The Health Risks Of Smoking & What The U.K Government’s Planned Tobacco & Vapes Bill(HL Bill 89) Means For The U.K Premium & Luxury Cigar Industry

Introduction:

I apologise that this is a lengthy blog post. But the information within is absolutely necessary. First off, I’ll talk about the health risks involved in the consumption of different types of tobacco products. Then I’ll go into the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Disclaimer:

Let me begin by stating that consumption, chewing or snuffing tobacco products or imbibing any product whatsoever, is NOT good for you! While we are a tobacconist and would love for you to buy our products when they become available for retail, we also have a responsibility to ensure that you do so from an informed position. We are NOT advocating that tobacco or vape products are healthy, even premium or luxury cigars.

For transparency, I have detailed my information sources, the relevant authors and links to each article used.

The opinions stated in this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not sponsored by or a reflection of the collective opinion of the premium and luxury cigar industry.

Cigarettes

Cardiovascular Disease:

Cardiovascular diseases, and atherosclerosis in particular, are the leading causes of death in industrial societies. The predominant underlying cause of coronary artery disease (CAD) is atherogenesis, which also causes atherosclerotic aortic and peripheral vascular diseases. Cigarette smoking, independently and synergistically with other risk factors such as hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, contributes to the development and promotion of the atherosclerotic process. Various studies have shown that the risk of developing CAD increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day, total number of smoking years and the age of initiation, thus indicating a dose-related response. In contrast, cessation of smoking is reported to reduce mortality and morbidity from atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Cancers:

Tobacco carcinogenesis has remained a focus of research during the past 10 years, and various epidemiological and experimental studies have not only confirmed the major role of tobacco smoke exposure in lung and bladder cancers, but have also reported on its association with cancers of various other sites, such as the oral cavity, esophagus, colon, pancreas, breast, larynx and kidney. It is also associated with leukemia, especially acute myeloid leukemia.

Secondhand Smoke:

The adverse effects of cigarette smoke on human health are widely recognized. It is the main etiological agent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, and is a known human carcinogen. While the risks to human health from active smoking are accepted, evidence supporting the risk of involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has accumulated in recent years. It is the main source of toxicant exposure by inhalation in nonsmokers. Despite recent regulations, smoking in public enterprises is not uncommon.

However, despite an occasional report on the effect of secondhand smoke in nonsmokers, little attention was given to this aspect of smoking until about 1970. ETS is now regarded as a risk factor for development of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and altered lung functions in passive smokers. In general, children exposed to ETS show deterioration of lung function, more days of restricted activity, more pulmonary infections, more days in bed, more absences from school and more hospitalization than children living in nonsmoking homes.

The information in this section was taken from “Cigarette smoke and adverse health effects: An overview of research trends and future needs” by Sibu P Saha, Deepak K Bhalla, Thomas F Whayne Jr, and CG Gairola which can be found at the below link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2733016/

E-Cigarettes (Vapes):

What is an e-cigarette?:

Developed in 2003 by a Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik (Han Li), the electronic devices introducing nicotine to the user’s body were, according to the inventor, meant to help quit smoking. Although there is no combustion process involved, these new devices were named as electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes mainly due to the first-generation products resembling a cigarette and the similar way of use. Despite some of the scientific community suggesting using the name Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS), the name e-cigarette has become widely accepted, which stigmatizes the device as another tobacco product. Since smokers are generally aware of the extreme harmfulness of tobacco products, e-cigarettes were also perceived as another potentially dangerous tobacco product. In addition, the limited availability of scientific publications after introduction of these products did not help potential users and health professionals to differentiate potential health risks of vaping compared to smoking. In the intervening years, e-cigarettes have become known in the U.K as vapes.

