Tobacco.org

EDITORIAL: More Adults Ignore Risks of Smoking 

It makes no sense. Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and illness in the United States. It also causes cancer, heart disease and other fatal conditions.

Yet, just when federal officials were hoping for further reductions in the number of adults who smoke, the figures go up slightly. . . .

Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs. They also cost an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity. That includes the days they were not able to work because of illness caused by smoking.

The adult smoking rate has been dropping since the mid-1960s when roughly 2 out of 5 U.S. adults smoked. Now it's 1 in 5. But federal health goals for 2010 had hoped to bring to bring the rate down to close to 1 in 10, cutting it in half again.

The health problems caused by smoking are clear and undeniable. Smokers also inflict many of those same problems on those around them who do not smoke, according to the American Lung Association, among other organizations.

If potentially new smokers would only take a look at the statistics, they would know how harmful -- and how addictive -- smoking is to their health. The most sensible course -- for children and adults -- is to avoid that first cigarette.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Letting smokers smoke 

With a recession and record unemployment in full swing, with furloughs of city employees and the negative effect on their family budgets hanging over the heads; with revenue shortfalls threatening even more cuts; with all these and more, it's no wonder some residents hanker for a good cigar or a toke on a tobacco hookah. . . .

Long Beach was a pioneer in regulating smoking in public and in workplaces, and it appears the city will pioneer restrictions on where smokers can enjoy their habit. Let's hope they don't go that one toke over the line. Without too much more discussion - given the gravity of the economics of city budgeting - it's time to let smokers smoke, without inflicting their nasty habit on the rest of us.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: "Hey buddy, you got a smoke?" 

"Clearly, we've hit a wall in reducing adult smoking," a spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told the Associated Press.

If that's the case, it is not for lack of trying. New laws and taxes -- the state cigarette tax rose again this year in New Jersey -- have made smoking more difficult and more expensive. Obviously, people should stop practicing a habit that is a definite health hazard, but there is only so much the government can do. Hopefully, the recent rise in smoking will prove to be an anomaly.

On Thursday of this week, the American Cancer Society-sponsored "Great American Smokeout" takes place. Sure, this is a gimmick, but if it encourages more people to eschew tobacco use, it is a good thing.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Better health, take charge: Dangers of tobacco use in any form can't be overstated  

Secondhand smoke hurts those we love. Pregnant women who smoke risk miscarriage. Children exposed to smoke have more asthma and other health problems. Older people exposed to smoke have more heart attacks.

Smoking is still a big problem in Tennessee and in the Mid-South. Nearly one-fourth of all white women and nearly one-fifth of all of African-American women in Tennessee still smoke cigarettes. In 2007, about one-fourth of all men in Tennessee were smokers.

The American Lung Association considers Memphis America's sixth-worst city for asthma. Cigarette smoke can be very harmful to people who have asthma or other breathing problems.

A 2007 study showed that two out of five city school teens have smoked cigarettes. Tobacco is often a "gateway drug." Teens who try cigarettes are often tempted to try alcohol, marijuana and other illegal drugs.

Many laws and prevention activities have reduced tobacco use. Taxes on cigarettes have risen sharply in many states, encouraging many smokers to quit.

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: Illegal cigarettes can't be ignored  

It is in society's obvious interest, then, to crack down on the rampant trade in contraband cigarettes. And, in fairness, some efforts have been made. Brennan and Benzie report that a law enforcement trial project, in which U.S. and Canadian officers worked side by side this summer on Canadian Coast Guard vessels, led to more efficient cross-border patrolling. Such joint operations should become permanent.

Other ideas include restricting raw materials for large-scale cigarette-making to those with a valid manufacturers' licence and working with native groups to bring about a First Nations tobacco tax equal to the province's. It might also help if government did more work to promote alternate – and legitimate – economic pursuits in First Nations reserves, thereby easing dependence on illegal activities.

The illicit tobacco trade didn't appear overnight, and it won't be easily eliminated. But more could surely be done to stanch this dirty business, to protect both government revenues and public health.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: The winners and the losers 

Winner: It probably didn't shock anyone, but the survey released this week from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing Utah as the state with the least number of smokers was great news. Only 9 percent of the people in the state light up tobacco. A state survey two months ago showed that smoking here has fallen by 33 percent since 1999, which is the year an anti-smoking campaign went into effect, funded by a settlement between several states and large tobacco manufacturers. Beyond the great health benefits, a low smoking population ought to be good for economic development. Employers ought to love a place where workers are health-conscious.

