Tobacco.org

EDITORIAL: State adjusting to smoking ban, but it still needs to be tweaked  

Six months into a statewide ban on smoking in public places, business owners and smokers seem to have made adjustments.

We have not witnessed a wave of bars and restaurants closing because smokers choose not to go out.

In a Thursday Courier story, Business Editor Jim Offner talked to a number of bar and restaurant owners. Most said the Smoke-free Air Act hasn't made a significant impact on their businesses. . . .

Most lawmakers in the state agreed the smoking ban passed last year was not a good bill. We agree.

The casino exemption was one of those lawmaking head scratchers. What message does it send? Is the second-hand smoke at a casino somehow healthier than at the bowling alley? Is the casino business more important in this state than the neighborhood pub? Do casino employees have lesser rights to clean air than those in other businesses?

We expect lawmakers will revisit the smoking ban this coming session.

We would prefer the casinos go smoke-free as well, but if the Legislature can't agree on that, then let all adult establishments go back to choosing whether to allow smoking.

The state seems to have adjusted well to the smoking ban. Now let's make it work better.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Give FDA tobacco role 

If you're selling a product known to kill people, you face a knotty marketing problem: You must somehow persuade your customers to keep paying for it, and often pay more, but never exactly admit just how deadly it is. If you're the tobacco companies, the solution is simple: You lie.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a sharp legal blow to the nicotine fibmasters, clearing the way for a bunch of potentially costly lawsuits, the next logical step is up to Congress: It must finally pass a bill that lets the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco products and the marketing practices that sell them.

This month the Supreme Court held that smokers can use state consumer protection laws to sue over deceptive marketing. . . .

But wouldn't it be better if we had a more effective cop on the tobacco beat, preventing companies from issuing lethal lies in the first place? That's the purpose of the FDA bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly on July 30 and has a large number of sponsors in the Senate. (Before he resigned his seat, President-elect Barack Obama, who admits that quitting smoking has been tough, was among them.)

Jump to full article »

EDITOTRIAL: Another indictment of secondhand smoke  

Washington's indoor smoke ban - a law pioneered in Pierce County - is looking even smarter than anyone first thought.

When the ban was enacted by initiative in 2005, the case for it largely rested on the health of people who work in smoky places - bartenders, waiters and the like. They were at risk, the argument went, because they were forced to breathe the exhaust of smokers eight or more hours a day.

And so they were. But an accumulating body of evidence suggests that other nonsmokers are also placed at grave and immediate risk by shorter exposures to tobacco smoke. . . .

Some defenders of tobacco have countered that the researchers didn't distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers who'd suffered heart attacks. They suggest that the numbers might have been driven down by people quitting smoking after the ban.

The fact that people experience dramatically fewer heart attacks shortly after quitting smoking is not much of an argument against smoke bans - which help smokers quit. In this case, though, the Centers for Disease control cited an earlier study that did distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers. It found that nonsmokers got two-thirds of the risk reduction from a smoke ban, which translates into a large risk increase from secondhand exposure.

People who don't like smoke bans typically argue that adults ought to be able to make their own decisions about health and smoking. That's true. It's precisely why smokers should never be able to force their bad decisions on others through secondhand smoke.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Smoke-free benefits proved 

There is now tangible evidence to back up claims that secondhand smoke adversely affects nonsmokers, particularly the secondhand smoke that is increasingly being outlawed in public places in communities across the country. . . .

In addition to long-term health effects, smoking increases the danger of fire. Most states, including Maryland, now require that all cigarettes sold in-state be "fire-safe." . . .

Delaware's newly enacted law took effect Jan. 1., which is good for Maryland because residents who travel across the state line to avoid sales tax on their cigarettes will now be buying the same safer product that's sold in-state. . . .

The combination of making cigarettes less likely to ignite an accidental fire and less acceptable -- even banned --in more public venues should reduce the number of untimely deaths attributed to the smoking habit. More importantly, it should greatly reduce the number of smoking-related deaths among nonsmokers.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Our View: Secondhand smoke-health link inescapable  

A new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention draws the strongest link ever between smoking bans and overall public health.

