- “I’m more proud of quitting smoking than of anything else I’ve done in my life, including winning an Oscar.”- Christine Lahti
- “Cigarette smoking is clearly identified as the chief, preventable cause of death in our society.” – C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General
- “I don’t smoke and I don’t want to smoke. I am not a fan of gratuitous smoking in films.”- Edward Norton
- “You’re always better off if you quit smoking; it’s never too late.”- Loni Anderson
- “Seven out of 10 people don’t smoke and of those who do, seven out of 10 want to give up.” – Scottish Health Minister Andy Kerr
- “Fortunately, there’s more than one way to quit smoking. . . the catch is you must choose wisely to become smoke-free.” – Arthur A. Hawkins II
- “The true face of smoking is disease, death and horror – not the glamour and sophistication the pushers in the tobacco industry try to portray.”- David Byrne
- “Many lives can be saved by strengthening tobacco control measures — cigarette taxes, counter-advertising, smoking bans, linguistically and culturally appropriate smoking prevention measures, and quit-smoking programs.” – Bruce N. Leistikow, associate professor of public health sciences and a leading expert on smoking-related illnesses
- “Habit is stronger than reason.” – George Sanayana
- “Smoking kills half of all lifetime smokers.” – Dr. Alex Bobak of the anti-smoking group SCAPE
- “One of the great regrets of my life is that I smoked. If I could say anything to anybody starting out in life it would be, ‘Whatever you do, don’t smoke’. I have had to recover from that and been lucky that I have been able to stop.” – Bill Nighy, star in the UK on his 30-year smoking habit ‘Boat That Rocked’ star (Daily Telegraph newspaper)
- “Quitting smoking is easy, I’ve done it a thousand times.” – Mark Twain
- “Exercise can’t counteract the damage being done to your body while you continue to smoke. What exercise can do is help you kick the habit.” – Kenneth H. Cooper, MD
- “It is clear that medical costs will increase if non-smoking spreads. It’s better that people smoke a lot and die early.” – A doctor at Ida Hospital in Kawasaki City, Japan (He later apologized.)
- “There are six components of wellness: proper weight and diet, proper exercise, breaking the smoking habit, control of alcohol, stress management and periodic exams.”- Kenneth H. Cooper
- “It’s disgraceful that year after year, Congress has bowed to the tobacco lobby and refused to act.” – Senator Edward Kennedy (MA) On seeking FDA regulatory power over tobacco. . .
- “There are enough no smoking places now. “- David Hockney
- “Well, I decided to stop. And I did. I stopped smoking, and I stopped speed at the same time.” – Larry Hagman
- “There are no crowds out there demanding to see smoking scenes in movies.”- Joe Eszterhas
- “The results of this survey are shocking and should be a wake-up call to men and women that drinking and smoking too much not only gives you a bad headache in the morning but can affect your ability to start a family.”- Ann Robinson
- “What I really remember is that people camped out everywhere, and the fact everybody expected it might turn into a big nightmare with all sorts of hassles because back in those days everybody was smoking pot and taking acid.”- Johnney Rivers
- “Seventy-five percent of women who smoke would like to quit, and yet only two to three percent quit every year… It’s significant because we can help women quit smoking.”- David Satcher
- “Parents should not smoke in order to discourage their kids from smoking. A child is more likely to smoke when they have been raised in the environment of a smoker.”- Christy Turlington
- “Smoking is hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs.”- King James I
- “Such lifestyle factors such as cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, little physical activity and low dietary calcium intake are risk factors for osteoporosis as well as for many other non-communicable diseases.”- Gro Harlem Brundtland
- “Impotence is one of the major hazards of cigarette smoking.”- Loni Anderson
- “I think the reason kids get into drugs and smoking is they don’t have anything to do.”- Richard Thompson
- “I kissed my first girl and smoked my first cigarette on the same day. I haven’t had time for tobacco since.”- Arturo Toscanini
- “The best way to stop smoking is to just stop – no ifs, ands or butts.”- Edith Zittler
- “I’d rather kiss a mad cow on the muzzle than a smoker on the mouth.” – Paul Carvel
- “Smoking helps you lose weight – one lung at a time!” – Alfred E. Neuman (Mad Magazine)
Mothers of “hyperkinetic” children were found to smoke an average of 14 cigarettes during pregnancy compared to only 6 cigarettes smoked on average for mothers of “normal” children. The study, conducted by the Department of Psychology at the University of Saskatoon, Canada, studied 20 children (18 boys, 2 girls) who were currently being treated with Ritalin for their hyperactivity. Although cigarette smoke contains many highly poisonous compounds, the researchers speculate that the accumulation of carbon monoxide in the fetal blood stream could lead to serious reductions in oxygen to the developing infant. It was found that the carboxyhemoglobin levels (hemoglobin that is carrying carbon monoxide instead of oxygen) was concentrating in the developing fetus reaching twice the levels of that in the mother. The potential for second hand smoke effects could also be a problem as it was found that after birth, mothers of hyperactive children consumed an average of 23 cigarettes per day compared to 8 cigarettes daily for the normal control mothers.
SOURCE: Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, Vol. 20:183-187, 1975
In summary the researchers stated,
“The hyperkinetic syndrome is the result of several causes and the effect of any single agent is difficult to discern. Although the apparent association with heavy maternal smoking, in methylphenidate (Ritalin)-sensitive cases, does not predicate a causal connection, it does justify a careful assessment of the possible role of tobacco addiction in the etiology of this common disorder.”
Child Test Scores Lower When Mothers Smoke
A Study of 2nd and 5th Grade Students
SOURCE: British Medical Journal, 4:573-575, 1973
This study of a very large sample of children gives insights into the real dangers of smoking during pregnancy. Known as the National Child Development Study, in Britain, there were over 9,000 children measured to determine the effects of their mother’s smoking either 0, 10, or more than 10 cigarettes per day during pregnancy. When each child reached 7 and 11 years, there were a number of tests given to evaluate math ability, reading ability and general physical measurements. Results showed children of mothers who smoked 10 or more cigarettes a day are on average 1.0 centimeters shorter and between three and five months behind in reading, mathematics, and general ability when compared to the offspring of non-smokers, after allowing for associated social and biological factors.
Auditory Processing Reduced in School Age Children Exposed to Cigarette Smoke
SOURCE: Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 16(3), 1994
The ability to process auditory information in a child relates to his ability to listen to what a teacher is saying, to follow directions or to remember what the teacher has said. Obviously, all of these skills are important for effective academic performance in school. This present study, carried out by Dr. Joel S. McCartney, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, found overall poorer performance on central auditory processing tasks (SCAN) among 110, six to eleven year old children exposed to prenatal cigarette smoke. Maternal smoking during pregnancy was linearly associated with the poorer performance on the overall SCAN tests which assessed listening skills in a noisy background and the dichotic task, which required the child to attend to simultaneous information in both ears and is thought to be a measure of the child’s auditory maturation or developmental level. This task involves a greater degree of auditory processing, aspects of memory, and word discrimination. Also of interest, it was found that children exposed to passive cigarette smoke performed more poorly than children of non-smokers and equal to that found in children exposed to “light” prenatal smoking.
Math, Language, & Behavior Problems Elevated in Children of Smoking Parents
SOURCE: Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 13, 1991
Ninety-one children between the ages of six and nine years were tested for a wide range of developmental, academic and behavioral skills by researchers at the Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. This is one of the most thorough studies to date looking for harmful effects from cigarette smoke.
Children of nonsmoking mothers generally were found to perform better than the two smoking groups (active and passive) on tests of math ability, speech and language skills, intelligence, visual/spatial abilities and on the mother’s rating of behavior. The performance of children of passive smokers was found, in most areas, to be between that of the active smoking and nonsmoking groups. Some of the tests given included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R), the Wide Range Achievement Test -Revised (WRAT-R) for measuring general reading, spelling and math ability and the Test of Language Development-Primary (TOLD), which measures grammatical understanding, the ability to imitate sentences and correctly produce speech sounds. The behavioral assessment was done by the Conners Parent Questionnaire, a behavioral symptom checklist, completed by the child’s mother. On the academic achievement tests, the mathematics score was the most lowered by active and passive cigarette smoking. The three main areas appearing more often in the Connors behavior rating scale were Hyperactivity, Conduct Problems and Impulsivity. Of significant interest, twice as many children in the active smoking group compared to the nonsmoking group were perceived by the mother as having problems in school. This is in agreement with five other studies showing children of active smokers have a higher incidence of misbehavior, poorer adjustment at school and increased activity levels. The nonsmoking group was rated as showing the best attention and cooperation.
Severe Child Behavior Problems Linked to Mother’s Smoking
SOURCE: Associated Press – Florida Today Newspaper, September 4, 1992
The more cigarettes a mother smoked during pregnancy, the greater the likelihood her child would demonstrate severe behavior problems as the child became older. Women who smoked at least a pack a day had children with twice the rate of extreme behavior problems – such as anxiety, conflict with others, or disobedience, when compared with children of non-smokers.
Smoking less than a pack a day also was shown to increase behavior problems, but the rates were not as high as for heavier smokers, the researchers found. The study was conducted by the Labor Department in which parents of 2,256 youngsters ages 4 to 11 were interviewed. The fathers smoking was not assessed in this study.
In a following September 4, 1992 Associated Press article describing the study, Dr. Michael Weitzman, the lead author stated,
“We are aware of no other study to date that has investigated the relationship between maternal smoking and behavior problems in children.”
