Third-Hand Smoke Debate Reveals Dangerous Lack of Common Sense Fueled by Tainted Studies

"It is interesting to note that the study sets out with the statement "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." This creates a common ground that is hard to refute. Moreover, the publication next cites a variety of studies that prove the existence of what it terms "thirdhand smoke."  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1363667/thirdhand_smoke_debate_reveals_dangerous.html?singlepage=true&cat=5

Redrant: I occasionally get newsletters from the Enviormental Protection Agency.  There is an Superfund arsenic remediation programs near my South Minneapolis house.  There was an arsenic pesticide plant just North of Lake Street and Hiawatha Av.  The EPA admits that arsenic dust from the former facility spread over a very wide area but the EPA claims that the arsenic are low enough so they don't pose a threat.  Arsenic is well proven as a carcinogen.

The "safe level" rationale is based one seemingly practical economic and practical reasons.  First the economic reasoning.  Remediation consists of digging up the top four to six inches of soil, replacing the soil and re sodding.  Obviously a costly operation.  For the practical reasons, I am  a mile south east of the former plant site so I would logically have relatively low arsenic dust "fallout" and test samples in the area have confirmed this.  

That said, there is above normal arsenic levels.  An arbitrary decision was made on "acceptable risk" of cancer and other health problems.  Having researched out arsenic a bit, I feel relatively comfortable with the situation.  I try to wait until after a light rain to mow the lawn, to avoid kicking up up too much dust but otherwise don't worry very much.

For the EPA the "safe level" rationale has a practical side.  If the EPA took a position of "no safe level of arsenic dust from the old pesticide plant"  the cleanup area might extend from I 35W to the Mississippi River.  It could further extend as detection technologies improve.  Chemicals now be detected in the parts per billion or sometimes parts per trillion.  If there is "no safe dose" the "risk" would expand and detection technology increases.  For a somewhat comical example of there were headline earlier this year about caffeine being found in the Minneapolis water supply.  The concentration was so small that a typical cup of coffee has 50,000 times the caffeine as the tested drinking water.  

This is comical because the wild roses in my yard probably contain caffeine in their leaves as do a number of other leaves.  The caffeine was probably from natural vegetation runoff, not upstream pollution.  

The widely discredited EPA report on Secondhand Smoke made the claim,  "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke."  This "no safe level" claim contradicts the EPA risk criteria philosophy.  It is also a "bear trap" because of steadily improving detection technology.  The EPA secondhand smoke report seemed to severely "cherry pick" data.  The EPA report, over 700 pages made no mention of the Framingham Heart study, which found no detectable additional risk with non-smoking spouses of smokers versus spouses of smokers.  The Framingham study was large, starting out with close to 5000 participants in 1948 and it is 60 years "longitudinal", tracking up to four generations.  

The "third-hand smoke" concept is not new.  When my parents were out of town I had to check on their house and do some work on it.  These were not "bar clothes" but the had a smoke smell when I got home.  If you wash the inside windows of a smokers house or car you defintely notice the smoke.  Someone once borrowed my pickup for moving and smoked in it.  It was summer and I could smell it for several weeks in the truck.  

These are all examples of "third hand smoke".  It exists but the "no safe level" claim is scientifically invalid.  With science, you need to prove your claim rather than try to make the other side prove that your claim isn't true.  As the old saying goes, "the burden of proof is on the accuser".  You cannot prove something by deductive logic.  As an example, you can argue that with billions of stars in the universe it only stands to reason that some of these stars contain planets with intelligent life.  Perhaps there is, it cannot be proved that life does not exist on other planets outside of our solar system but no one has found any "little green men" or other signs of extra terrestial intelligent life that can be verified.  The same is true of "third hand smoke".  

Please read he source article linked and pasted below.  Greg Lang

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1363667/thirdhand_smoke_debate_reveals_dangerous.html?singlepage=true&cat=5   

Thirdhand Smoke Boosts Cause of Anti Smoking Groups and May Lead to More Smoking Bans

Third hand smoke is in the news, and unless you have lived under a rock, you know that cigarette smoking is bad for you, and second hand smoke has been indicated in a host of undes

Third-Hand Smoke Debate Reveals Dangerous Lack of Common Sense Fueled by Tainted Studies

irable health effects, such as lung cancer. Third hand smoke, on the other hand, is a relatively new term. Is it time to get familiar with the idea of 3^rd hand smoke?

