Tobacco News:

Categories: Letter
RSS: http://tobacco.org/newsfeed/category/letter.rss
Choose type:
Search Term(s):
[Headlines Only] [All Stories]
Letter
[1 - 15 of 272] » Next Page
Categories
· Business (Tobacco)
· Teen Smoking/Youth
· Tobacco Control
· Letter
· Advertising/Promos
non-USA, by Country
· Canada
· UK-Scotland
Organizations
· JTI

LETTER: Tobacco displays  

Jump to full article: The Scotsman (uk), 2009-09-18
Author: LYNN GREAVES President, Saskatchewan Coalition for Tobacco Reduction

Intro:

Further to the comments of Japan Tobacco International's Daniel Torras (Letters, 17 September), the Canadian province of Saskatchewan has had seven years' experience with a retail display ban.

A government survey shows our youth smoking rate has decreased from 29 per cent in 2002 to 20 per cent in 2008. All parties supported this and other measures, and the law has had good public support. Ex-smokers also say it is easier to resist the temptation to resume smoking when not faced with tobacco displays.

The negative economic impact claimed by the tobacco industry and others has not happened. Neither has there been an increase in smuggling.

We commend the Scottish Government for putting the interests of Scotland's children first. Please ignore the fear-mongering of an industry that is only interested in garnering new customers. It will fight to keep its product in front of the next generation of smokers – the children and youth of Scotland.

Jump to full article »

Categories
· Business (Tobacco)
· Lawsuits
· Federal
· Tobacco Control
· Letter
Organizations
· MO
· FDA
· UST

Letter - Regulating Tobacco  

Jump to full article: New York Times, 2009-09-14
Author: Martin J. Barrington Executive Vice President and Chief Compliance and Administrative Officer Altria Group

Intro:

Your editorial and its headline did not acknowledge the different actions taken by the nation's leading tobacco companies with regard to regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration.

Altria Group, parent company of Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest cigarette manufacturer, and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, the largest smokeless tobacco manufacturer, supported the enactment of legislation granting the F.D.A. such authority for more than eight years.

Further, while we have repeatedly voiced concerns about the constitutionality of certain provisions in the bill, none of our companies are party to the lawsuit filed by other tobacco companies. We are currently monitoring the litigation and seeking ways to work constructively with the F.D.A. in resolving those concerns.

We feel that it is a disservice that you did not mention that two of the largest tobacco operating companies in the United States are not a part of the "Big Tobacco" action about which you wrote. We respectfully ask that any future articles reflect the differences between the positions and actions of companies in our industry.

Jump to full article »

Categories
· International
· Business (Tobacco)
· Federal
· Letter
· Investing
· Business (General)
USA, by State
· Massachusetts
non-USA, by Country
· UK
· Canada

LETTER: Insurance-Industry Investments in Tobacco (PDF) 

Jump to full article: Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), 2009-06-04
Author: J. Wesley Boyd, M.D., Ph.D. David Himmelstein, M.D. Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. Cambridge Health Alliance

Intro:

The Obama administration is proposing a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system, and the insurance industry is poised to play a major role in the process. . . .

In case there is any doubt that insurers place profit above health, consider their investments in tobacco. The U.S.-based Prudential Financial provides life insurance and long-term disability coverage and is also a major owner of tobacco stocks, with total tobacco holdings of $264.3 million (Table 1). The U.K.-based Prudential offers life, health, disability, and long-term care insurance. Prudential’s stake in tobacco totals $1.38 billion. Standard Life, which is also based in the United Kingdom and offers both life and health insur ance, owns nearly $950 million of tobacco stock. Canada-based Sun Life, which offers life, health, disability, and long-term care insurance, owns just over $1 billion of tobacco stock. Northwestern Mutual and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) both offer life, disability, and long-term care insurance. MassMutual owns more than $585 million of tobacco stock, and Northwestern Mutual’s stake exceeds $235 million. (These figures are accurate as of March 26, 2009, but given the current economic climate, they are subject to change.)

Although investing in tobacco while selling life or health insurance may seem self-defeating, insurance firms have figured out ways to profit from both. Insurers exclude smokers from coverage or, more commonly, charge them higher premiums. Insurers profit — and smokers lose — twice over.