Nicotine Damages Brain Cell Quality
SOURCE: Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 16(4) 1994
Human reports as well as animal studies have recorded accelerated motor activity, learning and memory deficits in offsprings of mothers exposed to nicotine during pregnancy. This study, conducted by Dr. T. S. Roy, Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India, is the first to investigate actual physiological changes of the cerebral cortex of rats after prenatal nicotine exposure. Several groups of experimental rats were exposed to varying levels of nicotine reaching up to that experienced by a heavy smoker. Animals were examined at different periods after birth. Observable effects included significantly reduced thickness of the cerebral cortex, smaller cerebral cortex neurons, and reduced brain weight. Also noted was an overall decrease in “dendritic branching” (connections to other brain cells), as seen in the camera lucida drawings at right. The present study also shows that the greater the dose of nicotine, the greater the biological effects upon the offspring. This research provides an excellent biological model to support the many other studies linking increased hyperactivity, attention deficits, lower IQ, and learning disabilities in children with parents who smoked during pregnancy.
Smoking During Pregnancy Increases Conduct Disorders
SOURCE: Archives General Psychiatry, 54:670-676, July, 1997
More evidence on the connection between a mother’s smoking during pregnancy and increased risk of having a child with behavior disorders. Below is a direct quote of the summary of the 1997 journal article report in the Archives of General Psychiatry, 54:670, 1997.
Background: Previous animal and human studies have indicated that prenatal exposure to nicotine isassociated with adverse reproductive outcomes, including altered neural structure and functioning,cognitive deficits, and behavior problems in the offspring. Our study extends previous research onhumans by controlling a broad range of correlates of maternal smoking during pregnancy todetermine if smoking is associated with behavior problems in the offspring severe enough to qualifyfor DSM-III-R diagnoses.
Method: Subjects were 177 clinic-referred boys, ages 7 to 12 years at the time of the first assessment, who underwent longitudinal assessment for 6 years using annual structured diagnostic interviews. Correlates of maternal smoking during pregnancy and previously identified demographic, parental, perinatal, and family risk factors for the disruptive behavior disorders were controlled in logistic regression analyses.
Results: Mothers who smoked more than half a pack of cigarettes daily during pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a child with conduct disorder (odds ratio, 4.4; P=.001) than mothers who did not smoke during pregnancy. This association was statistically significant when controlling for socioeconomic status, maternal age, parental antisocial personality, substance abuse during pregnancy, and maladaptive parenting.
Conclusions: Maternal smoking during pregnancy appears to be a robust independent risk factor for conduct disorder in male offspring. Maternal smoking during pregnancy may have direct adverse effects on the developing fetus or be a marker for a heretofore unmeasured characteristic of mothers that is of etiologic significance for conduct disorder.
Children Age 14 Still Show Harmful Effects if Mothers Smoked During Pregnancy
SOURCE: Department of Public Health, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Several thousand 14 year old children were included in a follow up study which found more health and academic problems among the children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy. This large study was conducted by the Department of Public Health, University of Oulu, Finland.
The study began with an assessment of 12,068 pregnant mothers in two northern provinces in Finland. A questionnaire given to the 12,000+ women showed 19.7% of the mothers smoked at the beginning of pregnancy. However, by the second month of pregnancy, 15.5% of the mothers were smoking for a total of 1,819 women. It was of these 1,819 women that the study of health and academic performance was conducted.
At the end of 1980 and early 1981, 11,780 of the original children (now age 14) were located for the follow up study. The questionnaire inquired on the children’s health, growth, school performance, various habits (smoking, drinking, participation in sports) and family conditions including father’s smoking history.
On the positive side, there were no significant differences between the groups in respect to “severe” mental retardation, diabetes, rheumatic diseases or other long term diseases, according to the questionnaire sent to the families or from information received from the school or national registers.
Asthma proportion was similar in both groups, about 2.1% of cases, however, the children of smokers did have over a 50% higher chance of being administered to the hospital for severe asthma reactions, 1.30% compared to .80% for the non-smokers.
In conclusion the researchers stated,
“School performance of the smokers’ children was poorer than that of their controls when measured in terms of their mean ability on theoretical subjects and scored from 4 to 10 on the child’s school report, this trend being seen among both the boys and the girls and in all social classes The children of the smokers were more prone to respiratory diseases than the others. They were also shorter in length by nearly 1 centimeter (a little less than a half an inch) and their mean ability at school was poorer than among the controls for mothers who smoked 10 cigarettes and 20 cigarettes per day. The differences remained significant after adjusting for the mother’s height and age, social class as determined by the father’s occupation, number of older and younger children in the family and the sex of the child.”
How Smoking Affects Your Looks and Life… premature aging; damage to skin, teeth, gum, lips; hair loss; cataract; psoriasis; different heart & lung diseases, cancer; reproductive problems etc.
Beginning September 2012, FDA will require larger, more prominent cigarette health warnings on all cigarette packaging and advertisements in the United States. These warnings mark the first change in cigarette warnings in more than 25 years and are a significant advancement in communicating the dangers of smoking.
Public Health Impact
Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature and preventable death in the United States, and claims almost half a million lives each year. Requiring larger, more prominent warnings on cigarette packaging and advertisements is part of a broader strategy to help tobacco users quit and prevent young people from starting. The new warnings serve as reminder of the negative health consequences of smoking every time someone picks up a pack of cigarettes or views a cigarette advertisement.
Many times wrong messages are displayed in cigarette ads…
Around 6 million people may die each year worldwide staring in in 2010 because of smoking and tobacco related disease, according to the World Health Organization – including over 438,000 Americans, 650,000 Europeans and 1.2 million people in China.
Tobacco use will kill 1 billion people worldwide in the 21st century if current smoking trends continue.
6.6 billion people are on this planet and 1.3 billion are smokers, the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) and the World Lung Foundation (WLF) told the 38th Union World Conference on Lung Health.
66 percent of all smokers live in just 15 countries, according to The Union and the WLF.
1.8 billion young people aged of 10 to 24 smoke cigarettes, according to the World Health Organization.
* More than 85 percent of these young smokers live in developing countries (WHO).
One billion men and about 250 million women use tobacco every day around the world, according to a study presented at the 14th World Conference on Tobacco or Health.
There are thought to be 800 million smokers in developing countries and only 1.1 billion smokers worldwide (WHO).
45+ million Americans smoked in 2006. That’s 20.8 percent of Americans, according to estimates from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
American men smoked at a rate of nearly 24 percent of the population, while 18 percent of women smoked.
2.4 million cases of cancer in the US from 1999 to 2004 were caused by tobacco use, according to the CDC.
•More than two thirds of the world’s smokers live in just 10 countries (WHO):
•Tobacco is a “major health problem” in Southeast Asia. “Approximately 50 percent of males smoke and youths, especially girls, continue to take up smoking,” experts from eight of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members said. ASEAN consists of Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
•The global anti-smoking pact was operational beginning February 27, 2005 for countries that have actually ratified it. It was the first international treaty against smoking, including an advertising ban, and was signed by more than 190 countries on May 21, 2003.
•In China, there are about 350 million smokers (about 25 percent of the population). It’s also one-third of the world’s smokers, according to World Health Organization statistics.
* 100 million smokers in China are under the age of 18, according to the Chinese health ministry.
* Chinese smokers polish off more than 37 percent of the world’s cigarettes.
* 60 percent of Chinese men smoke.
* Did you you that just 10 percent of Chinese Americans smoke in the US as opposed to the 36 percent smoking rate in China itself?
* About 40 million of China’s 130 million children aged 13 to 18 had tried smoking, according to a Health Ministry report.
* 56.8 percent male Chinese doctors smoke, highest in the world, according to a report by the China Preventive Medicine Association.
•Spain deals low price tobacco brands a blow. 9 months after passing tough new legislation limiting lighting up in public places, which set off a bitter price war by tobacco manufacturers, Spain hiked cigarette tobacco taxes to 70 euros (90 dollars) per 1,000 cigarettes.
•”20 million cigarettes are smoked every day in Egypt (that’s billions of cigarettes each year). . . There are no accurate figures for shisha (hookahs) but it is becoming a modern trend,” Egyptian Health Minister Hatem al-Gabal said.
* “An average of 2.5 percent of household income is spent on tobacco in Egypt, which is more than on health and leisure,” Dr Fatima el-Awa, from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) regional office said.
•Did you know that the regular tobacco waterpipe (hookah) smoker is exposed to larger amounts of nicotine, carbon monoxide and certain other toxins than the typical cigarette smoker? (WHO).
•In India, tobacco use causes nearly 40 percent of all health problems and 50 percent of all cancers, according to Health Minister, Anbumani Ramadoss.
* Nearly 17 percent of students in India, aged 15 and under, use some form of tobacco, mainly cigarettes, according to a survey conducted by the World Health Organization.
* Can you believe some 37 percent of kids below the age of 10 tried smoking cigarettes? This, however, is down from 49 percent of Indian children who tried their first cigarette (from WHO study).
* Teaching tobacco use? More than a third of school personnel, including teaching staff, are tobacco users (from WHO study above).
Numbers Don’t Lie: Percentage of International Smokers
•Mexico has 13 million smokers within its population of 105 million.
* Around half the adult population are smokers or ex-smokers, according to the National Statistics Institute.
•In Russia, 60 percent of men smoke and 30 percent of women as well.