What is Third Hand Smoke?

The New York Times is warning parents that cracking a window and aiming a fan to get rid of their cigarette smoke might not be enough to keep kids safe from health hazards associated with cigarette smoking and nicotine. The paper refers to it as a "toxic brew," and while this sounds a lot like the verbiage used by anti smoking groups, there might be something deeper here.

The Difference between Second Hand Smoke and Third Hand Smoke

Secondhand smoke is generally defined as tobacco smoke that is involuntarily inhaled by individuals other than the smoker. Since second hand smoke contains the same carcinogens as the smoke inhaled by the one smoking, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2002 that "second hand smoke ... is carcinogenic to humans."

Once secondhand smoke leaves the area, the venue is thought to reset to a smoke free locale and without any cigarette smoke present, the air is supposed to be healthy again. Although this might be true of the air, it apparently does not hold true of the materials which the cigarette smoke touched.

The Nitti Gritty of Thirdhand Smoke

It stands to reason that the heavy metals -- and other carcinogens which are airborne in the smoke -- at some point will land on terra firma, creating a cancerous patina. This assumption has been proven and reported on as far back as 2004! Tobacco Control published a researcher paper in which it termed third hand smoke as "environmental tobacco smoke;" a term that just never caught on.

The study proved that the dust found in the homes of smokers - just like other household surfaces - contains nicotine. Infants notorious for sticking virtually anything into their mouths or touching surfaces and then placing their hands into their mouths, get a steady diet of nicotine and whatever other carcinogens have attached themselves to the furniture, rugs, and other areas of the home.

Is 3^rd Hand Smoke for Real? The American Academy of Pediatrics Says Yes!

It matters little how you "feel" about the issue of smoking in your home, whether or not the government should tell you to quit, or if the latest California smoking ban - when you are driving with minors in the care - is your nanny state at work. It is hard to argue with scientific evidence, and it appears that the American Academy of Pediatrics has the goods.

It is interesting to note that the study sets out with the statement "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." This creates a common ground that is hard to refute. Moreover, the publication next cites a variety of studies that prove the existence of what it terms "thirdhand smoke."

What Do American Consumers Say?

The study sampled 1,510 households of which 273 self identified as smoking households. 84.1% of the smokers agreed that second hand smoke held dangers for the health of children but only 43.3% felt the same way about third hand smoke, showing a rather glaring disconnect.

What is more, of the nonsmokers, 95.4% agreed with the statement that secondhand smoke was bad for kids' health, but only 65.2% felt the same way about thirdhand smoke. The study concludes with the statement that further education in the matter "may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans."

Consumer Gullibility versus Real Life against the Backdrop of Tainted Studies

Having grown up in a smoke filled home, I can attest first hand to the yellowish patina that forms over time on thewallpaper and household surfaces, even with regular cleaning. Common sense and the laws of gravity dictate that what goes up must come down, and heavy metals in the smoke of tobacco are no exception.

In stark contrast to common sense and the obvious stand medical studies, such as the 2003 one by James Enstrom, which concludes that "results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect." Too bad the bill for this study was footed by tobacco giant Philip Morris, as proven by the University of California, San Francisco.

At the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind with respect to second or third hand cigarette smoke. Suffice to say, living smoke free will be a lot healthier for your children and for yourself.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?ref=health;http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/29?ijkey=7cdc2d9a55d6798eda2ea0214b95ab08cb30ae27&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha;http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html;http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/e74;http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057;http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfk37d00/pdf;jsessionid=5733B05BB6A1FD317D4596889F7936F1

U of MN ethics standard panel conflict of interest.

Redrant:  I have been following the U of MN story for the last few days to see what happened.  I commented previously on s study of paying doctors $100 per patient to steer patients to the Minnesota "no cost" stop smoking program".  Since it's free to the patient and much of the advice isn't bad (though obvious) this should be a "no brainier" for doctors.  Like mechanical repair, in a situation that is not time critical you try the cheapest "fix" first.  I recently talked with a woman who got involved with quit plan.  I considered the advice they gave here to be generally good but they seemed to quick to push the pharmaceuticals.  She was on disability so she got these on very low co-pay but they were "top shelf" pharms.  I suspect the programs are set up to "gin" sales of these smoking cessation pharms.  Her counseling was very light on avoiding smoking situations.  That was critical to me when I quit.

