How to Play the Tobacco Industry

I admire tobacco companies. Despite nasty looking warnings on tobacco products, consumers find a reason to consume these items. And despite their minimal marketing campaigns, these companies find loyal customers to retain their growth momentum. This ensures a stable top line and the rising population presents steady growth potential. But when it comes to hand picking tobacco stocks, which companies should make it to your list?

Anger as plain cigarette packaging plans put on hold by ministers

Health campaigners have accused the government of putting lives at risk after ministers confirmed on Friday that they were shelving plans to introduce legislation forcing cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging.
Cancer Research UK said "lives will be lost" as a result of the decision, with Labour suggesting it was evidence of the Australian political consultant Lynton Crosby exerting undue influence on Downing Street.
When Andrew Lansley was health secretary, he said there was clear evidence that branded packaging encouraged people to smoke when he launched a consultation on the topic. Anna Soubry, the public health minister, said as recently as April this year that she was personally persuaded of the case for a plain packaging law.
But on Friday, Jeremy Hunt, Lansley's successor, told MPs in a written statement that the government had decided to postpone its plans to introduce plain packaging because it wants to study the impact the policy is having in Australia, the only country where it has so far been introduced. He would not say how long the government would wait, but ministers are not expected to revisit the idea until after the 2015 general election.
The announcement coincided with the revelation that the Home Office will make a statement next week confirming that the government would not be introducing a minimum price for alcohol, and that instead it will press ahead with less ambitious plans to stop alcohol being sold at below cost as a loss leader.
In his statement, Hunt said the consultation on plain cigarette packaging had shown that views on the proposal were "highly polarised" – with 53% of those providing detailed feedback in favour and 43% against – and that as a result "the government has decided to wait until the emerging impact of the decision in Australia can be measured before we make a final decision".
Downing Street is understood to be behind the decision to shelve plain packaging, which has been clearly heading for the Whitehall long grass ever since a bill on the topic was dropped from the Queen's speech. During the consultation there were claims that plain packaging legislation could cost jobs in manufacturing and in retail, encourage illegal tobacco trading and cost the exchequer up to £6bn, although on Friday the Department of Health would not say which of these arguments had proved persuasive.
Harpal Kumar, Cancer Research UK's chief executive, accused the government of caving in to the tobacco industry and of ignoring the interests of young people who, he said, were particularly susceptible to the influence of tobacco branding.
"This decision is bitterly disappointing and lives will be lost as a result. What's shocking is that more than 200,000 children start smoking every year in the UK," he said.
"All companies use packaging as a form of marketing. The tobacco industry relies on packaging more than most, since other forms of advertising and promotion are closed to it. The government had a choice: protect children from an addiction that kills 100,000 people in the UK every year or protect tobacco industry profits. We believe it has made the wrong choice."
The British Heart Foundation's chief executive, Simon Gillespie, said: "This was the chance for a real show of strength, courage and confidence but instead the government has capitulated in the face of industry pressure. Critical legislation that will help stop young people getting hooked on a lethal habit has now been left hanging in the balance."
Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP and former GP, responded to the announcement by posting on Twitter: "R.I.P public health. A day of shame for this government; the only winners big tobacco, big alcohol and big undertakers."
In a subsequent interview on the BBC's World at One, she partly blamed the decision on Lynton Crosby, the Conservatives' general election co-ordinator credited with telling David Cameron to "scrap the barnacles off the boat" – meaning that the prime minister should focus on core issues such as immigration and not waste political capital on more marginal concerns.
"One of those barnacles is today being buried at sea and that seems to be public health. I think that's very worrying," Wollaston said.
Labour also tried to pin some of blame on Crosby, focusing on his lobbying company, Crosby Textor, and the work it has done for the tobacco industry.
"The Tories used to say that they were in favour of this policy, that children should be protected. But now, not long after employing Lynton Crosby, David Cameron is backing down," said the shadow public health minister, Diane Abbott, who tabled an urgent question on the subject in the Commons.
"People will rightly wonder if the government is breaking its promise, despite the medical evidence and the wishes of British families, in order to please its friends in big business."
Responding to Abbott in the Commons, Soubry said that talking about Crosby was "a complete red herring" and that health ministers had not discussed the matter with him.
A No 10 spokesman said Crosby had no involvement in the decision. He also said that Cameron had never been lobbied by Crosby on cigarette packaging.
The government's decision was welcomed by groups including the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, the pro-smoking group Forest and the Petrol Retailers Associations.
In the Commons several Tory MPs warmly welcomed the government's move and Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, told Soubry: "You've protected 1,000 jobs directly in my constituency as a result of this and for that I am truly grateful."
But Soubry, who told MPs that her father died from lung cancer after a lifetime of heavy smoking, said she would not agree to Paisley's request for a meeting with those who manufacture tobacco. "It is bad, it is horrible stuff, it kills people, it does great damage to people's health," she said.
• This article was amended on 12 July 2013. It originally said the decision was welcomed by the pro-smoking group Ash. This group is anti-smoking; it was the pro-smoking group Forest that welcomed the decision. This has been corrected.