* In 1992, 7 percent of Russian women smoked vs almost 15 percent by 2003, according to a journal Tobacco Control report (see below).
* The number of Russian men who smoke rose from 57 percent to 63 percent.
•In India, an estimated 120 million people smoke. But unlike Western countries, smoking is on the rise in India.
* Cigarettes compromise just 19 percent of tobacco consumption. Bidis account for 53 percent, according to the Bidi Smoking and Public Health report by the Union Ministry of Health and Family.
* Did you know that 800 million bidis are sold in India each year?
* Bidis contain more tar, nicotine and other toxic substances but less tobacco than traditional cigarettes.
•In Egypt, nearly 60 percent of the men use tobacco in some form in a country of 79 million people. Nearly half the men smoke.
•In Vietnam, not long ago more than 70 percent of men and nearly 5 percent of women regularly light up. Now just 56% of men and 1.8% of women smoker.
* Young smokers make 31% of the total.
•In Turkey, nearly 66 percent of men, 20 percent of women and 11.7 percent of school children smoke. That’s 25 million smokers in a country of 75 million smoking 115 billion cigarettes a year. Wow!
•Around half of Venezuela‘s 26 million people smoke.
•In Pakistan, over half of the adult population is addicted to tobacco in one form or another.
•In Greece, 45 percent of people smoke.
* An estimated 600 people die each year from passive smoking.
* Around one in three 12-18 year olds tried smoking.
* 10 percent of Greek 12-18 year olds is addicted to smoking, according to a 2007 survey.
* Smoking-related diseases cost Greece more than 2 billion euros a year.
•In Italy, between 14 and 16 million people smoke out of a total population of 58 million. In 2004, more than 26 percent of Italians smoked. That dropped to 24.3 percent in 2006 following the country’s ban on January 10, 2005.
•Over a third of Indonesia‘s 230 million people smoke vs. just over 25 percent about a decade ago. This reverses smoking trends worlwide.
* 63 percent of Indonesian men smoke
* Indonesia is the world’s 5th largest cigarette market.
* A traditional clove cigarette, called “kretek”, first introduced in the late 19th century to ward off illnesses, is still the cigarette of choice in Indonesia for about 90 percent of smokers.
* “Kreteks” have about twice the nicotine and tar levels of ordinary cigarettes.
* Some Indonesians smokers begin as early as 5 years old, government figures show.
* Over 90 percent of Indonesia children have watched cigarette TV ads, according to the South-East Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA).
•In Japan, 24.9 percent of adults smoke, a record low. The number of Japanese smokers has continued to fall since 1996. Young 20-something smokers clocked in at 14.3 percent, while 32.7 percent of those age 60 and up smoked, according to the annual survey by Japan Tobacco Inc, Japan’s largest tobacco maker.
* Japanese men’s smoking rate was 60 percent in 1990 and currently 38.9 percent.
* Japanese women’s smoking rate now 11.9 percent down from 15 percent.
•In the Philippines, up to 35 percent of the country’s 89 million people use tobacco.
* 4 million Filipino young people between 11 and 19 years old smoke. About 21.6 percent of all young Filipino smokers vs about 18 percent in 2005 and 15 percent in 2003. And that number may continue to grow, in spite of new restrictions on tobacco ads, according to a 2007 survey commissioned by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Philippines health department.
* 1.8 million of these young smokers were girls.
* Put your money where your butt is. Rural Green Bank of Caraga (Agusan del Norte province) offers an alternative quit-smoking program, a savings account. They teamed up with the non-government group Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). A smoker, wanting to quit, opens a savings account where they deposit the money he would have spent on cigarettes for 6 months. If they are smoke-free aftter 6 months they can claim the account and are encouraged to start a small enterprise. Failure means the amount deposited goes to charity (there is a second follow up nicotine test made 3 weeks later).
* Fr. Robert Reyes, a priest whose brother Vincent died of smoking, continues his brother’s P500,000 damage suit against Philip Morris and urges smokers to sue cigarette companies.
* 80 billion sticks (cigarettes) are sold annually in the Philippines.
•In Nigeria, 13 million people smoke – – the smoking rate for adults is 17 percent and growing.
•In Iran, there are more than 10 million smokers and more than 45% of Iranians exposed to secondhand smoking.
* The average smokers smokes 14 cigarettes a day.
* Around 17,400 billion rials are spent on cigarettes each year, according to Tobacco Control Headquarters.
•In Nepal, 49 percent of the men and 29 percent of the women are smokers.
•Around 38 percent of the Slovak population of 5.5 million smoked (2006).
•British adults smoke were about 25 percent of the population. That’s 10 million people.
* Just 67% of UK smokers polled said they wanted to quit smoking in 2008/2009, well under the 74% number of smokers polled in 2007 (ONS).
* Dance, dine and then quit smoking. Smokers first get tips to cook up tasty treats at a Preston restaurant; next they receive salsa dancing lessons; and finally, they are shown how to quit smoking by the NHS Central Lancashire Stop Smoking Service along with The Olive Press in Winckley Square, Preston, Lancashire.
* Around 31 percent of smokers surveyed by the Office for National Statistics in the UK said that they wanted to kick the habit. The reasons: too expensive and smoking was a waste of money.
* Football team Hartlepool United drafted Nicotinell for a promotional campaign to get fans trying to quit smoking to register online and complete a questionnaire. They won £20,000 for the effort.
•About 33 percent of adults smoke in Argentina. The country is also one of the world’s top 10 tobacco suppliers.
•About 33 percent of Uruguay‘s 3.4 million people smoke, anti-smoking groups estimate.
•In the Balkans, 30% to 40% of all adults smoking, making this European region one of the highest in Europe.
•37 percent of Bosnians actively smoke and about 95 percent of 13-15 year old children are exposed to secondhand smoke at home.
•In Croatia, 32 percent of the 4.4 million people who live there smoke.
•The Czech Republic‘s smoking rate is 26.6 percent. Unfortunately it was 26.2 percent 10 years ago.
* In 2006, 8.4 percent of Czech 15 year olds smoked, up from 5.8 percent in 1994.
•Around 30 percent of Europeans aged 16 or more admit to being smokers, according to a study by pollsters at Eurobarometer published by the European Commission. Highlights of their findings:
* Greece with 42 percent of responders saying they smoked daily or occasionally.
* Bularia 39 percent
* Latvia 37 percent
* France 34 percent
* England 28 percent
* Sweden 25 percent
* Slovaks at 22 percent * 5 percent of the 26,500 European polls calling themselves occasional smokers
* 10 percent of smokers claimed they had gone to another EU country to buy cheaper smokes in the past year
* Less than a third of respondents believe the smoking kills warning on cigarette packets was effective
* 20 percent of smokers said the smoking kills warnings would persuade them to cut down or quit
* 22 percent of those surveyed said they quit smoking
* 46 percent of respondents said they had never smoked
•South Africa‘s was 22 percent in 2006; that’s down from 2 percent in 1995.
* The South African smoking declined 40%: From around 2 billion packs of cigarettes in 1990 to 1.3 billion packs in 2005, according to a WHO report.
* In the the 1990s, tobacco tax rates skyrocketed 250 percent (see above).
•In Iceland, about 24 percent of Icelanders smoke, 2005 was the most recent year statistics were avaiable.
•22 percent of Finns smokes, Finalnd.
•In Sweden, 14 percent of the population smokes, according to The Swedish National Institute of Public Health (Dagen’s Nyheter newspaper). Low for Western Europe.
* 200,000 Swedes are no longer regular smokers in the past 5 years.
* Women smoke than men in Sweden. This is rare.
* Men who were sick or on disability were the only segment that increased smoking, up 19 percent.
* Swedes are turning to suns as a smokeless tobacco replacement for cigarettes, especially wonen.
* 14 percent.
•The South Korean smoking rate was 21.9 percent in 2007, according to the Health ministry (Yonhap news agency).
* about 50 percent of South Korean men smoked, until 2006, when for the first time, the number of male smokers fell below 50 percent.
•In Hong Kong, around 14 percent, or 800,000 of the city’s 7 million people have the smoking habit. A low number compared to most countries.
•In Macao, 17 percent of the population smokes, according to the Macao Special Administrative Region’s Health Bureau.
•In Malaysia 21.5 percent of the adult population smoked in 2006, down from 25 percent in 1996, according to the Third National Health and Morbidity Survey.
* The percentage of Malaysian women smokers has doubled to 480,000 in recent years, according to Health Ministry parliamentary secretary Lee Kah Choon.
* There were more than 2 million smokers overall.
* Malaysian smoking is increasing despite increasing prices and stepping up campaigns on smoking’s health risks.
* 467,000 smokers were between 13 and 17 years old with almost 10 percent being girls.
•In Thailand, the number of smokers fell to 9.4 million (17 percent) out of a population of 65 million.
* Thai smokers puff through 110 million cigarettes daily.
•In Australia, 19 percent of the population smokes. That’s down from 34 percent in 1980
* 140,000 Aussie children were weekly smokers.
* 32 percent of students tried smoking in 2007 (8 percent) VS 52 percent in 2001, according to a Auckland University survey.
* 16.5 percent of Victorians smoke regularly today vs 21.1 percent in 1998, according to a Cancer Council survey.
* Australian asthmatics health problems and increased risks fail to spur them to quit smoking, according to a report by the Australian Centre for Asthma Monitoring.
– 55% of Australian men were more likely to quit or cut down on cigarettes vs. 44% of New Zealanders, according to a survey commissioned by Bayer Healthcare.