Loser: On the other hand, the same CDC survey cited above also showed that smoking nationwide rose slightly during the past year. About 21 percent of Americans say they smoke, compared to 19.8 percent the year before. This may signal that anti-smoking efforts have hit a plateau. But it's probably nothing a hefty new tax on cigarettes couldn't fix.

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: Hoosiers burned in smoke study 

It is safe to say Hoosiers do not look forward to the release of national health rankings with quite the same eagerness folks in Florida and Texas harbor for the weekly round of football polls.

The latest survey, covering one of our several "strong" categories, is out. We ought to be more than disappointed to be number two.

Consistently in the top 10 year after year, Indiana trailed only West Virginia in the percentage of adults using cigarettes in 2008, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . . .

The Indiana General Assembly couldn't muster the willpower this past session to join the 26 states with comprehensive smoking bans, but Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, vows to renew his push next year.

The City-County Council is close to mustering enough votes to join more than 300 cities with total smoking prohibitions; but sadly, Mayor Greg Ballard says he would veto such a measure for the sake of local business. His stance ignores ample evidence that going smoke-free is not hazardous to the health of bars and eateries.

We do know that smoking -- and, critically important, secondhand smoke -- are killers. And that we arm them, as individuals, as communities and as governments.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Smoking ban shrouded in misunderstanding 

The Florence City Council rejected an ordinance Monday that would have banned smoking in public places. The 4-3 vote raised the prospect of revisiting the issue with a compromise to balance the rights of individuals and business owners with the need to provide a healthy environment in the city.

The ordinance, proposed by councilman Buddy Brand and councilwoman Octavia Williams-Blake, was misconstrued as a referendum on smoking. . . .

Tobacco has been a huge cash crop in the Pee Dee for decades. But this debate is not about the elimination of tobacco and its products. It's about fresh air in public places.

For the sake of a healthy community, we support the no-smoking ordinance. We think it would be progressive and bold for Florence to become the first city in the Pee Dee to ban it.

We applaud city leaders for elevating the issue and ask them to tweak the ordinance for another vote in the near future.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Illegalizing what’s legal 

While it's no big secret that smoking can harm your health, the ban that St. Louis County voted on and approved Tuesday is misguided. . . .

For a non-smoker, this means clearer, fresher air in their favorite public place. For a smoker, it means freezing outside in the wintertime, only to receive dirty looks and fake coughs from passersby. However, even non-smokers can agree that the way the ban, or Proposition N, is being executed is wrong.

First, less than 20 percent of eligible voters voted last Tuesday . . .

Second-hand smoke kills right? Actually, there are studies, not well publicized by the government or anti-smoking campaigns, which show the effects of secondhand smoke to be statistically irrelevant. However, there are studies that say precisely the opposite. . . .

Stopping the spread of second-hand smoke may seem noble at first glance, but the way St. Louis is doing it is limiting both personal freedoms and harming small business owners who cannot afford lobbyists to get them onto the elite "exemptions" portion of Proposition N.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Statewide smoking ban next step 

Muskegon County residents who expect big changes Monday when the county smoking ban takes effect will be surprised. The new ban affects only about 5 percent of county businesses, the rest had voluntarily implemented similar smoking bans.

The Muskegon County Clean Indoor Air Regulation covers traditional offices, govenment buldings and industrial sites including lobbies, hallways, waiting areas, restrooms and individual offices. Sports arenas, convention halls and bingo parlors without food vending licenses also are covered. And hotels and motels will have to keep 80 percent of guest rooms smoke-free. . . .

While the county's ban on smoking inside workplaces and public buildings, is a step forward in improving health in this county, the big change will come if a statewide ban is enacted that would include restaurants and bars. Unfortunately, Lansing lawmakers have been debating the issue for almost a decade without any action.

Perhaps lawmakers would consider a legislative referendum placing the issue before voters. Or maybe the voters should get the issue on the ballot.

Then we might see real change.

Jump to full article »

• Editorial - Lebanon has yet to tackle killer smoke 

Even though many other countries have already passed Lebanon by on the issue, and even though a conference blooming with well-meaning rhetoric is no guarantee of future action, it certainly was praiseworthy for the Health Ministry and its National Tobacco Control Program to agitate last week for a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places.