The study focused on the city of Pueblo, Colo., and heart attack rates in that city over three years following the 2002 adoption of a workplace smoking prohibition. . . .

The growing body of evidence that tobacco bans save lives simply cannot be ignored.

That was part of what drove Weston to adopt its ban last month. And it should be the argument that drives other central Wisconsin municipalities and the state to pass bans.

This isn't about property rights. It isn't about eating your fish fry without someone exhaling a cloud of smoke in your face.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Smoking ban fails, but still a priority 

Issue

A statewide smoking ban fails in the Legislature's final days for this year.

Our Say

Lawmakers have a mandate to approve this ban, for the good of public health and the economy. Our elected officials should continue to press for this just as soon as they can next year.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: No smoking: Teen smoking rates drop. Time for legislation to help more quit.  

According to researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the number of high school students who smoke fell from 20.3 percent to 19 percent in 2007.

That’s a significant drop. But not nearly good enough.

Imagine if one out of every five high school students in the state was diagnosed with cancer. Parents and legislators alike would be vigilant to find a cure as quickly as possible. . . .

Yet when it comes to smoking, we won’t even enact laws to protect the innocent from the deadly consequences of second-hand smoke. . . .

Government has, in a way, become a co-conspirator with the tobacco companies. Since 1998, when a settlement was reached, the states have received $203.5 billion in tobacco-generated revenues — $79.2 billion from the settlement and an additional $124.3 billion in taxes from tobacco sales. The more cigarettes that companies like Philip Morris sell, the more money the states take in.

A substantial portion of that money was intended to be used to curb smoking and to care for those already ailing from smoking-related diseases. But so far only a measly $6.5 billion, or 3.2 percent, of the funds have been used to prevent smoking. There is a fear, in some levels of government, that if smokers stop altogether, it might mean the loss of a steady source of state revenue. We’ve agreed to turn a blind eye to smokers, for a nominal fee.

Thankfully, teenagers still have that knack for spotting hypocrisy in adults. They’re on to us.

They get that nicotine is an addiction that they can live better and longer without.

Now if only our legislators would act as wisely.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Health sign for teens 

A decline in teenage smoking is a positive sign for North Carolina and the health of young people who are forgoing tobacco use now and, more than likely, will continue to do so in the future.

The gains cited recently by researchers at UNC Chapel Hill's medical school showed up among two critical age groups — middle school and high school students. . . .

The group and others like it around the state are funded through the state Health and Wellness Trust Fund, which gets payments from the 1998 national settlement with tobacco companies. The decline in teen smoking shows that the trust fund money directed toward these efforts ($17.1 million this year) is well spent, especially as it helps spread the anti-smoking message among more young people. Most tobacco users pick up the habit in their youth. A decline in teen tobacco use now should translate into a healthier population in the future — and medical savings for society as whole.

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: Up in Smoke 

Gov. Tim Kaine proposes raising Virginia's cigarette tax to help balance the state budget without making further cuts in important services such as Medicaid. There are sound reasons to support such a hike. Cigarettes hardly qualify as essential; people certainly don't need them the way they need, say, medical care. Virginia has a fairly low tobacco tax. And Kaine is not trying to balance the budget on the backs of the Old Dominion's tobacco industry. The tax hike is just one part of a series of measures, including budget cuts and layoffs in the state workforce. . . .

If Virginia had used the settlement money for its intended purposes, then the governor probably would not find it necessary to shore up Medicaid funding now. So the strongest argument against raising the cigarette tax might be this question: If state leaders could not be trusted to use money from the tobacco settlement agreement as they should have then, why should voters trust them with more money from higher tobacco taxes now?

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: Up in Smoke 

Gov. Tim Kaine proposes raising Virginia's cigarette tax to help balance the state budget without making further cuts in important services such as Medicaid. There are sound reasons to support such a hike. Cigarettes hardly qualify as essential; people certainly don't need them the way they need, say, medical care. Virginia has a fairly low tobacco tax. And Kaine is not trying to balance the budget on the backs of the Old Dominion's tobacco industry. The tax hike is just one part of a series of measures, including budget cuts and layoffs in the state workforce. . . .

