Cigar boxes are a kind of popular juggling prop, popularised by W C Fields, which can be used for various tricks, including high-speed box exchanging midair, balancing tricks, and more. Cigar Boxes are the standard element of a gentleman-juggler style routine. Most of the tricks are done with three boxes; very few jugglers perform tricks with more than three boxes in their routines.
As the name suggests cigar boxes are shaped exactly as their namesake, although nowadays they are padded on the ends and sometimes the sides, generally with a felt like material.
Rather than the 'flowing' style of the more traditional ball juggling cigar boxes have what is often referred to as a 'stop-and-start' style. In effect what this means is that after the majority of tricks the boxes return to the home position (three or more boxes in a line, smallest ends together) and stop before the juggler starts the next trick.
Most cigar box tricks are achieved, from the home position, by 'bouncing' up and down (bodily, normally from the knees, keeping arms in the same place relative to the body) - the trick being started at the apex of the 'bounce' and the boxes being pinned in the home position on the downstroke, prefereably at the same altitude as they started at. This leads to the visual effect of the boxes being connected by an invisible wire (in tricks where the boxes not involved in the trick are separate - see take-out below) or it can, and is often, perceived that the boxes are magnetic in some way (where two boxes remain 'stuck' together in the air - see end round below). Of course these are just optical illusions and no such thing occurs in reality.
In 1977, Kris Kremo set a Guinness World Record of releasing one box and catching it after a quadruple pirouette, while in 1994, Kristian Kristof broke the record by releasing all three boxes and catching them after a quadruple pirouette.
The world record for the most Cigar Boxes balanced is 211 boxes, for 9 seconds.
Some basic tricks
* Quarter turn - Turn one of the end boxes 90°, then pin
* Half turn - Turn one of the end boxes 180°, then pin
* Middle spin - Use the outside boxes to spin the middle box 180° before catching it again. Possible in 3 different planes of rotation, its generally called a helicopter when done in the horizontal plane
* Grip change - refers to a number of tricks whereby the performer changes the position/orientation of his/her hands (such as changing from holding a box on top to holding it on the bottom) and can be done either gripping or releasing boxes.
* Take out - achieved by taking the middle box (either of the middle boxes if an even number) down out of the home position and bringing it round to become an outside box, which outside side being governed by which hand was used to take the middle box out (left-left, right-right). The hand used should move in a complete circle. From the left hand, for example, you start at 9 o'clock, release the outside box, grab the middle box at 3 o'clock and bring it back round to 9 o'clock.
* Lift out - Like a takeout, only that the middle box is lifted upwards around the (former) end box
* Hand across - Hand an end box to the other hand, then use it to pin
* End round - similar in style to the take-out. From home position, 'bounce up' and bringing the left-hand (as an example, it is of course possible to do this trick with either hand) across to grab the far right box and bringing it round to be pinned as the new left box in the home position. NB this can also be done as an End Over, in an equivalent manner to the Take Over.
четверг, 12 июля 2007 г.
Shade tobacco
It is not well known that the northern US states of Connecticut and Massachusetts are also one of the important tobacco-growing regions of the country. Long before Europeans arrived in the area, Native Americans harvested wild tobacco plants that grew along the banks of the Connecticut River. Today, the Connecticut River valley north of Hartford, Connecticut is known as Tobacco Valley, and the fields and drying sheds are visible to travelers on the road to and from Bradley Field, the major Connecticut airport. The tobacco grown here is known as shade tobacco, and is used as outer wrappers for some of the world's finest cigars.
Early Connecticut colonists acquired from the Native Americans the habit of smoking tobacco in pipes and began cultivating the plant commercially, even though the Puritans referred to it as the "evil weed". The plant was outlawed in Connecticut in 1650, but in the 1800s as cigar smoking began to be popular, tobacco farming became a major industry, employing farmers, laborers, local youths, southern African Americans, and migrant workers.
Working conditions varied from pleasant summer work for students, to backbreaking exploitation of migrants. Each tobacco plant yields only 18 leaves useful as cigar wrappers, and each leaf requires a great deal of individual manual attention during harvesting. Although temperatures in the curing sheds sometimes exceeds 100 degrees F., no work is done inside the sheds while the tobacco is being fired.
In 1921, Connecticut tobacco production peaked, at 31,000 acres (125 km?) under cultivation. The rise of cigarette smoking and the decline of cigar smoking has caused a corresponding decline in the demand for shade tobacco, reaching a minimum in 1992 of 2,000 acres (8 km?) under cultivation. Since then, however, cigar smoking has become more popular again, and in 1997 tobacco farming had risen to 4,000 acres (16 km?). However, only 1,050 acres of shade tobacco were harvested in the Connecticut Valley in 2006. Connecticut seed is being grown in Ecuador, where labor is very cheap. The industry has weathered some major catastrophes, including a devastating hailstorm in 1929, and an epidemic of brown spot fungus in 2000, but is now in danger of disappearing altogether, given the value of the land to real estate speculators. The older and much less labor intensive Broadleaf plant, which produces an excellent maduro wrapper as well as binder and filler for cigars, is increasing in acreage in the Connecticut Valley.
Perique
Perhaps the most strongly-flavored of all tobaccos is the Perique, from Saint James Parish, Louisiana. When the Acadians made their way into this region in 1755, the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes were cultivating a variety of tobacco with a distinctive flavor. A farmer called Pierre Chenet is credited with first turning this local tobacco into the Perique in 1824 through the technique of pressure-fermentation.
The tobacco plants are manually kept suckerless, and pruned to exactly 12 leaves, through their early growth. In late November, when the leaves are a dark, rich green and the plants are 23-30 inches (600 to 751 mm) tall, the whole plant is harvested in the late evening and hung to dry in a sideless curing barn. Once the leaves have partially dried, but while still supple (usually less than 2 weeks in the barn), any remaining dirt is removed and the leaves are moistened with water and stemmed by hand. The leaves are then rolled into "torquettes" of approximately 1 pound (449 g) and packed into hickory whiskey barrels. The tobacco is then kept under pressure using oak blocks and massive screw jacks, forcing nearly all the air out of the still-moist leaves. Approximately once a month, the pressure is released, and each of the torquettes is "worked" by hand to permit a little air back into the tobacco. After a year of this treatment, the Perique is ready for consumption, although it may be kept fresh under pressure for many years. Extended exposure to air degrades the particular character of the Perique. The finished tobacco is dark brown, nearly black, very moist with a fruity, slightly vinegary aroma.
Considered the truffle of pipe tobaccos, the Perique is used as a component of many blended pipe tobaccos, but is too strong to be smoked pure. At one time, the freshly moist Perique was also chewed, but none is now sold for this purpose. Less than 16 acres (65,000 m?) of this crop remain in cultivation, most by a single farmer called Percy Martin, in Grande Pointe, Louisiana. For reasons unknown, the particular flavor and character of the Perique can only be acquired on a small triangle of Saint James Parish, less than 4 by 10 miles (5 by 16 km). Although at its peak, Saint James Parish was producing around 20 tons of the Perique a year, output is now merely a few barrelsful.
It is traditionally a pipe tobacco, and is still very popular with pipe-smokers, typically blended with pure Virginia to lend spice, strength, and coolness to the blend. Perique may now also be found in the Perique cigarettes of Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., in an approximately 1 part to 5 blend with lighter tobaccos. A similar tobacco, based on pressure-fermented Kentucky tobacco is available by the name Acadian Yellow River Perique.
Oriental Tobacco
Oriental tobacco is a sun-cured, highly aromatic, small-leafed variety (Nicotiana rustica) that is grown in Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. Oriental tobacco is frequently referred to as "Turkish tobacco", as these regions were all historically part of the Ottoman Empire. Many of the early brands of cigarettes were made mostly or entirely of Oriental tobacco; today, its main use is in blends of pipe and especially cigarette tobacco (a typical American cigarette is a blend of bright Virginia, burley and Oriental).
Tobacco products
Snuff
Snuff is a generic term for fine-ground smokeless tobacco products. Originally the term referred only to dry snuff, a fine tan dust popular mainly in the eighteenth century. This is often called "Scotch Snuff", a folk-etymology derivation of the scorching process used to dry the cured tobacco by the factory. Snuff powder originated in the UK town of Great Harwood and was famously ground in the town's monument prior to local distribution and transport further up north to Scotland.
Snuff has been found to be beneficial in some cases of hay fever due to the fact that the snuff may prevent allergens from getting to the mucus membrane within the nose. Most would say, however, that the detrimental effects of Nicotine outweigh the benefits.
Types of Snuff
European (dry) snuff is intended to be sniffed up the nose. Snuff is not "snorted" because snuff shouldn't get past the nose, i.e.; into sinuses, throat or lungs. European snuff comes in several varieties: Plain, Toast (fine ground - very dry), "Medicated" (menthol, camphor, eucalyptus, etc.), Scented, and Schmalzler, a German variety. The major brand names of European snus are: Bernards (Germany), Fribourg & Treyer (UK), Gawith (UK), Gawith Hoggarth (UK), Hedges (UK), Lotzbeck (Germany), McChrystal's (UK), Poschl (Germany) and Wilsons of Sharrow (UK), TUTUN-CTC (Moldova).
American snuff is much stronger, and is intended to be dipped. It comes in two varieties -- "sweet" and "salty". Until the early 20th century, snuff dipping was popular in the United States among rural people, who would often use sweet barkless twigs to apply it to their gums. Popular brands are Tube Rose and Navy.
The second, and more popular in North America, variety of snuff is moist snuff, or dipping tobacco (sometimes known as smokeless tobacco). This practice is known as "dipping." In the Southern states, taking a "dip" of moist snuff is called "putting a rub in," the moist snuff in the mouth is known as a "rub." This is occasionally referred to as "snoose" in New England and the Midwest and is derived from the Scandinavian word for snuff, "snuff". Like the word, the origins of moist snuff are Scandinavian, and the oldest American brands indicate that by their names. Snuff is also called a "ding" in New England (i.e. "Packing a ding"). American Moist snuff is made from dark fire-cured tobacco that is ground, sweetened, and aged by the factory. Prominent North American brands are Copenhagen, Skoal, Timber Wolf, Chisholm, Grizzly, and Kodiak. American moist snus tends to be dipped.
Some modern smokeless tobacco brands, such as Kodiak, have an aggressive nicotine delivery. This is accomplished with a higher dose of nicotine than cigarettes, a high pH level (which helps nicotine enter the blood stream faster), and a high portion of unprotonated (free base) nicotine.
It has been suggested by The Economist magazine that the ban on smoking tobacco indoors in some areas, such as Britain and New York City, may lead to a resurgence in the popularity of snuff as an alternative to tobacco smoking. Although the large-scale closure of British mines in the 1980s deprived the snuff industry of its major market since snuff became unfashionable (miners took snuff underground instead of smoking to avoid lethal explosions and fires), sales at Britain's largest snuff retailer have reportedly been rising at about 5% per year.