These facts should discomfit Canadian and British readers as their countries consider further privatization of health insurance. For those of us in the United States, these data are a reminder of the true priority of the insurance industry, which is making money, not ensuring health and wellbeing. These data raise a red flag about the prospect of opening vast new markets for private insurers at public expense, as has happened in our state of Massachusetts, whose recent health care reform is often cited as a model for national reform.

Jump to full article »

Categories
· Business (Tobacco)
· Tobacco Control
· Letter
non-USA, by Country
· China

LETTER: Failure of efforts to curb smoking  

Jump to full article: China Daily (cn), 2009-07-31

Intro:

Your report on July 29 stating that more children in Beijing are becoming addicted to cigarettes is tragic but hardly surprising. Men, women and children all over China are increasingly being poisoned by the lethal habit.

It is government policy to promote the manufacture, sale and distribution of cigarettes. . . .

A law on cigarettes was passed in 1991 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) . . .

The law empowers the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA), also known as China National Tobacco Corporation, as being "responsible for formulating development strategies for the tobacco industry, conducting industrial restructuring, organizing tobacco production, operation, storage and transportation, carrying out technological innovation and key research programs, guiding cultural and ideological progress in the tobacco industry".

In accordance with this directive, the STMA has diligently created a vast network of cigarette factories at the national and provincial levels, increased distribution and sales network in China, and struck "sweetheart deals" with foreign manufacturers to produce or sell cigarettes in each other's country.

Millions of cigarettes flooding the streets of China daily are readily available to anyone. . . .

In the present circumstances to keep pushing measures already proven ineffective is not only silly but indeed borders on deliberate chicanery.

Hasn't the time come to heighten our vigilance against official hypocrisy?

Jump to full article »

Categories
· Federal
· History
· Letter
USA, by State
· Florida
Organizations
· FDA

LETTER: Tobacco regulation  

Jump to full article: Lakeland (FL) Ledger, 2009-06-25
Author: J. DALE SIMMONS, M.D. Lakeland

Intro:

Let me applaud the stand on the tobacco issue taken in this congressional vote by Sens. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Reps. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, and Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville. . . .

As a young man who grew up in the tobacco fields, as a family practitioner who for 25 years depended on tobacco farmers for income for years and did not recognize the deleterious effects of tobacco, I am proud of my what representatives did.

In 1952, I was hired by the tobacco companies to do research on tobacco. Working with and under the direction of renowned doctors in toxicology and physics, we found in four experiments that nicotine had a strong relationship to the causes of many health problems. Not knowing at the time that my pay came from the Tobacco Institute, I soon found that we would not be allowed to publish our results.

[If] those people addicted to tobacco live a few years longer, they will see the death rate from lung cancer decrease. For nonsmokers who regularly breathe nicotine-containing smoke, their quality of life will begin improving almost immediately.

Jump to full article »

Categories
· Federal
· Letter
Organizations
· FDA

Letters - Putting the Squeeze on Smokers  

Jump to full article: New York Times, 2009-06-13

Intro:

  • Re “Senate Approves Tight Regulation Over Cigarettes” (front page, June 12) and “Tobacco Regulation, at Last” (editorial, June 12):

    How long has this been going on? At least 75 years by my calculation. Research done by my father, Irving S. Wright, M.D., and Dean Moffat, M.D., in 1934 clearly showed the deleterious effect of smoking on the circulation (“Effects of Tobacco on Peripheral Vascular System,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 1934).

    The research done in the 1950s by Dr. Ernest Wynder linking smoking to lung cancer was crucial to the near-eternal battle to regulate tobacco. Now, with luck, this will be carried out, and lives will be saved.

  • I’m stunned whenever I see a young person smoking, and I see that more and more. Don’t they know that cigarettes kill and, at 40 or 45 cents apiece here, burn up pocket change fast?

    So I don’t quite get Congress’s feckless proposal to fob more tobacco regulation onto the Food and Drug Administration, which arguably cannot handle what it already has to do. If anyone understands tobacco addiction, it is the First Smoker, President Obama . . .

    What is instead called for is a Prohibition-style tobacco ban . . .

    Government and politicians — and smokers — should just go cold turkey on tobacco and tobacco money, for the sake of the country’s well-being. Anything less is two-faced and toothless.