If Virginia had used the settlement money for its intended purposes, then the governor probably would not find it necessary to shore up Medicaid funding now. So the strongest argument against raising the cigarette tax might be this question: If state leaders could not be trusted to use money from the tobacco settlement agreement as they should have then, why should voters trust them with more money from higher tobacco taxes now?

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Our View: Smoking ban, one year later 

It’s been just more than a year since Illinois enacted a smoking ban in bars and restaurants.

The measure remains controversial. . . .

Eating an unhealthy diet won’t give the person sitting next to you heart disease. Smoking a cigarette next to someone on a daily basis can.

We don’t doubt that the statewide smoking ban has adversely affected some businesses along the state line.

However, it would be wrong to make generalizations about the impact of the ban on businesses throughout the state, especially given the recession. Lastly, without a statewide ban, individual counties and cities would have enacted their own measures. A statewide ban put all Illinois businesses on equal footing.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Clear Air: Study reinforces the value of public smoking bans 

Whether or not the Pueblo results are borne out in other communities, the fact remains that workplace smoking bans do have a positive health impact -- both for the non-smokers who no longer have to face clouds of second-hand smoke and for the smokers who usually find themselves smoking less.

The best impact might be on the smokers who use the inconvenience of such bans as a springboard to quitting the habit altogether.

Last year, one of the few holdout restaurants that skirted Longview's 5-year-old workplace smoking ban by barring any customers younger than 18, decided to join the mainstream and clear the smokescreen. Manager Fran Triplett told the Longview News-Journal that business at the Waffle Shoppes of Texas (on Marshall Avenue at Spur 63) was booming after it remodeled and went smoke free last summer.

When Longview first debated a proposal to institute its workplace smoking ban, there was some vocal, often rancorous criticism of the city council's decision to make our city one of the pioneers in clearing the public air. Since then, however, much of the nation has followed suit and the majority of Americans are breathing healthier, less odorous air because of it.

We're sure that the East Texans who carry out their resolutions to quit smoking this year will be glad to join that crowd.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Congress should make the fire-safe cigarettes mandatory in all states 

Few people realize just how long the effort to put fire-safe cigarettes on the market has been going on. Federal legislation was first proposed in 1974 and has been fought tooth and nail ever since by the tobacco industry. During that time, thousands died from fires started by dropped or misplaced cigarettes.

When supporters of fire-safe cigarettes realized the heavy lobbying effort was thwarting federal legislation, they started going to the states for relief. New York enacted the first state law in 2004, 30 years after the first attempt in Congress.

Delaware's new law went into effect Jan. 1, although Phillip Morris USA started shipping the new cigarettes -- marked on the side as FSC -- last summer. . . .

For those who insist on continuing their smoking habits, at least now their cigarettes are a bit more safe in Delaware, and that's a good thing.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: President-elect Obama should make an effort to quit smoking  

Obama's example could help others kick the habit. He has the bully pulpit and can use it to draw attention to the perils of tobacco use. . . .

''It takes the average smoker eight to 10 times before he is able to quit successfully,'' said Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, director of the Smoking Cessation Leadership Center at the University of California.

Obama should start the new year with a new effort to quit smoking.

And he should take the nation on the journey with him. It would be good for his - and the country's - health.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Butt out, Saskatchewan 

For the third year in a row, this province topped the national smoking table in 2008, with a disturbing 24 per cent of the population still lighting up. The Canadian smoking rate was 19 per cent while in B.C., the province with the best record, it was just over 14 per cent.

The most worrying numbers in Statistics Canada's August data on smoking showed Saskatchewan also had the highest percentage of youth smokers -- aged 15 to 19 -- at 22 per cent, compared with the national average of 15.2 per cent.

It's particularly important to try and get these young smokers off their habit before it becomes a long-term addiction that will be more difficult to shake.

The stubbornly high smoking rates in this province exist despite determined efforts to reduce them, from higher tobacco taxes to ongoing education. . . .

Education remains the best weapon in the war on smoking, particularly the sobering health statistics all smokers should take time to consider . . .

There's never been a better time to quit than right now.

Jump to full article »