the highest increase in poverty incidence, from 22. 8 to 27.2 percent, according to the National Statistics Coordination Board. In this province alone, over 30,000 families are considered poor.

Long neglected by the government and the rest of society, tobacco farmers have suddenly become a centerpiece in the current debate over the proposed sin tax reforms in Congress.

Cigarette companies argue that raising sin taxes will reduce consumption, kill the industry and impoverish tobacco farmers. Tobacco control advocates insist that part of the revenues raised will be used to help tobacco farmers shift to other crops.

But for most tobacco farmers whose fate is supposed to hinge on the passage of the bill the issue is not whether sin taxes will increase or not. What they care about is whether those sin taxes will be used to finance their needs: irrigation, technical support, and marketing.

“The cigarette industry said the higher sin tax will hurt us. But we think if the sin taxes go up, the proceeds that are supposed to go to tobacco farmers will also go up. This will benefit us,” said Avelino Dacanay, chairman of Solidarity of Peasants against Exploitation (Stop-Exploitation).

STOP-Exploitation is comprised of farmers in Ilocos provinces – the northern Philippine region where most of the country’s tobacco are grown. The group seeks to uplift the welfare of small farmers in Northern Philippines by lobbying for land reform and fair prices for the farmers’ produce.

Cavite Representative Joseph Abaya recently filed House Bill (HB) No. 5727 which seeks to impose more uniform taxes on cigarettes and liquor, removing the lower tax rates enjoyed by established brands and low-priced products. President Benigno Aquino III supports the bill which is expected to bring additional $60 billion ($1.40 billion) in annual revenues, according to estimates by the department of finance.

The bill is in line with the Philippine government’s commitment to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a global treaty which aims to cut tobacco use. To this end, the government, led by the health department, has enacted several policies meant to curb smoking in one of the world ‘s biggest cigarette markets.

HB 5727 will raise taxes levied on cigarette and alcohol products, and in effect, increase retail prices of cigarettes in the Philippines, where which tobacco control advocates is one of the cheapest in the world. This deters people from smoking and endangering public health.

A 2006 study made by the University of the Philippines, World Health Organization and Health Department said economic costs of smoking, including expenses for health care and costs of productivity losses can hit as much as P300 billion ($7.01 billion) a year.

The Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), a lobby for the cigarette industry, is opposing the bill. In a press statement issued in January, PTI President Rodolfo Salanga questioned why the government is imposing higher taxes that will penalize not just the manufacturing firms but the 2.7 million farmers and their families who depend on the industry.

For Dacanay and other farmers, the more pressing issue is the government’s ability to provide financial, infrastructure and extension support that will free them from the clutches of tobacco traders, and allow them to freely choose the most profitable and suitable crop to grow.

“All the farmers want is for the government to help them shift to other crops,” he said. This includes funding irrigation facilities like simple water ponds or shallow tube wells as the soil in the region is dry, and capital and market support to wean away the farmers dependence on middlemen.

Farmer Perlita Sarro, also from La Union, said that if she has enough capital, she wants to become an entrepreneur, planting and selling vegetables that sell for higher prices than tobacco. She said that she only earned over P10,000 ($233.81) from the previous tobacco harvest in the one and a half hectare plot that she’s leasing from the owner. This is just enough to pay for the debt that she owed from the traders who loaned her the capital and to eke out a living. Like Guya, Sarro had to plant tobacco because that’s the only way to get a capital and be assured of a market for her produce.

A study done by Rene Rafael C. Espino and Danilo Evangelista, agriculture professors of the University of the Philippines in Los Banos, and Edgardo Ulysses Dorotheo of Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance showed that tobacco farmers in Ilocos, given the right resources and opportunity, are willing to shift to other crops.

In the crop year of 2006 to 2007, the authors conducted a survey among 503 tobacco farmers and 484 non-tobacco farmers in the provinces of Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, and Pangasinan.

The survey revealed that farmers preferred to plant non- tobacco crops like corn as tobacco is too labor intensive and requires them to work for 261 days (about eight months) before they can sell it. These crops also give them higher income. According to the study, farmers who planted bitter gourd net P158,640 ($3,709.14) per hectare, while tomato planting nets P116,204 ($2,716.95) per hectare. Planting Virginia tobacco only netted P51,642 ($1,207.44) per hectare.

The 51-year old Dacanay, who tilled tobacco for 20 years before shifting to corn farming, affirms that finding. He said that while a hectare of corn field earned him about P60,000 ($1,403), he only netted roughly P22,000 ($514.38) from planting Virginia tobacco.

“Tobacco planting doesn’t pay,” Dacanay said.

