- How To
- Cigar Info
- Site Info
Currently viewing the tag: "teen-smoking-youth"
More than two out of every five middle and high school students who smoke report using either flavored little cigars or flavored cigarettes, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in the Journal of Adolescent He
tobacco companies have circumvented the ban on sweet-flavored cigarettes by marketing similarly flavored little cigars that look and are smoked just like cigarettes. The FDA must close this loophole and stop tobacco industry practices that target kids.
About 1 in 30 middle and high school pupils said they smoke the compact, sweet-flavored cigars. The percentages rise as students get older, to nearly 1 in 12 high school seniors, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.
for the first time, kids’ use of flavored little cigars has been tracked by U.S. researchers. About four in 10 smokers in middle school and high school say they use flavored little cigars, according to the new report, using data from the 2011 National You
We are trendsetters in the Tobacco Control Movement. Rhode Island has the second highest cigarette excise tax, the third lowest youth smoking rate and now, our capital city has put Rhode Island on the map once again.
The government should rework the Tobacco Act, regulations and related legislation to prevent unscrupulous manufacturers from exploiting children’s natural affinity for candy flavours and packaging that promises a hit of excitement. Half the 20 per cent o
After Bill C-32 was implemented Oct. 5, 2010, if a cigarillo/ little cigar weighedmore than 1.4g and did not have a cigarette filter, the product could still be flavoured; Bullseye products are shown here, before and after Bill C-32
More than half (52%) of high school students in Canada who used tobacco products in the previous 30 days had used flavoured tobacco products. Fruit- and candy-flavoured tobacco makes it easier for youth to become addicted to tobacco.
contends that the Price Ordinance violates the First Amendment and that both ordinances are preempted by federal and state law. The district court held that the ordinances were neither preempted nor otherwise invalid. We affirm.