Chewing tobacco
Chewing is one of the oldest ways of consuming tobacco leaves. Native Americans in both North and South America chewed the leaves of the plant, frequently mixed with lime. Modern chewing tobacco is produced in three forms: twist, plug, and scrap. A few manufacturers in the United Kingdom produce particularly strong twist tobacco meant for use in smoking pipes rather than chewing. These twists are not mixed with lime although they may be flavored with whiskey, rum, cherry or other flavors common to pipe tobacco.
Twist is the oldest form. One to three high-quality leaves are braided and twisted into a rope while green, and then are cured in the same manner as other tobacco. Originally devised by sailors due to fire hazards of smoking at sea; and until recently this was done by farmers for their personal consumption in addition to other tobacco intended for sale. Modern twist is occasionally lightly sweetened. It is still sold commercially, but rarely seen outside of Appalachia. Popular brands are Mammoth Cave, Moore's Red Leaf, and Cumberland Gap. Users cut a piece off the twist and chew it, expectorating.
Plug chewing tobacco is made by pressing together cured tobacco leaves in a sweet (often molasses-based) syrup. Originally this was done by hand, but since the second half of the 19th century leaves were pressed between large tin sheets. The resulting sheet of tobacco is cut into plugs. Like twist, consumers sometimes cut, but more often bite off a piece of the plug to chew. Major brands are Days O Work and Cannonball.
Scrap, or looseleaf chewing tobacco, was originally the excess of plug manufacturing. It is sweetened like plug tobacco, but sold loose in bags rather than a plug. Looseleaf is one of the more popular forms of tobacco in modern times. Among those, popular brands are Red Man, Beechnut, Mail Pouch and Southern Pride. Looseleaf chewing tobacco can also be dipped.
Snus
Swedish snus is different in that it is made from steam-cured tobacco, rather than fire-cured, and its health effects are markedly different, with epidemiological studies showing dramatically lower rates of cancer and other tobacco-related health problems than cigarettes, American "Chewing Tobacco", Indian Gutka or African varieties. Prominent Swedish brands are Swedish Match, Ettan, and Tre Ankare. In the Scandinavian countries, moist snuff comes either in loose powder form, to be pressed into a small ball or ovoid either by hand or with the use of a special tool. It is sometimes packaged in small bags, suitable for placing inside the upper lip, called "portion snuff". In the United States, the Skoal brand of moist snuff distributes a similar product, packed with standard American moist snuff, often flavored with fruits or liquors; these small bags are called "Skoal Bandits." These small bags keep the loose tobacco from becoming lodged between the user's teeth; they also generate less spittle when in contact with mucous membranes inside the mouth which extends the usage time of the tobacco product.
Since it is not smoked, snuff in general generates less of the nitrosamines and other carcinogens in the tar that forms from the partially anaerobic reactions in the smoldering smoked tobacco. The steam curing of snus rather than fire-curing or flue-curing of other smokeless tobaccos has been demonstrated to generate even fewer of such compounds than other varieties of snuff; 2.8 parts per mil for Ettan brand compared to as high as 127.9 parts per mil in American brands, according to a study by the State of Massachusetts Health Department. It is hypothesized that the widespread use of snus by Swedish men (estimated at 30% of Swedish men, possibly because it is much cheaper than cigarettes), displacing tobacco smoking and other varieties of snuff, is responsible for the incidence of tobacco-related mortality in men being significantly lower in Sweden than any other European country. In contrast, since women are much less likely to use snus, their rate of tobacco-related deaths in Sweden is similar to that in other European countries. Snus is clearly less harmful than other tobacco products; according to Kenneth Warner, director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network,
"The Swedish government has studied this stuff to death, and to date, there is no compelling evidence that it has any adverse health consequences. ... Whatever they eventually find out, it is dramatically less dangerous than smoking."
Public health researchers maintain that, nevertheless, even the low nitrosamine levels in snus cannot be completely risk free, but snus proponents maintain that inasmuch as snus is used as a substitute for smoking or a means to quit smoking, the net overall effect is positive, similar to the effect of nicotine patches, for instance. Snus is banned in the European Union countries outside of Sweden (regular snus, not portion, is allowed in Denmark and snus is also becoming a regular among Norwegians, as cigarettes are seen by Norwegian popular culture as untrendy and much more unhealthy than snus[citation needed]). Although this is officially for health reasons, it is widely regarded, in fact, as being for economic reasons, since other smokeless tobacco products (mainly from India) associated with much greater risk to health are sold too.
Although it lacks the carcinogenicity of high levels of nitrosamines, however, any harmful effects of nicotine will still be seen with snus usage. Current research concentrates on nicotine's effect on the circulatory system and on the pancreas.
On June 11, 2006, Reynolds Tobacco announced that it would be test marketing Camel brand snus in Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas by the end of the month. The product would be manufactured in Sweden, in conjunction with British American Tobacco, manufacturers of BAT snus.
Creamy snuff
Creamy snuff is a tobacco paste, consisting of tobacco, clove oil, glycerin, spearmint, menthol, and camphor, and sold in a toothpaste tube. It is marketed mainly to women in India, and is known by the brand names Ipco (made by Asha Industries), Denobac, Tona, Ganesh. It is locally known as "mishri" in some parts of Maharashtra. According to the U.S NIH-sponsored 2002 Smokeless Tobacco Fact Sheet, it is marketed as a dentifrice. The same factsheet also mentions that it is "often used to clean teeth". The manufacturer recommends letting the paste linger in the mouth before rinsing.
Tobacco water
Tobacco water is a traditional organic insecticide used in domestic gardening. Tobacco dust can be used similarly.
It is produced by boiling strong tobacco in water, or by steeping the tobacco in water for a longer period. When cooled the mixture can be applied as a spray, or 'painted' on to the leaves of garden plants, where it will prove deadly to insects.
Basque angulero fishermen kill immature eels (elvers) in an infusion of tobacco leaves before parboiling them in salty water for transportation to market as angulas, a seasonal delicacy.
Tobacco paste treatment for stinging insects
Topical tobacco paste is sometimes recommended as a treatment for wasp, hornet, fire ant, scorpion, and bee stings. An amount equivalent to the contents of a cigarette is mashed in a cup with about a 0.5 to 1 teaspoon of water to make a paste that is then applied to the affected area. Paste has diameter of 1.5 to 2 inches and may need to be moistened in dry weather. If made and applied immediately, complete remission is common within 20-30 minutes, at which point the paste can be removed. The next day there may be a some residual itching, but virtually no swelling or redness. There seems to be no scientific evidence, as yet, that this common home remedy works to relieve pain. For about 2 percent of people, allergic reactions can be life-threatening and require emergency treatment.
Campaigns
There have been many campaigners against the growth of tobacco. New Zealand companies Reuben and Co. and Joseph's Nachos continue to protest against the growth and sale of tobacco throughout the world. Other well known protesters include Lance Tollenaar and Tim Smith, as well as the company owners, Joseph Griffiths and Reuben Palmer.
Early Connecticut colonists acquired from the Native Americans the habit of smoking tobacco in pipes and began cultivating the plant commercially, even though the Puritans referred to it as the "evil weed". The plant was outlawed in Connecticut in 1650, but in the 1800s as cigar smoking began to be popular, tobacco farming became a major industry, employing farmers, laborers, local youths, southern African Americans, and migrant workers.
Working conditions varied from pleasant summer work for students, to backbreaking exploitation of migrants. Each tobacco plant yields only 18 leaves useful as cigar wrappers, and each leaf requires a great deal of individual manual attention during harvesting. Although temperatures in the curing sheds sometimes exceeds 100 degrees F., no work is done inside the sheds while the tobacco is being fired.
In 1921, Connecticut tobacco production peaked, at 31,000 acres (125 km?) under cultivation. The rise of cigarette smoking and the decline of cigar smoking has caused a corresponding decline in the demand for shade tobacco, reaching a minimum in 1992 of 2,000 acres (8 km?) under cultivation. Since then, however, cigar smoking has become more popular again, and in 1997 tobacco farming had risen to 4,000 acres (16 km?). However, only 1,050 acres of shade tobacco were harvested in the Connecticut Valley in 2006. Connecticut seed is being grown in Ecuador, where labor is very cheap. The industry has weathered some major catastrophes, including a devastating hailstorm in 1929, and an epidemic of brown spot fungus in 2000, but is now in danger of disappearing altogether, given the value of the land to real estate speculators. The older and much less labor intensive Broadleaf plant, which produces an excellent maduro wrapper as well as binder and filler for cigars, is increasing in acreage in the Connecticut Valley.
Perique
Perhaps the most strongly-flavored of all tobaccos is the Perique, from Saint James Parish, Louisiana. When the Acadians made their way into this region in 1755, the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes were cultivating a variety of tobacco with a distinctive flavor. A farmer called Pierre Chenet is credited with first turning this local tobacco into the Perique in 1824 through the technique of pressure-fermentation.
The tobacco plants are manually kept suckerless, and pruned to exactly 12 leaves, through their early growth. In late November, when the leaves are a dark, rich green and the plants are 23-30 inches (600 to 751 mm) tall, the whole plant is harvested in the late evening and hung to dry in a sideless curing barn. Once the leaves have partially dried, but while still supple (usually less than 2 weeks in the barn), any remaining dirt is removed and the leaves are moistened with water and stemmed by hand. The leaves are then rolled into "torquettes" of approximately 1 pound (449 g) and packed into hickory whiskey barrels. The tobacco is then kept under pressure using oak blocks and massive screw jacks, forcing nearly all the air out of the still-moist leaves. Approximately once a month, the pressure is released, and each of the torquettes is "worked" by hand to permit a little air back into the tobacco. After a year of this treatment, the Perique is ready for consumption, although it may be kept fresh under pressure for many years. Extended exposure to air degrades the particular character of the Perique. The finished tobacco is dark brown, nearly black, very moist with a fruity, slightly vinegary aroma.
Considered the truffle of pipe tobaccos, the Perique is used as a component of many blended pipe tobaccos, but is too strong to be smoked pure. At one time, the freshly moist Perique was also chewed, but none is now sold for this purpose. Less than 16 acres (65,000 m?) of this crop remain in cultivation, most by a single farmer called Percy Martin, in Grande Pointe, Louisiana. For reasons unknown, the particular flavor and character of the Perique can only be acquired on a small triangle of Saint James Parish, less than 4 by 10 miles (5 by 16 km). Although at its peak, Saint James Parish was producing around 20 tons of the Perique a year, output is now merely a few barrelsful.