This is revealed in a survey of 25 to 44-year-olds commissioned by Bayer Healthcare
•New Zealand‘s smoking rate is 19.9 percent for people age 15 and older, the lowest level in more than 30 years. There are 150,000 fewer smokers in New Zealand now.
•In lreland, smoking has increased since the 2004 smoking ban. 33% of the population smoked in 1998 that decreased to 27% by 2002 but rose to 29% in 2007, according to the Irish Government-commissioned National Health and Lifestyle Survey (SLÁN 2007).
•In Canada, 5 million people smoke or 17 percent, according to the Ministry of Health.
* Canada’s target for smokers in the country by 2011, 12 percent of the population. That’s down from the current down from 19 percent of Canadians that smoke, according to Health Minister Tony Clement.
* WOW! 58 percent of Canadian Inuits smoke on a daily basis.
* Since 1999, more than 1 million Canadians have quit smoking (Canadian Cancer Society).
* Canada estimates $16 billion dollars is paid by its government each year because of smoking and tobacco, including $4.4 billion in direct health care costs. * The 22 percent rate of Quebecers who smoke has held steady for 4 years.
* More than 100,000 Ontarians have quit smoking since 2006.
•In Saudi Arabia, an estimated 35 to 40 percent of those above the age of 15 smoke.
* Around 24 percent of 13 to 15 year old male students smoke.
* 8 percent of girl students in the Kingdom smoke.
* The Saudi Arabian government spent about SR12 billion treating smoke-related ailments between 2000 and 2004.
* Smokers in the Kingdom must now pay higher premiums for their health insurance.
* In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a state-of-the-art smoking treatment clinic is being set up in 2009.
* There are more than 50 regular anti-smoking clinics in the kingdom now.
* Purchasing, supplies and maintenance departments in the Health ministry can’t do business with tobacco companies (no more contracts).
* Tobacco companies and their board members can no longer register as contractors with the Health ministry.
* The Kingdom is the top Arabian tobacco importer with Iran in 2nd place, Jordan 3rd, Turkey 4th, Morocco 5th and Egypt 6th (using 2007 statistics).
•In Syria with nearly 20 million people, up to 60 percent of men and 24 percent of women smoke, according to a report by an official Syrian tobacco institution (the state news agency SANA).
* There has been a 15 percent rise in the number of smokers in Syria’s smokers in spite of bans on tobacco ads and public place smoking (2006).
* Around 26 billion Syrian pounds (600 million dollars) is spent on tobacco and cigarettes by smokers each year.
* Around 8 percent of Syrian smoker’s income is spent on 3.6 kilogrammes (about 8 pounds) of tobacco per smoker each year.
•Singapore‘s smoking rate has risen. 13.6 percent of those aged 18 to 69 were daily smokers in 2007 vs 12.6 perent in 2004, according to the National Health Surveillance Survey 2007.
* 25 percent of males smoked 13 cigarettes a day on average daily.
* One in 27 females smoked 9 cigarettes daily.
* Mandatory counseling for under-aged first-time smoking offenders begins May 2009 because young adults aged 18 to 29 were the heaviest daily smokers.
* “No Butts Project” targets young adults who can redeem stamps when they attend smoking cessation events or counseling sessions.
* Singapore’s Malay smokers faced the 2009 Muharam Challenge in which Malays ended the month long challenge with a 15% success rate of people quitting smoking vs. last year’s 10.5 percent.
•Bulgaria, where 52.4 of men are active smokers, is the third most active smoking nation among European members, according to a survey by the organizers of the “Help – a life without smoking” campaign.
* 50% of Bulgarians pregnant women are active smokers.
* 38.1% of women smoke today vs. 19% in 1986.
* About 33% of kids aged 10 to 19 is an active smoker.
* 1.9 million Bulgarians smoke an average of a pack a day.
•In Pakistan, tobacco and its by-products suck Rs1.2 billion out of people each year.
* 24 percent of male and 16 percent female college students in Karachi are regular smokers.
•In France 2008 cigarette sales were down 2.3 percent from 2007, a record low, according to research by British American Tobacco.
* 54.4 billion cigarettes were sold in 2008 at 5.30 euros a packet.
* 1998 cigarettes sales were almost 85 billion at 2.96 euros a packet.
•UK: In 2008, 4,068 expected to quit on the Island out of 190,000 people estimated to attempt quitting in the South East, according to Smoking Toolkit study by Professor Robert West, a leading tobacco control expert.
* More than 164,000 people have stopped smoking since the England and Wales smoking bans started.
* Dundee, Scotland will give smokers from poor parts of the city $25 a week to buy fresh food. They must take weekly tests to prove they did not start back smoking again.
* In 2008, over 12,000 people contacted Stop Smoking Wales to help them quit smoking.
* 32 percent of Welsh smokers said they were smoking fewer cigarettes as a result of the ban.
•Yemeni (Yemen) people spend more than USD 107 million on cigarettes, according to a study by the National Program for Combating Smoking.
* Yemenis smoke 6.4 billion cigarettes a year.
* Cigarettes cost just YR 80 or almost US 40 cents a pack in Yemen.
* Yemenis spend USD 156 million on chewing qat, a leafy narcotic, according to a study by the University of Hodeidah.
•Governments lost more than $40 billion in taxes because about 600 billion cigarettes were smuggled in 2006 or 11 percent of the world’s consumption, according to the Framework Convention Alliance (FAC), an umbrella group of hundreds of anti-tobacco organizations, estimates.
Yes, smoking kills. Smoking is an international problem. Smoking around the world clearly will not end overnight. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
- Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.1
- Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.2 This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.2
- On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.3
- If smoking persists at the current rate among youth in this country, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.2
- World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.
- Jha P, Ramasundarahettige C, Landsman V, Rostron B, Thun M, Anderson RN, McAfee T, Peto R. 21st Century Hazards of Smoking and Benefits of Cessation in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;368:341–50.
Smoke-free laws, sometimes colloquially referred to as “smoking bans” are key tobacco control public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.
The rationale for smoke-free laws posits that smoking is optional, whereas breathing is not. Therefore, smoke-free laws exist to protect breathing people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labour in the community thus protected, making that workforce more attractive for employers. In the US state of Indiana, the economic development agency included in its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth encouragement for cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; decreased legal liability; potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs; reduced quantities of litter; healthier environments; and giving smokers incentive to quit.
The World Health Organization considers smoke-free laws to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoke-free regulations are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes. When effectively implemented they are seen as an important element of policy to support behaviour change in favour of a healthy lifestyle.
Medical and scientific basis for smoking restrictions
Research has generated evidence that second-hand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung ailments such as emphysema,bronchitis, and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%.
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens on account of tobacco smoke as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such aspolonium 210. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies’ own research to be present at higher concentrations in second-hand smoke than in mainstream smoke.
Scientific organisations confirming the effects of second-hand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, and the World Health Organization.
Restrictions upon smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that New York’s statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoke-free regulations were instituted.
A 2004 study showed New Jersey bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighbouring New York City, which had already enacted its smoke-free law.
Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking restrictions, tests showed improved (i.e. decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to going smoke-free).
Public Health Law Research
In 2009, the journal Public Health Law Research published an evidence brief summarising the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health. They stated that “There is strong evidence supporting smoking bans and restrictions as effective public health interventions aimed at decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke.”
One of the world’s earliest smoke-free ordinances was a 1575 Mexican ecclesiastical council regulation which forbade the use of tobacco in any church in Mexico and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. The Ottoman Sultan Murad IV prohibited smoking in his empire in 1633. The Pope also banned smoking in the Church, Pope Urban VII in 1590 and Urban VIII in 1624. Pope Urban VII in particular threatened to excommunicate anyone who “took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose”. The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 17th century. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848. The first building in the world to have a smoke-free policy was the Old Government Building in Wellington, New Zealand in 1876. This was over concerns about the threat of fire, as it is the second largest wooden building in the world.
The first modern attempt at restricting smoking was imposed by the then German government in every university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel’s Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler. Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.
In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the risks of second-hand tobacco smoke became public, the tobacco industry launched “courtesy awareness” campaigns. Fearing reduced sales, the industry created a media and legislative programme that focused upon “accommodation”. Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them, while avoiding smoking bans. In the USA, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.
In 1975, the US state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to restrict smoking in most public spaces. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act. As of 1 October 2007, Minnesota enacted a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars statewide, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.
The resort town of Aspen, Colorado, became the first city in the country to restrict smoking in restaurants, in 1985.
On April 3, 1987, the City of Beverly Hills, California, initiated an ordance to restrict smoking in most restaurants, in retail stores and at public meetings. It exempted restaurants in hotels – City Council members reasoned that hotel restaurants catered to large numbers of visitors from abroad, where smoking is more acceptable than in the United States.
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to restrict indoor smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants.
In America, the success of the smoke-free law enacted by the state of California in 1998 encouraged other states such as New York to implement similar regulations. California’s smoke-free law included a controversial restriction upon smoking in bars, extending the statewide workplace smoke-free ordinance enacted in 1994. As of April 2009 there were 37 states with some form of smoke-free provision. Some areas in California began making entire cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California enacted park and beach smoking restrictions.