Toxic Compound Emissions From Vapes and Tobacco Products:

Tobacco smoke contains several thousand compounds, many of which have been shown to be toxic. On the other hand, aerosol generated from e-cigarettes contains a dozen to several dozen compounds. In 2012, the FDA published a list of 93 harmful and potentially harmful compounds (HPHCs) found in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Out of these, only 5 compounds are present in the aerosol generated from the majority of commercially available e-liquids in quantities that may pose a potential health hazard to the user. These include acetaldehyde, acetone, acrolein, formaldehyde, and nicotine. Lower yields of toxic compounds in the e-cigarette aerosol compared to tobacco smoke was also confirmed by a multicenter study, where authors found that the amount of toxic compounds present in the aerosol is 9 to 450 times lower than in tobacco smoke.

Margham et al. compared the exposure to toxic compounds present in the aerosol of an e-cigarette and the standard 3R4F cigarette. This included the toxic compounds listed by the World Health Organization, FDA, and Health Canada. The reduction in the number and yields of toxic chemicals in aerosol compared to tobacco smoke was in the range of 92–99%. Also the US Surgeon General Report entirely devoted to e-cigarettes states that “E-cigarette aerosol is not harmless “water vapor,” although it generally contains fewer toxicants than combustible tobacco products.” At the same time, it adds that “the health effects and potentially harmful doses of heated and aerosolized constituents of e-cigarette liquids, including solvents, flavorings, and toxicants, are not completely understood”.

A significant reduction in toxic compound yields in e-cigarette aerosols compared to tobacco smoke as shown in the laboratory product testing, was confirmed in a population study with 5105 participants, including regular e-cigarette vapers and tobacco cigarette smokers. The urinary concentrations of biomarkers of exposure to toxic components of tobacco smoke, i.e., nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (NNK), metals, volatile organic compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, were shown to be lower than those observed in current exclusive smokers and dual users of both products.

Cardiovascular diseases:

Combustion products induce inflammation which activates platelets and leads to vascular endothelial dysfunction. Many researchers believe that endothelial dysfunction is an essential element to the future development of atherosclerotic damage. Hence it is designated as “The risk of the risk factors”. By quitting tobacco products and switching to e-cigarettes, the smoker greatly reduces the inhalation of compounds resulting from tobacco combustion. Consequently, the negative effect of the aerosol on vascular endothelial dysfunction is expected to be reduced. This has been confirmed by an extensive review by Knura et al. Based on the available data, the authors concluded that e-cigarette aerosol damages the vascular endothelium, but to a lesser extent than tobacco smoke. Using an e-cigarette also causes oxidative stress due to oxidative compounds but comparatively less than a conventional cigarette. Randomized clinical study, perceived as the “gold standard” for analysis of treatment results by many, showed that flow-induced vasodilatation in the brachial artery significantly increases one month after switching to e-cigarettes.

Based on the previous clinical studies, Benowitz et al. concluded that the overall acute circulatory failure associated with e-cigarettes is consistent with the nicotine effect. Additionally, the authors believe that the cardiovascular risk caused by nicotine inhaled from e-cigarettes is quite low in people without preexisting cardiovascular disease. However, people with diagnosed cardiovascular disease are still prone to the risk but comparatively lower than the traditional smokers. If conventional cigarettes are completely replaced by e-cigarettes, the harmfulness of smoking can be significantly reduced and smokers who completely switch to e-cigarettes would experience reduction in cardiovascular risk.

According to the NASEM report, there is no evidence available to confirm whether the use of e-cigarettes is associated with ischemic heart disease, stroke and peripheral artery disease, and subclinical arteriosclerosis. There is also insufficient evidence that the use of e-cigarettes is associated with long-term changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and heart geometry and function. However, there is convincing evidence that heart rate increases shortly after nicotine inhalation from e-cigarettes. There is also moderate evidence that diastolic blood pressure increases shortly after inhaling nicotine from e-cigarettes.

Although current, but still limited, literature suggests that the use of e-cigarettes may lead to less negative cardiovascular effects than traditional cigarettes, some researchers see a need for additional, high quality randomized controlled trials to clearly establish the cardiovascular safety of e-cigarettes. Future studies should continue to focus on the study of both long- and short-term effects of exposure to e-cigarettes and their potential role in the development of cardiovascular disease.

