While cigarette smoking is an undisputed cause of lung cancer, not all cases of lung cancer occur in smokers or former smokers. Gani Fawehinmi, who is reportedly a non-smoker, died of lung cancer on September 5, 2009. Although not every non-smoker suffering from lung cancer will have an identifiable risk factor for development of the disease, a number of conditions and circumstances have been identified that will increase a non-smoker’s chance of developing lung cancer.
Passive smoking, or the inhalation of tobacco smoke from other smokers sharing living or working quarters, is an established risk factor for the development of lung cancer. Non-smokers who reside with a smoker have a 24% increase in risk for developing lung cancer when compared with other non-smokers.
Radon gas, a naturally-occurring gas that forms when uranium decays, is another known cause of lung cancer. Radon gas can travel up through soil and enter homes through gaps in the foundation, pipes, drains, or other openings.
Asbestos is a compound that was widely used in the past as both thermal and acoustic insulation material. Microscopic fibers of asbestos break loose from the insulation material and are released into the air where they can be inhaled into the lungs. Asbestos fibers can persist for a lifetime in lung tissue following exposure to asbestos. Both lung cancer and a type of cancer known as mesothelioma are associated with exposure to asbestos.
Air pollution from vehicles, industry, and power plants, can raise the likelihood of developing lung cancer in exposed individuals. It has been estimated that up to 2,000 lung cancer deaths per year may be attributable to breathing polluted air, and many experts believe that prolonged exposure to highly polluted air can carry a risk for the development of lung cancer similar to that of passive smoking.
Sep 15, 2009
Sep 11, 2009
Cigarette thieves hit councillor's business
A Wanganui businessman and district councillor is several thousand dollars out of pocket after burglars smashed into his Westmere service station.
Ray Stevens, who owns Double S Motordrome on State Highway 3, said the two burglars took less than two minutes to break into the station, grab cigarettes and tobacco, and leave.
“They were definitely professionals – they knew what they were after.”
Mr Stevens said he has video footage of the break-in early on Thursday, which the police have seen. Several weapons, including a hammer, were also found near the service station.
Mr Stevens is offering a $1000 reward -- $500 for return of the stolen goods and $500 for information leading to an arrest.
Senior sergeant Dave Kirby from Wanganui police said that in the past two weeks there had been several Wanganui premises targeted for cigarettes, tobacco and cash.
“These things go in phases and we seem to be in a phase where [burglars] are after cigarettes and cash.”Mr Kirby said it was a timely reminder for businesses who kept cigarettes on their premises to ensure they had adequate security.
Meanwhile, Manawatu police are investigating a possible link between a service station burglary yesterday morning and a series of other burglaries in the region recently.
One man appeared in Palmerston North District Court and another is due to appear next week after two men broke into the Ashhurst Service Station and stole a cigarette stand.
Police chased the men for 30 minutes before they were finally stopped by road spikes in Foxton.
Detectives were investigating whether the burglary was linked to service station ramraids and burglaries in Rongotea, Foxton and Sanson in recent months.
Police spokeswoman Kim Perks said the Westmere burglary was some distance from the Manawatu burglaries, but there were some similarities between them that had police interested.
“At this stage we can’t say there’s a link but we will certainly be looking into it.”
Ray Stevens, who owns Double S Motordrome on State Highway 3, said the two burglars took less than two minutes to break into the station, grab cigarettes and tobacco, and leave.
“They were definitely professionals – they knew what they were after.”
Mr Stevens said he has video footage of the break-in early on Thursday, which the police have seen. Several weapons, including a hammer, were also found near the service station.
Mr Stevens is offering a $1000 reward -- $500 for return of the stolen goods and $500 for information leading to an arrest.
Senior sergeant Dave Kirby from Wanganui police said that in the past two weeks there had been several Wanganui premises targeted for cigarettes, tobacco and cash.
“These things go in phases and we seem to be in a phase where [burglars] are after cigarettes and cash.”Mr Kirby said it was a timely reminder for businesses who kept cigarettes on their premises to ensure they had adequate security.
Meanwhile, Manawatu police are investigating a possible link between a service station burglary yesterday morning and a series of other burglaries in the region recently.
One man appeared in Palmerston North District Court and another is due to appear next week after two men broke into the Ashhurst Service Station and stole a cigarette stand.
