Image 01

TobaccoReviews

Tobacco reviews and buying cheap cigarettes

Posts Tagged ‘viceroy cigarettes’

Athletes Smoke Cigars

Thursday, September 22nd, 2018

The smoking athlete is an endangered species. Last weekend, nicotine missed the cut of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of prohibited substances for 2019, but Wada says that nicotine sanctions are discussed with increasing regularity.

One day soon, we will wonder how we ever lived in a world where the potential for Dot Cotton to steal Haile Gebrselassie’s world records was an ever-present threat. Let’s hope that moves are already afoot to asterisk David Bryant’s lawn bowls titles. It beggars belief that the latter could not merely have smoked a pipe, but flaunted it so shamelessly – it will surely come to be seen as the equivalent of running the 1500 meters with an intravenous EPO drip trailing behind you.

For the benefit of readers given to taking everything very seriously indeed, I am not being entirely serious. Wada believes that smokeless tobacco is being used in various sports to enhance performance, following a year-long study by its Lausanne lab which concluded that nicotine increased “vigilance and cognitive function”, and reduced stress and body weight.

Maddeningly, though, there is more than one way to get nicotine into your body, and sport is still sprinkled with those who use the old-fashioned method: a packet of fags. There are the ones who make no attempt to hide it, such as Darren Clarke. There are the secret smokers – Tiger Woods was always rumoured – and the ones who drop their guard on holiday in the adorable belief that there aren’t paparazzi in Las Vegas, such as Ashley Cole and Wayne Rooney. There are the ones like Shane Warne who make much of giving up with the aid of their paying friends at Nicorette. And there are the hundreds who just get on with the business of having a crafty smoke Viceroy cigarettes as and when their schedule allows.

Of course, unlike those who ingest smokeless tobacco, these sporting Nick O’Teens are causing themselves respiratory damage and probably prolonging their recovery from injury and so on. It appears Wada has deemed these cons a scientifically equal counterweight to any pros. “It is not our objective to catch athletes who smoke,” they claim, “but those who use nicotine as a means of enhancing their performance,” adding vaguely that they would have to find a way of distinguishing one from the other.

But if and when nicotine is banned, which smoking athlete would dare risk it? Wada is famed for applying the letter of their laws no matter what the circumstances, not differentiating in grey areas. By an unfortunate coincidence, its latest round of statements on nicotine came in the very week that a 13-year-old Polish go-karter was successful in his appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to overturn a two-year doping ban handed to him when he was just 12. Who knew they were screening tween karters’ urine, but it seems they are, and at the very first time of having his pee requested, Igor Walilko tested positive for the banned substance nikethamide, which is commonly found in energy bars.

No matter that he protested complete innocence, nor that he was a minor. As his lawyer put it in an interview with the Associated Press: “He was very famous in Poland and, one day after, he was a criminal child.” Only after taking his fight to the CAS has Igor managed to get his ban reduced to 18 months.

So if the spectacle of a 12-year-old kid having to mount a defence in a fancy schmancy international court tells us anything, it is that Wada and the governing bodies who enforce its codes can be that bit obdurate, which is why any ban on nicotine would effectively be a ban on cigarette smoking in world sport. (It wouldn’t be the silliest smoking ban in force. That honour belongs in perpetuity to the US states who have extended the smoking ban in prisons all the way to death row inmates. “Their health will improve,” one lawmaker honked when California passed its ban, ensuring prisoners would face lethal injection with a slightly cleaner pair of lungs.)

In the end, though, a Wada ruling on nicotine would look like yet another win for the fiendish forces of big tobacco, who must come up with ever more wily ways of getting round advertising laws. After all, what better way to push your nicotine laced product on impressionable youngsters than to have it officially outlawed as something that makes people better at sport?

Pregnant Smokers Can’t Quit Smoking

Wednesday, September 14th, 2018

Counseling alone does not seem to help pregnant women quit smoking Viceroy cigarettes, according to a review of previous studies that concludes more research on the use of nicotine replacement and other therapies during pregnancy may be needed.