Since December 1993, in Peru, it is illegal to smoke in any public enclosed places and any public transport vehicles (according to Law 25357 issued on Nov 27, 1991 and its regulations issued on Nov 25, 1993 by decree D.S.983-93-PCM). There is also legislation restricting publicity, and it is also illegal (Law 26957 May 21, 1998) to sell tobacco to minors or directly advertise tobacco within 500m of schools (Law 26849 Jul 9, 1997).
On 3 December 2003, New Zealand passed legislation to progressively implement a smoke-free law in schools, school grounds, and workplaces by December 2004. On 29 March 2004, the Republic of Ireland implemented a smoke-free workplace law. In Norway similar legislation was put into force on 1 June the same year.
The whole of the United Kingdom achieved smoke-free workplaces in 2007, when England became the final region to have the legislation come into effect (the age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on 1 October 2007).
On July 15, 2007, Chandigarh became the first city in India to endeavour to become smoke-free. Smoking was restricted in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on 1 July 2007. Nepal announced a restriction upon smoking in public places, as well as by those under age 16 in June 2010. On 31 May 2011 Venezuela introduced a restriction upon smoking in enclosed public and commercial spaces.
Smoking was first restricted in schools, hospitals, trains, buses and train stations in Turkey in 1996. In 2008, a more comprehensive smoke-free law was implemented, covering all all public indoor venues.
Smoking has been restricted at a French beach – the Plage Lumière in La Ciotat, France, became the first beach in Europe to restrict smoking, from August 2011, in an effort to encourage more tourists to visit the beach.
In several parts of the world, tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The bar upon tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union in 2005 prompted Formula One Management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and led to some of the races on the calendar being cancelled in favor of more ‘tobacco-friendly’ markets. As of 2008, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, received sponsorship from a tobacco company. Marlboro branding appeared on its cars in two races; Monaco and China, as neither restricts tobacco advertising. Despite the EU prohibition from 2005, advertising bill-boards for tobacco were still in use in Germany as of 2011.
MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro received sponsorship from Marlboro, its branding appearing at races in Qatar and China. On 1 July 2009 Ireland prohibited the advertising and display of tobacco products in all retail outlets; when fully implemented, this will mean that shops will have to store cigarettes in closed containers out of sight of customers.
Public support for smoke-free laws
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans favoured completely smoke-free restaurants, 34% favoured completely smoke-free hotel rooms, and 29% favoured completely smoke-free bars.
Another Gallup poll, of over 26,500 Europeans, conducted in December 2008, found that “a majority of EU citizens support smoke-free public places, such as offices, restaurants and bars.” The poll further found that “support for workplace smoking restrictions is slightly higher than support for such restrictions in restaurants (84% vs. 79%). Two-thirds support smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs.” The support is highest in countries which have implemented clear smoke-free laws: “Citizens in Italy are the most prone to accept smoking restrictions in bars, pubs and clubs (93% – 87% “totally in favour”). Sweden and Ireland join Italy at the higher end of the scale with approximately eight out of 10 respondents supporting smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs (70% in both countries is totally in favor).”
Effects of smoke-free regulations
Effects upon health
Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoke-free regulations. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoke-free law, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighbouring towns without smoke-free regulations showed no change. The decline in heart attacks was attributed to the smoke-free law, which reduced exposure to second-hand smoke. A similar study in Helena, Montana found a 40% reduction in heart attacks following the imposition of a smoke-free law. However, a 2010 study comparing US nationwide data suggested that smoke-free regulations may not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.
Researchers at the University of Dundee found significant improvements in bar workers’ lung function and inflammatory markers attributed to the introduction of smoke-free workplaces; the benefits were particularly pronounced for bar workers with asthma. The Bar Workers’ Health and Environment Tobacco Smoke Exposure (BHETSE) study found the percentage of all workers reporting respiratory symptoms, such as wheezing, shortness of breath, cough and phlegm production, fell from 69% to 57%. A group of researchers from Turin, Italy found that smoking restrictions had significantly reduced heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased second-hand smoke exposure. A comprehensive smoke-free law in New York was found to have prevented 3,813 hospital admissions for heart attacks in 2004, and to have saved $56 million in health-care costs for the year.
A study in England estimated a 2.4% reduction in heart attack emergency admissions to hospital (or 1,200 fewer admissions) in the 12 months following the introduction of smoke-free workplace regualtions.
Effects upon tobacco consumption
Smoke-free laws bans are generally acknowledged to reduce rates of smoking; smoke-free workplaces reduce smoking rates among workers, and restrictions upon smoking in public places reduce general smoking rates through a combination of stigmatisation and reduction in the social cues for smoking. However, reports in the popular press after smoke-free laws have been enacted often present conflicting accounts as regards perceptions of effectiveness.
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after a smoke-free laws were introduced. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after the introduction of smoke-free workplaces. In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of nation-wide smoke-free workplaces, compared with July 2006.
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarised the tobacco industry’s concern about the effects of smoke-free legislation: “Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%–15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.”
In the United States, the CDC reported a levelling-off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more comprehensive smoke-free laws and large tax increases. It has also been suggested that a “backstop” of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation.
In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since the introduction of smoke-free workplaces.
Smoking restrictions may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may have considered quitting in response to the introduction of smoke-free workplaces.
Restaurant smoking restrictions may help to stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with smoke-free regulations were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers.
Effects upon businesses
Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the “best-designed” studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.
Studies funded by the bar and restaurant associations have sometimes claimed that smoke-free legislation has a negative effect on restaurant and bar profits. Such associations have also criticised studies which found that such legislation had no impact.
The following are some examples: the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product. A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Associationof the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased by 18.7% to 24.3% in a number of Ontario markets following the introduction of smoke-free bars. The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the smoke-free regulations to be amended in Ohio.
A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the introduction of a smoke-free enclosed places.However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the smoke-free law for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5%.
Smoking restrictions were introduced in German hotels, restaurants, and bars in 2008 and early 2009. The restaurant industry has claimed that some businesses in the states which introduced a smoke-free law in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Hessen) experienced reduced profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the smoke-free law deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a smoke-free law in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%. Smoking is not permitted in any public transit or in or around railway stations except for the locations expressly indicated for smoking. Smoking on trains itself was prohibited completely by the Deutsche Bahn AG in 2007, and there was a permanent reduction of smoking compartments on all trains in 2000. Smoking has restricted in airports and all Lufthansa planes since the late 1990s.
In 2008, Bavaria was the first federal state of Germany to restrict smoking in every bar and restaurant. After this restriction was criticised as being “too hard” by some members of the governing party CSU, it was relaxed one year later. Supporters of smoke-free regulations then brought about a public referendum on the issue, which led to even firmer restrictions than the initial smoke-free law. Thereafter a more comprehensive smoke-free law was introduced in 2010.
In the Republic of Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. Ireland was the world’s first country to introduce fully smoke-free workplaces. The Irish workplace smoke-free law was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from second-hand smoke and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. Many pubs introduced “outdoor” arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters). It was speculated by opponents that the smoke-free workplaces law would increase the amount of drinking and smoking in the home, but recent studies showed this was not the case.
Ireland’s Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that “an evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national introduction of smoke-free in bars, restaurants, etc). It has been claimed that the smoke-free law was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licences renewed in 2006 than in 2005.
Isle of Man
Smoke-free restrictions came into effect in the Isle of Man on 30 March 2008.
Smoke-free regulations came into effect in Scotland on 26 March 2006, in Wales on 2 April 2007, in Northern Ireland on 30 April 2007 and in England on 1 July 2007. Six months after implementation in Wales, the Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA), which represents pub operators across Wales, claimed pubs had lost up to 20% of their trade. The LVA says some businesses were on the brink of closure, others had already closed down, and there was little optimism trade would eventually return to previous levels.
The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), which represents some pubs and breweries across the UK claimed that beer sales were at their lowest level since the 1930s, ascribing a fall in sales of 7% during 2007 to the smoke-free reasgulations.
According to a survey conducted by pub and bar trade magazine The Publican, the anticipated increase in sales of food following intrduction of smoke-free workplaces has not occurred. The trade magazine’s survey of 303 pubs in the United Kingdom found the average customer spent £14.86 on food and drink at dinner in 2007, virtually identical to 2006.
A survey conducted by BII (formerly British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers’ Associations (FLVA) concluded that sales had decreased by 7.3% in the 5 months since the introduction of smoke-free workplaces on 1 July 2007. Of the 2,708 responses to the survey, 58% of licensees said they had seen smokers visiting less regularly, while 73% had seen their smoking customers spending less time at the pub.
In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoke-free laws. However, a 2006 review by the U.S. Surgeon Generalfound that smoking restrictions were unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and that many restaurants and bars might see increased business.
In 2003, New York City amended its smoke-free law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it, along with the California smoke-free law, one of the toughest in the United States. The city’s Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the restrictions went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city’s restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoke-free law, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses, and business tax payments. The President of the New York nightlife association remarked that the study was not wholly representative, as by not differentiating between restaurants and nightclubs, the reform may have caused businesses like nightclubs and bars to suffer instead. A 2006 study by the New York State Department of Health found similar results: “(…) the CIAA has not had any significant negative financial effect on restaurants and bars in either the short or the long term.”
Effects upon musical instruments
Bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and Uilleann (or Irish) bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the Irish smoke-free law.
Effects of prison smoking restrictions
Prisons are increasingly restricting tobacco smoking. In the United States, some states with smoke-free prison policies only prohibit indoor smoking whereas others disallow smoking on the entire prison grounds. In July 2004 the Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted a smoke-free policy for its facilities. A 1993 Supreme Court ruling acknowledged that a prisoner’s exposure to second-hand smoke could be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment (which would be in violation of the Eighth Amendment). A 1997 ruling in Massachusetts established that prison smoking bans do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Many officials view prison smoking bans as a means of reducing health-care costs.
