Major retailers hit with new cigarette and alcohol tax

The proposal — condemned by large business organisations — follows the failed ''Tesco Tax'' the SNP attempted to include in this year's budget.

Mr Swinney said the new tax was ''fair and proportionate'' and a vital revenue-raising measure given a backdrop of a real-terms reduction in the budget of £1.6 billion between this year and 2014-15.

He estimates £110 million will be generated in the next three years by imposing the levy through a business rates supplement on premises with a rateable value above £300,000 that sell tobacco and alcohol.

He confirmed a further one-year freeze on public sector pay — including the wages of ministers.

And he admitted that pension employee contributions will have to be raised for teachers, NHS, police and fire schemes despite his party's objection to the UK Government measure.

Mr Swinney told MSPs his review fell at a ''defining moment'' against the backdrop of ''savage reductions'' from Westminster.

But he said the new parliamentary majority allowed a ''decisive shift'' to preventative spending measures, which will see the state intervening earlier in social issues.

Explicitly linking the move to the new business tax, he added: ''Scotland's health and social problems associated with alcohol and tobacco use are well documented and are something we are firmly committed to addressing.

''These problems affect not only the health of the population, but create additional burdens on policing, local authorities and the NHS.''

But Ian Shearer, director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, attacked the tax, saying: ''This ... is a blatant fundraising exercise which is illogical and discriminatory.''

However, it was welcomed by Andy Willox, of the Federation of Small Businesses, who said: ''Moves to make large out-of-town retailers pay a more proportionate level of rates will be welcomed by many of our members on the high street.''

Mr Swinney said ''tough choices'' were needed to balance the books, calling for further savings in public services.

Confirming the public sector pay freeze for the coming year, he hoped it would be the last before ''modest increases.''

Any employee earning less than £21,000 will continue to receive at least a £250 rise in their salary.

Mr Swinney also confirmed the measure of switching more than £750 million from the Scottish resource budget to the capital budget in an attempt to stimulate economic growth.

Labour's finance spokesman Richard Baker said: ''If councils are to meet the costs of the SNP's pledges, it will mean more council workers losing their jobs, further cuts in service and the evidence of the last parliament is that education and social work budgets will be particularly badly hit.''

Conservative finance spokesman Gavin Brown said the SNP was failing to ''match rhetoric with reality,'' while Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie defended the spending decisions taken by the UK Government.

Australia plans cigarette brand ban

Australia is a step closer to becoming the first nation to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.

Two bills have been passed by Parliament in the lower house, and are now heading to the upper house. If they receive smooth passage, as is expected, it will pave the way for a ban on tobacco companies using product branding.

The overall aim is to reduce smoking rates, which cost the country 31.5 billion Australian dollars (£20.3 billion) annually in healthcare and lost productivity costs.

Under the proposals, planned to be introduced next year, all cigarette packages in Australia will be free of logos. Instead, the brand name will be printed in a plain font.

All packets would also be the same colour, olive green, with graphic health warnings included.

Health minister Nicola Roxon said the move is a "courageous first step" by Parliament.

Tobacco companies have reacted angrily to the plans. Ms Roxon said the companies would have to live with it, while health charities pointed out that packs are designed to be attractive and communicate the "personality" of a brand, and that just as designer products are social cues to style, status, values and character, cigarettes can be "badge products".

"There isn't any safe amount of tobacco that you can smoke. It will kill you eventually and we obviously want to make sure that that message is heard loud and clear," said Ms Roxon.

Robin Hewings, Cancer Research UK's tobacco control policy manager, welcomed the news.

"It is great news that all Australian political parties have voted for cigarettes to be put in plain packs," he said.

"The current packs are attractive to teenagers unlike new unbranded packaging in a standard colour with prominent health warnings. The Government is planning to consult on plain packaging for the UK so we should follow Australia's lead as soon as possible."