The very well written Star Tribune story, has someone on the U of MN panel on ethics guidelines not stating the serious ethics charges against against one panel member because the the past ethics guidelines were deemed "not important".  

Hello!  The key to ethics is that "sunlight is the best disinfectant".  An accusation is not proof of guilt but all information (which can usually be googled anyway) should be put "on the table" and an opportunity for rebuttal offered.  From the Star Tribune story, it looks like the U of MN medical department is at the very least "dysfunctional" in several ways.  This same department is the recipient of many of the grants from the Minnesota tobacco settlement.

Again, this seems a well done article.  The Star Tribune tends to do a good job when they are not "political".  Please read the article and give the Star Tribune credit when it is due. http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/36500989.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Also, the comments are insightful and worth browsing.  http://ww2.startribune.com/user_comments/comments.php?d=asset_comments&asset_id=36500989&section=/lifestyle/health

Document:  disiplinary letter:  http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/dpafurchtlet.pdf?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiacyKUU

Update from Shelia and Sunday Star Tribune article.

Hello Everyone -

 

It has been a long time since I sent anything out but I'm still here and am in for the long haul. Greg has been doing a great job of posts on the www.freedomtoact website and Shawn as well on the www.banthebanminnesota.com website. Please make sure you visits the sites for updates. Enjoy the article below and I guess I am just not "smart" enough to keep my mouth shut! More updates will follow!

 

Have a Merry Christmas!

 

Sheila

 

 

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/36112634.html?elr=KArksUUUU

Whose life is it anyway? Workers pay price for unhealthy ways

By MAURA LERNER, Star Tribune

December 13, 2008

Sheila Kromer doesn't want any help.

She enjoys smoking and she doesn't want to quit.

Nor does she want advice on how to eat right. Or how to exercise. "I'm smart enough to take care of myself," she says.

As a chemist at 3M, she's had plenty of chances to join health and fitness programs on the job. But like many Minnesotans, she's simply chosen not to.

Now, that choice is starting to get costly.

At a growing number of workplaces, employees are paying a price for refusing to take part in wellness programs. Some face hundreds of dollars a year in higher costs for health insurance. Some are missing out on cash and gifts used to reward their colleagues -- not for their work, but for the way they eat, exercise and conduct their lives.

Once, on-site gyms and Weight Watchers classes were viewed as perks. But now, many employers see wellness programs as their best weapon in the war on health costs.

"I think everyone is collectively beginning to understand that the 400-pound gorilla in the room is health and wellness," said Dr. Ted Loftness, a vice president at Medica Health Plans. "We can't dance around it anymore. We have to do something about it."

Experts say that upwards of 40 percent of U.S. medical costs are linked to obesity, smoking and other lifestyle factors -- a statistic not lost on the nation's employers. As a result, more than half of large corporations now use incentives to get employees to shape up, a 2008 survey found.

But in the process, employers are pushing the boundary between work life and private life.

At 3M, General Mills and many other Twin Cities worksites, employees can earn up to $100 in cash or shave hundreds of dollars off their health insurance if they (and sometimes their spouses) take a "health risk assessment" -- a detailed survey of their personal health habits.

Some companies are tying payments to medical test results. This year, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota is offering $200 insurance rebates to its own employees who can maintain "healthy levels" of blood pressure, cholesterol and other risk factors -- or show they're making an effort to improve them.

In other parts of the country, employers have gotten even tougher. Alabama announced plans to charge what some call a "fat tax," a $25 monthly surcharge on insurance for state employees who are clinically obese.

This can be troubling news to people who simply want to do their jobs and be left alone.

"I really think it's an encroachment on our freedoms and our choices in life," said Kromer, 50, of White Bear Lake. "They should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot do off of work time."

Last month, she turned down the $100 incentive at 3M to fill out a health survey.

Like many companies nationwide, 3M is promoting the health risk assessments as a tool to encourage people to modify their behavior.

"I would never fill one out," says Kromer, who admits she's a contrarian. (She cochairs a committee to repeal the state's smoking ban.) As a smoker, she worries that the information might be used against her. "If I ever had to fill one out, I'm going to be real honest with you," she confesses. "I would lie."