Cannabis drug will soon be on hand to ease MS patients’ symptoms

With legislation expected to be brought forward later this year, cannabis will soon be made legally available for the first time in Ireland. Who is it aimed at and how will it work?

When will it be available?
Last year the Irish Medicines Board approved the cannabidiol drug Sativex for use on prescription. The drug is used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS), which is a progressive, degenerative neurological condition that affects the motor, sensory and cognitive functioning of the body.

It was approved in Canada in 2005, and is currently available for this purpose in a host of countries, including throughout the UK. Cigarettes news.

However, before GPs in Ireland can start to prescribe the drug, legislation is needed. According to the Department of Health, the matter is being progressed “as quickly as possible”. It previously indicated it had hoped to bring forward legislative proposals in “mid-2013”.

Minister of State at the Department of Health Alex White recently added his perspective, saying the Government was at “quite an advanced stage in preparing regulations” and that he hoped these would be introduced “in the coming months”.

A potential complication in bringing forward the legislation may be the fact that the Department of Justice will also be involved in the process.

Does this mean that cannabis will be legalised?
No, the Government is not considering a Netherlands-type situation.

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, the “manufacture, production, preparation, sale, supply, distribution and possession of cannabis or cannabis-based medicinal products are unlawful except for the purposes of research”.

However, as indicated, it will shortly be legal to use it for medical reasons, so the Department of Health has been engaging with experts to identify how best to legally prescribe authorised cannabis-based medicinal products, while maintaining existing controls on cannabis and cannabis substances.

Who will be entitled to use the drug?
The drug is primarily aimed at those with MS, and the Government’s current review is aimed at examining how authorised cannabis-based medicinal products for patients’ suffering may be legally prescribed by medical practitioners and used by patients for the treatment of MS in Ireland.

There are 8,000-10,000 people with MS in Ireland.

The condition is usually diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 40, with more than twice the number of women as men diagnosed.

There is currently no cure for MS, a common symptom of which is spasticity, which refers to muscle stiffness, cramping and involuntary spasms.

“It’s about being able to carry on with your daily life: to hold a cup of tea; to hold a child if you have children; to type at your computer. All these are very difficult if you have tremors,” says Emma Rogan, policy and information officer with MS Ireland.

Cannabis has been found to help ease the symptoms of spasticity. Indeed at present, some Irish people with MS buy the drug from dealers in order to manage their symptoms, while it is estimated that 10-30 per cent of MS patients in Europe smoke cannabis to ease the pain and other symptoms of the condition.

Will patients smoke the drug?
No. Unlike its recreational use, medical marijuana is typically absorbed into the body in different ways. Sativex, for example, is a peppermint-flavoured mouth spray, which is sprayed under the tongue.