It is traditionally a pipe tobacco, and is still very popular with pipe-smokers, typically blended with pure Virginia to lend spice, strength, and coolness to the blend. Perique may now also be found in the Perique cigarettes of Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., in an approximately 1 part to 5 blend with lighter tobaccos. A similar tobacco, based on pressure-fermented Kentucky tobacco is available by the name Acadian Yellow River Perique.
Oriental Tobacco
Oriental tobacco is a sun-cured, highly aromatic, small-leafed variety (Nicotiana rustica) that is grown in Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. Oriental tobacco is frequently referred to as "Turkish tobacco", as these regions were all historically part of the Ottoman Empire. Many of the early brands of cigarettes were made mostly or entirely of Oriental tobacco; today, its main use is in blends of pipe and especially cigarette tobacco (a typical American cigarette is a blend of bright Virginia, burley and Oriental).
Tobacco products
Snuff
Snuff is a generic term for fine-ground smokeless tobacco products. Originally the term referred only to dry snuff, a fine tan dust popular mainly in the eighteenth century. This is often called "Scotch Snuff", a folk-etymology derivation of the scorching process used to dry the cured tobacco by the factory. Snuff powder originated in the UK town of Great Harwood and was famously ground in the town's monument prior to local distribution and transport further up north to Scotland.
Snuff has been found to be beneficial in some cases of hay fever due to the fact that the snuff may prevent allergens from getting to the mucus membrane within the nose. Most would say, however, that the detrimental effects of Nicotine outweigh the benefits.
Types of Snuff
European (dry) snuff is intended to be sniffed up the nose. Snuff is not "snorted" because snuff shouldn't get past the nose, i.e.; into sinuses, throat or lungs. European snuff comes in several varieties: Plain, Toast (fine ground - very dry), "Medicated" (menthol, camphor, eucalyptus, etc.), Scented, and Schmalzler, a German variety. The major brand names of European snus are: Bernards (Germany), Fribourg & Treyer (UK), Gawith (UK), Gawith Hoggarth (UK), Hedges (UK), Lotzbeck (Germany), McChrystal's (UK), Poschl (Germany) and Wilsons of Sharrow (UK), TUTUN-CTC (Moldova).
American snuff is much stronger, and is intended to be dipped. It comes in two varieties -- "sweet" and "salty". Until the early 20th century, snuff dipping was popular in the United States among rural people, who would often use sweet barkless twigs to apply it to their gums. Popular brands are Tube Rose and Navy.
The second, and more popular in North America, variety of snuff is moist snuff, or dipping tobacco (sometimes known as smokeless tobacco). This practice is known as "dipping." In the Southern states, taking a "dip" of moist snuff is called "putting a rub in," the moist snuff in the mouth is known as a "rub." This is occasionally referred to as "snoose" in New England and the Midwest and is derived from the Scandinavian word for snuff, "snuff". Like the word, the origins of moist snuff are Scandinavian, and the oldest American brands indicate that by their names. Snuff is also called a "ding" in New England (i.e. "Packing a ding"). American Moist snuff is made from dark fire-cured tobacco that is ground, sweetened, and aged by the factory. Prominent North American brands are Copenhagen, Skoal, Timber Wolf, Chisholm, Grizzly, and Kodiak. American moist snus tends to be dipped.
Some modern smokeless tobacco brands, such as Kodiak, have an aggressive nicotine delivery. This is accomplished with a higher dose of nicotine than cigarettes, a high pH level (which helps nicotine enter the blood stream faster), and a high portion of unprotonated (free base) nicotine.
It has been suggested by The Economist magazine that the ban on smoking tobacco indoors in some areas, such as Britain and New York City, may lead to a resurgence in the popularity of snuff as an alternative to tobacco smoking. Although the large-scale closure of British mines in the 1980s deprived the snuff industry of its major market since snuff became unfashionable (miners took snuff underground instead of smoking to avoid lethal explosions and fires), sales at Britain's largest snuff retailer have reportedly been rising at about 5% per year.
Chewing tobacco
Chewing is one of the oldest ways of consuming tobacco leaves. Native Americans in both North and South America chewed the leaves of the plant, frequently mixed with lime. Modern chewing tobacco is produced in three forms: twist, plug, and scrap. A few manufacturers in the United Kingdom produce particularly strong twist tobacco meant for use in smoking pipes rather than chewing. These twists are not mixed with lime although they may be flavored with whiskey, rum, cherry or other flavors common to pipe tobacco.
Twist is the oldest form. One to three high-quality leaves are braided and twisted into a rope while green, and then are cured in the same manner as other tobacco. Originally devised by sailors due to fire hazards of smoking at sea; and until recently this was done by farmers for their personal consumption in addition to other tobacco intended for sale. Modern twist is occasionally lightly sweetened. It is still sold commercially, but rarely seen outside of Appalachia. Popular brands are Mammoth Cave, Moore's Red Leaf, and Cumberland Gap. Users cut a piece off the twist and chew it, expectorating.
Plug chewing tobacco is made by pressing together cured tobacco leaves in a sweet (often molasses-based) syrup. Originally this was done by hand, but since the second half of the 19th century leaves were pressed between large tin sheets. The resulting sheet of tobacco is cut into plugs. Like twist, consumers sometimes cut, but more often bite off a piece of the plug to chew. Major brands are Days O Work and Cannonball.
Scrap, or looseleaf chewing tobacco, was originally the excess of plug manufacturing. It is sweetened like plug tobacco, but sold loose in bags rather than a plug. Looseleaf is one of the more popular forms of tobacco in modern times. Among those, popular brands are Red Man, Beechnut, Mail Pouch and Southern Pride. Looseleaf chewing tobacco can also be dipped.
Snus
Swedish snus is different in that it is made from steam-cured tobacco, rather than fire-cured, and its health effects are markedly different, with epidemiological studies showing dramatically lower rates of cancer and other tobacco-related health problems than cigarettes, American "Chewing Tobacco", Indian Gutka or African varieties. Prominent Swedish brands are Swedish Match, Ettan, and Tre Ankare. In the Scandinavian countries, moist snuff comes either in loose powder form, to be pressed into a small ball or ovoid either by hand or with the use of a special tool. It is sometimes packaged in small bags, suitable for placing inside the upper lip, called "portion snuff". In the United States, the Skoal brand of moist snuff distributes a similar product, packed with standard American moist snuff, often flavored with fruits or liquors; these small bags are called "Skoal Bandits." These small bags keep the loose tobacco from becoming lodged between the user's teeth; they also generate less spittle when in contact with mucous membranes inside the mouth which extends the usage time of the tobacco product.
Since it is not smoked, snuff in general generates less of the nitrosamines and other carcinogens in the tar that forms from the partially anaerobic reactions in the smoldering smoked tobacco. The steam curing of snus rather than fire-curing or flue-curing of other smokeless tobaccos has been demonstrated to generate even fewer of such compounds than other varieties of snuff; 2.8 parts per mil for Ettan brand compared to as high as 127.9 parts per mil in American brands, according to a study by the State of Massachusetts Health Department. It is hypothesized that the widespread use of snus by Swedish men (estimated at 30% of Swedish men, possibly because it is much cheaper than cigarettes), displacing tobacco smoking and other varieties of snuff, is responsible for the incidence of tobacco-related mortality in men being significantly lower in Sweden than any other European country. In contrast, since women are much less likely to use snus, their rate of tobacco-related deaths in Sweden is similar to that in other European countries. Snus is clearly less harmful than other tobacco products; according to Kenneth Warner, director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network,
"The Swedish government has studied this stuff to death, and to date, there is no compelling evidence that it has any adverse health consequences. ... Whatever they eventually find out, it is dramatically less dangerous than smoking."
Public health researchers maintain that, nevertheless, even the low nitrosamine levels in snus cannot be completely risk free, but snus proponents maintain that inasmuch as snus is used as a substitute for smoking or a means to quit smoking, the net overall effect is positive, similar to the effect of nicotine patches, for instance. Snus is banned in the European Union countries outside of Sweden (regular snus, not portion, is allowed in Denmark and snus is also becoming a regular among Norwegians, as cigarettes are seen by Norwegian popular culture as untrendy and much more unhealthy than snus[citation needed]). Although this is officially for health reasons, it is widely regarded, in fact, as being for economic reasons, since other smokeless tobacco products (mainly from India) associated with much greater risk to health are sold too.
Although it lacks the carcinogenicity of high levels of nitrosamines, however, any harmful effects of nicotine will still be seen with snus usage. Current research concentrates on nicotine's effect on the circulatory system and on the pancreas.
On June 11, 2006, Reynolds Tobacco announced that it would be test marketing Camel brand snus in Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas by the end of the month. The product would be manufactured in Sweden, in conjunction with British American Tobacco, manufacturers of BAT snus.
Creamy snuff
Creamy snuff is a tobacco paste, consisting of tobacco, clove oil, glycerin, spearmint, menthol, and camphor, and sold in a toothpaste tube. It is marketed mainly to women in India, and is known by the brand names Ipco (made by Asha Industries), Denobac, Tona, Ganesh. It is locally known as "mishri" in some parts of Maharashtra. According to the U.S NIH-sponsored 2002 Smokeless Tobacco Fact Sheet, it is marketed as a dentifrice. The same factsheet also mentions that it is "often used to clean teeth". The manufacturer recommends letting the paste linger in the mouth before rinsing.
Tobacco water
Tobacco water is a traditional organic insecticide used in domestic gardening. Tobacco dust can be used similarly.
It is produced by boiling strong tobacco in water, or by steeping the tobacco in water for a longer period. When cooled the mixture can be applied as a spray, or 'painted' on to the leaves of garden plants, where it will prove deadly to insects.
Basque angulero fishermen kill immature eels (elvers) in an infusion of tobacco leaves before parboiling them in salty water for transportation to market as angulas, a seasonal delicacy.
Tobacco paste treatment for stinging insects
Topical tobacco paste is sometimes recommended as a treatment for wasp, hornet, fire ant, scorpion, and bee stings. An amount equivalent to the contents of a cigarette is mashed in a cup with about a 0.5 to 1 teaspoon of water to make a paste that is then applied to the affected area. Paste has diameter of 1.5 to 2 inches and may need to be moistened in dry weather. If made and applied immediately, complete remission is common within 20-30 minutes, at which point the paste can be removed. The next day there may be a some residual itching, but virtually no swelling or redness. There seems to be no scientific evidence, as yet, that this common home remedy works to relieve pain. For about 2 percent of people, allergic reactions can be life-threatening and require emergency treatment.
Campaigns
There have been many campaigners against the growth of tobacco. New Zealand companies Reuben and Co. and Joseph's Nachos continue to protest against the growth and sale of tobacco throughout the world. Other well known protesters include Lance Tollenaar and Tim Smith, as well as the company owners, Joseph Griffiths and Reuben Palmer.