Cigarettes, oxygen tanks sparked fatal blaze

A woman killed in a fire at her northeast Spokane home died of smoke in inhalation after a cigarette smoke ignited her oxygen tanks, fire officials said Monday.

Inez L. Williams, 67, had oxygen flowing when fire consumed her home at 4128 E. Providence Ave. Friday about 2 p.m., said Brian Schaeffer, assistant fire chief.

Fire officials ruled the accidental fire was caused by “careless smoking” with medical oxygen, Schaeffer said.

Firefighters fought through heavy flames and smoke and were hit with fragments from pressured oxygen tanks exploding in the blaze, which also killed several dogs and cats.

“They all truly did everything they could to reach her,” Schaeffer said, but the blaze was not survivable.

“The story is all too familiar and just as tragic,” he said. This fatality and all of the other ones where a fire is responsible for someone dying in a residence is preventable by installing working sprinkler systems combined with alerting systems (smoke detectors).”

Friends and family described Williams as an animal lover who had lived at the property for decades.

Smoking: Help is at hand

NEW figures show that just one-third of all smokers who aimed to give up smoking in 2009 were successful in kicking the habit, a statistic that clearly indicates the desire to quit but possibly the absence of the correct support for them to effectively do so.
As many people endeavour to stick to resolutions made in January to stop, this statistic demonstrates the challenge that they will face during 2010 to remain smoke-free.
Motivation to stop differs from person to person and often incorporates more than one factor. Reasons can include the related costs, health issues, legislation, social aspects, home life or work.
The key factor for many people seems to be committing to stopping too hastily or without the relevant consideration and dedication – in fact, 78% of people who make New Year resolutions fail in their attempts, becoming dispirited and despondent.
Those attempting to banish cigarettes from their lives must be committed and should aim to seek help from sources relevant to their own needs and past experiences.
A new smoking-cessation service in Aberdeen looks to motivate and inspire individuals to stop smoking, equipping them with the skills and self-inspiration to extinguish those cigarettes forever and achieve their goal.
Set Free from Smoking encourages participants to name a date for stopping and, most importantly, empowers them with the drive and determination to stick to it and stop permanently.
Kenny Keir, an IT co-ordinator with a major oil company in Aberdeen, was a recent workshop participant.
He said: “Previous attempts to stop using only willpower were unsuccessful and I knew I needed additional, more structured support to quit. The Set Free from Smoking approach offered me this and I have now been free from cigarettes for three months. In this short time, I already notice an improved fitness level and no longer need to incorporate visits to the smoking shelter into my day at work or stand out in the cold with the other smokers.”
Like Kenny, many people see smoking cessation as a personal battle. Of course, for the most part, this is true, but within the workplace, many employers now recognise their responsibility for the health and wellbeing of their employees and look to support them in any quest they may have to improve personal wellbeing.
As well as the health effects on their workforce, employers are also very aware of the potential economic and business benefits of encouraging a smoke-free workforce, and many choose to develop smoking policies in line with their corporate-social-responsibility strategy.
HR professionals are increasingly aware of the detrimental effects that smoking can have on the workplace.
John Booth, director of HR and training at VSA in Aberdeen, said: “VSA employs over 600 people in the city and surrounding areas, predominantly within our care homes. Every company has to deal with the issue of staff going for unofficial smoke breaks and the resentment this creates from non-smoking staff.
“The importance of managing scheduled smoking breaks within the care sector is vital as adequate cover must be available at all times and animosity between staff avoided.
“Any encouragement and focus that staff who are keen to stop smoking can be given is positive as the health and wellbeing of VSA’s staff is critical to the care that we provide to thousands of local people.”
As well as time, productivity and staff morale issues, other concerns within the workplace include absenteeism and safety.
Surprisingly, 20% of workplace fires are caused by discarded cigarettes or matches. Not only is there the very obvious safety impact, but it can also mean that a company’s insurance premiums rise, therefore affecting its bottom line.
Astonishingly, it is estimated that the resource cost in terms of losses from smoking-related fires is estimated at about £4million per annum in Scotland alone.
Absenteeism can also affect a company’s profits, as well as impacting on the overall business process if no adequate cover is available.
Research shows that the estimated cost of smoking-related absence in Scotland is £40million per year, while total productivity losses are estimated at about £450million per year.
It is clear that smoking within a company can throw up many issues and factors to take into consideration. However, employers must work with staff to improve their individual workplace situation, ensuring that they do not isolate or cause contention between themselves and their smoking employees.
The inspiration for Set Free from Smoking comes from Margaret Brown, herself a heavy ex-smoker, who delivers the workshop using an inspiring and powerful mix of techniques that allows participants to take control and overcome their addiction.
With a background in corporate leadership development and employee motivation, Margaret transfers these skills and methods into her workshops, tailored to both individual and corporate participants.
For corporate clients, Margaret will ensure that the workshop supports the company’s vision and objectives, incorporating relevant corporate language.
Her successful track record in leadership, motivation and behavioural change has seen her work on major leadership projects with various corporations, including Shell, Schlumberger, Subsea 7 and latterly Marathon Oil, which has achieved recognition within the prestigious Top 100 Best Companies to work for in the UK for the past three consecutive years.

Nonetheless, with the blessing of this vocal minority, this is exactly what cigarettes giant Philip Morris intends to do in August.

This summer Philip Morris will introduce a cigarettes product called snus (pronounced, snoose) in the Dallas/Fort Worth area to test market its appeal to adult smokers. And some cigarettes experts are applauding this effort. Snus is a form of cigarettes developed in Sweden that seems to be less risky than American smokeless cigarettes products such as moist snuff (like Skoal), chewing cigarettes (like Red Man) or dried, powdered snuff (Dental, Tube Rose, Peach and other brands). Using snus for smoking cessation falls under the banner of "harm reduction," and has some support in the field of cigarettes control. Such an approach seems appealing: By reducing a smoker's dependence on cigarettes, switching to smokeless cigarettes (particularly snus) potentially reduces the risk for a whole host of smoking-related illnesses. Harm reduction has been used successfully in other addictions: methadone administration for heroin addicts, for example, or clean needle exchanges for injecting drug users. But residual cigarettes-related health risks remain when a smoker quits by using smokeless cigarettes, and these risks are not trivial when compared to quitting totally. Less Risk Is Still RiskAlthough smokeless cigarettes is much less risky than cigarettes, nonetheless mouth cancer and poor oral health definitely occur. There are also studies among large populations that show cardiovascular disease and even death by using this product. Overall, in terms of cancer, the risk of developing mouth cancer drops from an eight-fold increased risk to a 1.2-fold increase risk when switching from cigarettes to smokeless cigarettes. This is an impressive drop, but still leaves a 20 percent increase in mouth cancer risk compared to the use of no cigarettes at all.'Snus' Less Harmful Than Cigarettes, but Still Harmful Smokeless cigarettes use also seems to be associated with increased blood pressure. Among 135 middle-aged healthy volunteers, smokeless cigarettes users had on average a five-point elevation in blood pressure measured throughout the day. Another large study among over 30,000 construction workers showed that smokeless cigarettes users were nearly two times more likely to have higher blood pressures than noncigarettes users. This study was not without limitations, but is plausible in the light of other evidence. Other studies, while not definitive, indicate that smokeless cigarettes users may have higher rates of diabetes and abnormal cholesterol levels. Furthermore, among youth, use of smokeless cigarettes correlates with other risky behaviors such as alcohol and marijuana use, higher rates of carrying weapons, increased physical fighting, and sexual activity without condom use. Nonetheless, some leading cigarettes control advocates have championed smokeless cigarettes as a means of kicking the smoking habit. To an extent, they do have a point: Stopping smoking, even by switching to smokeless cigarettes, would greatly reduce the burden of cigarettes-related illnesses in the United States. They also argue that many smokers have already made the switch to smokeless cigarettes and remain smoke-free -- particularly men. But there are several reasons why, in the opinion of other well-known cigarettes researchers, this approach is flawed. First of all, the smoking cessation drugs currently on the market such as nicotine gum, patches, Zyban or Chantix are very safe and carry no cancer risks. Most devastatingly, however, there are no randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled clinical trials that compare the success of quitting smoking by using smokeless cigarettes versus using a placebo. The name of this type of study design is a mouthful, but basically boils down to a totally unbiased study. Such clinical trials are the gold standard in terms of determining if a given treatment actually works. on as even mediocre evidence to support the use of snus as a means of smoking cessation. Many of the other studies that these researchers cite are surveys of people who had never used cigarettes. While these studies may suggest an association between snus use and smoking cessation, in the scientific community a survey like this is a very poor method for determining a treatment's success. Furthermore, virtually all of the harm reduction studies predate the introduction of the extremely safe and exciting new drug Chantix (varenicline), which shows the most promise of any smoking cessation drug on the market. Nor do the harm reduction experts acknowledge that combination therapy -- using the nicotine gum or patch or both) combined with, say, Zyban (bupropion) -- can be quite powerful and safe. None of these pharmaceutical approaches has cancer-causing potential; smokeless cigarettes on the other hand increases the risk for cancer by at least 20 percent, and also is associated with poor oral health. A Dangerous AlternativeIt is in this context that cigarette maker Philip Morris has announced its new campaign to introduce snus. Starting in August, this company will test market Marlboro Snus in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. According to Philip Morris' Web site, "Marlboro Snus is a smokeless cigarettes pouch product designed especially for adult smokers in the U.S." With harm reduction in mind, Philip Morris states, "We are introducing this product into the Dallas/Fort Worth area to understand adult smoker acceptance." Of course, even Philip Morris on its Web site admits the obvious: smokeless cigarettes carries risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease and other oral diseases, can cause adverse birth outcomes among pregnant women, and is not a safe alternative to smoking. Taken together, all of the evidence points toward this unambiguous public health message: cigarettes use in any form must stop. With new, safe and effective smoking cessation aids on the market -- and more being currently studied -- it seems unethical to promote smokeless cigarettes as a means to quit smoking. Even in the name of harm reduction.
Dr. John Spangler is director of cigarettes-intervention programs and a professor of family medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