Prison officials and guards are sometimes worried due to previous events in other prisons concerning riots, fostering a cigarette black market within the prison, and other problems resulting from total prison smoking restrictions. Prisons have experienced riots when placing smoking restrictions into effect resulting in prisoners setting fires, destroying prison property, persons being assaulted, injured, and stabbed. One prison in Canada had some guards reporting breathing difficulties from the fumes of prisoners smoking artificial cigarettes made from nicotine patches lit by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets. For example in 2008, the Orsainville Detention Centre near Quebec City, withdrew its smoke-free provision following a riot. But the feared increase in tension and violence expected in association with smoking restrictions has generally not been experienced in practice.
The introduction of smoking restrictions occasionally generates protests and predictions of widespread non-compliance, and media stories regarding the rise of clandestine smokeasies, including in New York City, Northern Ireland, Germany, Illinois, the United Kingdom, Utah, and Washington, D.C.
In reality, however, high levels of compliance with smoke-free laws (in excess of 90 per cent) have been reported in most jurisdictions including New York, Ireland, Italy and Scotland.Poor compliance was reported in Kolkata.
Criticism of smoke-free laws
Smoke-free regulations and ordinances have been criticised on a number of grounds.
Government interference with personal lifestyle
Critics of smoke-free provisions, including musician Joe Jackson, and political essayist Christopher Hitchens, have claimed that regulation efforts are misguided. Typically, such arguments are based upon an interpretation of John Stuart Mill‘s harm principle which perceives smoke-free laws as an obstacle to tobacco consumption per se, rather than a bar upon harming other people.
Such arguments, which usually refer to the notion of personal liberty, have themselves been criticised by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen who defended smoke-free regulations on several grounds. Among other things, Sen argued that while a person may be free to acquire the habit of smoking, they thereby restrict their own freedom in the future given that the habit of smoking is hard to break. Sen also pointed out the heavy costs that smoking inevitably imposes on every society which grants smokers unrestricted access to public services (which, Sen noted, every society that is not “monstrously unforgiving” would do). Arguments which invoke the notion of personal liberty against smoke-free laws are thus incomplete and inadequate, according to Sen.
Some critics of smoke-free laws emphasise the property rights of business owners, drawing a distinction between nominally public places (such as government buildings) and privately-owned establishments (such as bars and restaurants). Citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that the basic institutions of private property rights and contractual freedom are capable of resolving conflicts between the preferences of smokers and those who seek a smoke-free environment, without government intrusion.
Legality of smoke-free regulations
Businesses affected by smoke-free regulations have filed lawsuits claiming that these are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. In the United States, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. Some localities where hospitality businesses filed lawsuits against the State or local government include,Nevada, Montana, Iowa, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, and Hawaii. Such lawsuits have generally been unsuccessful.
Smoke-free laws may move smoking elsewhere
Restrictions upon smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. Many jurisdictions that have restricted smoking in enclosed public places have extended provisions to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings.
The former British Secretary of State for Health John Reid claimed that restrictions upon smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home. However, both the House of Commons Health Committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid’s claim after studying Ireland, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.
In January 2010, the mayor of Boston, Massachusetts, Thomas Menino, proposed a restriction upon smoking inside public housing apartments under the jurisdiction of the Boston Housing Authority.
Connection to DUI fatalities
In May 2008, research published by Adams and Cotti in the Journal of Public Economics examined statistics of drunken-driving fatalities and accidents in areas where smoke-free laws have been implemented in bars and found that fatal drunken-driving accidents increased by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county of 680,000. They speculate this could be caused by smokers driving farther away to jurisdictions without smoke-free laws or where enforcement is lax. No evidence is presented for jurisdictions where smoke-free laws and enforcement thereof are consistent.
Effects of funding on research literature
As in other areas of research, the effect of funding on research literature has been discussed with respect to smoke-free laws. Most commonly, studies which found few or no positive and/or negative effects of smoke-free laws and which were funded by tobacco companies have been delegitimised because they were seen as biased in favor of their funders.
Professor of Economics at the California State Polytechnic University-San Luis Obispo, Michael L. Marlow, defended “tobacco-sponsored” studies arguing that all studies merited “scrutiny and a degree of skepticism,” irrespective of their funding. He wished for the basic assumption that every author were “fair minded and trustworthy, and deserves being heard out” and for less attention to research funding when evaluating the results of a study. Marlow suggests that studies funded by tobacco companies are viewed and dismissed as “deceitful,” i.e. as being driven by (conscious) bad intention.
Alternatives to smoke-free laws
Incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments
During the debates over the Washington, DC, smoke-free law, city council member Carol Schwartz proposed legislation that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to voluntarily restrict smoking or a quadrupling of the annual business license fee for bars, restaurants and clubs that wished to allow smoking. Additionally, locations allowing smoking would have been required to install specified high-performance ventilation systems.
Critics of smoke-free laws have suggested that ventilation is a means of reducing the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. A tobacco industry-funded study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, published in the Building Services Journal suggested that “ventilation is effective in controlling the level of contamination”, although “ventilation can only dilute or partially displace contaminants and occupational exposure limits are based on the ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ principle”. 
Some hospitality organisations have claimed that ventilation systems could bring venues into line with smoke-free restaurant ordinances. A study published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found one establishment with lower air quality in the non-smoking section, due to improperly installed ventilation systems. They also determined that even properly functioning systems “are not substitutes for smoking bans in controlling environmental smoke exposure.”
The tobacco industry has focused on proposing ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free laws, though this approach has not been widely adopted in the U.S. because “in the end, it is simpler, cheaper, and healthier to end smoking.” The Italian smoke-free law ban permits dedicated smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, few Italian establishments are creating smoking rooms due to the additional cost.
A landmark report from the U.S. Surgeon General found that even the use of elaborate ventilation systems and smoking rooms fail to provide protection from the health hazards of second-hand smoke, since there is “no safe level of second-hand smoke”.
A number of states in the United States have “preemption clauses” within state law which block local communities from passing smoke-free ordinances more strict than the state laws on the books. The rationale is to prevent local communities from passing smoke-free ordinances which are viewed as excessive by that state’s legislature. Other states have “anti-preemption clauses” that allow local communities to pass smoking ban ordinances that their legislature found unacceptable.
In Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, three restaurants received short-term exemptions from a local smoke-free ordinance in restaurants when they managed to demonstrate financial suffering because of it.
Several types of “Smoker’s Paradoxes”, (cases where smoking appears to have specific beneficial effects), have been observed. This is in addition to the numerous documented negative health effects of smoking.
These effects should not be confused with altered mortality rate in “quitting ill”. Patients who quit smoking have a temporary increase in mortality from lung cancer compared to smokers, but this is due to the rate of quitting smoking after receiving the diagnosis of lung cancer itself.
Often the actual mechanism remains undetermined.
- Digestive system
- Cardiovascular system
- breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene
- Smoking can also reduce rates of uterine fibroids. This may be due to estrogen inhibition, as opposed to general inhibition of inflammation.
- The risk of endometriosis has been reported to be reduced in smokers.
- Smoking has been consistently found to be a protective factor on epidemiological studies for Parkinson’s disease. The basis for such effect is not known but possibilities include an effect ofnicotine as dopamine stimulant.
- The majority (80% in Australia as of 2001, 85% in the US as of 2007) of schizophrenics smoke, apparently to self-medicate. Nicotine appears to be an effective antipsychotic, and work is underway to develop antipsychotic drugs based on nicotine without the ill effects of smoking or of nicotine itself.
- Cohen, D. J.; Doucet, M.; Cutlip, D. E.; Ho, K. K. L.; Popma, J. J.; Kuntz, R. E. (2001). “Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Another Smoker’s Paradox?”. Circulation 104 (7): 773. doi:10.1161/hc3201.094225.PMID 11502701. edit
- Herbert I. Weisberg (7 September 2010). Bias and Causation: Models and Judgment for Valid Comparisons. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 272–. ISBN 9780470286395. Retrieved 16 November 2010.
- Knoke JD, Burns DM, Thun MJ (March 2008). “The change in excess risk of lung cancer attributable to smoking following smoking cessation: an examination of different analytic approaches using CPS-I data”. Cancer Causes Control 19 (2): 207–19. doi:10.1007/s10552-007-9086-5. ISBN 1055200790865. PMID 17992575.
- Melton Lisa (June 2006). “Body Blazes”. Scientific American: 24.
- Longmore, M., Wilkinson, I., Torok, E. Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (Fifth Edition) p. 232
- Green, J. T.; Richardson, C.; Marshall, R. W.; Rhodes, J.; McKirdy, H. C.; Thomas, G. A. O.; Williams, G. T. (2000). “Nitric oxide mediates a therapeutic effect of nicotine in ulcerative colitis”.Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 14 (11): 1429. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00847.x. PMID 11069313. edit
- T�z�n B, Wolf R, T�z�n Y, Serdaro�lu S (May 2000). “Recurrent aphthous stomatitis and smoking”. International journal of dermatology 39 (5): 358–60. doi:10.1046/j.1365-4362.2000.00963.x. PMID 10849126.
- “Smoking Cuts Risk of Rare Cancer”. UPI. March 29, 2001.
