The best cigarettes store online.

Hoping to lure a new generation of smokers, tobacco companies routinely manipulate levels of menthol so that their cigarettes prove more appealing and less harsh to novice users, Boston researchers reported yesterday.

Scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health scoured thousands of pages of industry documents from the 1980s through 2006 and commissioned laboratory tests of cigarettes to confirm a long-suspected link between menthol levels and marketing strategies.

The researchers found that tobacco companies embrace a Goldilocks approach when launching brands: Add too little menthol, a chemical that has an effect akin to anesthesia, and tobacco retains its intense bite. Add too much, and first-time smokers are overwhelmed. Add just the right amount, and cigarettes become powerfully seductive.

A 1987 internal memo from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., maker of the Salem brand, which uses menthol, summarized the benefits of low-level menthol cigarettes: "Smoother, more refreshing tobacco taste." Such a product, the memo said, would be a "proven winner" among 18- to 24-year-olds.

Once hooked, the documents show, smokers require increasing levels of menthol to maintain the same cooling effect. Cigarette makers, in turn, respond with brands that contain more of the additive, the Harvard scientists said.

Representatives of large tobacco companies decried the study, with Lorillard Tobacco Co., maker of Newport and other menthol products, saying in a statement that the firm "does not control levels of menthol to promote smoking among adolescents and young adults."

A spokesman with the nation’s largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, said the company doesn’t "believe the study’s hypothesis or conclusions are supported by the facts cited in the study."

The findings, published online by the American Journal of Public Health, arrive at a critical moment, as Congress is close to giving the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco. Those rules would not explicitly ban menthol, something that has deeply divided public health advocates.

Stanton Glantz, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, said the Harvard study shows a willful pattern of action by tobacco companies that can only be remedied by a federal ban.

"As you always find when you go digging into the industry documents, the companies are very smart and very thorough and don’t do anything by accident," Glantz said. "This is a very important element of cigarette marketing and design."

Smoking - which is linked to cancer, heart disease, and other ailments - kills more than 400,000 Americans a year and is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

Scientists not involved with the Harvard study hailed it as a landmark piece of research, sketching the richest portrait ever of the industry’s use of menthol to attract consumers. Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco-control researcher at Boston University School of Public Health, said it "really demonstrates that menthol is playing a major role in maintaining cigarette consumption and especially in recruiting and supporting addiction among youth and young adults."

PRAGUE - Czech tobacco group Philip Morris CR sees no reason for further tax hikes on cigarettes in the next several years after the last rise at the start of the year, weekly Euro reported, citing the group’s new CEO.
‘After a rise in the consumer tax in January 2008, the Czech Republic fulfilled and passed the minimum tax, and therefore we do not see a reason for raising the rate for several years,’ Euro quoted Alvise Giustiniani as saying in an interview.
The tobacco group’s Czech market share has eroded in recent years amid fiercer competition and tax hikes on cigarettes, and analysts expect the company to face challenges in 2008 due to strong stockpiling from competitors.

A TOTAL of 52 participants including mall managers, restaurant and hotel managers, health professionals, legal experts, law enforcement agents and government officials recently attended a National Health Authority’s (NHA) workshop on Tobacco Law number 20 of 2002. Penalties for violating the law include fines of up to QR5,000, closure of establishment which violates the law and jail of up to six months. The aim of the workshop, which is one of the activities lined up for the commemoration of the ‘World No Tobacco Day’ was to discuss how to improve the implementation of the law among other things.
The theme for the year is ‘Tobacco-Free Youth’. The director of the Public health at the NHA, Dr Gail Fraser Chanpong, who declared open the workshop, said that tobacco is a major public health problem in the community and that urgent Marlboro cigarettes control efforts are needed.
Prof Ravinder Mamtani of the Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar discussed the effects of tobacco and highlighted its effects, including cancer and heart diseases.
“Globally, tobacco kills approximately 5.4mn people annually, that is, one person every six seconds,” he said. Legal expert at the NHA Asmaa Abdel Halim highlighted parts of the law and also discussed how it organises and controls tobacco sale and smoking in public places.
She stressed the importance of collaboration between all governmental agencies, families, educational institutions and others to reach the goals set by the country.
Head of the Non-communicable Diseases section Adenike Ajani said legislation is one of many strategies that can be used for tobacco control, especially because of its special consideration for the youths. She added that the law prohibits the sale of tobacco to minors and advertisement that may encourage its use among youths. Ajani noted that tobacco in the law refers to all kinds of products including water-pipe (sheesha) and chewing tobacco (suwaikah), while adding that there is no safe form of tobacco.
Major Hamad al-Ansari of the Ministry of Interior said that law enforcement officials will continue to support the Marlboro cigarettes control efforts of the NHA, adding that official channels of collaboration need to be established to strengthen the role of the police officers in the tobacco control.