Types
Aromatic Fire-cured
Aromatic Fire-cured smoking tobacco is a robust variety of tobacco used as a condimental for pipe blends. It is cured by smoking over gentle fires. In the United States, it is grown in the western part of Tennessee, Western Kentucky and in Virginia. Fire-cured tobacco grown in Kentucky and Tennessee is used in some chewing tobaccos, moist snuff, some cigarettes and as a condiment leaf in pipe tobacco blends. It has a rich, slightly floral taste, and adds body and aroma to the blend.
Another fire-cured tobacco is Latakia and is produced from oriental varieties of N. tabacum. The leaves are cured and smoked over smoldering fires of local hardwoods and aromatic shrubs in Cyprus and Syria. Latakia has a pronounced flavor and a very distinctive smoky aroma, and is used in Balkan and English-style pipe tobacco blends.
Brightleaf tobacco
Brightleaf is commonly known as "Virginia tobacco", often regardless of which state they are planted. Prior to the American Civil War, most tobacco grown in the US was fire-cured dark-leaf. This type of tobacco was planted in fertile lowlands, used a robust variety of leaf, and was either fire cured or air cured.
Sometime after the War of 1812, demand for a milder, lighter, more aromatic tobacco arose. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland all innovated quite a bit with milder varieties of the tobacco plant. Farmers around the country experimented with different curing processes. But the breakthrough didn't come until around 1839.
It had been noticed for centuries that sandy, highland soil produced thinner, weaker plants. Captain Abisha Slade, of Caswell County, North Carolina had a good deal of infertile, sandy soil, and planted the new "gold-leaf" varieties on it. Slade owned a slave, Stephen, who around 1839 accidentally produced the first real bright tobacco. He used charcoal to restart a fire used to cure the crop. The surge of heat turned the leaves yellow. Using that discovery, Slade developed a system for producing bright tobacco, cultivating on poorer soils and using charcoal for heat-curing.
Slade made many public appearances to share the bright-leaf process with other farmers. Prosperous and outgoing, he built a brick house in Yanceyville, North Carolina, and at one time had many servants.
News spread through the area pretty quickly. The infertile sandy soil of the Appalachian piedmont was suddenly profitable, and people rapidly developed flue-curing techniques, a more efficient way of smoke-free curing. Farmers discovered that Bright leaf tobacco needs thin, starved soil, and those who could not grow other crops found that they could grow tobacco. Formerly unproductive farms reached 20-35 times their previous worth. By 1855, six Piedmont counties adjoining Virginia ruled the tobacco market.
By the outbreak of the Civil War, the town of Danville, Virginia actually had developed a bright-leaf market for the surrounding area in Caswell County, North Carolina and Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
Danville was also the main railway head for Confederate soldiers going to the front. These brought bright tobacco with them from Danville to the lines, traded it with each other and Union soldiers, and developed quite a taste for it. At the end of the war, the soldiers went home and suddenly there was a national market for the local crop. Caswell and Pittsylvania counties were the only two counties in the South that experienced an increase in total wealth after the war.
White burley
In 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 retained their light color. The cured leaves had an exceedingly fine texture and were exhibited as a curiosity at the market in Cincinnati. The following year he planted ten acres (40,000 m?) from seeds from those plants, which brought a premium at auction. The air-cured leaf was found to be mild tasting and more absorbent than any other variety. White Burley, as it was later called, became the main component in chewing tobacco, American blend pipe tobacco, and American-style cigarettes. The white part of the name is seldom used today, since red burley, a dark air-cured variety of the mid-1800s, no longer exists.
Aromatic Fire-cured smoking tobacco is a robust variety of tobacco used as a condimental for pipe blends. It is cured by smoking over gentle fires. In the United States, it is grown in the western part of Tennessee, Western Kentucky and in Virginia. Fire-cured tobacco grown in Kentucky and Tennessee is used in some chewing tobaccos, moist snuff, some cigarettes and as a condiment leaf in pipe tobacco blends. It has a rich, slightly floral taste, and adds body and aroma to the blend.
Another fire-cured tobacco is Latakia and is produced from oriental varieties of N. tabacum. The leaves are cured and smoked over smoldering fires of local hardwoods and aromatic shrubs in Cyprus and Syria. Latakia has a pronounced flavor and a very distinctive smoky aroma, and is used in Balkan and English-style pipe tobacco blends.
Brightleaf tobacco
Brightleaf is commonly known as "Virginia tobacco", often regardless of which state they are planted. Prior to the American Civil War, most tobacco grown in the US was fire-cured dark-leaf. This type of tobacco was planted in fertile lowlands, used a robust variety of leaf, and was either fire cured or air cured.
Sometime after the War of 1812, demand for a milder, lighter, more aromatic tobacco arose. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland all innovated quite a bit with milder varieties of the tobacco plant. Farmers around the country experimented with different curing processes. But the breakthrough didn't come until around 1839.
It had been noticed for centuries that sandy, highland soil produced thinner, weaker plants. Captain Abisha Slade, of Caswell County, North Carolina had a good deal of infertile, sandy soil, and planted the new "gold-leaf" varieties on it. Slade owned a slave, Stephen, who around 1839 accidentally produced the first real bright tobacco. He used charcoal to restart a fire used to cure the crop. The surge of heat turned the leaves yellow. Using that discovery, Slade developed a system for producing bright tobacco, cultivating on poorer soils and using charcoal for heat-curing.
Slade made many public appearances to share the bright-leaf process with other farmers. Prosperous and outgoing, he built a brick house in Yanceyville, North Carolina, and at one time had many servants.
News spread through the area pretty quickly. The infertile sandy soil of the Appalachian piedmont was suddenly profitable, and people rapidly developed flue-curing techniques, a more efficient way of smoke-free curing. Farmers discovered that Bright leaf tobacco needs thin, starved soil, and those who could not grow other crops found that they could grow tobacco. Formerly unproductive farms reached 20-35 times their previous worth. By 1855, six Piedmont counties adjoining Virginia ruled the tobacco market.
By the outbreak of the Civil War, the town of Danville, Virginia actually had developed a bright-leaf market for the surrounding area in Caswell County, North Carolina and Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
Danville was also the main railway head for Confederate soldiers going to the front. These brought bright tobacco with them from Danville to the lines, traded it with each other and Union soldiers, and developed quite a taste for it. At the end of the war, the soldiers went home and suddenly there was a national market for the local crop. Caswell and Pittsylvania counties were the only two counties in the South that experienced an increase in total wealth after the war.
White burley
In 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 retained their light color. The cured leaves had an exceedingly fine texture and were exhibited as a curiosity at the market in Cincinnati. The following year he planted ten acres (40,000 m?) from seeds from those plants, which brought a premium at auction. The air-cured leaf was found to be mild tasting and more absorbent than any other variety. White Burley, as it was later called, became the main component in chewing tobacco, American blend pipe tobacco, and American-style cigarettes. The white part of the name is seldom used today, since red burley, a dark air-cured variety of the mid-1800s, no longer exists.
Etymology
The Spanish word "tabaco" is thought to have its origin in Arawakan language, particularly, in the Taino language of the Caribbean, said to refer to a roll of these leaves (according to Bartolome de Las Casas, 1552) or to the "tabago", a kind of y-shaped pipe for sniffing tobacco smoke (according to Oviedo, the leaves themselves were referred to as Cohiba, but Sp. tabaco (also It. tabacco) was commonly used to define medicinal herbs from 1410, originating from the Arabic "tabbaq", reportedly since the 9th century, as the name of various herbs. The word might then be European, and later applied to this plant from the Americas.
Cultivation
Sowing
Tobacco seeds are scattered onto the surface of the soil, as their germination is activated by light. In colonial Virginia, seedbeds were fertilized with wood ash or animal manure (frequently powdered horse manure). Seedbeds were then covered with branches to protect the young plants from frost damage. These plants were left to grow until around April.
In the nineteenth century, young plants came under increasing attack from the flea beetle (Epitrix cucumeris or Epitrix pubescens), causing destruction of half the United States tobacco crop in 1876 . In the years afterward, many experiments were attempted and discussed to control the flea beetle. By 1880 it was discovered that replacing the branches with a frame covered by thin fabric would effectively protect plants from the beetle. This practice spread until it became ubiquitous in the 1890s.
Today, in the United States, unlike other countries, tobacco is often fertilized with the mineral apatite in order to partially starve the plant for nitrogen, which changes the taste. This (together with the use of licorice and other additives) accounts for the different flavor of American cigarettes from those available in other countries. There is, however, some suggestion that this may have adverse health effects attributable to the polonium content of apatite.
Transplanting
After the plants have reached a certain height, they are transplanted into fields. This was originally done by making a relatively large hole in the tilled earth with a tobacco peg, then placing the small plant in the hole. Various mechanical tobacco planters were invented throughout the late 19th and early 20th century to automate this process, making a hole, fertilizing it, and guiding a plant into the hole with one motion.
Harvest
Tobacco is harvested in one of two ways. In the oldest method, the entire plant is harvested at once by cutting off the stalk at the ground with a curved knife. In the nineteenth century, bright tobacco began to be harvested by pulling individual leaves off the stalk as they ripened. The leaves ripen from the ground upwards, so a field of tobacco may go through several "pullings" before the tobacco is entirely harvested, and the stalks may be turned into the soil. "Cropping" or "pulling" are terms for pulling leaves off tobacco. Leaves are cropped as they ripen, from the bottom of the stalk up. The first crop at the very bottom of the stalks are called "sand lugs", as they are often against the ground and are coated with dirt splashed up when it rains. Sand lugs weigh the most, and are most difficult to work with. Originally workers cropped the tobacco and placed it on animal-pulled sleds. Eventually tractors with wagons were used to transport leaves to the stringer, an apparatus which uses twine to sew leaves onto a stick .
Some farmers use "tobacco harvesters" - basically a trailer pulled behind a tractor. The harvester is a wheeled sled or trailer that has seats for the croppers to sit on and seats just in front of these for the "stringers" to sit on. The croppers pull the leaves off in handfuls, and pass these to the "stringer", who loops twine around the handfuls of tobacco and hangs them on a long wooden square pole. Traditionally, the croppers, down in the dark and wet, with their faces getting slapped by the huge tobacco leaves, were men, and the stringers seated on the higher elevated seats were women. The harvester has places for 4 teams of workers: 8 people cropping and stringing, plus a packer who takes the heavy strung poles of wet green tobacco from the stringers and packs them onto the pallet section of the harvester, plus a driver, making the total crew of each harvester 10 people. Interestingly, the outer seats are suspended from the harvester - slung out over to fit into the aisles of tobacco. As these seats are suspended it is important to balance the weight of the 2 outside teams (similar to a playground see-saw). Having too heavy or light a person in an unbalanced combination often results in the harvester tipping over especially when turning around at the end of a lane. Water tanks are a common feature on the harvester due to heat, and danger of dehydration for the workers. Salt tablets sometimes get used as well.