Tobacco smoke is biggest home pollutant in Ireland, EPA study finds

Yet monitoring of air quality within the home is scant compared with the outdoor environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Strive research programme, led by NUI Galway, has carried out an indoor air pollution (IAP) study of homes in Ireland and Scotland where open combustion takes place. This includes all with open fires and homes where smoking takes place indoors. The study measured concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), endotoxin and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The measure that was used was PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometres in size) or the standard measure for potential pollutants.

The good news coming from the study is that there have been advances in the design and construction of homes in recent decades, which have had a good impact on indoor air quality.

As a result, the amount of air entering and leaving a typical building is estimated to be 10 times lower now than it was 30 years ago.

However, evidence as far as the impact of tobacco smoking is concerned is startling in comparison with homes that use coal, wood and peat for heating and gas for cooking.

Concentrations of air pollution in homes using coal, wood, peat and gas for cooking were low, and mostly well within health-based standards.

Similarly, PM2.5 concentrations in homes using coal, wood and gas for heating were comparable to outdoor ambient concentrations. However, peat-burning homes had PM2.5 concentrations approximately twice that of ambient concentrations. Yet, burning peat is by some distance a much safer option than indoor smoking. Homes where smoking takes places had PM2.5 levels 10 times the safe level.

The average 24-hour PM2.5 concentration was almost six times the recommended World Health Organisation (WHO) 24-hour limit and more than four times the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outdoor air quality index “unhealthy” level.

The researchers concluded that “exposure to environmental tobacco smoke represents the greatest impact on health from combustion derived air pollution in the home”.

They then went on to state that the exposure of non-smokers to ETS in the home accounts for a health burden that is “broadly comparable to that currently experienced in both countries from road traffic accidents and there is a real need for public health policy and research professionals to develop interventions to address this”.

The workplace smoking ban was introduced in 2004 and is widely regarded as an outstanding success which has been replicated all over the world.

Minister for Health Dr James Reilly’s assertion that smoking in cars where children are present will be banned is another frontier in the withdrawal of smoking from public places.

However, the private home remains a last bastion of privilege for smokers.

Instead, the EPA report recommends that there should be a co-ordinated national campaign to educate smokers and non-smokers about the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke in the home.

The research was completed by NUI Galway and researchers at the University of Aberdeen, the Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, and the University of Birmingham.

NUI Galway research leader Dr Marie Coggins said exposure to tobacco smoke, especially of children, was something that “needs urgent action”.

The report’s authors have called for improved national survey campaigns to determine what proportion of the population is exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at home.

Their recommendations include a co-ordinated national campaign to educate smokers and non-smokers about the health effects from smoking at home and the promotion of smoke-free homes.

The Tobacco Free Research Institute Ireland director general Prof Luke Clancy said the results in relation to tobacco smoking were “disappointing”. (The institute was formed on the basis of a partnership between the Office of Tobacco Control and Ash Ireland and its parent organisations: The Irish Cancer Society and The Irish Heart Foundation.)

He pointed out that about 40 per cent of Irish children are exposed to second-hand smoke inside households. “Action is needed to encourage people not to smoke or at least not to subject others to the health risks associated with inhaling other people’s smoke,” he said.