Before even addressing the stale arguments over whether a ban would encroach on personal freedom, a prohibition makes sense purely to keep more humans alive and cut health-care expenses from this country's already catastrophic budget . . .

In case any doubt remains over the meaning of universal protection, we only have to note the smoking bans lately adopted in Bahrain, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and the UAE. Put another way, Lebanon has now fallen behind all those countries on a major human-rights issue - yes, Lebanon has fallen behind Syria in liberating its citizens to be free of murderous second-hand smoke in public places.

But we here in our glass house at The Daily Star should not be the first to cast stones. To illustrate the hurdles a welcome and overdue ban would face, we at the newspaper enjoy a smoke-free work environment - until 9 p.m. Even this would-be watchdog of the public interest seems to respect human rights only some of the time.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Waiting On The SGA 

SGA finally returned from its fall recess this week to debate the Hopkins Kicks Butts (HKB) proposal to ban smoking on campus . . . Wait, was it not in recess? Has it been meeting all year? . . .

Still, after this page published a condemnation of the attempted campus-wide smoking ban by HKB last week, it was nice to see a resolution debated, even if it was tabled, at this week's SGA meeting.

Unfortunately, the response came a little late to save some Hopkins events, such as Hookah and Hemp on the Beach. Their currently unpassed resolution states that "the SGA is also strongly opposed to the imposition of a fine on smoking and a ban on events that promote tobacco" citing the limiting of the "expression of rights" of other student groups as reason for their lack of support for the HKB proposal. Too little, too late.

Had SGA been more decisive at an earlier date, perhaps this event would have been saved. Instead HKB has been allowed to speak on behalf of students without an opposition voice until last week's editorial.

Jump to full article »

Debate on public health - Our opinion: E-cigarettes pose risks  

All the public has to go on now is the word of the product's marketers. Before consumers inhale something that gives them "vapes" of highly addictive nicotine, they might want an independent authority testing the product to see what's in it.

But soon after the Food and Drug Administration tried to assert its authority over e-cigarettes by detaining some shipments at the border, two distributors sued, claiming that the FDA has no power to regulate the product as a drug-delivery device.

While both sides await a federal judge's ruling, e-cigarettes are on the market (kits with the e-cigarette and nicotine cartridges generally sell for $70 to $150). And contrary to the old adage, what you don't know can hurt you. Among the reasons to be wary:

— Most e-cigarettes are made in China . . .

— Despite protests from the Electronic Cigarette Association that its members don't make claims about helping smokers quit, plenty of sellers make far more outrageous health claims. In recent weeks, one marketer claimed e-cigarettes reduce the risk of heart disease and touted an endorsement by a physician-and-nurses group. Another website, which says it reviews e-cigarettes, went them one better: It claims, based on a 1942 study, that an ingredient in e-cigarettes could prevent flu and other respiratory diseases.

It is conceivable e-cigarettes might be a valuable tool for weaning some smokers away from a deadly habit. But without the testing and clinical trials opposed by marketers and their allies, no one will ever know.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: North Carolina goes smoke-free. Why can’t we?  

The logic of restricting smoking in public places is undeniable. The overwhelming majority of people don’t smoke. They have the right to breathe clean air, not someone else’s dangerous and dirty tobacco smoke. Smokers argue that markets, not the government, should dictate how business is conducted. It’s a specious argument. We don’t allow companies to spew poison into the air or water simply because they can make money doing it and their customers don’t object. The U.S. Surgeon General reports that secondhand smoke kills about 38,000 people every year and sickens hundreds of thousands of others. Restaurants and bars are among businesses that are least likely to provide health insurance to their employees, so when their workers get sick from the effects of secondhand smoke, the rest of us get stuck with the tab for their care. Workplace smoking may be good for tobacco companies’ bottom lines, but it is hazardous to the rest of us. Non-smokers on Tobacco Road in North Carolina soon will have more rights than non-smokers in Missouri. This is crazy.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Smokeless cigarettes in need of more tests 

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes, which convert nicotine directly into vapor, are becoming quite popular these days.

CONCLUSION: But the jury is still out on whether these smokeless cigarettes are any safer than the more traditional version. . . .

The e-cigarette industry's effort to block FDA intervention suggests it has something to hide, even if that's not the case. If the products really are a safe alternative to cigarettes, the industry should welcome the FDA's interest.

Jump to full article »