Lynda Mitchell is 52 and she is dying from smoking. She lives in the U.K. and grew up in a household where smoking was the norm; her parents routinely smoked 60 cigarettes per day. It’s not overly surprising that Lynda would be a prime candidate to contract Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) but what is surprising, is that Lynda has never smoked a cigarette in her life.

Lynda grew up in a home where her parents smoked day in and day out. She was so exposed to smoke that she grew up hating it and made the conscious decision to never become a smoker herself. In a tragically ironic turn of events, Lynda will ultimately die from a smokers’ disease despite never having been one. Her illness is a direct result of secondhand smoke. She is living proof the effects of secondhand smoke are VERY real.

Lynda’s parents, or parent rather, are no strangers to smokers’ diseases themselves. Her stepfather, Ray Evans, died of lung cancer (at age 60) twenty years ago. Her mother, June Evans, suffers from emphysema. An entire family suffering from the negative effects of smoking is experiencing said effects at different intervals.

For anyone who doubts, or denies, the negative effects of smoking, take a good long look at Lynda Mitchell . Not only will her parents become yet another number on the list of smoking casualties but Lynda herself will also pay the ultimate price…for something she didn’t even do.

Everyone knows that tobacco products are addictive, this should be no surprise by now. Once someone starts using, they’re almost guaranteed to be hooked, but with everyone aware of the effects of tobacco use it has to make you wonder: why do people even start in the first place?

Tobacco companies have always been amazingly good at dressing up their product. Whether it’s made to seem sexy, dangerous or fun, big tobacco continuously and successfully markets a deadly product to a public that knows better but just can’t say no to slick advertising.

Until now.

Big tobacco has already been banned from TV ads, so they’ve depended heavily on print ads but thanks to the FDA and the CTFK , tobacco ads in magazines will be hard-pressed to come off looking cool. A new law going into effect this month will require tobacco ads in magazines to display a bold warning that takes up a minimum of 20% of the ad space. The bold, unmistakable, black and white warnings will caution would-be smokers about the side effects of tobacco use. Refer to the original article about this new law to check out a sample of one of the new ads – there is no way a reader can miss these warnings.

Surprisingly, big tobacco hasn’t been outwardly vocal in opposition (at least not more than the usual legal recourse) but that doesn’t mean that anyone should let their guard down. We all need to keep in kind that these are the folks who have managed to sell people a harmful product for decades and while this is an impressive blow to their marketing efforts, they will go back to the drawing board.

These days, it seems like anything you can buy comes in two versions: regular and “green.” With so many products being made using environmentally friendly items, being planet-conscious is as easy as checking the label at the store. However, that’s not the case for ALL products.

As the state of Vermont celebrated Green Up Day (a statewide effort to remove litter and clean up outdoors), thousands upon thousands of pounds of waste were picked up and properly disposed of.  Volunteers disposed of anything they could get their hands on, with the exception of one item: cigarette butts. The ground was littered with so many that removing them all would have been an impossible task. Being that they are so small, so many and so hard to pick up in any mass manner, volunteers in Vermont had to overlook the butts and concentrate on larger pieces of litter.

According to the Cigarette Litter Prevention Program – a program funded by Philip Morris – about 95% of cigarette butts thrown on the ground are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that does not easily biodegrade. Oddly enough, even though Philip Morris funds this program (a PR effort to save face) and concurs that the materials they make butts out of are harmful, they have yet to cease using such materials.

They may be small, but they do add up. The tobacco industry recognizes and admits that the materials they use are not environmentally friendly but they keep making the same, non-biodegradable product anyway.

Smoking is kind of a funny thing in that everyone has heard and fully understands the risks associated with smoking but people choose to do it anyway. The general theory on why people keep smoking (other than becoming addicted) is denial. If you can convince yourself that the hazards are old news and it “couldn’t happen to you” then maybe you can justify it.

Now let’s take a look at something that isn’t old news. According to a brand new study that took place in Israel, people who smoke have lower IQ’s than those who don’t. Researchers studied 20,000 young adults and stumbled upon a revealing conclusion. 18- to 21-year-olds who do not smoke have an average IQ of 101. The typical smoker’s IQ, however, was found to average only 94.

To make matters even worse, researchers found that IQ decreases when smoking increases. While typical smokers have an IQ averaged at 94, people who smoke more than a pack a day had IQ’s around 90. Just for the record, a normal IQ range is 84 to 116. So, those heavier smokers are literally just a few points away from having a below average IQ.

Although still too premature to draw a scientific conclusion, many scientist believe that smoking puts the brain oxidative stress, which in turn damages DNA and lowers your IQ.

There has been mass advancement in tobacco prevention amongst activists, from government programs and grants, social media pages, to creatively manufactured media campaigns buuuuuut…the Internet hasn’t played a huge role in tobacco prevention until the early 2000’s.

A recent study showed that though tobacco content only makes up less than 1% of social media content, half of that content was PRO-tobacco. Do the math; this means in that in the cyberwar for tobacco longevity, we’re neck and neck.

The exposure of pro-tobacco content can be detrimental to the mass progress made in the past 2 decades. Think about it! We are always on the net, surfing Facebook, Twitter and even that ghost town we call Myspace. Pro-tobacco messages are underhanded no matter where they are, cyberspace included.  We need to start seeing mass net campaign targeting these online parasites. Tobacco is dying and will hang on to anything and everything for sustenance.