David Bornus, who works for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, also refused to take a health assessment last year. He said he found the questions silly and patronizing: Do you have a smoke detector? Exercise? Eat vegetables? Drink to excess? Own a gun and keep it locked? He drew the line, he said, when he learned that his wife also would have to fill it out to get the incentive: $5 off copays for doctor visits.

"At this point, I decided that I did not like the incremental intrusion into my and my family's private matters," he said. "It's not worth it."

This year he changed his mind after the spousal requirement was dropped and some questions became optional. Still, he says, "the whole approach is a bad idea."

To some, employers are crossing the line in their zeal to contain health costs.

"When you have your employer kind of dictating how to live your life, it's kind of a scary thing," said Shawn Gertken, 35, a government worker in Wabasha County. "Where does it all end? Pretty soon they're going to be after you if you choose to ride a motorcycle after work."

Good reason to worry

But health and wellness experts say businesses have good reason to worry about what employees do in their off hours -- if it jeopardizes their health. "That's because employers are paying about $10,000 a year [per person] for employee health care costs," says Don Powell, president of the American Institute for Preventive Medicine in Michigan. "Companies are clearly tired of paying increases [of up to 10 percent] each year."

The drive to change behavior has been fueled by some alarming trends: Nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, according to federal statistics. Diabetes has soared at the same time. While smoking rates have dropped, they're still one of the biggest factors in heart disease, strokes and, of course, lung cancer.

"The cost trend is not sustainable. We all know that," said Loftness of Medica. "We're going to bankrupt the country on the backs of diabetes, obesity and tobacco.''

It's no surprise, then, that, many businesses are losing patience footing the bill for preventable diseases, says Susan Relland, a Washington, D.C., attorney who specializes in health law. "Just running the math, they realize that the health of their employees is having a very direct financial impact on the company."

"They've offered wellness programs for a long time, but they're having a hard time getting employees engaged," Relland added. Now "they've gotten a lot more serious about it."

General Mills at forefront

Few have pushed employee health more vigorously than General Mills, with its state-of-the-art fitness center, outdoor running paths and even a medical clinic at its Golden Valley headquarters. But after 20 years of wellness programs, it's still an uphill battle to draw in every employee, says Dr. Timothy Crimmins, the company's medical director.

So the company has added financial incentives to the mix as it tries to overcome people's natural affinity for donuts and a sedentary life. "We've had to work harder to fight the tide of American culture," says Crimmins.

Today, employees can eat at a "gently subsidized" salad bar, while burgers are full price, and collect $10 monthly nonsmoking bonuses. At sales meetings, staffers can meet with health coaches and get free blood pressure and cholesterol tests. There's a $50 bonus for filling out a health risk assessment (double if a spouse fills one out, too). In January, a $60 exercise credit makes its debut.

To Pamela Matovich, a systems analyst at General Mills, the payoff was more personal. She lost 75 pounds through the company's fitness and weight-loss programs, which she was able to fit into her workday.

"It's made a huge lifestyle difference for me," says Matovich, a Cottage Grove mother of two small children. Before, she was on insulin for diabetes and faced surgery for back pain. The weight loss made both unnecessary. "I think companies have the right to be able to say we'd like you to be healthier," she said. No one forced her to change, she adds; when she was ready, the company gave her the help to do it.

Crimmins wouldn't say how much General Mills spends on wellness, but he's confident it's worth it. Company surveys show that the rate of obesity has dropped from 23 percent to 12 percent among its sales force since 2005. In general, experts estimate that every $1 spent on health and wellness saves $3 in medical costs.

At some point, even supporters say companies may tire of paying people to help themselves, especially in a tightening economy.

Behind the scenes, there's growing talk of a tough love approach -- making some health programs mandatory. "It is a controversy right now," says Dr. David Plocher, chief medical officer at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. "No one has really agreed on the direction."

But some predict that will never fly, for legal and practical reasons.

"The coercion thing just doesn't work," says Crimmins, of General Mills.

Loftness of Medica agrees. "People don't change their behavior when they're threatened," he said. "I really believe you have to help them."

Maura Lerner • 612-673-7384

Health care costs and insurer/employer intrusion.