Police chased the men for 30 minutes before they were finally stopped by road spikes in Foxton.
Detectives were investigating whether the burglary was linked to service station ramraids and burglaries in Rongotea, Foxton and Sanson in recent months.
Police spokeswoman Kim Perks said the Westmere burglary was some distance from the Manawatu burglaries, but there were some similarities between them that had police interested.
“At this stage we can’t say there’s a link but we will certainly be looking into it.”
Sep 7, 2009
Environmental cigarette company? You decide
Environmental initiatives are often great. But when implemented by Altria’s Philip Morris USA, they beg the question of why and if a tobacco company can in fact lessen its environmental footprint.
First, are they genuine? While Altria failed to comment, Danny McGoldrick, Vice President of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, said the tobacco companies have a history of trying to shape their images with marketing ploys, “going green” is nothing new.
"The target isn’t kids or smokers, and the objective isn’t to reduce smoking, the target is always policy makers and the objective is to stop policy makers from increasing tobacco taxes, passing smoke free laws, or funding tobacco cessation programs that we know work- their own documents tell us this", McGoldrick said.
But the issue is not just about why Altria is going green, but is it really making a difference? Altria says it is, the tobacco company has reduced their packaging waste, water and emissions the last four years.
Eric Asche, Senior Vice President of Marketing at the American Legacy Foundation said that while reducing one's foot print is great, it does not balance out the 400,000 lives lost to tobacco every year or the 1,200 lost every day.
“Our job is to continue to point at what they are really up to and that is all the while they are trying to manufacture this new image- they are still addicting our kids and they are still selling a deadly product", said McGoldrick.
First, are they genuine? While Altria failed to comment, Danny McGoldrick, Vice President of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, said the tobacco companies have a history of trying to shape their images with marketing ploys, “going green” is nothing new.
"The target isn’t kids or smokers, and the objective isn’t to reduce smoking, the target is always policy makers and the objective is to stop policy makers from increasing tobacco taxes, passing smoke free laws, or funding tobacco cessation programs that we know work- their own documents tell us this", McGoldrick said.
But the issue is not just about why Altria is going green, but is it really making a difference? Altria says it is, the tobacco company has reduced their packaging waste, water and emissions the last four years.
Eric Asche, Senior Vice President of Marketing at the American Legacy Foundation said that while reducing one's foot print is great, it does not balance out the 400,000 lives lost to tobacco every year or the 1,200 lost every day.
“Our job is to continue to point at what they are really up to and that is all the while they are trying to manufacture this new image- they are still addicting our kids and they are still selling a deadly product", said McGoldrick.
Sep 4, 2009
Nicotine does not cause cigarette addiction
An ASU professor is challenging widely held conceptions about smoking, including challenging the view that nicotine is addictive.
Peter Killeen, emeritus professor of psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, presented his research findings for the National Institute on Drug Abuse on the Tempe campus Wednesday afternoon.
The talk was called “Reefer Madness: There ain’t no such Thing as Addiction to Nicotine.”
NIDA initially invited Killeen to look into ways to improve scientific research on drug abuse, specifically nicotine addiction.
“I came up with a shocking discovery,” Killeen said. “There’s no such thing as nicotine addiction.”
“It’s time to get our heads straight,” Killeen said. “What causes the tremendously addicting power of cigarettes is the drug cocktail of nicotine,” he said, not nicotine itself.
Before he got into his findings, Killeen said he wanted to make clear that tobacco kills.
“[Tobacco] is the number one preventable cause of death in developing nations,” he said. “Half of the people who are lifelong smokers will die of smoking-related illness.”
And yet, he said, the mass addiction to cigarettes and the public knowledge of tobacco’s deadliness creates a paradox.
There is something missing in the equation, Killeen said: A sufficient answer about what causes the powerful addiction.
For years, researchers have maintained that nicotine is the cause of tobacco addiction.
But Killeen said new evidence suggests otherwise.
“A large portion of the research on tobacco studies is done on nicotine. But the research has not been very reinforcing,” Killeen said. “Nicotine in itself is not very rewarding. You can go to any drugstore and buy a packet of Nicorette chewing gum.”
But people don’t overdose on Nicorette chewing gum, he said.
