Smokers are influenced by package color

PACKAGING colour, slim cigarettes, a smooth taste. Many smokers believe these three factors each represent a safer smoke cigarette package

A study published in the journal Addiction reveals that one-in-five smokers believe “some cigarette brands could be less harmful than others”, with many basing their idea of risk on the colour of the packaging.

In fact all conventional brands of cigarettes present the same risk to smokers, regardless of whether they are ‘mild’ or ‘low-tar’.

The belief may stem from old branding of cigarettes as ‘mild’ or ‘light’.

Tobbacco companies are no longer allowed to describe their brand with these terms because they are misleading, but most simply changed them to a colour. What used to be Marlboro Lights are now Marlboro Golds.

The effect is that many smokers now equate light colours – such as gold, silver and white – with low-risk cigarettes.

The study surveyed over 8000 current and former smokers in Australia, the UK, US and Canada. False beliefs were higher in the UK and US.

The research also revealed many smokers believe they are safer if they smoke a slimmer or filtered cigarette or one with a smoother taste, and are under the impression that nicotine is responsible for most of the cancer caused by cigarettes.

Dr David Hammond, one of the researchers on the study, said “the findings highlight the deceptive potential of ‘slim’ cigarette brands targeted primarily at young women”.

“The findings also support the potential benefits of plain packaging regulations that will soon take effect in Australia, under which all cigarettes will be sold in packages with the same plain colour, without graphics or logos.”

Under proposed legislation aimed at reducing smoking rates in Australia, all logos will be removed from cigarette packaging, and tobacco companies will be required to print their brand name in a specific font.

Read more »

Electronic cigarettes and vaping

Electronic cigarettes are battery powered drug delivery machines that allow a consumer to breathe in a high dose nicotine aerosol. (See previous article “Electronic cigarettes, nicotine and antifreeze?” with research source citations in the comments section at Examiner.com/Roanoke Longevity Examiner.) No tobacco is used in the plastic machine cartridges, just pure nicotine in an artificially flavored liquid. Many scary questions have arisen about e-cigs:

Just how much nicotine gets in your brain when you vape one cartridge? Without extensive animal testing this question is not answerable. Extensive animal testing has not been done on e-cigs. The amount of nicotine that you take in from e-cigs will depend on how many cartridges you suck on, how deeply you inhale, how often you partake, and to some extent, how much money you have to buy replacement cartridges. Manufacturers may make claims about the actual dose received but without pharmacological and physiological testing, the answers don’t have meaning.

Are e-cigs more addictive than tobacco cigarettes? Again, no one knows yet. The product is too new, and too few people have used it to date. A full blown epidemiology study is required.

Can e-cigs make you sick? Electronic cigarettes use nicotine extracted with petroleum-based chemicals from tobacco leaves and, as such, are artificially flavored. Nicotine is deadly when blood levels reach about 60 mg in a 150 pound male. Quick smoking of sixty tobacco cigarettes would be required to reach this level. One Roanoker, Gus T. Castros, flatlined from a heart attack after he smoked 80 cigarettes over seven and a half hours. He had accidentally reached the 60 mg toxic dose plus some. When nicotine is inhaled, it inhibits blood flow to the skin which is one reason why smokers don’t heal well after surgery or from wounds and why smokers develop loads of wrinkles. Also when nicotine is inhaled, it is converted to amino ketones which can cause kidney damage.

The most frightening aspect of electronic cigarettes is that consumers who do not seek out data and who do not think critically might be convinced by the old hackneyed ad line: “This is Safe!” This same line was shouted by physicians in the 1950′s about tobacco cigarettes before the data was in and the truth was known–decades and millions of deaths and inpatients later. We just don’t know yet, but if you want to be one of the first poor guinea pigs who reveals the dangers and illnesses associated with e-cigs feel free. Vaping is your right.

Read more »

Smoking ban a limit on freedom but a big step forward for Springfield

As members of civilized society, we all accept limits on our freedom.
We know we can’t drive 60 mph in a school zone.
We understand we shouldn’t dump raw sewage into a lake.
We know it’s wrong to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

On April 5, we strongly urge city voters — smokers and nonsmokers alike — to accept another limit on freedom: Vote “yes” on the proposed ordinance to ban smoking in all indoor places accessible to workers or the public.

It is the right thing to do for public health: Despite the protestations of opponents, it is clear that secondhand smoke, as much as smoking, is hazardous to your health, not just a nuisance to be tolerated.

The ban recognizes the danger being imposed on workers, including many with little choice about their place of employment, and it’s especially important to those working in food service or bars where literally every breath they take exposes them to risk of harm.

Finally, the ban is an important step forward for the image of Springfield, putting our city on even footing with hundreds of smaller and larger cities in protecting the public’s right to clean air.

Reasonable smokers understand that when they light up, they are imposing on their nonsmoking friends, associates and the perfect strangers at the restaurant table next to them. Many smokers are courteous enough to ask if others mind — or voluntarily step outside to avoid stinking up a house or blowing smoke in someone else’s face.

This recognizes the basic limits of freedom. You are free to put yourself at risk, or do whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights of others — or put others at risk of harm — without their consent.

What opponents of the ban seem to ignore is how the freedom of one person to smoke infringes on the personal liberty of others who would like to be able to enjoy being out in public, or do their jobs, without the annoyance and danger posed by secondhand smoke.

Opponents argue that the ban interferes with the rights of businesses to choose — and that if an individual does not want to patronize a smoking establishment, they can find a nonsmoking alternative. We argue that all businesses are regulated for the common good. Restaurants and bars, in particular, face myriad regulations to ensure public safety. In that regard, banning smoking is no different.

The ban will level the playing field for restaurants and bars, which is important to fostering competition. And the evidence suggests that businesses in other cities with such bans do just fine, if not better, after the law is enacted.

The proposed ordinance would replace the city’s existing smoking regulations, which are riddled with exemptions and result in unequal playing rules. The proposal also would ban smoking in some outside areas such as playgrounds and within five feet of building entrances and windows.

Opponents have attempted to downplay the health risks of secondhand smoke, although even Dr. John Lilly, a spokesman for Live Free Springfield, acknowledged in an interview he was “not going to say it doesn’t cause cancer.” He just says they haven’t proven it.

Surgeons general for 25 years have been saying just the opposite. For instance, Vice Adm. Richard H. Carmona, surgeon general under President George W. Bush, reported in 2006 that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk of inhaling more than 50 carcinogens and at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

Read more »