Curing
Cut plants or pulled leaves are immediately transferred to tobacco barns (kiln houses), where they will be cured. Curing methods vary with the type of tobacco grown, and tobacco barn design varies accordingly.
Air-cured tobacco is hung in well-ventilated barns and allowed to dry over a period of four to eight weeks.
Fire-cured tobacco is hung in large barns where fires of hardwoods are kept on continuous or intermittent low smoulder and takes between three days and ten weeks, depending on the process and the tobacco.
Flue-cured tobacco was originally strung onto tobacco sticks, which were hung from tier-poles in curing barns (Aus: kilns, also traditionally called Oasts). These barns have flues which run from externally-fed fire boxes, heat-curing the tobacco without exposing it to smoke, slowly raising the temperature over the course of the curing. The process will generally take about a week.
Traditional curing barns in the U.S. are falling into disuse, as the trend toward prefabricated metal "bulk bars" allows greater efficiency.
Curing and subsequent aging allows for the slow oxidation and degradation of carotenoids in tobacco leaf. This produces certain compounds in the tobacco leaves very similar and give a sweet hay, tea, rose oil, or fruity aromatic flavor that contribute to the "smoothness" of the smoke. Starch is converted to sugar which glycates protein and is oxidized into advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs), a caramelization process that also adds flavor. Inhalation of these AGEs in tobacco smoke contributes to atherosclerosis and cancer.
Unaged or low quality tobacco is often flavoured with these naturally occurring compounds. Tobacco flavoring is a significant source of revenue for the international multi-million dollar flavour and fragrance industry.
The aging process continues for a period of months and often extends into the post-curing harvest plantsprocess.
After tobacco is cured, it is moved from the curing barn into a storage area for processing. If whole plants were cut, the leaves are removed from the tobacco stalks in a process called stripping. For both cut and pulled tobacco, the leaves are then sorted into different grades. In colonial times, the tobacco was then "prized" into hogsheads for transportation. In bright tobacco regions, prizing was replaced by stacking wrapped "hands" into loose piles to be sold at auction. Today, most cured tobacco is baled before sales are made under pre-sold contracts.
Cultivation
Sowing
Tobacco seeds are scattered onto the surface of the soil, as their germination is activated by light. In colonial Virginia, seedbeds were fertilized with wood ash or animal manure (frequently powdered horse manure). Seedbeds were then covered with branches to protect the young plants from frost damage. These plants were left to grow until around April.
In the nineteenth century, young plants came under increasing attack from the flea beetle (Epitrix cucumeris or Epitrix pubescens), causing destruction of half the United States tobacco crop in 1876 . In the years afterward, many experiments were attempted and discussed to control the flea beetle. By 1880 it was discovered that replacing the branches with a frame covered by thin fabric would effectively protect plants from the beetle. This practice spread until it became ubiquitous in the 1890s.
Today, in the United States, unlike other countries, tobacco is often fertilized with the mineral apatite in order to partially starve the plant for nitrogen, which changes the taste. This (together with the use of licorice and other additives) accounts for the different flavor of American cigarettes from those available in other countries. There is, however, some suggestion that this may have adverse health effects attributable to the polonium content of apatite.
Transplanting
After the plants have reached a certain height, they are transplanted into fields. This was originally done by making a relatively large hole in the tilled earth with a tobacco peg, then placing the small plant in the hole. Various mechanical tobacco planters were invented throughout the late 19th and early 20th century to automate this process, making a hole, fertilizing it, and guiding a plant into the hole with one motion.
Harvest
Tobacco is harvested in one of two ways. In the oldest method, the entire plant is harvested at once by cutting off the stalk at the ground with a curved knife. In the nineteenth century, bright tobacco began to be harvested by pulling individual leaves off the stalk as they ripened. The leaves ripen from the ground upwards, so a field of tobacco may go through several "pullings" before the tobacco is entirely harvested, and the stalks may be turned into the soil. "Cropping" or "pulling" are terms for pulling leaves off tobacco. Leaves are cropped as they ripen, from the bottom of the stalk up. The first crop at the very bottom of the stalks are called "sand lugs", as they are often against the ground and are coated with dirt splashed up when it rains. Sand lugs weigh the most, and are most difficult to work with. Originally workers cropped the tobacco and placed it on animal-pulled sleds. Eventually tractors with wagons were used to transport leaves to the stringer, an apparatus which uses twine to sew leaves onto a stick .
Some farmers use "tobacco harvesters" - basically a trailer pulled behind a tractor. The harvester is a wheeled sled or trailer that has seats for the croppers to sit on and seats just in front of these for the "stringers" to sit on. The croppers pull the leaves off in handfuls, and pass these to the "stringer", who loops twine around the handfuls of tobacco and hangs them on a long wooden square pole. Traditionally, the croppers, down in the dark and wet, with their faces getting slapped by the huge tobacco leaves, were men, and the stringers seated on the higher elevated seats were women. The harvester has places for 4 teams of workers: 8 people cropping and stringing, plus a packer who takes the heavy strung poles of wet green tobacco from the stringers and packs them onto the pallet section of the harvester, plus a driver, making the total crew of each harvester 10 people. Interestingly, the outer seats are suspended from the harvester - slung out over to fit into the aisles of tobacco. As these seats are suspended it is important to balance the weight of the 2 outside teams (similar to a playground see-saw). Having too heavy or light a person in an unbalanced combination often results in the harvester tipping over especially when turning around at the end of a lane. Water tanks are a common feature on the harvester due to heat, and danger of dehydration for the workers. Salt tablets sometimes get used as well.
Curing
Cut plants or pulled leaves are immediately transferred to tobacco barns (kiln houses), where they will be cured. Curing methods vary with the type of tobacco grown, and tobacco barn design varies accordingly.
Air-cured tobacco is hung in well-ventilated barns and allowed to dry over a period of four to eight weeks.
Fire-cured tobacco is hung in large barns where fires of hardwoods are kept on continuous or intermittent low smoulder and takes between three days and ten weeks, depending on the process and the tobacco.
Flue-cured tobacco was originally strung onto tobacco sticks, which were hung from tier-poles in curing barns (Aus: kilns, also traditionally called Oasts). These barns have flues which run from externally-fed fire boxes, heat-curing the tobacco without exposing it to smoke, slowly raising the temperature over the course of the curing. The process will generally take about a week.
Traditional curing barns in the U.S. are falling into disuse, as the trend toward prefabricated metal "bulk bars" allows greater efficiency.
Curing and subsequent aging allows for the slow oxidation and degradation of carotenoids in tobacco leaf. This produces certain compounds in the tobacco leaves very similar and give a sweet hay, tea, rose oil, or fruity aromatic flavor that contribute to the "smoothness" of the smoke. Starch is converted to sugar which glycates protein and is oxidized into advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs), a caramelization process that also adds flavor. Inhalation of these AGEs in tobacco smoke contributes to atherosclerosis and cancer.
Unaged or low quality tobacco is often flavoured with these naturally occurring compounds. Tobacco flavoring is a significant source of revenue for the international multi-million dollar flavour and fragrance industry.
The aging process continues for a period of months and often extends into the post-curing harvest plantsprocess.
After tobacco is cured, it is moved from the curing barn into a storage area for processing. If whole plants were cut, the leaves are removed from the tobacco stalks in a process called stripping. For both cut and pulled tobacco, the leaves are then sorted into different grades. In colonial times, the tobacco was then "prized" into hogsheads for transportation. In bright tobacco regions, prizing was replaced by stacking wrapped "hands" into loose piles to be sold at auction. Today, most cured tobacco is baled before sales are made under pre-sold contracts.
Tobacco Litigation
Tobacco litigation can be divided into three distinct time frames based on the types of claims pursued and the legal theories on which those claims were based. The first wave of tobacco litigation (1954-1973) involved cases based mainly on the theories of deceit, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligence. Cases filed during the second wave of tobacco litigation (1983-1992) were based on the legal theories of failure to warn and strict liability. Neither of the first two waves of litigation proved to be successful for the plaintiffs.
The first wave of litigation was characterized by the tobacco industry's adamant claims that smoking and chewing tobacco products were not harmful to consumers. Plaintiffs during that time did not have the extensive medical studies demonstrating serious health consequences that are available today to support their claims. Thus, plaintiffs had a difficult time establishing the essential element of proximate cause (causal connection to the injury) in their tort cases. By the time of the second wave of tobacco litigation, the connection between smoking and illness had been firmly established, but the tobacco industry was still able to argue with great success that smokers assumed the risks of smoking by freely deciding to smoke. The FCLAA's requirement that a warning label be placed on all cigarette packaging and advertising supported the tobacco companies' defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.
During the first two waves of litigation, the tobacco companies were also successful in using their size and financial strength to make litigation as difficult as possible for the plaintiffs. The tobacco industry filed and argued every conceivable motion, took countless depositions, and sent out extensive interrogatories. As a result, it was extremely burdensome and expensive for plaintiffs and their attorneys to pursue their cases.
The third wave of tobacco litigation began in the early 1990s and consists of class action suits brought by those injured by tobacco products and medical cost reimbursement suits brought by states and insurance companies. Legal scholars expect the third wave of litigation to produce more favorable results for plaintiffs and to regulate the sale and use of tobacco more effectively than conventional legislative and administrative regulation has been able to do. The strong-arm tactics used by tobacco companies to successfully fend off plaintiffs in the earlier litigation are not likely to work in the third wave because the class of plaintiffs and their respective attorneys have organized and are working together to their mutual benefit. Plaintiffs also now have new evidence obtained from internal tobacco company documents and former tobacco industry researchers that will significantly bolster their cases.
By the mid-1990s, the tobacco industry faced an enormous amount of exposure to liability. It has been estimated that cigarette-related illnesses and losses in productivity cost more than two dollars per pack of cigarettes in 1985 dollars. Further, studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between an increase in the cost of cigarettes and a reduction in consumption, especially by underage smokers. A reduction in smoking also clearly correlates with fewer adverse health effects and lower health care costs. For these reasons, in 1996 the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association endorsed litigation against the tobacco companies. Legal experts have theorized that the long-term effects of plaintiff victories in the third wave of tobacco litigation could devastate and ultimately destroy the industry, much as plaintiff victories did in the recent asbestos litigation.
The claims in the third wave of tobacco litigation are based on some new legal theories. First, plaintiffs can demonstrate that tobacco companies knew that nicotine is pharmacologically active and highly addictive but hid that knowledge and, in fact, denied it under oath. Second, plaintiffs can show that tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels in their products in an attempt to foster addiction in their consumers. Common legal theories used in the third wave of litigation include fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, emotional distress, violation of consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability, conspiracy, antitrust, negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking, unjust enrichment or indemnity, civil claims under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. [1970]), and various criminal theories.