Redrant: The basic premise is the "settled science" that says that since something has been "proved" the costs are "proved". Junkscience.com calls this "chasing numbers": IE lower cholesterol numbers or lower weight directly translate to lower medical costs. The link isn't really there.
At Hennepin County the "single" health insurance costs tended to rise at single digit rates while the family coverage rose at double digit rates. You might argue that a lot of single people are young but Hennepin County has a very low turnover and relatively few "starter job" young hires. We subcontracted out a lot, 3M probably did in the last decade. The workforces at major employers is aging.
Katherine Kerstine of the Strib recently had an article about how legislated mandates add more than 20% to Minnesota Health care/insurance costs. They basically need a "boogieman" to try to blame the costs on.
On a personal level: On Friday I got "Shanghaied" into Health Partners for a physical under threat of not renewing my prescription for generic blood pressure medications. Seems I haven't been in there in three years. I am significantly overweight but no health problems. The doctor told me to lose weight and keep taking the meds but otherwise OK. I tend to believe that "sugar" is the big culprit nowadays. One pound of sugar can last me years at home. The only time I drink "sugar pop" is at a bar when I don't want to drive beer. I usually eat cereal that it unsweetened and drink only "skim milk". It's amazing the number of people who seem to live on a sugar based diet! I had one of those little disposable salt shakers I brought from work a year ago. It still isn't empty. I have "religiously" taken at least one aspirin a day for my entire adult life (always those little aches and pains). It's amazing how few people do this and keep doing it. I tell them to get a big bottle of cheap generic aspirin, it's all USP anyway. I try to lose weight but it's mostly for "quality of life" reasons.
Relatively few "office workers" in major corporations now smoke. The Hennepin Government Center has a daytime population of probably 10,000 people but I see only a handful smoking outside. Sedentary work and smoking are a more "toxic" combination but most smokers are in the "trades" where the work is more physical or in smaller employers.
One little "secret" is that in any Health Plan group a very small portion of the people use the vast majority of the services. It can be as high as 10% using 90%. It would probably be "un-PC" to profile these "frequent fliers". They have the accounting to easily do this. I didn't get a letter detailing costs when I got a flu shot at a HP flu shot "event" but they send me cost details for other things. If they can do that they can do a detailed analysis of who really costs the insurance in each subcategory. For example, the rise in rates for those with single coverage rises a lot less than those with family coverage. They could easily factor age in there. They can use these cost figures like an accounting spreadsheet where they can look at any factors they want.
HP didn't charge me the copay because this was an annual physical. I would predict that I will get a statement that this visit and the blood work cost HP $200, all done by HP in-house. The costs to insurers by smokers is probably lower than they say because smokers usually "tough out" colds and flue rather than go to the doctor for every sniffle

Greg Lang

Minnesota Institute of Public Health confuses "profit" with "revenue" in pulltab analysis.

Email I sent them: 

http://www.miph.org/projects/gambling-problems-resource-center/activities/pulltabs

Accounting 101:  Revenue minus expenses equals profit.  Beyond the fact that all Minnesota pulltabs except Indian Casino's are "non-profits" there are a variety of taxes and expenses before the 25% "revenue" becomes a "profit", or in the case of non-profits, funding for the designated charity.  Another appropriate term might be "takeout" which is somewhat like a retail store "markup". 

I have very mixed feelings about Pull Tabs and other legal gambling but you should strive for accurate terminology.

No need to contact me about this

Takes in 3,399 cards at $1 per card	$3,399
PAYOUTS
1 winner @ $250	$250
4 winners @ $249	$996
4 winners @ $100	$400
12 winners @ $25	$300
28 winners @ $10	$280
336 winners @ $1	$336
Payout 75%	$2,562
Profit to the seller 25%	$837

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.miph.org/projects/gambling-problems-resource-center/activities/pulltabs

Redrant:  It's amazing how a a supposedly responsible non-profit can confuse "revenue" or "markup" or "takeout" with "profit".  Anyone who has ever tried to run a business knows the difference.  Perhaps they think that the public and other reading their website are too stupid to understand the concepts. Greg Lang

My "Red Rant" spiel on the excellent, must read CNBC story.

