Image 01


Cigarettes Tobacco Reviews and News

Posts Tagged ‘winston cigarettes’

Re branding of Winston brand

Friday, August 22nd, 2014

A redesign of the Winston packaging poses a challenge to consumer brand loyalty.
The graphics on the package have been streamlined and stylized with blue colors and the cigarette has been enhanced with a gold stripe. It’s still too early to tell what, if any effect the re branding.
winston cigarettes new

winston cigarettes

Image by Simone De Iulii

Winston XS – Modern Style

Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013

winston xs
Japan Tobacco International (JTI) is extending the line of Winston cigarettes on the Russian market with the new long-expected offer – Winston XS.

winston xs

The new product is represented by 2 flavours: Winston XS Blue and Winston XS Silver. The distribution of the new Winston XS cigarettes in sales outlets in Moscow and St. Petersburg starts from the first decade of November.

winston xs

In Russia, Winston is owned by Japan Tobacco Inc. (JTI). The product “Winston XS” is a superslim cigarette (as in extra-small). Winston XS uses the slogan “Xsence of me,” a word-play on “essence.” The ads for Winston XS are futuristic.
The launch of the new Winston XS will be supported by mass information campaign, which integrates both traditional (POS, printed editions, online promotion) and innovative methods of advertising technologies (BTL activities in the biggest business centres and points of sales).

Students Comply Smoking Law

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

cheapest winston cigarettesSmoking Winston cigarettes has been known to be a common practice among college students and adults. It can be used as a way to relax and wind down from a stressful day of classes, homework or life in general. The truth is, smoking is becoming a habit that some campuses are hoping to eliminate completely.

According to CNN, the University of Kentucky has recently taken a stand against tobacco use on its college campus. The efforts toward creating a smoke-free campus was part of a “Tobacco free—Take Action!” movement spread across 500 campuses throughout the U.S., which became effective July 1.

UW-Green Bay is not banning smoking on campus any time soon, but continues to remind students of the policies to be followed and alternatives to lighting up another cigarette.

According to the UWGB student handbook, students are only allowed to smoke outside of the buildings at the locations containing tall ashtrays. Students must also stay at least 30 feet away from the buildings.

These designated locations include the north entrance near Student Services, the east entrance near the Kress Center, the west entrance near the University Credit Union, the north entrance by MAC Hall and the southwest entrance near the library and Garden Cafe.

“At the locations where students do gather to smoke, there is a mess of cigarette butts,” said Brenda Amenson-Hill, dean of students. “If people do not follow the policy of being 30 feet away from the building, you sometimes have to walk past or through where people are smoking and pick up the secondhand smoke.”

There are many options available for students who are planning to quit smoking. The nurses and counselors are available in the Counseling and Health Center.

The staff in the Counseling and Health Center can discuss the habit with the student and help them get in touch with national quit lines, as well as additional programs, products and advice.

“I want people to know that they can always come and see a nurse or counselor for free,” said Amy Henniges, Counseling and Health Center director. “Sometimes by working with a counselor too, people can get a better understanding of what their other lifestyle options are or how they can work on an action plan toward quitting.”

In November, UWGB will be providing students with the opportunity to attend the “Great American Smoke Out” program that will help create awareness that can help students to cut back on their smoking or quit.

“We do the program as an awareness factor to encourage people to consider quitting or cutting back or if they know someone who smokes, to get them information to help stop smoking,” said Jennie McNeill, student health nurse.

Other proactive options students can participate in to help ease the desire to smoke could be anything from eating a healthy meal to exercising.

The Kress Events Center offers a variety of fitness programs that are free for students to become involved with. One such program popular among students is Zumba. There is also the option of seeking personal training at $15 per session. Each session runs for about an hour.

“Don’t think about it, just quit,” said Chrisanna Colletta, fitness coordinator, Kress Center. “Whether you tell yourself you can or you can’t, you’re right either way. So, tell yourself you can do it and just quit. There are so many alternatives to a healthy lifestyle for them to take. Both the financial and physical aspects of smoking are completely destructive.”

E Cigarette Issue

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

buy winston cigarettesE Cigarette users across the world are thrilled at the very prospect that they have finally found a suitable alternative to tobacco. Not only are e cigarettes being considered a suitable alternative to the deadly tobacco cigarettes, they are also being hailed as an environmentally friendly option.

Nonetheless, there are certain sections of the society which feels that this is not correct and that electronic cigarettes are simply mythical devices, which are no better than Winston cigarettes. Nonetheless, it seems that the people who are having problems with e cigs are predominantly belonging to the tobacco lobby.

It is very important that the end users understand the truth behind electronic cigarettes. First of all, the biggest advantage that these devices have as against regular cigarettes is that they do not use tobacco. The smoke emitting from regular cigarettes contains over 100,000 chemicals which includes the fatal carbon dioxide gas as well. This not only infects the smoker, the passive smoker but also the environment.

Hence, besides causing cancer, cardiac issues and chronic respiratory infections, tobacco smoking also aggravates the current global warming scenario as well. As per the latest statistical data, millions of individuals die each year owing to tobacco smoking.