  • The F.D.A. already has too much on its plate . . .

    As the article mentioned, only one in five Americans still smoke. Obviously, the antismoking information campaign of the last many years is having a beneficial effect. Those who choose to smoke should be left alone to do so . . .

    When it comes to what Americans ingest into their bodies, our nation has become obsessed with nanny-state regulation. Enough already! It’s too bad that we aren’t half as concerned about the garbage Americans put into their minds on a daily basis.

    Jump to full article »

  • Categories
    · Business (Tobacco)
    · Smokefree Policies
    · Letter
    USA, by State
    · North Carolina
    Organizations
    · Lorillard

    LETTER: Don’t forget Lorillard’s impact on Greensboro 

    Letters to the Editor : Blogs
    Jump to full article: Greensboro (NC) News & Record, 2009-05-04
    Author: Earl Gill Greensboro The writer is the community consultant for the Lorillard Tobacco Co.

    Intro:

    Foremost, my fundamental perception is tobacco companies have the constitutional right to produce legal products for sale.

    For 37 years, I have operated a business on East Market Street seven blocks from Lorillard Tobacco Co.’s manufacturing facility. An appreciable number of our customers and friends are Lorillard employees. Prior to Lorillard becoming operational in 1955-56 and beginning to employ people, the East Market Street quadrant was a blighted area. Lorillard helped the area most significantly pursuant to employment.

    I am exceedingly knowledgeable of the continuous discussions associated with health and smoking. My immediate concerns coincide with jobs and Lorillard’s published statements: “We continue to support our good jobs and support worthy community causes.” Moreover, Steven C. Watson, then vice president for external affairs of Lorillard Tobacco Co., stated in a Jan. 23, 2001, letter: “Our corporate policy is kids should not smoke.”

    Finally, an overwhelming number of people were unrelentingly exuberant when billboards marketing cigarettes had to be taken down on April 24, 1999, pursuant to the 1998 tobacco settlement. Earl Gill Greensboro

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Settlements
    · Tobacco Control
    · Letter
    · Elections/Politics
    USA, by State
    · North Dakota

    LETTER: ANDRIST: Good public policy not shenanigans 

    Jump to full article: Fargo (ND) InForum, 2009-05-03
    Author: Sen. John M. Andrist, Crosby, N.D.

    Intro:

    The Forum’s Thursday editorial, “ND voters were clear on tobacco” is exactly right. The North Dakota House should have passed the Senate bill that implemented and funded Measure 3.

    That said, I introduced Senate Bill 4038 because I sincerely believe Measure 3 was flawed, that it has at least one unconstitutional provision, that voters might not have been aware that there is expected to be $125 million involved in this tobacco-cessation effort.

    Voters are stuck with an up or down “yes” or “no” on ballot measures. . . .

    Forum readers need to know that most of us in this body are not constantly dealing in shenanigans and that most of us are seriously devoted to enacting and securing the best public policy.

    Likewise, most of us have a strong commitment to the will of the voters. The power to initiate and refer is a precious heritage in populist North Dakota.

    Whether or not SB4038 gets to the voters, they can count on my support to do the will expressed in the ballot box.

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Settlements
    · Letter
    · Elections/Politics
    · Ethics
    · Lobbying
    USA, by State
    · North Dakota

    IN THE MAIL: Carlson works against own district’s wishes 

    Jump to full article: Grand Forks (ND) Herald, 2009-04-26
    Author: Elizabeth Summers, Grand Forks

    Intro:

    As a Grand Forks resident, I am not directly represented by Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, and so I wondered how it is that this one legislator from Fargo can undo my vote for Measure 3 and thwart the will of the majority of North Dakota voters.

    What kind of person does that? Who is this Al Carlson who arrogantly ignores 165,000 voters?

    Well, I did a little checking and found out that in 2006, when Carlson was re-elected to the North Dakota Legislature, he got only 2,903 votes or 52 percent of the votes cast. By contrast, some 3,998 voters in Carlson’s district voted to support Measure 3 in November.

    That’s right: In his own district, 1,000 more voters supported Measure 3 than supported Carlson’s re-election bid. . . .

    on pretty much all tobacco-control issues, Carlson takes the side of the tobacco industry over the constituents in his district, Fargo and the public health community. Shame on him.