TEN YEARS LATER, TOBACCO DEAL GOING UP IN SMOKE
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/11/ten-years-later.html#posts
Redrant: Greg Lang
The Tobacco Master Settlement happened shortly after the Minnesota tobacco trail ended. I'm surprised it's been ten years. I saw the effort then and now as a defacto "tax". I fully read the first proposed national settlement. Essentially it was a per pack "fee" on cigarettes from those who agreed to the settlement, essentially "big tobacco". New entrants into the market and "small tobacco" (niche brands and imports mostly) could agree to join in the settlement at the same per pack rate and be covered. If they declined to join the settlement they would need to place 150% of the per pack "fee" in escrow until it is released by a court after there is no potential for claims against the money.
Anyone who has dealt with a contested estate knows that the claims can go on forever. A growing supply of money escrow invites litigation "creativity". As an example one local company made a product used in a tiny fraction of the old silicone breast implants. They were constantly facing lawsuits for their one to two percent market share basically because the rest were made by companies that went bankrupt once the litigation started. For so called "small tobacco" with limited resources it was generally easier to "switch than to fight" (pun intended).
The irony here is that the legal logic behind the original tobacco litigation was the claim that the cig makers were concealing information about the dangers of their products. Under law a product can be dangerous. It's the known concealment of danger that gives the grounds for litigation. As an example, bicycles has one of the highest injury rates per mile of any vehicle. This is not grounds to sue.
Now let's say that you build a bicycle with a front springer fork with a cable operated disk brake. Let's say the cable is too short or designed to be attached in a way where it can crimp and apply the brakes hard when the fork spring is fully depressed. Let's say this locks up the front wheel so the rider is flung forward off the bike.
As example two lets say you are a legal distiller producing gin to the "gin mill" trade. (think "skid row"). The "booze" itself is not healthful but "Willy the wino" has no grounds to sue.
Now let's say the distiller discovers that repairs to the gin making equipment were made using lead based solder. Lead leaches into the cheap gin and causes medical problems like blindness or lead poisoning. The gin then represents a defective product. Getting the lead out will be costly so there is a temptation to hide evidence of lead poisoning. Same with the bicycle. If you determined the brake cable was too short but you already had a batch made up you might be tempted to use them.
In both cases litigation is a counter to this behavior. I won't rehash the smoking litigation logic but it involves a known concealment of an unstated defect or danger. In the case of gin, the government regulates the lead content so the government has the option of making something potentially harmful illegal (lead laced gin) or accepting as legal a product that is potentially harmful (IE: Gin. For that matter, I have not heard of any health claims for distilled liquor except as an emergency disinfectant).
The 150% "escrow" requirement assumes that the small and new cig sellers are going to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking. First off, our society is awash with claims about the dangers of smoking so if smoking is unhealthful (it is!) it a very badly kept secret. Also, a new seller knows the "history" so they are careful with their claims. Also, it's pre-emptive punishment before a "crime" is committed.
The real issue is that with "big tobacco" and others in the settlement paying a "fee" of perhaps a dollar or more per pack this leaves opportunities for new competitors in the market. To give an analogy, let's say all the butchers in a town were "in cahoots" with local inspectors so they under weighted by 10%. Now let's say a higher government agency got word of this and set up a "sting" where they followed this for a long time. When the bust came the all the local butchers got their "clocks cleaned" and they all had to raise prices by a third to cover the settlement costs. Let's say an honest butcher came into town and set up shop. The new butcher would have a definite cost advantage. Now let's say, the new butcher could sell meat or foul at $1 per pound. With the settlement costs "big butchers" have to charge $1.35. The new butcher would obviously have a competitive advantage. Now lets say the "city" reasons that the new butcher might cheat so the new butcher must put fifty cents per pound of meat or foul sold in escrow against this contingency. Thus the new butcher, who has committed no deception could join and charge $1.35 or not join and charge $1.50 with the fifty cents in escrow.
This obviously makes for a very poor business model for the new entry. If all cig sellers have to pay the same "fee" it is essentially a tax and a "level playing field". To give an example of this gas prices have varied in the last year but stations competed in a very limited range depending on the market. $3.60 used to be "cheap" now $1.60 is "cheap". In both cases the "spread" was minimal, maybe ten cents per gallon. If someone could sell gasoline at fifty cents less per gallon there would be "demand".
This is getting long but I want to get to "securitization". I looked into this maybe five years ago. The media gets a lot of it wrong. The first example is the big lottery prizes. Everyone knows that for Lotto America jackpots "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" in the sense that if you take the "lump sum" it will be about half of the total of 25 years of structured payments. Interestingly, the first really big Lotto America jackpot was won by a cheesehead who took the lump sum and vowed to get a Harley with a sidecar. This happened at the same time as the Minnesota settlement and the local media described the Cerisi law firm front end settlement as the same as structured payments. Unbelievable! The average lottery ticket buyer understood "time value" better than the media.
I'll use my first FHA 30 year 8% mortgage as an example. I got a mortgage for $57K with payments of $422 per month. Doing the math $422 x 360=$151,920 If it was bought for $57K the day of the mortgage that would be a 37.5% "yield". That sound bad but it represents the "time value" of the money. My mortgage was transferred several times, I have no idea the price but there is also risk factored in. In my case my loan could be prepaid, I refinanced the mortgage twice before paying it off. A lot of factors affects someone buying or "scrutinizing" my mortgage but risk of repayment is a major one.
I have been following this for ten years. The smoking ban efforts have gone "viral" in the last two years. A regular reader of http://freedomtoact.com/ will know this. The current stock market is depressing "securitization" to be sure but if you "follow the money" tobacco securitization is is another example of "creative financing" by the likes of Bear Stearns that either went under or needed government finance to survive. We have a financial crisis now because of institutions that embraced these "creative" financial instruments.

