Is There A Debate About Smoking While Pregnant That I Don’t Know About?

Yesterday, while researching an article I wrote about how one study claims women smoke cigarettes so they can have smaller babies and therefore an easier delivery, I stumbled across a pretty startling website.

I didn’t realize that smoking while pregnant was debatable, like perhaps having a glass of wine occasionally during your third trimester. Yet, there it was, staring back at me from the screen of my laptop:

Courageous British Mum Says Smoking During Her Pregnancy Helped Make Her Baby Stronger

Wait, WHAT? I’m familiar with the young mom in Great Britain who says smoking helped make her baby’s heart stronger but did that headline say “courageous“?

I clicked on for a closer look and lo and behold, the article outlines all the arguments about why smoking is bad and then says there is no factual proof supporting those arguments. Okay, so it could just be one weirdo who really digs smoking, I thought, but after the article there were several comments from women who agree that smoking is harmless. Here are just a few:

Smokers ignore health warnings

No one would drink a glass of poison if it was emblazoned with large letters warning that it would kill them. But millions of people every day ignore similar warnings on cigarette packets. Do seasoned smokers ignore the stark health warnings that declare "smoking kills", "smoking seriously harms you and others around you" and "smokers die younger", or are their eyes trained not to see them? That's what academics at the UK Centre for Tobacco Studies – based at Bath and Bristol universities – decided to investigate using eye-tracking technology. Their aim was to find out whether the government's introduction of health labels – which began in the 1970s with the message, "Warning by HM Government. Smoking can damage your health" – was effective at preventing the habit or encouraging addicts to stop.

What they discovered won't please the tobacco giants. The academics' findings suggest that the best way to stop non-smokers from picking up the habit is to force cigarette-makers to box up their fags in plain packets devoid of any branding whatsoever. The work was carried out by Marcus Munafò, professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, and Linda Bauld, professor of socio-management at the University of Stirling, who noticed that tobacco firms had enjoyed significant surges in sales after jazzing up their packet designs.

The academics point out that, as governments around the world bought in increasingly strict restrictions on cigarette adverts on billboards, TV, cinema and more, tobacco firms began spending more time and money investigating new ways to attract customers. And, slowly but surely, their cigarette packaging became increasingly imaginative.

Munafò points to an example of when Sterling introduced price-marked packs to emphasise their value in 2008. "Its market share increased from 5% to 6.1% in four months," he says, before going on to flag up a limited edition "Celebration" pack of Lambert & Butler in 2004, which included pictures marking the brand's 25th anniversary. That, say the academics, helped to increase Lambert & Butler's market share by 0.4% – or some £60m – during four months on sale. Munafò points out that a couple of years later, Benson & Hedges Silver introduced a new "slide pack", which opened via a side panel rather than flip-top, and saw sales rocket 25% over six months, then a further 32.5% (or more than £74m) after a year. "In the latter two cases, spokespeople for the producers, Imperial Tobacco, producer of Davidoff cigarettes and Gauloises cigarettes and Gallaher, explicitly attributed sales success to the packs," Munafò adds. "And an industry paper, Tobacco Journal International, pointed out that 'tobacco packaging is no longer the silent salesman it once was – it now shouts.' The tobacco industry clearly acknowledges that the pack is a marketing tool."

So Munafò and Bauld called in 43 non-smokers, light smokers and daily smokers to look at both plain and branded cigarette packets to help them to work out the different effects. All of their research packs featured health warnings, but while the branded packets were samples from 10 of the UK's most popular cigarette-makers, the others were simple, unadorned white packets, with their brand name and number of cigarettes displayed only nominally in a standard font. The academics then fitted their volunteers with eye-tracking technology to see how they responded to the packets.

"We measured the number of times each person viewed the top half of the pack, which contained the brand information, and the bottom half of the pack, containing the health warning information," explains Munafò, who as an experimental psychologist specialises in investigating the cognitive and biological basis of addictive behaviours. After analysing their findings, the researchers found that non-smokers and light smokers paid more attention to the stark health warnings on plain packs than on those adorned with names like Marlborough. By contrast, the frequent smokers did not – Bauld and Munafò believe they might have conditioned themselves to ignore them.

It might not sound surprising that stark health warning stood out more, and had a more significant impact, on plain packets, but the researchers say their evidence adds support to the idea that the government should force the tobacco industry to dump decorative packaging. Munafò reckons if the likes of British American Tobacco, maker of Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike and Pall Mall, amongst others, were forced to standardise the colour and design of cigarette packaging – with all branding removed apart from a standard typeface including the name, relevant legal markings, and health warnings – it would boost the effectiveness of warnings. He adds that previous research suggests that the deterrent of plain packaging would be most powerful among children and young people, or those who believe they are smoking "healthier" cigarettes.

