Beginning January 1st, an additional $1 dollar cigarette tax will be added to each pack of cigarettes purchased in Texas. CBS 11 News is reporting that this will raise the price of a pack of cigarettes to $4 dollars, or ten more dollars a carton, and smokers are stocking up on cartons of cigarettes before the tax hike goes into effect.

In the past, states that have increased taxing of cigarettes have seen a positive effect on the number of people who quit smoking, for no other reason than purchasing cigarettes becomes too cost prohibitive. The American Cancer Society (ACS) is looking forward to this happening, as they predict it will keep 300,000 people from starting up and cause 100,000 current smokers in Texas to quit.

Smoking has indeed become an expensive habit since the days when the government gave away cartons of cigarettes to World War II soldiers in the belief it calmed their nerves.

Meanwhile, back in Texas, CBS 11 News quoted Discount Cigarettes manager Patrick Ingram as saying, "Every state has their own tax, so you're not supposed to take large quantities across the border. So, people will go buy truck loads and bring across the border, or just steal."

That's probably true, to a lesser extent, but the ACS is right, the increased overall price for a pack of cigarettes when the new tax is implemented will prompt more people to quit smoking and deter even more from starting a habit that is not only increasingly expensive but just plain bad for your health.

Just before my treatment for breast cancer began and during a consultation about what chemotherapy drugs I was about to receive, my oncologist stepped away from my exam room to check on something. When she returned to the room, she told me that she was determining whether or not I qualified for a clinical trial. I had no idea what this meant at the time. All I knew was what she told me -- that my prognosis was too good at that moment to qualify for anything currently under study. I did not fit a profile for anything. I was not a candidate for a clinical trial.

I now know that clinical trials are a critical component of research -- they validate a drug's success or weakness and they provide hope for many who may be at the end of their treatment rope and need something new to consider. A clinical trial is a comparison of standard treatments to newer treatments in an effort to discover better methods for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Doctors, scientists, and other health professionals conduct these tests according to strict guidelines set by the Food and Drug Administration -- which establishes mandatory guidelines to ensure the maximum safety of the patient.

Clinical trials rely on volunteers -- and sadly, there is a current shortage of patients willing to participate in trials. Experts say that, for the past few decades, just five to 10 percent of all cancer patients in the United States have joined a clinical trial. There is an urgent need -- because the demand for willing, eligible participants far exceeds the supply. Some experts are even recommending that the small pool of candidates that does exist be rationed to only the most important cancer studies -- leaving other studies with no hope for completion. There is no good solution in sight. But the reasons for the shortage are becoming apparent. It's not that patients are unwilling to join. It's that they are unaware, uninformed, not even sure this opportunity is possible -- because doctors are not suggesting trials to their patients. Treatment on a protocol is more demanding for doctors than routine medical care. And it costs doctors to submit to a trial. And trials burden doctors with regulations and paperwork. And some doctors worry about litigation if something experimental goes wrong. So they often don't approach the topic -- and the result is that a wonder drug may sit in a dark freezer because there are not enough people to test it. This potential wonder drug may never show promise, may never save a life, may never see the light of day.

So I guess my oncologist was ahead of the game in this matter -- she compared my diagnosis and prognosis with the needs of all available clinical trials and found that there was not match. Had she not done this, I would have never thought to ask about the possibility -- which is exactly what patients should do instead of waiting for a doctor to make the suggestion. Because it may never happen.

For more information on clinical trials, please visit the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups.

Hopefully this doesn't happen too often, but one hour after Observer sports writer Bill Elliott was diagnosed with prostate cancer, his wife Val was diagnosed with breast cancer. That a couple would both be diagnosed with cancer within an hour of each other is stunning, but equally stunning is the lack of sameness when it comes to cancer treatments in National Health Service priority funding and the tally in quality of life and human costs. Unfortunately, the difference in treatments appears to be common.

Colleague Health Editor Jo Revill, in Both have cancer. But why can't one get the best care? takes a look at the difference between the treatment Elliot will receive for his prostate cancer compared to the treatment Val will receive for her breast cancer.

According to Revill, breast cancer currently enjoys ten times more funding than prostate cancer. From very glamorous campaigns, such as Ralph Lauren's Fashion Targets Breast Cancer, supported by models such as Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Helena Christensen and Giselle Bundchen. She muses that pictures of men in underpants highlighting prostate cancer do not have quite the same appeal as sexy women in white T-shirts.

After a lumpectomy, Val was put on an expensive and successful chemoprevention drug to prevent breast cancer recurrence. 

However, for Bill, the options offered are limited. The treatment that his physician recommended that gives him the best odds of survival -- a brachytherapy -- was denied because of costs. Brachytherapy is a proven therapy where 100 radioactive seeds are implanted within the prostate gland in order to kill cancer cells through radiation. The alternative? Radical prostatectomy -- the surgical removal of the prostate with two major side effects -- impotence and incontinence.

Bill could pay privately for brachytherapy, but he wonders what happens for men who cannot afford the better treatment. You can read about Bill and Val's story in depth here. You can listen to Bill and Val talk about the outrage they feel over the inequities in cancer treatment as they speak with Jo Revill in an audio interview here.