Current Economic Situation Prompts Increased Smoking, Delay in Quit Attempts, Middle and Low-Income Americans Hit Hardest

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Current-Economic-Situation-Prompts-Increased/story.aspx?guid={DCEE1911-E0FD-428A-B865-36C0C11F426F}

Last update: 5:00 a.m. EST Nov. 10, 2008

Washington, Nov 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- One in Four Smokers Stressed About State of Economy Smoking More on Daily Basis

Today the American Legacy Foundation(R) -- the nation's largest public health foundation dedicated to reducing tobacco use in the U.S. -- announced the results of a new survey conducted on their behalf by Harris Interactive which found that stress about the ongoing financial downturn is having a clear and immediate effect on smokers.

Seventy-seven percent of current smokers report increased stress levels due to the current state of the economy and two-thirds of those smokers say this stress has had an effect on their smoking.

November marks Lung Cancer Awareness Month, a time when smokers might reflect on the life threatening nature of their addiction, yet this new data indicates smokers are suffering more than ever as stress is causing smokers to delay a quit attempt, increase the number of cigarettes they are smoking, or switch to a cheaper brand instead of quitting. Moreover, some former smokers report they are starting to smoke again because of the stress over the financial situation.

Among the survey findings:

    --  One in four smokers stressed about the economy say this stress has         caused them to smoke more cigarettes per day, higher among women (31%)         than men (17%).     --  Those smokers with lower household incomes are especially affected by         the financial crisis.  A greater percentage of stressed smokers with a         household income of less than $35k reported smoking more cigarettes per         day (38%) due to the current state of the economy, compared to those         with household incomes of $35-74k (24%) and those with incomes of more         than $75k (13%).     --  In addition, a greater percentage of middle-income ($35-74.9k) stressed         smokers have delayed their quit attempts because of stress over the         economy (20%) than those with household incomes of under $35k (14%) and         to a greater extent more than those stressed higher-income (more than         $75k household income) smokers (6%).     --  Unemployed smokers stressed about the economy reported smoking more         cigarettes per day (29%) in greater numbers than full-time or         self-employed stressed smokers (17%).   

"We are especially concerned about how the economy is impacting those struggling to quit and stay quit," said Cheryl G. Healton, Dr. P.H., president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation. The survey found that 7 percent of current smokers surveyed had started smoking again due to stress over the economic crisis, even though they had previously quit. Furthermore, 9 percent of stressed-out former smokers said the state of the economy had tempted them to start smoking again. Even more telling, 13 percent of stressed smokers say their stress about the economy has caused them to postpone their plans to quit.

"It is no secret that stress is a major factor in smoking habits," Dr. Healton added. "The turbulent global stock markets have caused virtually every American a certain level of stress. Those who also struggle with an addiction to tobacco products are at an increased disadvantage as they contemplate quitting, or feel the urge to smoke more cigarettes. Quitting smoking under normal circumstances is one of the most difficult things you can do. Smokers need to create a comprehensive quit plan, use the right medications or nicotine replacement products to help them with their quit attempt, and get social support from family, friends and colleagues. It's challenging to make a comprehensive attempt to quit when issues like job security, uncertainty about the future, and the worries of your family and friends keep you from having all the resources you need to tackle this very difficult addiction."