How To Smoke On The Road: Finding A Smoker-Friendly Airport

In the past fifteen years, the premium-cigar industry found itself in rebound. After decades of competition from cigarettes, the aging of its customer base, and overall consumer trends indicating a decline in smoking in general (we'll return to this in a moment), many observers figured cigars were done for. Then came 1992. The fourth quarter of that year showed some of the first industry growth in years, and this trend metastasized in coming years. By 1996, the industry was seeing 36 percent first-quarter growth.
But cigars returned at an ironic time. High-profile class-action suits, controversy over Joe Camel, and decreasing general consumer interest in smoking, among other things, led to an increase in smoking bans in public buildings, offices, and, eventually, whole cities. Airports helped lead the trend; among the major travel hubs where you're no longer welcome to light up are Los Angeles' LAX and Dallas-Fort Worth.
All of which raises a question - if you're a smoker going on vacation, what are your options?
Thankfully, the web site SmokingSection has, aggregating information sent in by smoking readers, listed and ranked over fifty major airports by their friendliness to smokers. Their rankings, like those of your high-school English teacher, run from A to E: A for airports where you can smoke by the waiting gate; E for airports where you not only can't smoke indoors, but the nearest smoker-friendly outside areas require a small trip in themselves (and may be unacceptably far from takeoff gates).
So where should you travel if you want to smoke, not only when you reach your destination but on the way there? Well, the answer seems to be: Texas. The Lone Star State offers the only A-ranked airport out of the dozens surveyed. That's Dallas Love Field, a smallish airport that receives only flights from major area transport provider Southwest Airlines. Frequently-flying cigar smokers who live in that wildcatter's capital should feel lucky.
Texas offers us a B airport as well - these are the places where you can't smoke near the gates, but that do offer smoker-friendly bars, restaurants, and/or lounges nearby. That would be at Lubbock - the same city from which Buddy Holly hailed. (But don't take that as a bad omen.) Other southern and southwestern states are well-represented among the B airports, which makes sense, given the close links between many of these states and the history of the tobacco industry. Restaurants at New Mexico's Albuquerque Airport, as well as at airports in Charlotte, North Carolina; Charleston, West Virginia; Phoenix, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Norfolk, Virginia; and - appropriately enough - Richmond, Virginia, that famous tobacco town. (Where would American smoking be without Virginia?)
Orange County, California, offers an airport named for John Wayne, and appropriately the tobacco-loving Duke's namesake airport also offers B-class accommodations. So do the major regional airports in Tampa, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, and New York City (both JFK and LaGuardia), in several large cities in Ohio (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton), in Fairbanks, Alaska; Moline, Illinois; and Ontario, Canada. Visitors to our nation's capitol can also light up at a few of Washington, DC's airport bars, though these are apparently hard to find.