The e cigarettes on the other hand operate with the use of a battery. This can be recharged in your car or home and hence, the use of matches is completely negated. This helps smokers to avoid staining their clothes or their expensive sofa sets as ash is not present. At the same time, e cigs are completely devoid of tar and they also never cause the repulsive smoker’s breath. Besides, as these devices are free from smoke and do not involve the use of matchsticks, you are free to smoke these even in public places.

This is very convenient for those individuals who simply cannot live without their daily dose of electric cigarettes. Last but not the least, electric cigarettes save 75% of a household’s monthly bills. This is because e cigarette refills are cost effective while regular cigarettes are very expensive.

Winston, Red&White and Chesterfield Most Popular Cigarettes

Friday, August 19th, 2011

winston cigarettes onlineIn the first half of 2011, Latvia’s most popular cigarettes were the brands Winston cigarettes, Red&White and Chesterfield, according to information on excised goods compiled by the State Revenue Service.

The fourth most popular brand in the first half-year was Marlboro cigarettes, followed by Wall Street, with Monte Carlo in sixth place.

More cigarettes were the seventh biggest seller, L&M and Bond were eighth and ninth respectively, while Caines was the tenth most popular brand.

According to the State Revenue Service’s data, the largest producers and importers of tobacco products over the first half of 2011 were Philip Morris Latvia , JTI Marketing and sales, British American Tobacco, Tabakas nams grupa and Rasta 1.

In the first half-year, the State Revenue Service collected LVL 45.9 million in excise tax on tobacco products, which is LVL 4.3 million or ten percent more than over the corresponding period last year, LETA reported.

Impacts and Cigarettes

Friday, August 12th, 2011

buy winston cigarettesOne of football’s legal dramas has just ended, as the NFL’s owners and players have reached a deal to end the pro football lockout just in time for training camp. Another, perhaps more enduring battle has just begun.

Last week, 75 former players brought suit against the NFL, alleging that the league covered up evidence that concussions could cause long-term damage. The plaintiffs have hired a very heavy hitter: Thomas Girardi, who’s best known as the lawyer who successfully litigated what’s come to be known as the Erin Brockovich case.

A few months ago, I speculated about what a concussion suit might allege. We needn’t guess any longer. The complaint, filed in California state court last week, puts the NFL under a legal microscope for a host of claimed violations of tort law: negligence, fraud, and loss of consortium. Also sued are related legal entities responsible for the manufacture and design of football helmets, as well as NFL Properties, which enters into equipment contracts on the league’s behalf.

The basic factual outline of the claim is that the NFL neither informed its players about the possible long-term effects from concussions, nor protected them from the risk of head injuries.

The lawsuit includes some high-profile players—Mark Duper and Mike Richardson—and the injuries chronicled in the complaint are clear and dramatic. They range from memory loss and cognitive impairment to intermittent rage, depression, inability to concentrate, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, seizures, dementia, and early-onset Alzheimer’s. The complaint also repeats the conclusion of Dr. Bennet Omalu that the deaths of players including Mike Webster, Terry Long, and Andre Waters were at least in part caused by chronic traumatic encephalopathy, triggered by multiple football concussions.

All of these plaintiffs face a long and winding road from injury to liability and recovery. The former players’ position is tricky, because the science establishing the long-term risks of concussions isn’t new. If the NFL knew about it, why didn’t the players, or at least their union? The attorneys set forth dozens of scientific facts from reputable journals and statements by formal and informal “authorities” (including Pop Warner, from almost a century ago), all to the point that the effects of concussions have long been known. So, why didn’t the union try to do something about this, if it was so clear?

The players’ response might be that the NFL tried to throw them off the scent. A comparison to Big Tobacco could be helpful to the plaintiffs here. The turning point in the litigation by smokers against the tobacco companies came when the decades-long campaign to misdirect and misinform the public was revealed. The scientific connection between smoking Winston cigarettes and deadly diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema, and the evidence supporting nicotine’s addictive nature had been well-accepted by the scientific community.

Nevertheless, in 1953 the companies created their own front organization—the Tobacco Industry Research Committee—to lend a veneer of respectability to their unconvincing counterarguments.

Once the cover-up and misdirection were laid bare, a legal switch was flipped. No longer were smokers seen as putting themselves in harm’s way. Rather, they were dupes of the industry’s long suppression of evidence. When their fraud—including a series of executives claiming before a congressional committee in 1994 that nicotine is not addictive—was revealed, plaintiffs went from losers to winners, virtually overnight.

Girardi is mounting a similar strategy, accusing the NFL’s oxymoronically named Committee on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury of warping and misrepresenting the best science in an effort to obscure the connection between concussions and long-term brain injuries. Indeed, the complaint makes the football-tobacco link explicit. The players cite a comment by California Rep. Linda Sanchez during an October 2009 hearing of the House judiciary committee that likened the NFL’s denial of a link “between concussion and cognitive decline to the tobacco industry’s denial of the link between cigarette consumption and ill health effects.”