The third wave of litigation began with the certification of two class action suits (Broin v. Philip Morris, 641 So. 2d 888 [Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1994], review denied, Philip Morris Inc. v. Broin, 654 So. 2d 919 [Fla. 1995], and Castano v. American Tobacco, 84 F.3d 734 [5th Cir. 1996]). The class members in Broin were nonsmoking flight attendants who claimed that they suffered from various illnesses caused by their exposure to ETS from air travelers' cigarettes. Castano was based on plaintiffs' claims that the tobacco companies intentionally manipulated nicotine levels, even though the companies knew that nicotine was a hazardous and addictive substance. The Castano class consisted of all nicotine-dependent persons or their estates, heirs, family members, or "significant others" in the United States and its territories and possessions, who have bought and smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. Because of the breadth of the class, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in Castano should not have been certified as a class; had the court allowed the case to proceed, it would likely have become the largest class action in U.S. history. After the decertification of the Castano class, plaintiffs' lawyers decided to pursue statewide class action suits in state courts around the nation.
Lawsuits since Castano have sought to eliminate the problem of certifying a large class. For example, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds, 672 So. 2d 39 [Ct. App. Fla. 3d Dist. 1996], review denied, 682 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1996), involves essentially the same claims as Castano, but the class is much smaller. The class certified in Engle consists of Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who have suffered, presently suffer, or have died from diseases and other medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes. The Engle class action has been allowed to proceed. Several class action suits modeled on Engle have since been brought, and still more are anticipated.
The wave of state reimbursement suits was initiated in May 1994, when the state of Mississippi filed an unprecedented lawsuit on behalf of the state's taxpayers against the tobacco industry to recoup the state's share of Medicaid costs incurred as a result of tobacco-related illnesses (Moore v. American Tobacco, No. 94-1429 [Miss. Chan. Ct. 1994]). The state of Mississippi proceeded on legal theories of unjust enrichment and restitution, based on the fact that the state's taxpayers had been directly injured by the actions of the tobacco industry because they were forced to pay Medicaid costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses. By the middle of 1997, thirty-seven states had filed medical cost reimbursement suits based on legal theories similar to those pursued by Mississippi. In addition, some of the other states brought claims never before considered in this wave of litigation.
In 1994, when the state of Minnesota filed a medical cost reimbursement suit, the insurance company Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Minnesota joined as co-plaintiff, seeking reimbursement for its share of tobacco-related health care costs in Minnesota (Minnesota v. Philip Morris, No. 94-8565 [D.Minn. 1994]). When West Virginia filed its medical reimbursement lawsuit, it named as defendants not only tobacco companies, but also the Kimberly-Clarke Corporation, developer of the tobacco reconstitution process that enables tobacco companies to manipulate nicotine levels. In 1995 the state of Florida filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry under Florida's Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act, effectively preventing tobacco industry defendants from prevailing under defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence. Texas filed suit in 1996 and brought claims based in part on the RICO Act and on theories of mail and wire fraud, antitrust violations, and public nuisance. The state of Washington additionally has sued the law firms that have represented the tobacco companies for many years, arguing that they unlawfully helped their clients keep certain documents confidential. Some of the states have asked that in addition to awarding monetary damages, the courts order the tobacco industry to publish all previous research on the link between smoking and health, establish funds for public education campaigns designed to discourage smoking, disclose the amounts of nicotine in their tobacco products, and order the dissolution of the tobacco industry's nonprofit organizations, the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute.
The most recent tobacco litigation has resulted in a historic settlement agreement. On March 15, 1996, the states of West Virginia, Florida, Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Louisiana entered into an agreement with Brooke Group and Liggett Group to settle those companies' portion of the states' medical cost reimbursement actions. This settlement was noteworthy because it represented the end of the tobacco industry's efforts to present a unified front and to refuse to willingly pay out monetary damages.
By March 1997 the Brooke Group/Liggett settlement agreement had been amended to include twenty-two states. In addition, in conjunction with the settlement agreement, Liggett Group, one of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies, publicly admitted that cigarettes and cigarette smoking cause lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. Liggett admitted that nicotine is addictive and that the tobacco industry actively and illegally markets to young people under the age of eighteen. As part of the amended settlement, Liggett agreed to cooperate fully with the twenty-two states by waiving attorney-client privilege and turning over privileged documents. Liggett also agreed to substantially comply with the new FDA regulations and to put warning labels on its cigarettes stating "Warning: Smoking Is Addictive." Liggett further promised to pay 25 percent of its pre-tax profits for the next twenty-five years to settle these actions.
Following several successful lawsuits, the Brooke Group/Liggett settlement agreement, and the FDA's promulgation of its rule regulating tobacco, discussion began regarding a possible global legislative settlement of all tobacco litigation. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott agreed to broker an agreement that would allow the tobacco industry to avoid FDA regulation and receive immunity from product liability suits for fifteen years. Talks regarding this proposed global settlement began in March 1997.
Preliminary reports indicate that the proposed settlement calls for the tobacco industry to pay billions of dollars in increasing amounts over fifteen years. The money would be administered by an administrator appointed by the president and would be paid out in grants to all fifty states. The plan also calls for the industry to drop the lawsuits it has brought against industry defectors and whistle-blowers in exchange for immunity from virtually all liability suits for the next fifteen years. By late 1997, the global settlement talks had not produced a final agreement but were proceeding. The parties reported that they were hopeful that an agreement would be reached in the near future.
Criminal Charges
In the 1990s federal criminal investigators began to prepare a case against the tobacco companies and their executives and scientists, four trade associations and industry-funded groups, a scientific consulting group, a public relations consulting firm, two companies that serve as suppliers to the tobacco companies, and a company-funded research group. The alleged crimes include federal perjury, mail fraud, wire fraud, false advertising, criminal conspiracy, criminal racketeering, and the deception of the public, federal agencies, and Congress. One criminal investigation is looking at possible perjury on the part of the industry's chief executive officers while testifying before Congress in April 1994 regarding the addictive qualities of nicotine. Another criminal probe is considering whether the industry misled its shareholders by misrepresenting industry knowledge of the physiological effects of tobacco products. Another investigation is focusing on allegations that an indoor air quality testing company accepted money from tobacco companies to distort test results. Still another probe is investigating the industry's Council for Tobacco Research, including the validity of its nonprofit status and whether it hid research results regarding smoking and health from the government. Finally, a probe is investigating allegations that tobacco companies smuggled cigarettes into Canada to avoid paying Canada's high cigarette taxes. The results of these criminal investigations remain to be seen.
The first wave of litigation was characterized by the tobacco industry's adamant claims that smoking and chewing tobacco products were not harmful to consumers. Plaintiffs during that time did not have the extensive medical studies demonstrating serious health consequences that are available today to support their claims. Thus, plaintiffs had a difficult time establishing the essential element of proximate cause (causal connection to the injury) in their tort cases. By the time of the second wave of tobacco litigation, the connection between smoking and illness had been firmly established, but the tobacco industry was still able to argue with great success that smokers assumed the risks of smoking by freely deciding to smoke. The FCLAA's requirement that a warning label be placed on all cigarette packaging and advertising supported the tobacco companies' defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.
During the first two waves of litigation, the tobacco companies were also successful in using their size and financial strength to make litigation as difficult as possible for the plaintiffs. The tobacco industry filed and argued every conceivable motion, took countless depositions, and sent out extensive interrogatories. As a result, it was extremely burdensome and expensive for plaintiffs and their attorneys to pursue their cases.
The third wave of tobacco litigation began in the early 1990s and consists of class action suits brought by those injured by tobacco products and medical cost reimbursement suits brought by states and insurance companies. Legal scholars expect the third wave of litigation to produce more favorable results for plaintiffs and to regulate the sale and use of tobacco more effectively than conventional legislative and administrative regulation has been able to do. The strong-arm tactics used by tobacco companies to successfully fend off plaintiffs in the earlier litigation are not likely to work in the third wave because the class of plaintiffs and their respective attorneys have organized and are working together to their mutual benefit. Plaintiffs also now have new evidence obtained from internal tobacco company documents and former tobacco industry researchers that will significantly bolster their cases.
By the mid-1990s, the tobacco industry faced an enormous amount of exposure to liability. It has been estimated that cigarette-related illnesses and losses in productivity cost more than two dollars per pack of cigarettes in 1985 dollars. Further, studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between an increase in the cost of cigarettes and a reduction in consumption, especially by underage smokers. A reduction in smoking also clearly correlates with fewer adverse health effects and lower health care costs. For these reasons, in 1996 the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association endorsed litigation against the tobacco companies. Legal experts have theorized that the long-term effects of plaintiff victories in the third wave of tobacco litigation could devastate and ultimately destroy the industry, much as plaintiff victories did in the recent asbestos litigation.
The claims in the third wave of tobacco litigation are based on some new legal theories. First, plaintiffs can demonstrate that tobacco companies knew that nicotine is pharmacologically active and highly addictive but hid that knowledge and, in fact, denied it under oath. Second, plaintiffs can show that tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels in their products in an attempt to foster addiction in their consumers. Common legal theories used in the third wave of litigation include fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, emotional distress, violation of consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability, conspiracy, antitrust, negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking, unjust enrichment or indemnity, civil claims under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. [1970]), and various criminal theories.
The third wave of litigation began with the certification of two class action suits (Broin v. Philip Morris, 641 So. 2d 888 [Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1994], review denied, Philip Morris Inc. v. Broin, 654 So. 2d 919 [Fla. 1995], and Castano v. American Tobacco, 84 F.3d 734 [5th Cir. 1996]). The class members in Broin were nonsmoking flight attendants who claimed that they suffered from various illnesses caused by their exposure to ETS from air travelers' cigarettes. Castano was based on plaintiffs' claims that the tobacco companies intentionally manipulated nicotine levels, even though the companies knew that nicotine was a hazardous and addictive substance. The Castano class consisted of all nicotine-dependent persons or their estates, heirs, family members, or "significant others" in the United States and its territories and possessions, who have bought and smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. Because of the breadth of the class, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in Castano should not have been certified as a class; had the court allowed the case to proceed, it would likely have become the largest class action in U.S. history. After the decertification of the Castano class, plaintiffs' lawyers decided to pursue statewide class action suits in state courts around the nation.
Lawsuits since Castano have sought to eliminate the problem of certifying a large class. For example, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds, 672 So. 2d 39 [Ct. App. Fla. 3d Dist. 1996], review denied, 682 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1996), involves essentially the same claims as Castano, but the class is much smaller. The class certified in Engle consists of Florida citizens and residents, and their survivors, who have suffered, presently suffer, or have died from diseases and other medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes. The Engle class action has been allowed to proceed. Several class action suits modeled on Engle have since been brought, and still more are anticipated.