“Studies have shown that none of the nicotine replacement therapies — chewing gum, inhalers, patches — none of those are addictive,” he said. “Nicotine is not addictive. So what’s going on?”
The cause of addiction is the release of monoamine oxidase inhibitors, or MAOIs, along with nicotine, Killeen said.
While nicotine affects the release of dopamine, or the “reward hormone” that affects emotions and movement, MAOIs help regulate dopamine levels, Killeen said.
“When you put together something that directly releases dopamine and another thing that helps the brain clean up excess dopamine, you’ve got a one-two punch,” he said. “It is my hypothesis that it’s a combination of nicotine with some of these other chemicals that causes the powerful addiction.”
Killeen said publicizing his research is important in moving forward with the study.
“Not everybody knows that nicotine is not addictive,” he said. “This negatively affects both the research and public opinion.”
Many people are hesitant to accept the research’s implications, but Killeen said his hypothesis is hard to deny.
“I presented this position to 20 of the world’s experts,” he said. “And though some were shocked and insulted, no one could argue that my case was untrue.”
ASU Director of Campus Health Services Allan Markus said it would take a thorough clinical trial to further prove Killeen’s hypothesis.
“The overall scientific evidence from research, going back many, many years, proves that nicotine is addictive,” Markus said.
Anthropology sophomore Marisa Rios said the social aspect of smoking appeals to her.
“What makes me smoke is not the jonesing or need for a fix every 15 minutes,” she said. “What makes me smoke is stress or just wanting something to do.”
Killeen said even though the addiction to cigarettes is highly chemical, a large part of quitting comes from creating distance from these social smoking situations.
Of 100 smokers who decided to quit, only 10 are still abstinent after a year, meaning there is a 90 percent relapse rate, Killeen said.
“There’s no such thing as a cure, in the sense that there’s always a very small but real possibility of relapse [for successful quitters],” Killeen said. “You can’t ever let down your guard.”
Peter Killeen, emeritus professor of psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, presented his research findings for the National Institute on Drug Abuse on the Tempe campus Wednesday afternoon.
The talk was called “Reefer Madness: There ain’t no such Thing as Addiction to Nicotine.”
NIDA initially invited Killeen to look into ways to improve scientific research on drug abuse, specifically nicotine addiction.
“I came up with a shocking discovery,” Killeen said. “There’s no such thing as nicotine addiction.”
“It’s time to get our heads straight,” Killeen said. “What causes the tremendously addicting power of cigarettes is the drug cocktail of nicotine,” he said, not nicotine itself.
Before he got into his findings, Killeen said he wanted to make clear that tobacco kills.
“[Tobacco] is the number one preventable cause of death in developing nations,” he said. “Half of the people who are lifelong smokers will die of smoking-related illness.”
And yet, he said, the mass addiction to cigarettes and the public knowledge of tobacco’s deadliness creates a paradox.
There is something missing in the equation, Killeen said: A sufficient answer about what causes the powerful addiction.
For years, researchers have maintained that nicotine is the cause of tobacco addiction.
But Killeen said new evidence suggests otherwise.
“A large portion of the research on tobacco studies is done on nicotine. But the research has not been very reinforcing,” Killeen said. “Nicotine in itself is not very rewarding. You can go to any drugstore and buy a packet of Nicorette chewing gum.”
But people don’t overdose on Nicorette chewing gum, he said.
“Studies have shown that none of the nicotine replacement therapies — chewing gum, inhalers, patches — none of those are addictive,” he said. “Nicotine is not addictive. So what’s going on?”
The cause of addiction is the release of monoamine oxidase inhibitors, or MAOIs, along with nicotine, Killeen said.
While nicotine affects the release of dopamine, or the “reward hormone” that affects emotions and movement, MAOIs help regulate dopamine levels, Killeen said.
“When you put together something that directly releases dopamine and another thing that helps the brain clean up excess dopamine, you’ve got a one-two punch,” he said. “It is my hypothesis that it’s a combination of nicotine with some of these other chemicals that causes the powerful addiction.”
Killeen said publicizing his research is important in moving forward with the study.
“Not everybody knows that nicotine is not addictive,” he said. “This negatively affects both the research and public opinion.”