I suppose it was only a matter of time. Sly marketing has been the surprisingly spry crutch of the tobacco industry for decades despite a general knowing better. People get smarter – nay, more EDUCATED – but big tobacco also wises up as the sand trickles down the glass and they learn to combat new evidence with new marketing. The fact that not only do people still smoke but new smokers light up everyday suggests that big tobacco is actually doing a pretty good job when it comes to moving some cancer sticks.

In recent years, compounding legislative blows have been landed on a bloody and battered industry and although on the ropes, big tobacco just won’t throw that towel. Nearly every city, state, ordinance, township, county, peninsula and treehouse have restrictions on where and when you can smoke and big tobacco has suffered tremendously. By taking the convenience out of the act, more people decided against taking it up. That is, until the E-cig came along.

Electronic cigarettes are a relatively new invention but already as easy to find as a Starbucks. Thanks to the use of water vapor in place of smoke, the E-cig callously goes where no cig has gone in a few years: indoors. The marketing ‘geniuses’ with big tobacco missed the boat on that concept, though. While they invested in smokefree tobacco strips, sticks and snus, the makers of the finest American products (Hong Kong) invented the E-cig.

Ruyan Group, out of Hong Kong, made the very first E-cig in 2005. Not long after, Philip Morris came a-knockin’. However, nobody outside of the two companies found out until earlier this year. Back in June, Ruyan’s stock soared to a 35% increase when it was announced that they had begun negotiations for work with an independent third party. Days later, that third party was confirmed to be Philip Morris. Although only speculation, the general theory on the negotiations is that Philip Morris is attempting either a total buyout or an exclusive partnership for their own E-cig. Either way, Philip Morris will have international ties and the world will learn the truth very soon, as Ruyan’s public trading was suspended on November 2nd due to the pending announcement of a ‘price sensitive matter.’

Whether you want to chew, spit, smoke, suck or inhale, Philip Morris will soon be able to market to both indoor and outdoor tobacco users; we took the convenience away and they gave it right back. Our move.

Branding is important. If you’re going to sell something, whether it be a product or a service, the establishment of a brand identity is key. Endless research, testing and evaluation goes into the longevity of a good brand but what do you if all of the sudden, you’re not allowed to brand the way that has made you a success.

Simple. You redo it overnight.

In June 2009, the U.S. Senate worked with the FDA to regulate the way that big tobacco packages their products. The hubbub was mostly about tobacco’s use of certain words that could be misconstrued by consumers as suggesting that one particular type of cigarette may actually have healthful benefits. The types of words in question were “mild,” “light,” “low tar,” and things of that nature. The FDA agreed with the Senate, and gave big tobacco until June 2010 to revamp the way they brand their products.

Although still months away, many tobacco companies have already solidified their new packaging and will begin rolling out the new looks to stores soon. Never being the type to miss an opportunity, big tobacco (across the board) completely revamped their look. Since wording became the biggest issue with the FDA, big tobacco – being the sly dogs that they are, decided to change the game entirely.

No longer will wording play a role for cigarette branding but rather, color. Check out some examples of new cigarette packaging as compared to their look a few years prior:

These are the exact same products. However, in lieu of using words like “mild,” or “light,” most companies have opted to simplify the product and assign each a color. For example, Salem switched from “Lights,” to “Gold Box,” and from “Ultra Lights,” to Silver Box.”

Pall Mall switched from “Lights,” to simply “Blue,” and from “Full Flavor,” to “Red.”

It’s all the same stuff as before, except now users wont associate the product with a word but rather, a color. The frightening part about the switch is that it simplifies the process of familiarizing the brand identity to a potential user. No longer will an aspiring smoker have to read the box and consider what “low tar” could possibly mean. Now, they can just look at that Plexiglass case of cancer and point out which pretty color catches their eye.

In-store cigarette cases will soon be just as colorful and intriguing as point-of-purchase candy displays and we all know who those candy displays market to…

It always strikes me as odd just how far people are willing to go in order to smoke. On one hand, I fully understand that the addiction to nicotine is absolutely crippling and most smokers aren’t strong enough to resist it but on the other hand, I want to just say “really??!!?”

Thanks to a technicality in VA legislation, certain bars in Northern Virginia are exempt from the recent smoking ban – sort of. If a bar has a completely walled off and separate room for smokers with its own ventilation system that is not connected to the non-smoking area in any way, then said bar may be permitted to allow smoking inside. Is it just me, or does this seem like quite a stretch in the name of catering to smokers?

Sure, smokers are people too and they deserve the right to frequent any restaurant or bar they want, they just don’t have the right to expose others to harmful chemicals via smoke. For bar owners, this presents an opportunity to be among the very few bars that can offer indoor smoking but at what expense? I mean, do smokers really bring in THAT MUCH more money where bar owners can afford to add an extra room and a separate (sustained) ventilation system? Not to mention adding staff who are specifically allocated to the smoking section. In short, most bars will not be able to justify spending extra just for people to smoke indoors. For those few bars that happen to already have the required separations, it’s just a matter of time before legislation is reworded to tackle that issue.