Published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the analysis included eight clinical trials of nearly 3,300 pregnant women. Researchers looked at whether counseling helped pregnant women quit smoking after six months.

Four of eight trials showed no difference between groups of pregnant women who got smoking-cessation counseling and those who didn’t, while the remaining four studies showed just a slightly lower quit rate in women who didn’t receive the counseling.

In the study with the highest success rate, for instance, just 24 percent of women who got counseling were able to quit, compared to twenty-one percent who didn’t get counseling.

In other words, three out of four moms-to-be in that study continued to smoke whether they had counseling or not, lead author Dr. Kristian Filion noted in an email.

“We were a little surprised by the small number of women that remained abstinent and by the small effect of counseling,” he told Reuters Health.

Filion doesn’t recommend abandoning counseling as an intervention, but he does see a need to study more effective approaches.

“Evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapies in pregnant women is limited,” he said. “More research in this area is needed so that we can better understand the risk-benefit ratio of nicotine replacement therapies in pregnant women.”

Dr. Nancy A. Rigotti, who directs the Tobacco Research and Treatment Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and who was not involved in the study, also agrees that medication should be considered to help pregnant smokers quit.

“There’s a concern using any medication in pregnant women,” Rigotti told Reuters Health. “But if a woman continues to smoke, exposing the fetus to nicotine and carbon dioxide, I would argue that it would be safer for her to take the small risk of taking a medication.”

U.S. Public Health Service guidelines recommend nicotine replacement therapies and drugs such as Wellbutrin and Chantix to help people stop smoking, notes Rigotti. But she wouldn’t suggest that pregnant women try Chantix, she added.

In 2009, the FDA required the drug’s maker Pfizer to add a so-called black box warning on the label listing side effects such as depression, suicidal thoughts and, just recently, the drug’s link to an increased risk of heart problems.

“It’s a relatively new medication,” Rigotti said. “There really is a lack of animal data to address any questions, and until we know more, we should be careful to use it in pregnant women. It probably wouldn’t be my first choice.”

Despite public awareness of the dangers of smoking, more than 13 percent of pregnant American women smoked in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Using counseling, nicotine replacement and other therapies that might help in a quit attempt before getting pregnant is a woman’s best bet, said Filion.

“When women think about getting pregnant, it’s probably the best time to intervene,” he explained. “It’s when they can use these drugs and increase the likelihood of quitting.”

Tobacco Promotions Down,Linn County Supervisors Voted

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2018

Linn County supervisors voted down restrictions on tobacco promotions and the sale of some products, but may consider regulating how candy-like dissolvable tobacco products are displayed in stores.

Supervisors Ben Rogers, Brent Oleson, and John Harris voted against the three proposed ordinances, with Lu Barron and Linda Langston in the minority. The vote came after about 40 minutes’ worth of public comment from a dozen speakers, 10 of whom urged supervisors to adopt the restrictions.

The new rules, recommended by the county’s public health board, would have banned the sale of dissolvable tobacco products and Viceroy cigarettes, “buy one, get one” sales in which two products are sold for a combined price, and the free distribution of tobacco samples at age-restricted temporary structures – usually tents.

Tobacco industry critics say the dissolvable strips deliver nicotine in a form designed to look and taste like candy, targetting younger users. Dissolvable products, sold as orbs, sticks, or strips, haven’t hit the local market yet.

“Younger, underage people are going to get their hands on it, and they’re going to use it,” Marion High School senior Sarah Keeton told the board. “They look so similar to Tic Tacs or candy, and people are not really aware of these products.”

Lois Wheeler of Cedar Rapids said the dissolvables will make it harder for parents to know if their children are using tobacco products.

“How is a parent supposed to know a child has begun to get into it?” Wheeler said.

Both anti-restriction speakers were tobacco retailers. Adam Smith of Guppy’s on the Go said a county ban would send would-be customers to neighboring counties.

“We’re not going to keep them out of the county, we’re just going to suppress their sale,” Smith said.