Many people are hesitant to accept the research’s implications, but Killeen said his hypothesis is hard to deny.
“I presented this position to 20 of the world’s experts,” he said. “And though some were shocked and insulted, no one could argue that my case was untrue.”
ASU Director of Campus Health Services Allan Markus said it would take a thorough clinical trial to further prove Killeen’s hypothesis.
“The overall scientific evidence from research, going back many, many years, proves that nicotine is addictive,” Markus said.
Anthropology sophomore Marisa Rios said the social aspect of smoking appeals to her.
“What makes me smoke is not the jonesing or need for a fix every 15 minutes,” she said. “What makes me smoke is stress or just wanting something to do.”
Killeen said even though the addiction to cigarettes is highly chemical, a large part of quitting comes from creating distance from these social smoking situations.
Of 100 smokers who decided to quit, only 10 are still abstinent after a year, meaning there is a 90 percent relapse rate, Killeen said.
“There’s no such thing as a cure, in the sense that there’s always a very small but real possibility of relapse [for successful quitters],” Killeen said. “You can’t ever let down your guard.”
Sep 2, 2009
Junk food tax is not much different from a cigarette tax
Forgive my friend, Gary, here. He prefers name-calling to actually making a point. The point is, like me, he doesn't mind a tax on cigarettes, because it will pull in revenue while also discouraging a harmful practice -- smoking, which despite Gary's splitting of hairs, is no longer the physical threat to his health he wants to make it out to be, since the proliferation of no-smoking zones (thankfully) has removed much of the concern about secondhand smoke.
No, just like obesity, smoking is a serious societal problem, because it creates huge health issues, which, excuse Gary's ignorance, does hurt him, and you and me, too. That's because obesity -- one of America's most serious and costliest health crises -- significantly raises health care premiums for everyone. Just like the idiots who ride motorcycles without a helmet, jacking up my rates every time they spill their brains on the highway. (By the way, I think Gary supports a helmet law, too.)
We are a nation on such a sugar high, most of us won't admit that we are the very fat people we make jokes about. Our kids are so fat, juvenile diabetes is one of the biggest health threats confronting tomorrow's leaders.
What are we going to do about it? Sit around and tell more fat jokes? Whine about the "nanny state" taking control of our choices?
Please. If you want to gorge yourselves on Oreos and Ding-Dongs, don't let me stop you. You want to stuff your kids' mouths full of French fries, pizza and soda, knock yourself out.
But taxing the poor choices you make, and the impact they have on the rest of us, is a smart strategy toward shaking some people out of their diabetic coma. And if it helps bring down the deficit along the way, all the better.
And please, don't get me wrong. I am not immune to sugar cravings. But I don't mind paying an extra dollar to indulge in my mint chocolate chip cookie ice cream, or yes, my Girl Scout cookies. Please, I pay out the nose for Thin Mints anyway, and happily, because they go toward a good cause.
That's the point here, too -- the cause: a healthier America. Personally, I'm willing to dig a little deeper to contribute toward the greater good. Isn't that the American way?
If you splurge every now and then on an unhealthy treat, it won't leave you too much the worst for wear, in the waistline or the pocketbook. But if you eat poorly every day, under the sin tax, it will cost you both ways. Creating a financial incentive toward healthier living is just smart economics. Money is the only thing that talks to some people.
And saying poor people will pay the price is knee-jerk liberalism at its worst. Anyone can eat healthy cheaply. Many people are just too lazy to try to figure out how, largely because they've never had a good reason. A tax on junk could be just the incentive they need.
Those of you who think it'll be so hard to figure out what's junk food and what's not, go back to elementary school. A kindergartner can tell the difference. It's not heart surgery.
No, just like obesity, smoking is a serious societal problem, because it creates huge health issues, which, excuse Gary's ignorance, does hurt him, and you and me, too. That's because obesity -- one of America's most serious and costliest health crises -- significantly raises health care premiums for everyone. Just like the idiots who ride motorcycles without a helmet, jacking up my rates every time they spill their brains on the highway. (By the way, I think Gary supports a helmet law, too.)
We are a nation on such a sugar high, most of us won't admit that we are the very fat people we make jokes about. Our kids are so fat, juvenile diabetes is one of the biggest health threats confronting tomorrow's leaders.