The only time that he saw tobacco paying off was in the crop year of 2009-20010. Dacanay said tobacco farmers were able to sell a kilo of tobacco for about P90 ($2.10) a kilo. This, he said, was relatively high compared to prices in previous crop years which range from P80 to P85 ($1.87 to $1.99). This encouraged farmers to plant tobacco in the next cropping season. In the 2017-2011 cropping season, prices dropped to P73 ($1.71) per ki

Tobacco Ads Legislation is Not Ruled Correctly

Wednesday, April 4th, 2019

A federal judge has struck down a provision of a local tobacco control ordinance that bans outdoor advertising of tobacco products within the city. In a 23-page decision released yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock ruled the ban is unconstitutional. He said the city has no legitimate interest in prohibiting “non-misleading advertising” to adults to prevent them from making decisions of which the city disapproves.

The judge added that the city failed to show the outdoor advertising regulations are not more extensive than necessary to advance its substantial interest in preventing underage tobacco use. He went on to say that the city also made no effort in crafting the ordinance to determine what types of advertisements are most harmful to minors. He said a ban on all signs of any size seems “ill suited” totargetthe problems of highly visible billboards, as opposed to smaller signs.

“The broad sweep of the ordinance suggests that the (city) did not consider how to tailor the restrictions so as not to unduly burden the plaintiffs’ free speech rights and the rights of adults to truthful information about tobacco products,” Judge Woodlock wrote.

“Neither the city’s goal to prevent tobacco-related health problems among adults, nor its correlative goal regarding minors, provides a basis for the ordinance,” he wrote.

The suit was brought against the city by the National Association of Tobacco Outlets Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.;Philip Morris USAInc.; and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

Tobacco companies hailed the court decision as a victory for free speech.

“Tobacco companies have a constitutional right to communicate with adult consumers through retail advertising and this court appropriately recognized that,” said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris.

Andrew Kerstein, president of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, was also pleased with the decision. He said while his organization shares the city’s goal of preventing minors from gaining access to and using tobacco products, he feels the outdoor advertising ban went too far.

City Solicitor David M. Moore said the city hasn’t decided whether it will appeal the decision. He said all options are being reviewed.

Meanwhile, District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri, a leading advocate of the tougher tobacco control ordinance, said he was disappointed by the court decision. He said while he strongly believes in the First Amendment, the ordinance was aimed at reducing the number of “unnecessary deaths” in the city caused by tobacco products.

“I am disappointed that the judge did not take into consideration the most basic and fundamental consideration of young children being impacted by this rule,” he said.

Last April, Worcester became the ninth municipality inthe stateto ban the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products by local health-care providers, including chain pharmacies and other drugstores. The ban was one of four amendments to the city’s tobacco control ordinance.

The other amendments also banned the sale of tobacco products at local institutions of higher education and the citywide sale of so-called blunt wraps — a cigarette-like rolling paper that is usually made from tobacco leaves.

In addition, cigarettes and tobacco products can not be advertised in areas where they can be viewed from public streets, parks, schools and institutions of higher education. That effectively banned the outdoor advertisement of tobacco products throughout the city.

Advocates of the amendments called the council’s action “historic,” adding that they will serve as an important first step to reduce the smoking rate in Worcester.

In drafting the ordinance, city public health officials pointed out that an estimated 31,265 smokers live in Worcester. They said 23.7 percent of adults living in the city smoke — a level that is 47 percent higher than the statewide rate of 16.1 percent.

Also, cigarette smoking among residents ages 45 to 64 is at the 23.7 percent level, which is 42 percent higher than the statewide level of 16.7 percent.

Meanwhile, the death rate among Worcester residents from tobacco is about 250 people annually, or roughly five deaths per week, according to public health officials.

Soon after the City Council adopted the ordinance, tobacco companies filed suit against the city, challenging the validity of the advertising ban. The city agreed not to enforce that provision of the ordinance while the lawsuit was pending.

The council pursued the tougher regulations because of the health harms caused by tobacco and the relationship between tobacco advertising and increased tobacco use. But the tobacco companies objected to the ordinance’s advertising regulation, saying it will impede their ability to market their products within the city.

“The plaintiffs do not claim that the city of Worcester lacks a substantial government interest in preventing youth tobacco use,” the judge wrote. “However, they argue that the city’s substantial interest is limited to protecting minors.

“They contend the city has no legitimate interest in prohibiting non-misleading advertising to adults to prevent them from making decisions of which the city disapproves,” he added.

Judge Woodlock said the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 considered a similar First Amendment challenge to a statute prohibiting the promotion of compound drugs.

But the Supreme Court dismissed the notion that government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent the public from making bad decisions with that information.

“The (Supreme) Court thus rejected the principal interest advanced by the city of Worcester in support of its advertising restriction,” the judge wrote.

Judge Woodlock also made reference to a decision made by the Supreme Court last year that effectively prohibits the city from seeking to remove “a popular but disfavored type of product,” such as tobacco, from the marketplace by prohibiting truthful, non-misleading advertisements directed to adults.

Under that court decision, the judge said, “Worcester may not prohibit tobacco advertisements in order to prevent adults from making the choice to legally purchase tobacco products.”

In December, the legal challenge of the city’s ban on the sale of blunt wraps was dropped. Meanwhile, Honey Farms has filed a challenge to the provision of the tobacco control ordinance that bans the sale of tobacco products on property owned by educational institutions.