"Studies with teenagers – those not yet smoking or not smoking regularly – have found that they are brand-aware, including awareness by cigarette pack colour and design alone," says Munafò. "And smokers can believe that some brands of cigarettes are less harmful than others due to packaging, for example substantial false beliefs about the relative risks as a result of terms such as 'light' or 'mild', brand descriptors of 'taste' or lighter colours being used on packaging. Plain packaging reduces levels of these false beliefs."

The government has committed to consulting on the idea of introducing plain packaging. Bauld and Munafò have sent their findings to the Department of Health for discussion with its tobacco policy team. But other countries are ahead of us: in January next year, Australia will be the first to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.

In the meantime, Bauld and Munafò are furthering their research, including using brain imaging to look at how the brain responds to plain and branded packs. But Munafò is clear about what he thinks the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, should do. "The government should introduce plain packaging of tobacco products and maintain text and visual health labels on packs," he says. "There is good independent evidence on the impact of visual warnings on attitudes to smoking and smoking behaviour."

Funding cancer research is top priority, ACS, lawmakers agree

Regional lawmakers from across the Hudson Valley Friday morning discussed the importance of effectively preventing, treating, and eradicating cancer during a breakfast hosted by the American Cancer Society at the Kingston Holiday Inn.

The three topics of focus were the establishment of a Health Insurance Exchange, current legislation banning indoor tanning for minors, as well as legislation protecting children from flavored tobacco products and tobacco advertising.

Some of the flavored cigarettes are Kiss Super slims Menthol cigarettes, Eva Slims Menthol cigarettes.

State Senator William Larkin stressed the importance of making more funding available stating that we cannot fall behind on keeping our knowledge of cancer current.

“We ought to be able to say to Washington stop sending our tax dollars oversees and send it back to the United States of America so that they can make progress in programs such as cancer research,” he said.

Assemblyman Kevin Cahill said that in order for long term solutions to come to fruition it is necessary to change behavior as a government and as citizens.

Assemblyman Peter Lopez agreed saying part of the issue has been focusing on what is to be done from a preventative and well-care standpoint.

“Many of our groups are working on peer networking, educational outreach, seminars, and really changing the healthcare system to encourage people to take more ownership of their own personal healthcare,” he said.

This includes educating people on identifying symptoms so that they are able to report them to physicians early while treatment is most effective, said Lopez.

Ulster County Executive Michael Hein said the fight against cancer is a collective battle and individuals in the county can make a difference right now by eating a little better, being a little more active, committing a few dollars to research, and making sure that they help everyone around them do the same.

Lead Legislative Ambassador for the 22nd Congressional District Neil Eisenberg said it is “crucial we focus on the importance of continued funding for cancer research because the major advancements made in fighting cancer have been directly related to federally funded cancer research.”

Now, Pay $175 for Possessing Illegal Smokes in Ontario

In a bid to boost the number of non-smokers in the region, the government officials of Ontario have called for stricter measures on public smoking.

As per the new guideline that has been issued just this week, anyone found with contraband cigarettes in their possession will have to pay a hefty fine between $100 and $500.

Available at low costs, these cigarettes are a hit among young smokers. According to the findings of a recent study, these illegal contraband tobaccos account for more than 40% of those smoked by high schoolers.

Most of the times illegal cigarettes are being Marlboro brand or Winston cigarettes.

The proposal has been welcomed by the unions and the groups alike, with many feeling that the fine can prompt people to stop buying the illegal cigarettes.

The anti-smoking groups have supported the new legislation and have asserted that if a person will have to shell out $175 fine for a $15 cigarette, he will never again think of doing that.

It is, however, maintained that along with imposition of new rules and fines on the smokers, the government should also tight its grip on the cigar manufacturers.

Commending the decision, the Revenue Minister, Sophia Aggelonitis during a recent media briefing said: “Illegal tobacco is a complicated issue; it is an issue that is multi-ministerial, multi-jurisdictional. We're working with all our partners, and it is important for us to take this first step”.

SGA works on series of new bills

SGA is hoping to make campus safer, cleaner and more efficient for students. Enforcement of the no tobacco rule on campus, the Maintenance Entrance Note Act of 2011 and the Green Fee Committee are all projects on which SGA is currently working.

Tech has been a tobacco free campus for more than a year now, but many students who choose to use tobacco products break this rule on a daily basis and cause frustration to numerous students who choose not to use tobacco products.

"There's nothing really set in stone to enforce that policy because you really can't give a ticket to a student for smoking," said SGA President Sean Ochsenbein. "In that sense, there is no sole person that is out there among the group that is enforcing that policy."