The wave of state reimbursement suits was initiated in May 1994, when the state of Mississippi filed an unprecedented lawsuit on behalf of the state's taxpayers against the tobacco industry to recoup the state's share of Medicaid costs incurred as a result of tobacco-related illnesses (Moore v. American Tobacco, No. 94-1429 [Miss. Chan. Ct. 1994]). The state of Mississippi proceeded on legal theories of unjust enrichment and restitution, based on the fact that the state's taxpayers had been directly injured by the actions of the tobacco industry because they were forced to pay Medicaid costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses. By the middle of 1997, thirty-seven states had filed medical cost reimbursement suits based on legal theories similar to those pursued by Mississippi. In addition, some of the other states brought claims never before considered in this wave of litigation.
In 1994, when the state of Minnesota filed a medical cost reimbursement suit, the insurance company Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Minnesota joined as co-plaintiff, seeking reimbursement for its share of tobacco-related health care costs in Minnesota (Minnesota v. Philip Morris, No. 94-8565 [D.Minn. 1994]). When West Virginia filed its medical reimbursement lawsuit, it named as defendants not only tobacco companies, but also the Kimberly-Clarke Corporation, developer of the tobacco reconstitution process that enables tobacco companies to manipulate nicotine levels. In 1995 the state of Florida filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry under Florida's Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act, effectively preventing tobacco industry defendants from prevailing under defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence. Texas filed suit in 1996 and brought claims based in part on the RICO Act and on theories of mail and wire fraud, antitrust violations, and public nuisance. The state of Washington additionally has sued the law firms that have represented the tobacco companies for many years, arguing that they unlawfully helped their clients keep certain documents confidential. Some of the states have asked that in addition to awarding monetary damages, the courts order the tobacco industry to publish all previous research on the link between smoking and health, establish funds for public education campaigns designed to discourage smoking, disclose the amounts of nicotine in their tobacco products, and order the dissolution of the tobacco industry's nonprofit organizations, the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute.
The most recent tobacco litigation has resulted in a historic settlement agreement. On March 15, 1996, the states of West Virginia, Florida, Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Louisiana entered into an agreement with Brooke Group and Liggett Group to settle those companies' portion of the states' medical cost reimbursement actions. This settlement was noteworthy because it represented the end of the tobacco industry's efforts to present a unified front and to refuse to willingly pay out monetary damages.
By March 1997 the Brooke Group/Liggett settlement agreement had been amended to include twenty-two states. In addition, in conjunction with the settlement agreement, Liggett Group, one of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies, publicly admitted that cigarettes and cigarette smoking cause lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. Liggett admitted that nicotine is addictive and that the tobacco industry actively and illegally markets to young people under the age of eighteen. As part of the amended settlement, Liggett agreed to cooperate fully with the twenty-two states by waiving attorney-client privilege and turning over privileged documents. Liggett also agreed to substantially comply with the new FDA regulations and to put warning labels on its cigarettes stating "Warning: Smoking Is Addictive." Liggett further promised to pay 25 percent of its pre-tax profits for the next twenty-five years to settle these actions.
Following several successful lawsuits, the Brooke Group/Liggett settlement agreement, and the FDA's promulgation of its rule regulating tobacco, discussion began regarding a possible global legislative settlement of all tobacco litigation. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott agreed to broker an agreement that would allow the tobacco industry to avoid FDA regulation and receive immunity from product liability suits for fifteen years. Talks regarding this proposed global settlement began in March 1997.
Preliminary reports indicate that the proposed settlement calls for the tobacco industry to pay billions of dollars in increasing amounts over fifteen years. The money would be administered by an administrator appointed by the president and would be paid out in grants to all fifty states. The plan also calls for the industry to drop the lawsuits it has brought against industry defectors and whistle-blowers in exchange for immunity from virtually all liability suits for the next fifteen years. By late 1997, the global settlement talks had not produced a final agreement but were proceeding. The parties reported that they were hopeful that an agreement would be reached in the near future.
Criminal Charges
In the 1990s federal criminal investigators began to prepare a case against the tobacco companies and their executives and scientists, four trade associations and industry-funded groups, a scientific consulting group, a public relations consulting firm, two companies that serve as suppliers to the tobacco companies, and a company-funded research group. The alleged crimes include federal perjury, mail fraud, wire fraud, false advertising, criminal conspiracy, criminal racketeering, and the deception of the public, federal agencies, and Congress. One criminal investigation is looking at possible perjury on the part of the industry's chief executive officers while testifying before Congress in April 1994 regarding the addictive qualities of nicotine. Another criminal probe is considering whether the industry misled its shareholders by misrepresenting industry knowledge of the physiological effects of tobacco products. Another investigation is focusing on allegations that an indoor air quality testing company accepted money from tobacco companies to distort test results. Still another probe is investigating the industry's Council for Tobacco Research, including the validity of its nonprofit status and whether it hid research results regarding smoking and health from the government. Finally, a probe is investigating allegations that tobacco companies smuggled cigarettes into Canada to avoid paying Canada's high cigarette taxes. The results of these criminal investigations remain to be seen.
State Regulation of Tobacco
State and local governments may also regulate tobacco and tobacco products to the extent that their regulations are not preempted (already addressed) by federal laws. By 1997 every state had some form of regulation of chewing and smoking tobacco products. State governments typically restrict the use of tobacco by minors, require licenses for those who sell tobacco products, and restrict vending machine and individual cigarette sales.
In the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Amendments Reorganization Act of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-321, 106 Stat. 323), Congress declared that it was the responsibi- lity of the states, with help from federal agencies, to restrict minors' access to tobacco products. By 1996 when the FDA called for a minimum age of eighteen for the use of tobacco products, all fifty states already had laws in place establishing eighteen as the minimum age for tobacco use.
The scope of state and local regulation is limited because it may not extend to areas already being regulated by the federal government. For example, because the FCLAA already regulates advertising based on smoking and health considerations, states and localities can restrict advertising only for other reasons, such as to protect citizens' aesthetic sensibilities, to control the location or types of cigarette displays, or to protect children from promotions blatantly aimed at them as consumers.
Whether the FCLAA preempts state regulation of promotions aimed at children is in dispute in the courts. In Penn Advertising v. City of Baltimore, 862 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Md. 1994), aff'd, 63 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. granted and judgment vacated, Penn Advertising v. Schmoke, ___U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 2575, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1090, aff'd on remand, 101 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 1996), the court held that the FCLAA did not preempt a local ordinance that barred cigarette advertising in certain locations where children were likely to be found, such as near schools. But in Chiglo v. City of Preston, 909 F. Supp. 675 (D. Minn. 1995), the court overturned a city ordinance that restricted from certain areas cigarette advertising that contained logos, cartoon characters, or any distinctive brand advertising. The court in Chiglo held that the ordinance regulated the content of the advertising and hence was preempted by the FCLAA.
Local laws can also be preempted by state laws if the state law addresses the same issue. Well aware of this limitation, the tobacco industry began a campaign in the 1980s to encourage the adoption of weak, industry-friendly tobacco control legislation at the state level to preempt local governments from imposing stricter controls on the sale and use of tobacco.
Clean Indoor Air Acts
Armed with information showing the effects of ETS, the federal, state, and local governments began considering statutes to prohibit smoking in nonresidential buildings. Federal laws were passed to restrict smoking in transportation systems (49 C.F.R. § 1061.1 [1991]), in government buildings (41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105-3 [1991]), and aboard domestic airline flights (14 C.F.R. § 129.29). Federal regulation of private-sector workplaces has yet to take effect. Federal legislation was proposed, but the tobacco industry was able to muster great resistance to it. As of mid-1997, the proposed legislation was not yet finalized.
States and localities have responded to the concern over ETS by regulating smoking in various public areas. In 1997 more than forty states and the District of Columbia had some form of regulation in place. A minority of states have enacted indoor air quality acts, similar to the rules proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Some local governments have passed laws restricting smoking in places of entertainment, restaurants, and workplaces and on public transportation. Most of the state and local smoking regulations do not ban smoking in the workplace entirely, but limit smoking to designated areas or private offices.
Many private employers have voluntarily restricted smoking in the workplace. A 1985 survey found that more than 33 percent of employers were already regulating smoking in the workplace, and by 1991 that number had grown to 85 percent. By 1997 many private businesses had established policies that made it nearly impossible for employees to work and smoke. For example, some businesses would not allow anyone who had smoked within a certain time period to enter the building. Other businesses began charging smoking employees more for health insurance benefits. Indeed, businesses are motivated to regulate smoking in part because of the higher absenteeism and increased health care costs of smoking employees.
In the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Amendments Reorganization Act of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-321, 106 Stat. 323), Congress declared that it was the responsibi- lity of the states, with help from federal agencies, to restrict minors' access to tobacco products. By 1996 when the FDA called for a minimum age of eighteen for the use of tobacco products, all fifty states already had laws in place establishing eighteen as the minimum age for tobacco use.
The scope of state and local regulation is limited because it may not extend to areas already being regulated by the federal government. For example, because the FCLAA already regulates advertising based on smoking and health considerations, states and localities can restrict advertising only for other reasons, such as to protect citizens' aesthetic sensibilities, to control the location or types of cigarette displays, or to protect children from promotions blatantly aimed at them as consumers.
Whether the FCLAA preempts state regulation of promotions aimed at children is in dispute in the courts. In Penn Advertising v. City of Baltimore, 862 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Md. 1994), aff'd, 63 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. granted and judgment vacated, Penn Advertising v. Schmoke, ___U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 2575, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1090, aff'd on remand, 101 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 1996), the court held that the FCLAA did not preempt a local ordinance that barred cigarette advertising in certain locations where children were likely to be found, such as near schools. But in Chiglo v. City of Preston, 909 F. Supp. 675 (D. Minn. 1995), the court overturned a city ordinance that restricted from certain areas cigarette advertising that contained logos, cartoon characters, or any distinctive brand advertising. The court in Chiglo held that the ordinance regulated the content of the advertising and hence was preempted by the FCLAA.
Local laws can also be preempted by state laws if the state law addresses the same issue. Well aware of this limitation, the tobacco industry began a campaign in the 1980s to encourage the adoption of weak, industry-friendly tobacco control legislation at the state level to preempt local governments from imposing stricter controls on the sale and use of tobacco.
Clean Indoor Air Acts
Armed with information showing the effects of ETS, the federal, state, and local governments began considering statutes to prohibit smoking in nonresidential buildings. Federal laws were passed to restrict smoking in transportation systems (49 C.F.R. § 1061.1 [1991]), in government buildings (41 C.F.R. § 101-20.105-3 [1991]), and aboard domestic airline flights (14 C.F.R. § 129.29). Federal regulation of private-sector workplaces has yet to take effect. Federal legislation was proposed, but the tobacco industry was able to muster great resistance to it. As of mid-1997, the proposed legislation was not yet finalized.