In the near future it will become harder for UB smokers to light up and enjoy their cigarettes in NY and on campus. From smoking bans in bars and restaurants to increasing prices, the habit of smoking is becoming more inconvenient and expensive.
Over the past weeks, the recently-passed state budget includes a plan to increase the tax on cigarettes, which could mean an additional $1.50 per pack on top of the current prices.
According to Sherri Darrow, director of Wellness Education Services (WES), UB will soon be adding their own obstacles for UB smokers.
"We are currently working to change policies around campus regarding tobacco," Darrow said. "We are trying to stop the sales of tobacco on campus and we are trying to make UB a smoke-free campus."
In the near future, Darrow said that WES is attempting to establish distinguished smoking areas, which are farther away from building entrances. Their reasons for the new programs are to promote a healthier lifestyle on campus. Even with the continual obstacles approaching in NY, many UB student smokers have no intentions of quitting, and feel that these new policies are insulting.
Tim Wagner, a freshman media study major, said that he picked up the habit because he played a character in a musical that smoked. He now averages about four or five cigarettes a day, and on a stressful day, he’ll smoke up to two packs.
Many college smokers said that smoking has helped them deal with the stress of school. Some also claim that the college social atmosphere school has encouraged them to start smoking.
Alexander Karsten, a UB law student, said that he would not have made it through law school if it weren’t for cigarettes. He also said that if there was a smoking ban on campus, he would not have attended UB. "If this university wants to deprive us of our ability to make choices and even wrong choices, in their opinion, what are they saying about the trust they are putting in the future members of society?," Karsten said.
Karsten also said that because UB is a state university, they should not have the right to ban smoking on campus. Sarah Chojnacki, a sophomore psychology major, took up the habit when a coworker offered her a cigarette during a break. She said that the college social life has not helped her kick the habit, and finds that she smokes a lot at parties. "I never thought I would become a smoker," Chojnacki said.
Molly Brennan, a senior media study major, started her smoking habits from college socializing. "I tend to surround myself with fellow smokers and I will smoke more frequently when around them," Brennan said. "I was one of the many who considered themselves ’social smokers.’ I would merely bum cigarettes from other smokers. At the age of 21, I began buying my own packs of cigarettes."
With the NY tax increase on cigarettes, and UB’s potential ban of selling cigarettes, many UB smokers may find themselves turning to more affordable alternatives for cigarette purchases.
Danielle Smith, a sophomore psychology major, purchases her cigarettes from an Indian Reservation to dodge tax increases. "I do buy a lot of my cigarettes by the carton on the Reservation, so I’ll probably just buy two at a time when I make trips out there to avoid these tax increases," Smith said.
Karsten said that if UB wants to encourage the students to become healthier, they should consider alternative programs, such as focusing on healthier foods such as organic foods and purified water. More people will quit smoking when it is no longer the norm, Darrow said. The new programs at UB will continue to promote a healthy lifestyle that excludes smoking.
According to Darrow, if students are looking to quit there are options available like the quitting hotline, making an appointment with a health professional or stopping by the Health and Wellness Center.
Alan Vlakancic, a sophomore environmental design major, does not think that the NY tax increase will deter people from smoking.
"It makes cigarettes into a forbidden fruit, and probably makes rebellious kids want to smoke more," Vlakancic said. "If people are going to smoke, they’re going to smoke. A price increase just makes it more of a hassle."