- Recer Paul (May 19, 1998). “Cigarettes May Have an Up Side”. Associated Press. Retrieved November 6, 2006.
- Hjern, A; Hedberg, A; Haglund, B; Rosén, M (2001). “Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents”. Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology 31 (6): 908–14.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01096.x. PMID 11422156. edit
- Ross RK, Pike MC, Vessey MP, Bull D, Yeates D, Casagrande JT (August 1986). “Risk factors for uterine fibroids: reduced risk associated with oral contraceptives”. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 293(6543): 359–62. doi:10.1136/bmj.293.6543.359. PMC 1341047. PMID 3730804.
- Templeman C, Marshall SF, Clarke CA, et al. (October 2009). “Risk factors for surgically-removed fibroids in a large cohort of teachers”. Fertil. Steril. 92 (4): 1436–46.doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.074. PMC 2765807. PMID 19019355.
- Daniel W. Cramer, Emery Wilson, Robert J. Stillman, Merle J. Berger, Serge Belisle, Isaac Schiff, Bruce Albrecht, Mark Gibson, Bruce V. Stadel, Stephen C. Schoenbaum (April 1986). “The Relation of Endometriosis to Menstrual Characteristics, Smoking, and Exercise”. JAMA1986;255(14):1904-1908 255 (14): 1904–8. doi:10.1001/jama.1986.03370140102032.PMID 3951117.
- Hjern, A.; Hedberg, A.; Haglund, B.; Rosen, M. (2001). “Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents”. Clinical <html_ent glyph=”@amp;” ascii=”&”/> Experimental Allergy 31 (6): 908–14. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01096.x.PMID 11422156. edit
- de Lau LM, Breteler MM (June 2006). “Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease”. Lancet Neurol 5(6): 525–35. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70471-9. PMID 16713924.
Y1 is a strain of tobacco that was cross-bred by Brown & Williamson to obtain an unusually high nicotine content. It became controversial in the 1990s when the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used it as evidence that tobacco companies were intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes.Y1 has also been investigated by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).
Development and use
Y1 was developed by tobacco plant researcher James Chaplin,for Brown & Williamson (then a subsidiary of British American Tobacco) in the late 1970s. Chaplin, a director of the USDA Research Laboratory at Oxford, North Carolina, had described the need for a higher nicotine tobacco plant in the trade publication World Tobacco in 1977,and had bred a number of high-nicotine strains based on a hybrid of Nicotiana tabacum and Nicotiana rustica,but they were weak and would blow over in a strong wind. B&W tested five strains on a farm in Wilson, North Carolina in 1983. Only two grew to maturity; Y2, which “turned black in the drying barn and smelled like old socks,” and Y1, which was a success.B&W brought the plants to California company DNA Plant Technology for additional modification, including making the plants male-sterile, a procedure that prevents competitors from reproducing the strain from seeds. DNA Plant Technology then smuggled the seeds to a B&W subsidiary in Brazil. A 1991 industry document analyzing the potential of Y1 reported that it had been successfully grown in Brazil, Honduras and Zimbabwe but not Venezuela, and that it was both difficult to cure and susceptible to Granville wilt.
Brown & Williamson initially attempted to patent Y1 in the United States in 1991; this was denied. A year later, B&W attempted to patent Y1 in Brazil; this was also denied. An appeal against the US patent denial was rejected in 1994, and later that year all patent applications were withdrawn.
Y1 has a higher nicotine content than conventional flue-cured tobacco (6.5% versus 3.2—3.5%), but a comparable amount of tar, and does not affect taste or aroma. British American Tobacco (BAT) began to discuss the trialling of Y1 tobacco in 1991, despite it not being approved for use in the United States. One ex-employee of BAT stated that Y1 tobacco started to be widely used in cigarettes in the US in 1993. Tobacco company executives initially denied intentionally manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes, but eventually acknowledged blending Y1 into brands including Raleigh, Prime and Summit in order to maintain the flavor and nicotine level of the product while lowering the tar content. B&W continued to insist that Y1 was not used to raise nicotine levels, stating “the brands that use Y1 deliver essentially the same nicotine as the products they replaced.” B&W promised in 1994 to stop using Y1, but at that time they had 7 million pounds of inventory, and continued to blend Y1 into their products until 1999.
Y1 was also shipped to BAT’s cigarette plant in Southampton, England and to subsidiaries in Germany and Finland, but whether it was used in commercial production is unclear.
Beginning in 1990, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under Commissioner David Kessler, conducted an investigation into the tobacco industry, including charges that cigarette manufacturers intentionally manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to keep their customers addicted. In early 1994, B&W told the FDA that there was an agreement among US cigarette manufacturers not to manipulate nicotine levels in tobacco. However, FDA investigators discovered a Brazilian patent describing a tobacco plant with an unusually high nicotine content, which led them to B&W and Y1. In testimony before Congress on June 21, 1994, Dr. Kessler accused B&W of knowingly manipulating nicotine levels in some of its cigarettes. B&W chairman Thomas Sandefur rejected the claim, stating that “the brands that use Y1 deliver essentially the same nicotine as the products they replaced” and accusing Dr. Kessler of “grandstanding” for political purposes.Several members of Congress suggested that this proved that tobacco executives had committed perjury when they denied knowing smoking was addictive in their April 1994 testimony before Congress.
Y1 became an important piece of evidence in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a lawsuit in which the FDA attempted to exert its authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to regulate tobacco products. Dr. Kessler argued that because Y1 had been raised for its higher nicotine level, it was subject to FDA regulation as a pharmacological product, and therefore its importation and sale in the US without the proper FDA approval was illegal.The FDA also targeted DNA Plant Technology, charging that it had illegally smuggled the Y1 seeds out of the United States. The Justice Department charged DNA Plant Technology with one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to violate the Tobacco Seed Export law, prohibiting the export of tobacco seeds without a permit (a law which was repealed in 1991). DNA Plant Technology pled guilty in 1998 and agreed to cooperate with further investigations of B&W.However, the Supreme Court eventually ruled in March 2000 that the FDA did not have the authority to regulate tobacco as a drug.
The discovery of Y1 fueled allegations that B&W intentionally used Y1 tobacco to increase the addictiveness of its products, resulting in a number of lawsuits.The state of Minnesota heavily referred to Y1 tobacco in its 1997 trial against the American tobacco industry (State of Minnesota et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.),a trial which took place prior to the inception of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in November 1998.
Aromatic Fire-cured tobacco is a variety of tobacco which is used as a condimental for pipe blends. In the USA, it is grown in northern middle Tennessee, in Virginia and central Kentucky. Aromatic Fire-cured tobacco that is grown in Tennessee and Kentucky is very often used in moist snuff, chewing tobaccos, some special cigarettes. It has an unbeaten, rich, floral taste, and adds aroma and body to the blend.
There is other fire-cured tobacco, Latakia and it is produced from different oriental kinds of N. tabacum. The leaves are smoked and cured over smoldering fires of local hardwoods and aromatic shrubs in Syria and Cyprus. Latakia has a very special flavor and a very nice smoky aroma; it is used in English and Balkan style pipe tobacco blends.
Bright Leaf tobacco is very well known as “Virginia tobacco”, often regardless of the state from where it is coming from. Before the American Civil War, a lot of tobacco grown from US was fire-cured dark-leaf. This kind of tobacco has been planted in fertile, special places.
After the War of 1812, the demand for a more aromatic tobacco, milder and lighter has risen up. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and all innovated a little bit with milder types of the tobacco plant. Farmers around the country have experimented with different, interesting, curing processes. But the most important change didn’t come before 1839.
It had been observed for centuries that highland, sandy soil produced weaker, thinner plants. Abisha Slade was the Captain of Caswell County, North Carolina knew a lot of information about sandy, infertile, soil and has planted the new “gold-leaf” varieties on it.
Slade had a slave, whose name was Stephen and around 1839 accidentally made the first true bright tobacco. He used charcoal to restart a fire used to cure the crop. The surge of heat has made the leaves in a yellow color. Using that discovery, Slade organized an interesting system for manufacturing bright tobacco, using charcoal for heat-curing and cultivated on poor soils.
Slade has appeared many times in public to share the bright-leaf process with different farmers. He had built a house made of brick in Yanceyville, North Carolina.
The sandy soil of the Appalachian piedmont was all of the sudden profitable, and a lot of persons quickly developed flu-curing techniques, a better way of smoke-free curing. Farmers discovered that Bright tobacco needs starved, thin soil and other persons who could not grow other crops started to grow tobacco on those fields. The farmers who had no profit for a long time, suddenly had profit with 20-30% more. Till 1855, six Piedmont counties, Virginia conducted the tobacco market.
The soldiers went home when the war was finished and suddenly there was a national market for the local crop. Pittsylvania and Caswell counties were the only two counties in the South that experienced an increase in total wealth during the war.
Burley tobacco represents a light air-cured tobacco used at the beginning for cigarette manufacturing. In the United States of America it is produced in an eight state belt with approximately 70% produced in Kentucky.
Tennessee manufactures almost 20% with smaller amounts made in North Carolina, Indiana Missouri, Virginia, Ohio and West Virginia. Burley tobacco is manufactured in a lot of countries with major production in Brazil, Argentina and Malawi.
In the U.S., burley tobacco is begun from palletized seeds put in polystyrene trays floated on a bed of fertilized water in April or March. Transplanting begins in May and progresses through June with a little percentage set in July.