Cancers:

Smoking is the main cause of initiation of cancer processes in the body resulting from several dozen carcinogenic compounds present in tobacco smoke, especially including 9 compounds classified by the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) as group 1 carcinogens with proven carcinogenic effects on humans. Apart from traces of NNK found in e-cigarette liquids, there is one compound from this group, i.e., formaldehyde that has been reported in e-cigarette aerosols.

The carcinogenicity of various complex mixtures, including tobacco smoke and aerosol emitted from e-cigarettes, can only be established on the basis of a documented relationship between the exposure to the factor and increase in the incidence of cancer in exposed humans or animals (epidemiological studies). Such a relationship was documented for smokers but not for e-cigarette users, as these products are introduced recently on the consumer market. The reason behind this is the long cancer latency periods ranging from several to several dozen years. Although no epidemiological studies are available at the moment, we can roughly assess the relative cancer risk of e-cigarette by measuring biomarkers of exposure to carcinogens and comparing the measured values to exposure levels observed in smokers and non-smokers.

In one of the first exposure assessment studies, traditional smokers completely substituted their tobacco cigarettes form e-cigarettes for two weeks. That study showed a drastic reduction in exposure to carcinogens, including 1,3-butadiene, benzene, acrylonitrile, and NNK. Concentrations of the corresponding biomarkers decreased on average by 57% after the first week and 67% after the second week. A cross-sectional study of a group of 181 volunteers showed that former cigarette smokers who gave up smoking in favor of e-cigarettes for at least six months had significantly reduced exposure to carcinogenic and toxic compounds compared to those who continued smoking. Levels of biomarkers of exposure measured in e-cigarette users were similar to those subjects who used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Importantly, no reduction in exposure was observed in persons who concurrently smoked cigarettes and vaped e-cigarettes.

Respiratory Diseases:

As e-cigarettes are products purported for inhalation use, one may expect that any potential risk of these products would be reflected particularly in respiratory dysfunction. The e-cigarette users inhale relatively large amounts of two substances that are only present in small quantities in tobacco smoke. These substances are glycerin and propylene glycol that serve as nicotine solvents and carriers in e-cigarettes and as humectants in tobacco cigarettes. In e-liquids they constitute about 80% of the overall content of e-liquids. Although these compounds are commonly used in cosmetics, pharmaceutical, and food industries, the long-term inhalation risk has not been well studied previously.

The longest study (3.5 years) looked at changes in respiratory symptoms in e-cigarettes users and non-users. Changes in hemodynamic parameters, respiratory functions, and high-resolution computed tomography of lungs were evaluated in 31 volunteers who never smoked cigarettes but started and continued to use e-cigarettes. No significant changes were observed compared to the control group of persons who never smoked.

A two-year study of a group of 209 e-cigarettes users included examination of vital parameters, electrocardiography, lung-function testing, exposure to nicotine and selected compounds, and urges to smoke a cigarette and withdrawal effects. No serious health events were observed. The most common negative health symptoms reported by the volunteers were headache (28.7%), nasopharyngeal inflammation (19.6%), sore throat, and cough (16.9%).

All of the information about e-cigarettes was taken directly from an article by Andrzej Sobczak , Leon Kosmider, Bartosz Koszowski and Maciej L Goniewicz entitled “E-cigarettes and their impact on health: from pharmacology to clinical implications” which was published on 27th August 2021, and can be found on the U.S National Library of Medicine website using the following link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7685201/#S10

Premium Cigars:

The potential adverse health effects of premium cigars need to be viewed in the context of the harms of smoking combusted tobacco broadly. Cigarette smoking is the most common form of combusted tobacco use, and its health effects are well established, including increased overall mortality, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancers, susceptibility to respiratory infection, periodontal disease, and other diseases. The toxicants generated by burning tobacco are generally similar across tobacco types.

The extent of inhalation and frequency and duration of use are major factors in determining whether tobacco smoking will cause disease. Assessing the health effects of premium cigars (including secondhand smoke) included reviewing biological plausibility; reviewing the chemical nature of the tobacco leaf and emissions from premium cigars and how these compare to other combusted tobacco products; reviewing the evidence for extent of inhalation of premium cigar smoke, including biomarkers of exposure that might establish levels of systemic exposure; and researching the epidemiology of particular diseases in relation to cigar use.