States and localities have responded to the concern over ETS by regulating smoking in various public areas. In 1997 more than forty states and the District of Columbia had some form of regulation in place. A minority of states have enacted indoor air quality acts, similar to the rules proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Some local governments have passed laws restricting smoking in places of entertainment, restaurants, and workplaces and on public transportation. Most of the state and local smoking regulations do not ban smoking in the workplace entirely, but limit smoking to designated areas or private offices.
Many private employers have voluntarily restricted smoking in the workplace. A 1985 survey found that more than 33 percent of employers were already regulating smoking in the workplace, and by 1991 that number had grown to 85 percent. By 1997 many private businesses had established policies that made it nearly impossible for employees to work and smoke. For example, some businesses would not allow anyone who had smoked within a certain time period to enter the building. Other businesses began charging smoking employees more for health insurance benefits. Indeed, businesses are motivated to regulate smoking in part because of the higher absenteeism and increased health care costs of smoking employees.
Federal and State Regulation of Tobacco through Taxation
In 1994 the tobacco industry spent an estimated $4 billion on tobacco advertising. Even though cigarettes cannot be advertised on radio or television, they are the most heavily advertised product in the United States.
In the early 1990s, in an attempt to raise revenue for the federal government, bills were introduced in Congress to restrict the amount of advertising expenses that tobacco manufacturers could deduct from their gross income. In 1993 tobacco companies deducted an estimated $1 billion from their gross income for advertising expenses. The proposed bills would have used the extra revenue to fund education programs to stop underage smokers and to reduce the federal deficit. The bills did not become law, however.
States have long collected excise taxes on sales of cigarettes. As of 1995, Washington State imposed the highest excise tax, at 85 cents per pack, and Missouri had one of the lowest, at 17 cents per pack. Excise taxes were also imposed on chewing tobacco products. Studies completed in the 1980s demonstrated that as the price of chewing and smoking tobacco increases, consumption of those products decreases.
Federal Regulation of Tobacco as a Drug
In 1988 the surgeon general of the United States issued a report detailing the addictive effects of nicotine. Later scientific studies confirmed this finding. Despite this research the tobacco companies continued to deny that any relation existed between smoking and disease or that smoking was addictive. In an April 1994 congressional hearing on nicotine manipulation, the chief executive officers of seven tobacco companies testified under oath that they believed nicotine is not addictive and that smoking has not been shown to cause cancer. Later, however, some former tobacco company officials publicly confessed that cigarette manufacturers had long known about the health hazards of smoking and had deliberately concealed that information from the public. The first and perhaps best known of these officials was Jeffrey Wigand, the former head of research at Brown and Williamson, one of the large tobacco companies. Voluminous internal records showing that cigarette manufacturers were aware of the dangers of smoking, including the addictive properties of nicotine, were also leaked to the public. One paralegal at Brown and Williamson copied more than four thousand documents and provided them to tobacco opponents. An annotated compilation of those documents was published in 1996 under the title The Cigarette Papers. As a direct result of this growing body of information demonstrating that the manufacturers knew that nicotine in smoking and chewing tobacco can lead to addiction, the FDA in 1994 began examining whether nicotine qualified as a drug under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.), and thus could be regulated as such by the FDA.
The FDA had formerly asserted jurisdiction over tobacco products only to the extent that they carried therapeutic claims. By 1996, however, the FDA had determined that cigarettes and other tobacco products are intended by their manufacturers to be delivery devices for nicotine, a drug resulting in significant pharmacological effects on the body, including addiction. Based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act definition of a drug as an article "intended to affect the structure or any function of the body" and on the FDA's determination that the cigarette and smokeless tobacco manufacturers "intend" these effects, the FDA declared in August 1996 that it had jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.
The FDA then announced that it would begin by regulating the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents. The issue of children smoking has aroused widespread concern. Studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated that despite state laws prohibiting the use of tobacco before the age of eighteen, children had easy access to tobacco products and many had become regular smokers before their eighteenth birthday. In 1996 the FDA estimated that 4.5 million children and adolescents in the United States smoke and that another 1 million children use smokeless tobacco. Accordingly, the FDA promulgated a proposed rule to reduce children's access to tobacco and limit its appeal to them. The proposed rule was published in August 1995, and the FDA invited public comment. The FDA received more than 700,000 pieces of mail on the proposed regulation, the most that any proposed regulation had ever received. After reviewing and analyzing the comments, the FDA published its final rule in August 1996 (21 CFR § 897).
The final FDA rule treated nicotine addiction as a pediatric disease because the use of tobacco products and the resulting nicotine addiction begin predominantly in children and adolescents. The FDA concluded that children do not fully understand the risks associated with consuming tobacco and that they are vulnerable to the sophisticated marketing techniques used by the tobacco industry.
Under the FDA rule, selling cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products to anyone under the age of eighteen is a federal violation. The rule also forbids the distribution of free samples of tobacco products and limits most retail sales to face-to-face situations by excluding most sales via vending machines and self-service displays. In addition, the rule limits tobacco advertising to black-and-white, text-only formats. Billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising are not allowed within a thousand feet of schools and public playgrounds. Sponsorship by tobacco companies of sporting and other events is limited to the corporate name only; the use of logos or mascots such as Joe Camel is forbidden. The rule also forbids the sale and distribution of nontobacco items that carry cigarette logos, such as T-shirts and hats.
The tobacco companies immediately challenged the FDA rule on several grounds, including whether the FDA has jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes as a "device" under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and whether the rule violates advertisers' freedom of speech. In at least one case, a federal court restricted the scope of the FDA's jurisdiction. In Coyne Beahm v. FDA, 966 F. Supp. 1374 (M.D. N.C. 1997), tobacco companies and advertising agencies challenged the FDA's regulation of tobacco products. In April 1997 the district court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the FDA could regulate the sale, distribution, and use of smoking and chewing tobacco, but not the advertising or promotion of tobacco products. Both parties planned to appeal the ruling.
In the early 1990s, in an attempt to raise revenue for the federal government, bills were introduced in Congress to restrict the amount of advertising expenses that tobacco manufacturers could deduct from their gross income. In 1993 tobacco companies deducted an estimated $1 billion from their gross income for advertising expenses. The proposed bills would have used the extra revenue to fund education programs to stop underage smokers and to reduce the federal deficit. The bills did not become law, however.
States have long collected excise taxes on sales of cigarettes. As of 1995, Washington State imposed the highest excise tax, at 85 cents per pack, and Missouri had one of the lowest, at 17 cents per pack. Excise taxes were also imposed on chewing tobacco products. Studies completed in the 1980s demonstrated that as the price of chewing and smoking tobacco increases, consumption of those products decreases.
Federal Regulation of Tobacco as a Drug
In 1988 the surgeon general of the United States issued a report detailing the addictive effects of nicotine. Later scientific studies confirmed this finding. Despite this research the tobacco companies continued to deny that any relation existed between smoking and disease or that smoking was addictive. In an April 1994 congressional hearing on nicotine manipulation, the chief executive officers of seven tobacco companies testified under oath that they believed nicotine is not addictive and that smoking has not been shown to cause cancer. Later, however, some former tobacco company officials publicly confessed that cigarette manufacturers had long known about the health hazards of smoking and had deliberately concealed that information from the public. The first and perhaps best known of these officials was Jeffrey Wigand, the former head of research at Brown and Williamson, one of the large tobacco companies. Voluminous internal records showing that cigarette manufacturers were aware of the dangers of smoking, including the addictive properties of nicotine, were also leaked to the public. One paralegal at Brown and Williamson copied more than four thousand documents and provided them to tobacco opponents. An annotated compilation of those documents was published in 1996 under the title The Cigarette Papers. As a direct result of this growing body of information demonstrating that the manufacturers knew that nicotine in smoking and chewing tobacco can lead to addiction, the FDA in 1994 began examining whether nicotine qualified as a drug under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.), and thus could be regulated as such by the FDA.
The FDA had formerly asserted jurisdiction over tobacco products only to the extent that they carried therapeutic claims. By 1996, however, the FDA had determined that cigarettes and other tobacco products are intended by their manufacturers to be delivery devices for nicotine, a drug resulting in significant pharmacological effects on the body, including addiction. Based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act definition of a drug as an article "intended to affect the structure or any function of the body" and on the FDA's determination that the cigarette and smokeless tobacco manufacturers "intend" these effects, the FDA declared in August 1996 that it had jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.
The FDA then announced that it would begin by regulating the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents. The issue of children smoking has aroused widespread concern. Studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated that despite state laws prohibiting the use of tobacco before the age of eighteen, children had easy access to tobacco products and many had become regular smokers before their eighteenth birthday. In 1996 the FDA estimated that 4.5 million children and adolescents in the United States smoke and that another 1 million children use smokeless tobacco. Accordingly, the FDA promulgated a proposed rule to reduce children's access to tobacco and limit its appeal to them. The proposed rule was published in August 1995, and the FDA invited public comment. The FDA received more than 700,000 pieces of mail on the proposed regulation, the most that any proposed regulation had ever received. After reviewing and analyzing the comments, the FDA published its final rule in August 1996 (21 CFR § 897).
The final FDA rule treated nicotine addiction as a pediatric disease because the use of tobacco products and the resulting nicotine addiction begin predominantly in children and adolescents. The FDA concluded that children do not fully understand the risks associated with consuming tobacco and that they are vulnerable to the sophisticated marketing techniques used by the tobacco industry.
Under the FDA rule, selling cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products to anyone under the age of eighteen is a federal violation. The rule also forbids the distribution of free samples of tobacco products and limits most retail sales to face-to-face situations by excluding most sales via vending machines and self-service displays. In addition, the rule limits tobacco advertising to black-and-white, text-only formats. Billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising are not allowed within a thousand feet of schools and public playgrounds. Sponsorship by tobacco companies of sporting and other events is limited to the corporate name only; the use of logos or mascots such as Joe Camel is forbidden. The rule also forbids the sale and distribution of nontobacco items that carry cigarette logos, such as T-shirts and hats.
The tobacco companies immediately challenged the FDA rule on several grounds, including whether the FDA has jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes as a "device" under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and whether the rule violates advertisers' freedom of speech. In at least one case, a federal court restricted the scope of the FDA's jurisdiction. In Coyne Beahm v. FDA, 966 F. Supp. 1374 (M.D. N.C. 1997), tobacco companies and advertising agencies challenged the FDA's regulation of tobacco products. In April 1997 the district court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the FDA could regulate the sale, distribution, and use of smoking and chewing tobacco, but not the advertising or promotion of tobacco products. Both parties planned to appeal the ruling.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)