Manufacturers have to fight against big diseases such as blue mold, black shank and insects like hornworms, aphids and budworms. Topping lets energy that would have made a bloom to expand leaf expansion. At almost four weeks after topping the tobacco plant is cut by using a knife that is shaped like a tomahawk.
Each plant is being spudded; spiked or speared (the terminology depends on the geographic place). Each stick has to have five or six stalks. Sticks of green cut tobacco are most often allowed to field wilt for three or four days prior to hanging in a barn.Tobacco is put to air cure for eight weeks or even more turning from the normal green to yellow color and then to brown.
The high quality achieved by U.S. burley manufactures is due to natural curing conditions. When the are fully cured the tobacco is taken down, sticks are being removed and the leaves are stripped from the plant into grades by stalk position.
Cavendish is more a method of cutting tobacco leaves than a type of it. The cut and the processing are being used to bring out the perfect, natural sweet taste in the tobacco. Cavendish can be made out of any tobacco kind but is almost all the time a blend of Kentucky, Virginia and Burley and is quite often used for cigars and pipe tobacco.
The interesting process starts by pressing the leaves of tobacco into a cake about an inch thick. Heat from steam or fire is applied, and the tobacco is let to ferment. This is made so that in the end the tobacco to be mild and fine. In the end the cake is sliced. These little slices must be broken apart, between palms in circular moves, before the tobacco can be evenly packed into a pipe. Flavoring is very often added before the leaves are being pressed.
There are a few colors: the well-known Black Cavendish, numerous blends, and a big variety of flavors. Modern blends have ingredients and flavor like: chocolate, cherry, strawberry, walnut, rum, vanilla, coconut and bourbon.
Cavendish tobacco has origins in the end of 16th century, when Sir Thomas Cavendish, in 1585 commanded a ship in Sir Richard Grenville’s expedition to Virginia, and had discovered that by dipping tobacco leaves in sugar it made a milder smoke.
Corojo is a type of tobacco leaves which are used in the making of cigars, cigarettes originally grown in the Vuelta Abajo region of Cuba.
Corojo was in the beginning grown and developed by Diego Rodriguez at his farm or Vega, Santa Ines del Corojo and the tobacco name comes from the name of the farm. It was used as a wrapper for a long period onCuban cigars, but its sensibily to different diseases, Blue mold especiallly, made the Cuban genetic engineers to develop different hybrid forms that would have great wrapper qualities and would be resistant to many diseases.
Criollo tobacco in the beginning had a few uses in the production of the Cuban cigar. After the discovering of Corojo, Criollo was increasingly relegated to use as filler, and the Corojo, which was better suited for use as a wrapper, replaced it.
Back then was discovered that when Criollo is being grown under cover, the opposed of how was grown in the sun as was ordinary done, it can make a very suitable wrapper leaf, given the proper conditions and care. A few of the first Criollo seed grown for wrapper was grown in the Jalapa Valley, Nicaragua. It was introduced to the non-Cuban tobacco market in 2001 as the wrapper for the Cupido Criollo brand.
The hybrid types, Criollo 98, is Blue Mold resistant, and was well known in Cuba to replace the earlier Corojo hybrid, Habana 2000, which was losing favor because of its increasingly succes.
Oriental tobacco is the same Turkish tobacco; it is very aromatic, small-leafed kind of tobacco which is sun-cured. Historically, it was raised originally in Macedonia and Thrace, now divided among the Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey, but it is also grown in South Africa, in Egypt, on the Black Sea coast of Turkey and elsewhere.
The name of ‘Turkish’ refers to the Ottoman Empire, which had conducted the historic production areas by the late 19th/early 20th century.
A lot of the first brands of cigarettes were produced entirely or mostly of Turkish tobacco; nowadays its first use is in especially cigarettes (a typical American cigarette is a blend of bright Virginia, burley and Turkish) and sometime in pipe tobacco too.
Turkish tobacco plants are cultivated in Egypt and different corners of the world. Oriental tobacco is sun-cured, that makes it more aromatic and, like flue-cured tobacco, more acidic than air or smoke-cured tobacco, so more favorable for cigarette production.
Oriental tobacco has a mild flavor and has less nicotine and fewer carcinogens than other types. In order to have the entire flavor, it is put together with more robust tobacco. Turkish tobacco usually has a bigger number and smaller size leaves. These differences can be attributed to soil, climate, cultivation and treatment methods.
Perique tobacco the most strongly flavored among all types of tobacco from Saint James Parish, Louisiana. In 1755 the Acadians came into this region, the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes were cultivating a lot of kinds of tobacco with a special flavor. Pierre Chenet was a farmer; he has created the firstlocal tobacco into the Perique in 1824 with the help of the technique of pressure-fermentation.
Considered the best part of pipe tobaccos, the Perique was used as a component of many blended pipe tobaccos, but it is so strong that it can’t be smoked pure as it is. There was a time when the freshly moist Perique was also chewed, but now it doesn’t exist the selling for this purpose.
It is traditionally a pipe tobacco, and is still very well known among pipe-smokers, typically blended with pure Virginia to lend strength, coolness and spice to the blend.
We have to know that the northern US states of Massachusetts or Connecticut are also two of the best tobacco-growing regions in the country. Long time before Europeans arrived in the area, Native Americans cultivated wild tobacco plants which grew along the banks of the Connecticut River.
Nowadays, the Connecticut River valley north of Hartford, Connecticut is known as “Tobacco Valley”, and the fields are visible to those who are traveling on the road to and from Bradley International Airport, the major Connecticut airport. The tobacco that is grown there is known as Shade Tobacco because it is grown under tents that protect the tobacco from exposure to the sunlight This is almost the same case when trees are growing in tropical areas in the shade.
The result are leafs of beautiful color and of a delicate structure. They are used as outer wrappers for a few of the world’s best cigars.
Nobody knows who introduced the method of growing that tobacco, but is known for sure that is a very good method. And it is also likely that the New York firm of Schroeder & Bon were important in developing this agricultural innovation.
Early Connecticut colonists took from the Native Americans the habit of smoking tobacco in pipes and began cultivating the plant commercially, in the same time the Puritans considered it as the “evil weed”.
The plant was outlawed in Connecticut in 1650, but in the 1800s as cigar smoking began to be very well known, tobacco producing became a huge industry, offering jobs to the farmers, local youths, laborers, southern African Americans, and migrant workers. The conditions for working were different starting from backbreaking work for young local children, ages 13 and up, to backbreaking exploitation of migrants.
Many persons have started with cigarette smoking and forgot about cigar smoking, that have caused a corresponding decline in the demand for shade tobacco, having a minimum in 1992 of 2,000 acres (8 km²) under cultivation. Since that period, cigar smoking has become more popular again, and in 1997 tobacco farmers had risen to 4,000 acres (16 km²). But still only 1,050 acres (4.2 km²) of shade tobacco were harvested in the Connecticut Valley in 2006.
In Ecuador labor is very cheap and that is why Connecticut seed is grown there.
Thuoc Lao (thuốc lào) is a tobacco plant and is consumed only in Vietnam. It is most smoked after someone has eaten to “help in digestion”, or together with green tea or beer (most commonly the cheap “bia hoi”). A “hit” of thuoc lao is followed by a flood of nicotine to the bloodstream causing big dizziness that last a few seconds. It must be known that even heavy smokers have had trouble with the big volume of smoke and that side effects of smoking include nausea and vomiting.
The big difference between smoking thuoc lao and the usage of another tobaccos is in the method of consumption. The smoker is presented with a bamboo pipe called a điếu cày (literal translation: farmer’s pipe). The pipe is made of a small wooden bowl thrust into a long cylindrical shaft. The shaft is separated three quarters of the way from the top with a thin layer of bamboo with a hole in the middle.
If offered a lighter, a Vietnamese person would politely decline on using it directly, and instead use a small piece paper to use as a flame. After he burns the tobacco he inhales to create abody of smoke inside the pipe. On the Vietnam’s capital streets in one little bag has enough tobacco for 5 to 8 “hits” retails at 2500 Vietnamese đồng, which is the same thing to about 15 US cents.
Bigger packs cost more than 20000 đồng and would represent almost $1.25 US Dollars.
Wild tobacco is originally coming from the southwestern United States, Mexico, and parts of South America. It has a botanical name: Nicotiana rustica. In Australia it is named “Nicotiana benthamiana” and “Nicotiana gossei”.
Those are two of several indigenous tobaccos that are still used by Aboriginal people in a few areas. “Nicotiana rustica” is the strongest tobacco type known. It is commonly used for tobacco dust or pesticides.
White Burley is like Burley tobacco and it represents the best component in chewing tobacco, American-style cigarettes and American blend pipe tobacco.
In the year of 1865, George Webb of Brown County, Ohio planted Red Burley seeds he had purchased, and found that a few of the seedlings had a whitish, sickly look. He transplanted them to the fields anyway, where they grew into mature plants but maintained their light color.
The cured leaves had an impressive fine texture and were brought as a curiosity to the tobacco market in Cincinnati.
The next year he planted ten acres (40,000 m²) from seeds from those tobacco plants, which have brought a premium at auction.
The air-cured leaf is considered to be mild tasting and more absorbent than other type of tobacco. White Burley, this type was called later and became the main and best component in American-style cigarettes,chewing tobacco and American blend pipe tobacco. The white part of the name is often used today, because red burley, a variety of the mid-1800s, doesn’t exist any more.