What are we going to do about it? Sit around and tell more fat jokes? Whine about the "nanny state" taking control of our choices?
Please. If you want to gorge yourselves on Oreos and Ding-Dongs, don't let me stop you. You want to stuff your kids' mouths full of French fries, pizza and soda, knock yourself out.
But taxing the poor choices you make, and the impact they have on the rest of us, is a smart strategy toward shaking some people out of their diabetic coma. And if it helps bring down the deficit along the way, all the better.
And please, don't get me wrong. I am not immune to sugar cravings. But I don't mind paying an extra dollar to indulge in my mint chocolate chip cookie ice cream, or yes, my Girl Scout cookies. Please, I pay out the nose for Thin Mints anyway, and happily, because they go toward a good cause.
That's the point here, too -- the cause: a healthier America. Personally, I'm willing to dig a little deeper to contribute toward the greater good. Isn't that the American way?
If you splurge every now and then on an unhealthy treat, it won't leave you too much the worst for wear, in the waistline or the pocketbook. But if you eat poorly every day, under the sin tax, it will cost you both ways. Creating a financial incentive toward healthier living is just smart economics. Money is the only thing that talks to some people.
And saying poor people will pay the price is knee-jerk liberalism at its worst. Anyone can eat healthy cheaply. Many people are just too lazy to try to figure out how, largely because they've never had a good reason. A tax on junk could be just the incentive they need.
Those of you who think it'll be so hard to figure out what's junk food and what's not, go back to elementary school. A kindergartner can tell the difference. It's not heart surgery.
Aug 26, 2009
Tobacco Tax Gaining Legislative Support
The appetite to raise taxes seems to be growing as the Utah Legislature prepares for an anticipated $700 million budget shortfall. This is especially true for the tobacco tax proposed by Davis County Republican Representative Paul Ray.
“I do not support any type of tax increase normally, but again, this is a tax where the tobacco companies are making billions of dollars off of people — they’re killing people. You know, they’re using blood money, basically,” Ray says. “But yet, the state, this is the only way we have to recoup the money that we’re paying for health care for smokers and so to me it’s a legitimate way to do that.”
Ray’s proposal would nearly double the sales tax on a pack of cigarettes from 69.5 cents to $1.31. Then it would automatically re-set the tax at one cent above the national average, which Ray believes is fitting because Utah doesn’t have many smokers.
Ray says there was enough support to pass his tax increase earlier this year, but legislative leadership wanted to save it as an option for next year. There’s also talk of raising other taxes, including the gas tax and the income tax. But Senate President Michael Waddoups says the tobacco tax increase is the most likely to pass.
“I think there’s a number of revenue sources that need to be looked at,” Waddoups says. “The easy one is the tobacco tax that was discussed last year in my body. I wouldn’t say it was unanimous, but I think it is going to be the easiest one to pass.”
State leaders cut a billion dollars from the budget last year, but about 40 percent of that was restored by federal stimulus money. Without that federal assistance coming in next year, lawmakers might tap up to half of the state’s $420 million Rainy Day Fund.
“I do not support any type of tax increase normally, but again, this is a tax where the tobacco companies are making billions of dollars off of people — they’re killing people. You know, they’re using blood money, basically,” Ray says. “But yet, the state, this is the only way we have to recoup the money that we’re paying for health care for smokers and so to me it’s a legitimate way to do that.”
Ray’s proposal would nearly double the sales tax on a pack of cigarettes from 69.5 cents to $1.31. Then it would automatically re-set the tax at one cent above the national average, which Ray believes is fitting because Utah doesn’t have many smokers.
Ray says there was enough support to pass his tax increase earlier this year, but legislative leadership wanted to save it as an option for next year. There’s also talk of raising other taxes, including the gas tax and the income tax. But Senate President Michael Waddoups says the tobacco tax increase is the most likely to pass.
“I think there’s a number of revenue sources that need to be looked at,” Waddoups says. “The easy one is the tobacco tax that was discussed last year in my body. I wouldn’t say it was unanimous, but I think it is going to be the easiest one to pass.”
State leaders cut a billion dollars from the budget last year, but about 40 percent of that was restored by federal stimulus money. Without that federal assistance coming in next year, lawmakers might tap up to half of the state’s $420 million Rainy Day Fund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)