    Now, the only mystery left for me to resolve is: Why do Republican house members (with the notable exceptions of Bismarck Reps. Bob Martinson and George Keiser) support Carlson’s pro-tobacco industry policies over the public-health interests of the people?

    I don’t know. That is something voters should ask their legislators directly. I intend to ask mine.

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Health/Science
    · Cessation
    · Letter
    · Nicotine

    LETTER: SIEGEL: Nicotine replacement, effective?  

    BMJ 2009;338:b1730, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1730 (Published 29 April 2009)
    Jump to full article: British Medical Journal, 2009-04-29
    Author: Michael Siegel, professor

    Intro:

    The conclusions of Moore and colleagues about nicotine replacement therapy seem to be slanted.1 With a long term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, you can hardly call nicotine replacement an "effective" intervention. Although the 1.6% abstinence rate is better than the 0.4% achieved with placebo, how can one call the 1.6% success rate with nicotine replacement "effective"?

    The logical conclusion from this systematic review and meta-analysis is that nicotine replacement was a dismal intervention. Most smokers (98.4%) failed to achieve long term sustained abstinence with it.

    I cannot think of another intervention for which a 98.4% failure rate would be considered a success.

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Settlements
    · Tobacco Control
    · Letter
    USA, by State
    · North Dakota

    Dr. Terry Dwelle, N.D. state health officer, letter: Department helped curb smoking rate 

    Jump to full article: Grand Forks (ND) Herald, 2009-04-26
    Author: Dr. Terry Dwelle

    Intro:

    Recent letters about the Legislature’s actions regarding Measure 3 wrongly characterized the North Dakota Department of Health as being under the influence of the tobacco industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The Department of Health has worked very diligently over the years to reduce the toll of tobacco use on the youth and adults of North Dakota. We have consistently relied on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s best practice guidance for tobacco control.

    We have worked with local tobacco control coordinators across the state to counter the influences of the tobacco industry. . . .

    Neither I nor my staff have ever met with or been influenced by representatives of the tobacco industry. As state health officer, I support any efforts to reduce the impact of tobacco on the citizens of our state. The deadly effects of tobacco use on our friends and family members must be countered with as many resources as we can muster.

    The employees of the Department of Health and our local partners have dedicated their lives to protecting the health of every North Dakotan from the dangers of tobacco use. I am very proud of the work they do every day.

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Settlements
    · Tobacco Control
    · Letter
    · Elections/Politics
    USA, by State
    · North Dakota

    House Majority Leader Al Carlson, Bismarck, letter: Flawed Measure 3 demands legislative action 

    Jump to full article: Grand Forks (ND) Herald, 2009-04-23
    Author: Chet Pollert, Jon Nelson, Gary Kreidt and Al Carlson

    Intro:

    We have never been against SB 2063, the implementation of Centers for Disease Control standards or the level of funding. We’ve opposed only the wasteful provisions of the bill, namely spending money on an executive committee to oversee a control advisory committee that would work with the State Health Department. . . .

    The amendments we support will protect these important projects and programs while maintaining the integrity of SB 2063.

    As sworn officeholders, we are charged with reviewing, debating and amending proposed legislation so it best serves the people of this state. North Dakota’s initiated measure system is an important one, but so is the legislative process. The legislature is a check on executive power, a check on judicial power and also a check on the power of initiated measure.

    North Dakotans have elected representatives to make sure that bad legislation is not slipped passed the voter. We understand that we have to deal with the health costs of smoking. What we object to is the “all or nothing” mentality our opponents maintain and the smoke screen tactics used to cloud the issue and push a poorly conceived, wasteful, bureaucratic solution to a problem which can be handled by our well-qualified health department.

    The authors are Republican representatives in the North Dakota House.

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Business (Tobacco)
    · Secondhand Smoke
    · Letter
    · Alternate/Reduced Risk
    · E-cigs

    LETTERS: Your Views - E-Cigarettes? No, Thanks. 