Smoking ban doesn’t take away rights, it gives them

 By Robbyn Brooks
Every summer, my mom and dad and brother and I would load up in the van and head out for the Wild West – Texas.
That’s where Daddy is from and we’d spend our vacations going to see our kinfolk “out that way.” The trip took about 14 hours from start to finish and we’d usually drive straight through.
Just about 30 minutes into the ride, Dad would light up a cigarette. He’d crack the window a tad, but it wouldn’t help much. The car filled up with smoke.
Just as it began to air out, smoke would begin again. As a kid, I didn’t realize that’s why my eyes watered and I felt sick on the trips.
We got a little reprieve when we found out Justin had asthma and was allergic to cigarette smoke. Dad would try to hold off on his smoking until we made a stop for a bathroom break.
When I was about 24, working at a newspaper in Destin, I almost lost my dad. His smoking had paved the way for heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other complications. He has a pacemaker and tires a lot easier than he used to. It’s frustrating for him. I can see it on his face and hear it in his voice.
My father’s parents died of cancer. His brother died of cancer. All used tobacco products.
As an adult, I vowed there would be no smoking in my car, in my house, or in or around anything else I owned.
That’s why I am proud of the City of Troy’s decision to ban smoking in public places. It’s not because I disagree with the freedom to choose what is best for each of us, it’s because of the infringement of rights on others. Going into a business, I or any other non-smoker, shouldn’t have to pass through a cloud of smoke to get there. I think designated smoking areas are fine. And personal choice is great.
But exposing children to smoke at ballparks is not OK. Exposing pregnant women to smoke at outdoor events is not OK. Your rights end where mine begin and we’ve got to make a compromise on this issue.
I don’t buy into the idea of some comments I’ve seen on the smoking ban such as, “If you don’t like the smoke you don’t have to go.”
Why?
Everyone should be allowed to go wherever they want in public without fear of someone harming them. That’s what smoking does. It’s harmful. The smoking ordinance still allows designated areas for smokers away from smoke-free areas. I’m not sure how anyone can argue it’s not fair. It’s simply making public areas accessible to everyone while still allowing smokers to snag a few puffs, if they want.
What we choose for ourselves is our business. However, what we choose to expose others to in public places is public business – and the City of Troy is taking care of that business.
I appreciate that our city council has taken a step so many other cities – such as Washington, D.C., Auburn, Gulf Shores, and Austin, Texas – already have to enable everyone to breathe some smoke-free air.
Thank you for holding your ground.

Succesfull history of Marlboro brand

Already at that time he was known as the creator of the popular advertising characters, among them - Jolly Green Giant (obviously, later to become the prototype of the notorious Shrek), Charlie Tuna, the elves and cat Kibler Morris (Is this coincidence by chance the name of the cat family and the founder of the brand " Marlboro? "). Leo Burnett seriously thought about the status quo and made an important decision. We had finally and irrevocably destroy the old image of tobacco products for "ladies, penetrating flavor which confirms the fidelity of male proposition that" Marlboro "- is an aristocrat among the cigarettes." And these things meant to make a difficult act to bright symbol of masculinity. At that time, the images should have been much more than was the result: Burnett believed that on the TV screen to appear brave war correspondent, battered life "sea dog" who loves extreme high-altitude construction. However, the first images concocted - "cowboy - a tamer of the prairie" - conceived an unexpected success. On this basis, and was built which brought such an incredible advertising campaign results.More info about Marlboro brand read more.

But the story of the transformation in men's ladies' cigarettes was not so simple: the events that take place behind the scenes, was forced to sweat as the most expert in advertising, and the founder of the concern «Philip Morris International». The fact that in the beginning, Philip Morris is not so much like the idea of ​​Burnett. Determined to find out how it is realistic and voplotima in life, he turned to a group of researchers. Their work is not pleased: it turns out, in the United States at that time remained only about 3,000 professional cowboys. Morris did not believe that the average office worker will associate themselves with such idealistic advertising character. However, the language in Burnett was suspended fine, and psychology, he knew perfectly. Adman was sure that the person needs something bright and fairly remote, so inaccessible, far and near - the image to which it can aspire to. Manly squint bright eyes, bronze tan, sharply defined cheekbones, striking curved field hat, and, of course, the smoke, which is a winding stream tends upwards, the blue sky above the sun-desiccated earth canyon ... In fact, this image - something like a Jungian archetype, firmly entrenched in the minds of many millions of viewers in front row: "Smoking - it's cool."

And Burnett was able to bring these prospects to the administrator: he still managed to break the wall of mistrust, and the guys agreed to a die-hard cowboy image. With this sale «Marlboro» already for a year have grown so much that moved from the last place (then production Concern «Philip Morris International» took less than 1% market share) in fourth in the ranking of sales of tobacco products worldwide, becoming the cigarettes champions. Of course, at that time was not yet known, that filter cigarettes also generate significant health hazard. But there is no particular confidence that it could at least someone would stop if a person has (even on an unconscious level) the decision to destroy yourself, stop it from doing so no one can.