2,375 U.S. adults aged 18+, of whom 1,347 had ever smoked, participated in the survey. The survey also found economic stress is causing smokers to re-evaluate their buying habits when it comes to tobacco products:

    --  One-fifth of smokers stressed about the state of the economy have         switched to a cheaper brand to save money.     --  More stressed smokers with household incomes of less than $35k (28%)         reported brand-switching compared to those with household incomes of         more than $50k (12%).  One quarter of those with incomes of $35-$49k         reported switching brands to save money.   

November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month and November 20 marks the Great American Smoke Out --- both serve as important reminders about the ongoing issue of tobacco addiction in our country, and the 45 million Americans who smoke, many of whom desperately want to quit. Each year, approximately 70 percent of smokers say they want to quit, but only about five percent are successful long-term.

Now more than ever, smokers need reliable and relatable information about quitting.

Earlier this year, Legacy and a coalition of public health groups launched EX(R), a quit smoking program that encourages smokers to "re-learn life without cigarettes." The campaign aims to educate smokers about the daily triggers that make them want to smoke, and preps them how to overcome triggers with practice and preparation.

Financial stress is a prime smoking trigger and smokers can learn valuable tools to help them prepare for a quit attempt by visiting www.BecomeAnEX.org. The Web site features action-oriented tools and information to help smokers prepare for quitting by developing a personalized plan, as well as offering a virtual community, where smokers can reach out to others for support and to share stories about their quit attempts.

It is a widely held belief among the public health community that setting a quit date and planning your quit attempt around that date is an important step in the quit process. With the American Cancer Society's Great American Smoke Out slated for November 20 this year, smokers have an ideal date to choose as their quit date, alongside millions of other smokers, both to add years to their lives and dollars back to their wallets.

November is also a powerful month to quit as it marks Lung Cancer Awareness Month. Lung cancer is the nation's number-one cancer killer. Despite this fact, there is no test or exam that's sure to catch the disease at its earliest stage. That's why prevention -- quitting smoking or never starting -- remains so important to reducing lung cancer.

About 85 percent of people diagnosed with lung cancer are current or former smokers. Lung cancer sufferers also suffer from an unfair social stigma -- the perception that they had the power to avoid a lung cancer diagnosis if only they had been able to quit. For more information about lung cancer, please visitwww.americanlegacy.org/codeblue.

The American Legacy Foundation(R) is dedicated to building a world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit. Located in Washington, D.C., the foundation develops programs that address the health effects of tobacco use, especially among vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by the toll of tobacco, through grants, technical assistance and training, partnerships, youth activism, and counter-marketing and grassroots marketing campaigns. The Foundation's programs include truth(R), a national youth smoking prevention campaign that has been cited as contributing to significant declines in youth smoking; EX(R), an innovative public health program designed to speak to smokers in their own language and change the way they approach quitting; research initiatives exploring the causes, consequences and approaches to reducing tobacco use; and a nationally-renowned program of outreach to priority populations. The American Legacy Foundation was created as a result of the November 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) reached between attorneys general from 46 states, five U.S. territories and the tobacco industry. Visit http://www.americanlegacy.org.

The American Legacy Foundation(R) is equipped with a VideoLink ReadyCam(TM) television studio system, providing you with faster, easier access to the nation's leading tobacco prevention and cessation experts. From this in-house broadcast studio, Legacy can offer immediate access to its experts to comment on breaking news, new research publications, or any news related to youth smoking prevention, adult quit smoking programs, or any issue related to smoking. The studio is connected directly to the Vyvx fiber network and is always available for live or pre-taped interviews. To arrange an interview, please contact Julia Cartwright at 202-454-5596.

Methodology

This survey was conducted online within the United States by Harris Interactive via its QuickQuery(TM) online omnibus service on behalf of The American Legacy Foundation between October 28th and 30th, 2008 among 2,375 U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, of whom 1,347 have ever smoked. Results were weighted as needed for region, age within gender, education, household income and race/ethnicity. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online. No estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated; a full methodology is available.

About Harris Interactive

Harris Interactive is a global leader in custom market research. With a long and rich history in multimodal research that is powered by our science and technology, we assist clients in achieving business results. Harris Interactive serves clients globally through our North American, European and Asian offices and a network of independent market research firms. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.

SOURCE American Legacy Foundation

 http://www.americanlegacy.org  

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved