Snuff sales puff up as credit crunch and smoking ban take hold

The centuries-old ancient habit of snorting snuff is experiencing a renaissance due to the credit crunch. Sales of traditional finely ground tobacco have rocketed at one firm by a staggering 78 per cent in the last year alone. Although the 2006 smoking ban led to an immediate rise in sales, the boom has continued as people turn to snuff because it is much cheaper than cigarettes. One 25 gramme pot of snuff can last a heavy smoker one week - at a cost of just 24 pence day and a saving of about 30 pounds a week. Young smokers are also taking it up as it now comes in various fruity flavours. 

Snuff is also not as harmful as cigarettes because it doesn't contain tar. Users sprinkle a small amount of the powdery-substance on the back of their hand before inhaling it through the nose. The effects get to work in just a few minutes and disperse cravings without having to stand outside a pub or restaurant in the cold. Roderick Lawrie, chief executive of Toque Snuff based in Berwick, Northumberland, said his sales figures have risen by a whopping 78 per cent in the last year. Mr Lawrie said: 'When you smoke a cigarette you take in carcinogens and tar which can cause lung disease and cancer. 'English snuff however is made from very fine ground tobacco making it much less harmful on the lungs. 'It is definitely going through a renaissance as the recent rise in sales we have seen is phenomenal. We are riding on the crest of a wave and our sales have gone up by 6.5 per cent every month for the last year.' As tobacco sales feel the pinch thanks to the smoking ban, those of snuff are on the rise.

The first snuff mill was thought to have been established in Seville, Spain, in the 16th century. Nasal snuff's popularity became popular soon after with it being the tobacco of choice for Europe's aristocratic class. By 1702, it had become more widespread among English commoners, especially miners as they were not allowed to light matches. It remained that way until the 1980s when the mines closed down. Mr Lawrie now sells 16 flavours of the powder including toast and marmalade, chocolate, espresso and peanut butter - as well as original. And about 50 per cent of his customers are aged between 18 and 25 years old.

Mr Lawrie added: "Snuff is definitely going through a renaissance. 'We have been speaking to the people who make our tins and they have predicted a 15 per cent increase in sales growth over the next few years. We however believe it will be far more than that - we are becoming absolutely swamped with orders and enquiries. I believe the credit crunch is probably helping with the boost in sales. Heavy smokers could save 35 pounds a week which would amount to thousands over the years. It is fantastic that this 300-year-old industry which died a death 20 years ago is now experiencing a renaissance.'

Professor John Britton, chairman of the cigarette and tobacco committee at the Royal College of Physicians, said snuff has both advantages and disadvantages. He said: 'Switching to snuff would lower your chances of lung cancer and pulmonary disease by at least 90 per cent. However the chances of nasal cancer is increased by two or three fold. Snuff is not considered safe but it isn't as hazardous as smoking so isn't completely an unconventional choice.'

Source: MailOnline, 14 October 2008
Link:  http://tiny.cc/yiN3h

Ireland: Cigarette tax increase announced in 2009 budget

There's been more pain than gain down south, as smokers and wine drinkers, as well as those on higher incomes are hit by the Irish Budget.

However, while the 2009 Budget has seen a modest rise in personal taxation, there's likely to be a bonanza for border businesses as NI traders get ready for a run on cigarettes (up 50 cents a packet) and wine (also up 50 cents) as well as many other goods as the strong Euro combines with price differences to increase an already healthy trade from Irish shoppers this Christmas.

Although Finance Minister Lenihan was widely expected to hit tobacco products hardest, his Budget speech put the cost of a smoke marginally, but enough to make a difference to shoppers.

Source: 4NI.co.uk, 15 October 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/1B98Z

Men who never smoke live longer, better lives than heavy smokers

Health-related quality of life appears to deteriorate as the number of cigarettes smoked per day increases, even in individuals who subsequently quit smoking, according to a report in the October 13 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

Smoking has been shown to shorten men's lives between seven and 10 years, according to background information in the article. It also has been linked to factors that may reduce quality of life, including poor nutrition and lower socioeconomic status.

Arto Y. Strandberg, M.D., of the University of Helsinki, and colleagues followed 1,658 white men born between 1919 and 1934 who were healthy at their first assessment, conducted in 1974. Participants were mailed follow-up questionnaires in 2000 that assessed their current smoking status, health and quality of life. Deaths were tracked through Finnish national registers.

During the 26-year follow-up period, 372 (22.4 percent) of the men died. Those who had never smoked lived an average of 10 years longer than heavy smokers (more than 20 cigarettes per day). Non-smokers also had the best scores on all health-related quality of life measures, especially those associated with physical functioning. Physical health deteriorated at an increasing rate as the number of cigarettes smoked per day increased, with heavy smokers experiencing a decline equivalent to 10 years of aging.

"Although many smokers had quit smoking between the baseline investigation in 1974 and the follow-up examination in 2000, the effect of baseline smoking status on mortality and the quality of life in old age remained strong," the authors write. "In all, the results presented here are troubling for those who were smoking more than 20 cigarettes daily 26 years earlier; in spite of the 68.9 percent cessation rate during follow-up, 44.1 percent of the originally heavy smokers had died, and those who survived to the mean [average] age of 73 years had a significantly lower physical health-related quality of life than never-smokers."

The findings may add to the view of smoking as a burden on society and might also encourage individual smokers to quit, the authors note. "The argument of better quality of life may be especially meaningful for the aging smoker but, as our results show, for the best health-related quality of life, the habit should not be started at all," they write. "The highly addictive nature of nicotine is revealed by the persistence of the smoking habit in spite of the declining health-related quality of life among older heavy smokers. For those not able to quit smoking, reduction may also be beneficial because mortality [death] and health-related quality of life showed a dose-dependent trend according to the number of cigarettes smoked daily."

Source: BrightSurf.com, 14 October 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/Edlai

USA: Tobacco firms argue against racketeering ruling

Tobacco companies argued on Tuesday that a lower court erred in finding they had conspired to lie about the dangers of smoking, while public health groups urged an appeals court to force the companies to fund programs to help smokers quit. Companies, including Altria Group Inc and its Philip Morris USA unit, were found to have violated federal racketeering laws in August 2006 by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, who ruled the companies could no longer use expressions such as "low tar" or light" in their cigarette marketing.

But Kessler refused to force the industry to fund a multibillion-dollar anti-smoking education program, saying she did not have the authority. Her order was stayed by the appeals court in October 2006. Other companies and trade groups appealing her ruling were the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit of Reynolds American Inc, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard Inc, Vector Group Ltd's Liggett Group, British American Tobacco Ltd., the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute.

Lawyers for the tobacco companies argued that the U.S. Justice Department had failed to prove conspiracy to deceive because they did not show that industry executives knew about scientific studies showing smoking was addictive and caused cancer, heart disease and emphysema. "How do you make that person a liar when he's saying exactly what he believes in good faith?" lawyer Michael Carvin told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

In response, Judge David Sentelle pointed to "compelling" evidence that corporate officials knew that tobacco was addictive but Carvin disagreed: "They (the Justice Department lawyers) didn't connect the dots." Carvin added that the companies have now taken steps to ensure that no one believes that smoking is safe and non-addictive. "Let's just concede we were wrong," he said. But the Justice Department's Mark Stern said the dots were connected, and pointed to evidence that tobacco company officials sought to hide evidence of cigarettes' dangers, including "having the executives get together and say 'this research is bad,' (and then) it gets shut down."

"At every stage, it is the top people," Stern said. When pressed by Judge David Tatel to show a pattern of efforts to hide cigarettes' dangers, Stern responded: "It's not that I don't know. It's just that I'm at a loss at how to shorten the list." The panel of three judges could wait for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling before tackling the issue of whether the expressions "light" or "low tar" were deceptive because they implied the cigarettes were safer.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by three longtime smokers from Maine who want to seek damages from Altria and its Philip Morris unit. Miguel Estrada, speaking on behalf of the tobacco companies on Tuesday, said "light", in particular, indicated a milder flavor and was not intended to signify the cigarette was safer.

Judge Sentelle rejected a suggestion by Howard Crystal, speaking for the American Cancer Society and other public health groups, that cigarette companies should be forced to fund smoking cessation programs. Sentelle said tobacco companies could not reasonably control consumers. "You shouldn't have brought it (to us)," he said.

Source: Reuters, 14 October 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/DeMLM

Smoking battle fought over cruises

One of the last battles over where smoking should be allowed is being fought on cruise ships on the high seas, it has been revealed. The ships are not subject to the same non-smoking regulations that govern lighting up in public places on land.

But a number of cruise companies have limited the amount of on-board smoking, irritating some travellers, cruise information website cruisecritic.co.uk said. Under a new P&O policy there is just one one indoor public area for smokers to light up, with the rest of their ships off limits.

Another UK-based cruise line, Fred Olsen, will introduce a totally smoke-free environment indoors on all five of its vessels in early 2009. Celebrity and Royal Caribbean are phasing in a no-smoking rule in cabins and will fine people who break it $250. Other cruise lines that are smoke-free indoors include, Oceania, Peter Deilmann, Disney, SeaDream and Thomson.

Cruisecritic.co.uk said the pro-smoking lobby has claimed smokers often have to pay extra for a balcony if smoking is banned in the cabin. But anti-smoking passengers have said smoke and ash is blown on to neighbouring balconies. Editor Carolyn Spencer Brown said: "This is probably the most hotly debated cruise topic ever - it makes fuel surcharges seem like a minor irritant. "We have been inundated with emails and postings from both the pro and anti groups. Tempers are running high, the tone is often passionate, if not strident and vicious. Some people even insist on remaining anonymous for fear of receiving threats."

Source: Meltwater News, 14 October 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/mUdKe