Susan Jobson, manager the Tobacco Outlet store on Mount Vernon Road SE, said unaccompanied youths under 18 are banned from the chain’s stores.

“We understand the legal and moral obligations of selling tobacco products,” said Jobson. “These products are not illegal. We don’t want to get at a competitive disadvantage.”

Board of Health Vice Chairman Brian Murphy said some of the new dissolvables deliver up to four times the nicotine of a cigarette and were designed by the industry to work around states’ restrictions on the display of cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

“If they wanted to, they could actually place them in the candy aisle,” Murphy said. “The tobacco industry has been very good at staying ahead of the regulations. We really don’t want to broaden the marketplace.”

Langston said she’s seen dissolvables sold next to candy in other states and displayed some packages resembling those for gum or candy – including one chocolate-flavored dissolvable product.

“If it were an adult making a choice about getting a tobacco product, you would put it in a package that looks like (a cigarette pack),” said Langston, D-Cedar Rapids. “We say this is for adults. I don’t believe it.”

Oleson, R-Marion, said he voted against the rules out of libertarian principles.

“I believe folks should be accountable for their actions,” Oleson said. “You’re taking a choice away from adults.”

“Adults have the right to make a choice,” said Harris, R-Palo, who was participating from home where he’s recuperating from cancer surgery. “I don’t think it’s a job for Linn County. It’s a parenting issue.”

Barron, D-Cedar Rapids, said she started sneaking cigarettes from her mother’s purse at about 15. She’s since quit smoking, but urged supervisors to “show leadership” as the county did with the registration of beer kegs.

Rogers, D-Cedar Rapids, said the county should address more pressing health issues such as obesity and alcoholism.

“This has been a difficult decision,” Roger said, but he said the rules affected “a legal product that requires an ID.”

But Rogers said he would consider Langston’s suggestion the county adopt a stricter rule on dissolvables’ retail display, “so when they are put out, they’re not put out by the gum.”

Roll Your Own Cigarettes, Eau Claire Business

Tuesday, June 7th, 2018

A new Eau Claire business has smokers rolling in to roll-their-own cigarettes. And they’re taking advantage of a tax loophole to save money. The business is called Holy Smokes! Customers buy loose tobacco, and use the firm’s sophisticated $30,000 machines to make their own Viceroy cigarettes.

The cartons end up costing $31. That’s about half the cost of a carton of name-brand cigarettes at a local store.

Why is it so much cheaper? The store uses pipe tobacco, which is taxed at a much lower rate than rolling tobacco. And since customers make the cigarettes instead of store employees, the business is not regulated as a manufacturer.

“We buy the machine, we sell you the tobacco, we sell you the tubes, and then we rent you the machine. So we’re just renting you a service,” says Store Manager Michael Nack.

State tax officials say nothing in state law deals with the machines, and they are working to determine potential legal issues.

The U.S. Treasury Department has already taken the stance that these businesses are manufacturers, and should be paying the higher taxes. That decision is currently tied up in court.

Underage Tobacco Penalty Much Severe than Underage Drinking

Friday, April 22nd, 2018

Since the start of 2018, Alcohol Law Enforcement agents have handed out more than 100 citations statewide to clerks selling tobacco products and Viceroy cigarettes to underage kids.

ALE agents say seven of the violations happened at Charlotte gas stations and convenience stores, many of them along Park Road in south Charlotte.

The clerks who sold the tobacco products could face a $1,000 fine and possibly 30 days community service.

In comparison, the penalty for someone who sells alcohol to an underage person is a $250 fine and 25 hours community service, plus a court fee.

Will Council Target Tobacco?

Monday, April 4th, 2018

Given the flak it has received in some quarters, it will be interesting to see if the City Council proceeds with efforts to have Worcester join a handful of communities across the state in banning the sale of Viceroy cigarettes and other tobacco products by local health care providers, including chain pharmacies and other drugstores, and colleges.

While advocates of the proposal consider it an important public health initiative, others strongly feel the council is overreaching big time with it and just another example of the “nanny state” mentality prevalent in Massachusetts.

They contend it is nothing more than a feel-good ordinance that will do little, if anything, to cut down on the number of Worcester residents who smoke, while imposing yet another financial hardship on a sector of the local business community.

Heck, if people aren’t going to be able buy cigarettes in a pharmacy, they will simply go to a nearby convenience store or elsewhere to buy their smokes.

So, what’s the point of such a targeted ban?

Granted, it seems rather incongruous to have pharmacies, which are in the business of helping people stay healthy, sell a product that is so bad for their health. But since tobacco is still a legal product, how can a local governmental body keep it out of certain stores licensed to sell it?

“I don’t believe we have any business legislating something like this,” said Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain, who last week put the brakes on a series of amendments to the city’s tobacco control ordinance recommended by City Manager Michael V. O’Brien at the request of the council. “It’s so overreaching; I just can’t support having government get in the middle of something like this.”

In addition to banning the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and colleges, the amendments before the City Council would regulate the advertising of tobacco products in the city by prohibiting them where they could be viewed from public streets, parks, schools and colleges.

Also, they would ban the sale of so-called blunt wraps, a cigarette-like rolling paper usually made from tobacco leaves, and include pharmacy chains among local health care facilities required to create a 50-foot no-smoking buffer zone.

The amendments were requested by the council last December, at the urging of its Public Health and Human Services Committee.

An estimated 31,265 smokers live in Worcester, according to public health officials. They said the number of smokers is more than 40 percent higher in Worcester, compared to statewide percentages.

“The fact that more than 480,000 people die each year (nationwide) from smoking-related illness is reason enough to consider these restrictions,” said District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri, chairman of the council committee. “This is a health issue, not a political issue.”

While the provision banning the sale of tobacco in pharmacies has received the most attention — such a ban is in place in five other communities (Boston, Needham, Newton, Everett and Oxford) — there is also mounting industry opposition to the proposed citywide ban on the sale of blunt wraps.

A Kentucky-based importer, manufacturer and seller of tobacco products, has come out against that provision, contending they are a “legally defined tobacco product” that compete with more expensive large flavored cigars also sold in retail stores.

Ron Tully, vice president of the National Tobacco Company, said Worcester would be setting up for a favorable environment for the sale of large cigars, while excluding the sale of legal make-your-own-cigar wrappers and loose cigar tobacco. He said the cigar wrappers are sometimes incorrectly referred to as a blunt wrap at retail outlets and, as a result, it has led to a common misconception about cigar wrappers and their supposed negative association that they are often used as drug paraphernalia.

Mr. Tully said his company is challenging the District of Columbia over a similar ban in a suit it has filed, arguing it conflicts with federal regulations. He said some of world’s largest cigar manufacturers who make the blunt cigars have been fighting state legislative bills across the country aimed at restricting or eliminating the sale of legal cigar wraps, and to date, of the 20 such bills filed, all have been rejected.

“Legislators quickly recognized these anti-competitive bills were simply designed to take one legal tobacco product off the shelf in favor of another,” Mr. Tully said.

“My company would argue that if the city of Worcester is concerned about alleged paraphernalia use of tobacco products, it should address the issue broadly in respect of all legal tobacco products including blunt cigars, and not simply legal cigar wrappers,” he added. “We have written to the city indicating we would be willing to work with them in crafting such language that gives law enforcement the tools it may need in this area.”

By exercising his “personal privilege” on the tobacco amendments last week, Mr. Germain single-handedly cut off council discussion on them until its next meeting Tuesday night. But Mr. Germain has already said he will not be at that meeting; in order for the item to be held under personal privilege for another week, at least four other city councilors are going to have to step forward.

Before going forward any further, Councilor-at-Large Konstantina B. Lukes wants to know whether pharmacy owners were given an opportunity to weigh in on it before the amendments were drafted. And, District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy has asked for a report on whether the rate of smoking has gone down in the those communities that have banned the sale of tobacco in pharmacies.

Mr. Palmieri, meanwhile, said he would be happy to entertain a vote to send the tobacco amendments to his committee for more public hearings.