WASHINGTON — U.S. Congress on Wednesday moved a step closer to handing the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority to regulate tobacco and cigarettes products, despite concerns voiced by many lawmakers that the agency cannot handle its current workload.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 38-12 for legislation that would allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and require larger and more informative health warnings on cigarette packs. A Senate committee has already approved similar legislation.
Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans were divided on the legislation, with 11 voting for it. Those who opposed it said the agency has had enough trouble ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply and medicine. "This legislation, if it becomes law, would require the FDA to take on a task that is enormous, complex and completely outside its regulatory experience," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee. "It will almost necessitate a diversion from its core functions."
Barton said the Federal Trade Commission was better suited for the job. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the "unfortunate state of affairs" at the FDA did not mean the agency should ignore the harms of tobacco.
"It simply means that when we give the agency this additional responsibility, we also must give it the resources necessary to handle the job and to handle it well," Waxman said. To address concerns about resources, the legislation calls for the assessment of user fees on tobacco companies. The assessments could initially generate $90 million this year. By 2018, that amount would increase to $755 million. Aides said the fees would be assessed based on market share.
Health groups have been highly supportive of the legislation. "This bill will put a stop to decades of Big Tobacco marketing, aimed at addicting each new generation of young people to their deadly products," said Daniel Smith, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
More than 400,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses each year. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., noted that both of her parents died from lung cancer, and she asked lawmakers to consider the financial toll that additional smokers generate when they come down with smoking-related illnesses. Proponents say various aspects of the legislation would deter people from taking up cigarettes or from using cigarettes that they may view as less dangerous because of their labeling.
The legislation would ban candy-flavored cigarettes, which attract younger smokers. It would also prohibit terms such as "light" or "mild" which many consumers mistakenly believe means the products are safer. The Bush administration has voiced qualms about giving the agency responsibility for tobacco regulation because some people could get a false sense of security about the safety of tobacco products.
For decades, the FDA said it lacked authority to regulate tobacco so long as cigarette makers did not claim that smoking provided health benefits. In 1996, it reversed course and cited new evidence that the industry intended its products to feed the nicotine habits of the roughly 45 million Americans who smoke. Tobacco companies sued, and the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In 2000, the court ruled 5-4 that Congress did not authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco.
Some smaller tobacco manufacturers endorsed the legislation after it was amended so that they would have more time to meet new testing and reporting requirements. The National Association of Convenience Stores also said it would no longer oppose the bill, though the trade group stopped short of endorsing it. Lawmakers amended the legislation so that retailers getting orders to stop selling tobacco because they illegally sold tobacco to minors could have the orders modified or terminated if it’s determined they took effective steps to prevent such sales.
Also, some lawmakers representing districts with a strong tobacco farming presence voted for the bill after it was amended so that products containing foreign-grown tobacco would have to meet the same standards applied to domestically grown tobacco.

The budget cuts lawmakers are considering to health programs for the poor are unconscionable — especially when a reasonable increase of the tax on cigarettes could raise badly needed money.
Florida’s 34-cents-a-pack tax is the fifth lowest in the country and hasn’t changed in 20 years. The average cigarettes tax nationally is $1.12 a pack. By adding $1 to a pack of cigarettes, Florida could move its tax in line with most other states and raise $1 billion.
That’s about the same amount the Legislature is looking to cut from the state’s human-services budget. The $1 billion in cuts would decimate optional programs under Medicaid, which pays for the health care of poor Floridians. That includes children and the disabled and programs such as hospice care for the dying and hospitalization for transplant patients.
Cutting Medicaid programs also means losing matching federal tax dollars, which is shortsighted. While increasing a tax isn’t always smart public policy, in this case it is. Studies show that when states increase the cigarettes tax, more people quit smoking. Teens, who can’t afford the higher costs, are the most likely to quit or not to start in the first place. In the long run, that will mean the state will save billions of dollars in years to come, because there will be fewer people suffering from cigarette-related diseases. As fewer smoke, revenues will drop, but, over time, so will the need.
It doesn’t make sense that Florida’s cigarette tax is so low. Lawmakers should be discouraging people from getting sick, not making it easier.