This is smart pleading, made even more compelling by the complaint’s citation of one of the most astonishing statements, surely, that’s ever been made by anyone associated with a professional sport. In a 2006 article published in the journal Neurosurgical Focus, David Viano and Elliot Pellman—two members of the league’s concussion committee—summarized their “research” to date.

The fact that most players returned to the game within a week after suffering a concussion, they explained, was proof that “mild [traumatic brain injuries] in professional football are not serious injuries.” It hardly need to be said that teams—and their employees, including doctors—faced strong incentives to encourage players to go back on the field, fully recovered or not.

By alleging a pervasive, fraudulent cover-up, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have made the case a candidate for punitive damages, which are available only when the defendant’s actions are worse than “merely” negligent. And the suit alleges that the NFL has gotten away with suppressing evidence by virtue of its “monopoly power over American football.”

This isn’t an antitrust suit, however, and the term “monopoly power” isn’t being used in a standard way.
First, the plaintiffs are claiming the NFL is an “industry icon” that all lower football leagues model themselves after. Even if this statement doesn’t directly benefit the plaintiffs in this suit, it might serve as a template for a wave of suits brought by players at the college, high school, and even youth football levels. The NFL might soon be facing a cluster headache.

The second part of the monopolist theory anticipates the argument that the union should have, or could have, known what the NFL is alleged to have known. Because it controls the research and education of football players, as well as their safety, the suit argues that the NFL has a responsibility to protect them by establishing a responsible concussion policy. Making explicit the point that the NFL had information that the players didn’t, the complaint says that the “[p]laintiffs did not know of the long-term effects of concussions and relied on the NFL and the helmet manufacturers to protect them.”

There’s something to this. As Girardi put it to me, a football player would be ridiculed if he walked into the locker room and said, “Hey, I’ve got this new helmet that’s safer. Can I wear it today?” It’s usually the employer, not the employees, who are responsible for safety in the workplace—not just in the NFL, but as a basic principle of tort law. If the boss doesn’t provide the equipment needed to keep workers from getting injured on the job, he can’t later argue that they have only themselves to blame for not providing that equipment.

Yet even if the NFL was determined to cover up the increasingly troubling facts about the long-term effects of head injuries, the case remains tricky. Was the union reasonable in relying exclusively on the NFL, given the many other sources of information? To succeed on a fraud claim, one typically must prove that it was reasonable to rely on misrepresented facts. It’s notable in this regard that a bunch of these sobering sources are detailed in the complaint itself.

Other obstacles to success loom, most of which I detailed back in February. The suit might be deemed barred by the workers’ compensation law, which typically provides the exclusive remedy.

The claim might also be deemed covered by the league’s collective bargaining agreement, in which case an entirely different lawsuit would have to proceed in federal court.

Even if these jurisdictional and general liability issues are ultimately resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, there will then be 75 separate suits to win. As Girardi acknowledges, this isn’t a proper suit for a class action because the damages suffered vary so widely in their nature and extent. They’ve been brought as one complaint because the allegations against the defendants are the same for all, yet it’s more accurate to think of them as individual suits containing many of the same facts.

Girardi likens this case to the one against Vioxx, where pre-trial discovery revealed varying levels of injury, ranging from mild strokes to severe heart attacks. Here, he says, the damages start subtly—with mild memory loss, for example—and often progress to the more severe symptoms that ground many of these claims.

That’s his story. The NFL, even if forced to get to the merits, will try to tell a different one: about former players whose impairments are questionable and have unclear origins.

It’s hard to guess how much of a hit the NFL could take if these lawsuits succeed. It depends on the extent of damages proved, and whether punitive damages are awarded. Still, it’s easy to imagine liability in the range of the $333 million settlement against Pacific Gas and Electric in the Erin Brockovich case. It would take a lot more than that—perhaps a separate set of wrongful death suits—to dent the NFL’s financial armor.

What’s the next step? The defendants will likely move to dismiss the complaint, but if it survives that motion we’ll likely be in for a long slog. The NFL’s new collective bargaining agreement means the league will have labor peace until 2021. But if these claims have any traction, the NFL’s legal battles will simply be fought in a different arena.

Cigarette Consumption Down in Turkey

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

cheap winston cigarettes onlineAccording to figures by the TAPDK, the amount consumed in 2010 decreased to 93.5 billion Winston cigarettes and the figure was 107.5 billion in 2009.

Consumption of cigarettes decreased by 15 percent in 2010 compared to 2009 in Turkey. According to figures by the Tobacco and Alcohol Market Regulatory Authority (TAPDK), the amount consumed in 2010 decreased to 93.5 billion cigarettes and the figure was 107.5 billion in 2009.

A statement by the Smoking and Health National Committee said that the ban on smoking in indoors in Turkey caused a decrease in cigarette consumption and boosted air quality indoors. In the last five years, Turkish smokers consumed 524 billion cigarettes.

Turkish smokers paid about 18 billion Turkish liras to cigarettes per year in the last five years.