Because the epidemiology on premium cigar use is quite limited, the committee examined cigar use in general, with a particular focus on inhalation, frequency, and duration. These data were considered as a whole to assess specific disease risks from premium cigar use. The committee was unable to compare risks among various cigar types.

Conclusions 5-1 and 5-2 are based on the known chemical characteristics of combustible tobacco products, including cigars, and biological mechanisms by which constituents of combustible tobacco products are processed (in animals and humans). While studies on cigars may include premium cigars, they do not distinguish premium from other cigar types. However, given the conclusive data on tobacco products, including cigars in general, and the absence of any important threats to validity, the committee extrapolated these findings to premium cigars.

Conclusion 5-1: There is conclusive evidence that smoke from cigars in general, including premium cigar smoke, contains many hazardous and potentially hazardous constituents, capable of causing cardiovascular disease, lung disease, cancer, and multiple other negative health ef ects.

Conclusion 5-2: There is conclusive evidence that the chemical nature of emissions from cigars in general, including premium cigars, are similar to those of cigarette smoke. There is strong biological plausibility that exposure to these chemicals will cause disease. Thus, if cigar smoke is inhaled and cigars are smoked regularly, the risks are likely to be qualitatively similar to those of cigarette smoking.

Tobacco smoking is associated with increased risk of mortality, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancer, and other adverse health outcomes. Health risk associated with tobacco use, including use of premium cigars, may be determined by smoking behaviors, including frequency, intensity, duration, and depth of inhalation. No epidemiologic studies have examined the association of premium cigars with health outcomes; however, several have examined the health effects of cigar use in general, which may include premium cigars. Based on the findings from epidemiologic studies evaluating the health effects of cigar use in general, biological plausibility, the absence of any important threats to validity, generalizability of study inferences, and the smoking behaviors of premium cigar users, the committee concludes:

Conclusion 5-3: There is strongly suggestive evidence that the health risks of premium cigar use (overall mortality; cardiovascular disease; lung, bladder, and head/neck cancer; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and periodontal disease) depend on frequency, intensity, duration of use, and depth of inhalation.

Conclusion 5-4: There is insufficient evidence to determine if occasional or nondaily exclusive cigar use in general is associated with increased health risks.

Conclusion 5-5: There is strongly suggestive evidence that health consequences of premium cigar smoking overall are likely to be less than those smoking other types of cigars because the majority of premium cigar smokers are nondaily or occasional users and because they are less likely to inhale the smoke.

Conclusion 5-6: There is strongly suggestive evidence that many of the health risks of daily exclusive cigar use in general (overall mortality; car diovascular disease; lung, bladder, and head/neck cancer; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and periodontal disease) are significantly higher than those of never-smokers and lower than those of daily cigarette smokers.

Conclusion 5-7: There is moderately suggestive evidence that the health risks among primary cigar users in general (those who were never established cigarette users) are generally lower than among secondary cigar users (those who were former users of cigarettes) because secondary cigar users may be more likely to inhale the smoke. Likewise, concurrent users of premium cigars and other combustible tobacco products would experience greater health risks than those smoking only premium cigars.

Conclusion 5-8: There is insuf icient evidence to draw conclusions on the health ef ects of premium cigars on

● Youth or young adults,

● Racialized and ethnic populations,

● Pregnancy,

● Those with underlying medical conditions,

● People with occupational exposures to premium cigars (e.g., cigar lounges, manufacturing), and

● Health effects compared to other cigar types.