SGA is now trying to come up with a cohesive and realistic way of approaching enforcement of no tobacco on campus. Ochsenbein has talked to students and come up with an idea that might be proposed to the administrative council in the next few weeks.

Another change that SGA hopes to make on campus is raising an awareness of maintenance workers entering residence halls and dorm rooms. During the March 1 meeting, SGA Senator Bo Murphy moved to accept the Maintenance Entrance Note Act of 2011. It was passed with friendly amendments.

The act requires that all maintenance workers must leave a note stating that they were in the room and the reason for their presence.

"It gives security to the student and a little bit of understanding of why someone was in the room," Ochsenbein said.

Yet another change that SGA is hoping to make on campus involves the Green Fee Committee. The committee is in charge of allocating the utilization of Green Fee money. The money comes from a fund that was the result of a bill that was approved Fall 2005, similar to the Student Organization Life Opportunity Fund that was created last year.

"There was a movement about five years ago in the state schools to find money to promote a green initiative on campuses," Ochsenbein said. "Of course, with state funding continually being reduced, students are paying more for their education than the state is, and there's not a lot of funding for those kinds of areas because most of it is going to the education.

"The money that is in that fund will be able to sustain a recycling program on campus that would be professional," Ochsenbein said.

The recycling plan includes putting recycling receptacles around campus in strategic locations where there is a high volume of traffic. The plan also involves having a service that will come to pick up the recycled materials and empty the recycling bins.

Ochsenbein expects all of these changes around campus to be put into effect within the next few weeks.

Menthol Cigarettes Pose No Added Lung Cancer Risk: Study

The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke menthol cigarettes is no greater than that of those who prefer regular cigarettes, researchers report.

The findings echo those of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that made headlines Friday when it said a ban on mentholated cigarettes might benefit the public health. While the panel concluded that menthols' minty flavor seems to help people take up smoking more readily, it added that there was no evidence menthols were any more dangerous than regular cigarettes in terms of risks for lung cancer or other respiratory ailments.

The new study, published online March 23 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, seems to agree with that notion. In fact, the researchers found that people who smoke menthol cigarettes might even have a somewhat lower risk of developing and dying from lung cancer than other smokers. a good example of Menthol cigs are Karelia menthol cigs.

But one expert said that no one should be misled by the findings into thinking menthols can keep lung cancer, emphysema and other respiratory diseases at bay.

"While this study finds no difference in lung cancer rates in smokers of menthol cigarettes versus non-menthol cigarettes, it is still inconveniently true that all cigarettes can cause lung cancer, as well as other cancers, heart disease, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and circulatory problems," said Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "There is simply no safe smoking."

The U.S. team analyzed data from almost 86,000 people taking part in an ongoing multiracial study in 12 southern states. They identified 440 lung cancer patients and compared them with more than 2,200 healthy people.

Menthol cigarettes were associated with lower lung cancer incidence and fewer lung cancer deaths than regular cigarettes, according to the study. For example, among people who smoked 20 or more cigarettes a day, menthol cigarette smokers were about 12 times more likely to develop lung cancer than never-smokers while the risk was about 21 times higher for smokers of regular cigarettes.

Menthol cigarettes are no more, and perhaps less, harmful than regular cigarettes, concluded study author William J. Blot, of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

The study authors agreed with Horovitz, however, that there is no safe cigarette.

"Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of premature death in the United States, but undue emphasis on reduction of menthol relative to other cigarettes may distract from the ultimate health prevention message that smoking of any cigarettes is injurious to health," Blot's team noted.

After looking over its advisory panel's report, the FDA will consider whether to ban or regulate menthol cigarettes. According to officials, the first response to the report is due from the agency within three months.

Room to raise state tobacco taxes

Amid the doom and gloom of budget shortfall talk, our legislators have an opportunity to offer some hope. Since 2004 or 2005 there hasn't been a tax hike on tobacco products in Alabama. As usual we find ourselves behind that tax as well.

Lawmakers can raise the current tax by 100 percent and still be behind the national average ($1.45) and behind 29 states, the District of Columbia and three territories which tax tobacco above $1.

Cigarettes have become more and more expensive and even the brands as Astra cigarettes or Beverlly cigarettes are too expensive now.

The increase would be a win-win situation. If people stop smoking, they will experience better health and the state would spend less on health care coverage and have fewer absentees from work due to smoking-related illnesses.

If not, the money could go toward stopping the educational bleeding caused by proration. It could provide books, supply money, lower pupil-teacher ratios, technology for the classroom and a solid investment in the future of our children. Lawmakers could also increase taxes on other recreational killers, such as alcohol. Anything else is illegal, but it is sold in Alabama.

It is time to put education and children first in funding. If there must be cuts in education, let it be after all else has failed.
Mary Hooks
Tuskegee