It's a good thing that the weather in Texas and California is generally fairly clement, because some major airports in both of these states ban all indoor smoking - but outdoor smoking areas are available at a conveniently close distance. The aforementioned Dallas-Fort Worth and LAX both disallow indoor smoking, which accounts for their C rating, but they do invite smoking customers to step outside. The Worcester, Massachusetts airport has a similar arrangement. (Enjoy that brisk Massachusetts air.) These are the C-class airports.
After that it gets dicier. Quite a few major American airports seem to fall into the D or E classes, with smoking accommodations within the airport that require a bit of a hike, or (in the case of the E-class airports) nothing at all but outside areas located far from gates. Many D airports offer those ubiquitous glass lounges where smokers are invited to light up and take a load off; these include Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Las Vegas (McCarran), and Atlanta (Hartfield). Happy hunting!

Has The Price Of Cigarettes Made You Want To Quit

With the economy the way it is now days, there are a many people that wish they would have given up smoking once and for all a long time ago. Now that the price of a pack of cigarettes is reaching nearly five dollars a pack and even more in many places, it is a good time to seriously start thinking about giving them up. No matter what age you are, unless you are just plain wealthy, a heavy smoker these days can cost as much as 20 % of a pay check of average working men and women in the United States who make minimum wage or a little more.

Going back just only a few years ago, cigarette prices were around two dollars a pack, but with the new taxes being applied, they are now doubled in price. If you are a smoker and think that is bad, the states are beginning to apply their own tax on top of the one the government just put in place. This is similar to the gasoline issue in that it keeps going up, but we need gasoline to travel, we do not need cigarettes at all. Spend nothing on cigarettes and you will have plenty left to pay for that expensive fuel.

Finally, the cost of gasoline has peaked for the time being and came back down. Now you can at least make it to work without taking out a loan to get there. But smokers out there need to get ready to see the price of cigarettes be the back up for a tax revenue increase. Even though the extreme taxing of cigarettes might not be something that everyone, especially smokers, agree with, because they might actually go up in price so much that it will force some people to have to quit, but is that such a bad thing in itself?

When you are addicted to nicotine and what ever the thousands of chemicals are that go in the processing of cigarettes, it is similar to being an addict hooked on some of the harder drugs like heroine or methamphetamine. It is almost as difficult for some to stop smoking as it is for these other drug users to kick their habits. What is amazing to some people is that cigarettes are killers just like any of these other drugs, yet they are still legal for adults to buy. What many people do not understand about the government is how they determine that it is perfectly alright to tax one drug like cigarettes to death, and outlaw others. There is the argument that some drugs like methamphetamine or heroine alters the personality of the user and this is true. But have you ever seen a smoker who is really addicted to cigarettes when they can not get one? That also can be a very ugly picture.