Despite a lack of direct evidence on the potential health effects of flavored premium cigars (as added flavors are excluded in most definitions of premium cigars), based on the extensive literature on the effects of flavors on other types of cigars and other tobacco products, evidence suggests that adding characterizing flavors (not inherent to the tobacco itself) would have important implications for premium cigars' impact on public health. Based on the findings from flavored cigars in general and other flavored tobacco products, and biological plausibility, no important threats to validity, and generalizability of study inferences, the committee concludes:

Conclusion 5-9: Based on the extensive literature on the ef ects of flavors on cigars and other tobacco products, there is moderately suggestive evidence that adding characterizing flavors (that is, flavors added to the product that are not inherent to the tobacco itself) to premium cigars could result in a greater appeal to nonusers and lead to more frequent use with potentially increased nicotine intake, increased addiction potential, and increased exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents present in premium cigar smoke.

Studies are limited on premium cigar secondhand smoke; nonetheless, it seems clear that concentrations of secondhand cigar smoke in general can be similar to or greater than that from cigarettes. The emission rates appear to be lower for cigars, but cigars are smoked for much longer periods. It is likely that the health effects of indoor premium cigar and cigarette smoking would be similar for a similar duration and intensity of exposure. Evidence is lacking about the extent of secondhand exposure to premium cigar smoke.

Conclusion 5-10: There is sufficient evidence that premium cigars generate considerable levels of secondhand smoke; however, there are insufficient data on the health risks associated specifically with exposure to premium cigar secondhand smoke. It is plausible that since the constituents emitted from premium cigars are similar to constituents from other tobacco products, the health risk might be the same, but the extent of secondhand premium cigar exposure is unknown.

Premium cigars, like other cigar products, provide the sensations and stimuli shown to be important to the dependence potential of tobacco products (e.g., hand-to-mouth movements, taste, smells, airway sensations). Per this report's definition, they lack characterizing flavors, which are known to increase the addictiveness of other tobacco products. Some research indicates that nonpremium cigars, particularly large cigars that are similar in size and other characteristics (no filter), might have nicotine levels similar to other cigar products and potentially conventional cigarettes. A strong biological plausibility exists that premium cigars possess the features (i.e., rate/amount of nicotine delivery, pleasant stimuli) liable to make them as addictive as other tobacco products with known addiction potential (e.g., smokeless tobacco).

Conclusion 5-11: There is moderately suggestive evidence to support the biological plausibility that regular cigar smoking in general can be addictive. It is likely that this is also true for premium cigar smoking, based on nicotine delivery characteristics, abuse liability studies, and epidemiological data. The magnitude of premium cigar dependence appears to be less than that of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use dependence. The extent of addiction is likely to depend on the patterns of use.

The information in this section was taken directly from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Patterns of Use and Health Effects of "Premium Cigars" and Priority Research which was published on 10th March 2022; Editors: Aimee M. Mead, Amy B. Geller, and Steven M. Teutsch. The document can be found at the link below. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578624/

Smokeless Tobacco Products:

The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has been asked to evaluate the health effects of smokeless tobacco products (STP) with particular attention to tobacco for oral use, moist snuff, which is called “snus” in Sweden. In addition to tobacco for oral use, STP include chewing tobacco, dry snuff and nasal snuff.

The EC Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC) defines tobacco for oral use as “…all products for oral use, except those intended to be smoked or chewed, made wholly or partly of tobacco, in powder or in particulate form or in any combination of those forms”.

Synonyms for “tobacco for oral use” are moist snuff (snus) and oral tobacco. Marketing of oral tobacco is banned in all EU-countries except Sweden while other STP are allowed in EU. Adverse health effects of smokeless tobacco products All STP contain nicotine, a potent addictive substance. They also contain carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines, albeit at differing levels. STP are carcinogenic to humans and the pancreas has been identified as a main target organ. All STP cause localised oral lesions and a high risk for development of oral cancer has been shown for various STP but has not been proven for Swedish moist snuff (snus). There is some evidence for an increased risk of fatal myocardial infarction among STP users.

Some data indicate reproductive effects of smokeless tobacco use during pregnancy but firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Addiction potential of smokeless tobacco products Smokeless tobacco is addictive and withdrawal symptoms are similar to those seen in smokers.

Use of STP as smoking cessation aid compared to pharmaceutical nicotine replacement products Due to insufficient evidence it is not possible to draw conclusions as to the relative effectiveness of smokeless tobacco as an aid to smoking cessation in comparison with established therapies. Impact of smokeless tobacco use on subsequent initiation of smoking.

There is some evidence from the USA that smokeless tobacco use may lead to subsequent cigarette smoking. The Swedish data, with its prospective and long-term follow-up do not support the hypothesis that smokeless tobacco (i.e. Swedish snus) is a gateway to future smoking. Social, cultural and product differences between North America and Europe and within Europe suggest caution in translating findings across countries. Extrapolation of the information on the patterns of smokeless tobacco use, smoking cessation and initiation from countries where oral tobacco is available to EU-countries where oral tobacco is not available. It is not possible to extrapolate future patterns of tobacco use across countries.

In particular, it is not possible to extrapolate the trends in prevalence of smoking and oral tobacco use if it were made available in an EU-country where it is now unavailable due to societal and cultural differences. General conclusion STP are addictive and their use is hazardous to health. STP contains various levels of toxic substances. Evidence for the role of STP as a smoking cessation aid is insufficient, while data on progression from STP into smoking are inconsistent. It is not possible to extrapolate the patterns of tobacco use from one country where oral tobacco is available to other countries due to societal and cultural differences.

This section was taken directly from “Health Effects of Smokeless Tobacco Products Preliminary Report” by the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks on 21st June 2007 by SCENIHR members: Dr. Mogens Thomsen, Prof. Anders Ahlbom, Prof. James Bridges, Prof. Konrad Rydzynski. The document can be found at this link: https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_009.pdf

If you’re still here, thank you for sticking with me on this.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (HL Bill 89)

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, is currently going through the House of Lords, at the time of writing.

The bill, if passed, will ban the future sale of all tobacco and vape products to anyone born on or after 1st January 2009.

While these people are only aged fourteen and fifteen now, and legally unable to legally purchase any such products, it also takes away the right of those individuals to make informed decisions about their habits or hobbies once they reach adulthood and would otherwise be legally able to do so.

If passed, the bill will become enshrined into law. As stated in part 1, section 1 of the bill: “It is an

offence to sell any of the following to a person born on or after 1 January 2009— (a) a tobacco product; (b) a herbal smoking product; (c) cigarette papers.”

This would give the combined tobacco and vape industries a rough lifespan of another sixty five years. In fairness, this is an amendment to existing law regarding the sale of tobacco products to minors. Here, in the U.K that age is eighteen.

One of my concerns is that premium and luxury cigars feel like they’re being treated the same as cigarettes.

Another concern is that illegalising of these tobacco products may well send these industries underground and onto the black market, which is damaging economically to both the U.K and the origin countries of the tobaccos involved.

One of the biggest differences between the two, is the pesticides used in the growing of cigarette tobacco. The quality of the tobacco is important here. Premium and luxury cigars have no pesticides used, as the chemicals adversely affect the flavour of the tobaccos and adds increased risks to the user. Also, cigarettes have filters, which are made from cellulose acetate, a type of plastic, along with paper and plasticizers, flame retardants and delustrants.

While I applaud the U.K Government’s efforts to curb underage smoking, I do not believe that removing the freedom of choice for consenting adults who may well come from an informed position to be a good thing.

Although nicotine is highly addictive, it is not as addictive as sugar, which also increases the risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, obesity, dental problems, different cancers, dermatological problems, mental health problems and more.

This is also well documented and you can find an example of some of this research here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316624010344

I wonder if there will be a similar bill presented to parliament to outlaw sugar, or is that too good of a substance to take out of our diets?

Maybe there will be other restrictions to the freedom of choice that is such a sacred part of life in the free world and something that we often take for granted. In any case, it feels like it is under threat.

As consenting adults, we acknowledge and accept the health risks that come from cigar smoking and cigar culture.

Thanks for getting through this slog of a blog post. I'm very much interested in hearing your opinions about the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and your own take on the risks of using tobacco products.

I very much hope that you find this blog post informative.

Stay smokey everyone!

Gareth.