    Jump to full article: The Washington Post, 2009-04-14

    Intro:

  • In the article on e-cigarettes, I was disappointed that you didn't place any emphasis on the effect of the vapor or secondhand "smoke" ["A Smoking Experience That's Unmatched," April 7] that these devices emit. I recently walked past a kiosk in the Westfield Annapolis mall where e-cigarettes were being demonstrated and sold. I breathed in some of the vapor before I realized what was going on and had an immediate coughing spell.

    I would hate to see these things being allowed in restaurants, workplaces and other public places where people sensitive to smoke -- babies, the elderly and people with medical issues -- might be present.

  • As a registered nurse, I read this article and got really nervous. This device may take out the tar and carbon monoxide, but its main purpose seems to be to get the user addicted to nicotine. The article says that some health organizations believe the target audience is kids. What a novel way to ensure a large market for this product: Addict them when young and ensure a massive long-term market.

    That, to me, is really sick. Health-care professionals have been working so hard to eradicate the use of tobacco. I can't think of one reason that this device should be legal. Its only reason for existing is to create addicts.

    Jump to full article »

  • Categories
    · Secret Documents
    · Tax
    · Letter
    · Op-Ed

    LANDMAN: Beware Secondhand Rhetoric on Cigarette Taxes  

    Jump to full article: PR Watch, 2009-03-17
    Author: Submitted by Anne Landman on March 17, 2009 - 2:27pm.

    Intro:

    Throughout the 1990s, PM would unleash its formidable arsenal at the first whiff of a tax effort. Its tactics included fake "grassroots" organizations, legions of lobbyists, video news releases to ensure favorable "news" coverage, anti-tax messages on their products and widely-disseminated economic studies predicting disaster if the tax should increase. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Tobacco Institute had a similar PR machine in place, creating a bulwark against tax increases that may be unparalleled in history.

    While the tobacco industry's PR machines have since lost effectiveness, their arguments still influence debates today. Blogs and editorial pages around the country repeat the industry's anti-tax arguments. . . .

    It is true that poor smokers spend a greater percentage of their income on cigarettes, and that a larger percentage of poor people smoke than rich people. However, the benefits of an increased tax will accrue to those who bear the burden of paying the tax.

    As cigarette prices increase, people tend to smoke less, quit altogether or fail to take up the addiction at all. This leads to improved health among poor communities, as well as significant savings for low-income former smokers. Teenagers, who are often counted among the poor, are disproportionately affected by tax increases. Tobacco companies know this. PM marketing researcher Myron Johnston wrote in an internal report titled "Teenage Smoking and the Federal Excise Tax on Cigarettes": . . .

    Nearly thirty years ago, the industry secretly recognized that raising cigarette taxes would curb teen smoking while boosting public revenue.

    Does raising cigarette taxes lead to smuggling? . . .

    While the smuggling and regressive tax arguments are largely specious, it's important to carefully consider where the funds raised by a tobacco tax increase will go. . . .

    There are many good reasons why government would want to increase tobacco taxes: reducing cigarette consumption, encouraging smokers to quit and discouraging teens from even trying cigarettes. In the longer term, if used correctly, cigarette taxes can help wind down and eventually eliminate nicotine addiction.

    Once the misleading anti-tax arguments promoted decades ago by the tobacco industry's PR machine are discounted, the benefits are clear.

    Perhaps the single, best argument, though, is that -- unlike taxes on food, gas or homes -- no one has to pay a cigarette tax, if they really don't want to.

    Jump to full article »

    Categories
    · Letter
    · Lobbying
    Organizations
    · FDA
    · RJR

    LETTER: On my mother's behalf  

    Jump to full article: Eureka (CA) Times-Standard, 2009-03-21
    Author: Walt Frazer Kneeland

    Intro:

    A postcard arrived in my mailbox today. It had "Voter Alert!" on a red background at the top and said "Rep. Henry Waxman has introduced a bill (HR 1256) giving the food and Drug Administration the ability to regulate tobacco." It goes on to say what an awful idea this is, then says No FDA Regulation of Tobacco! and is signed Reynolds American, Inc. (the parent company of Reynolds Tobacco).

    The irony is that it was addressed to my mother, who died seven years ago of lung cancer. She smoked Salem cigarettes, which are made by the Reynolds Tobacco Company.

    Their website says I should write to my local paper, so that's what I'm doing. On my mother's behalf.

    Jump to full article »

    Letter
    [1 - 15 of 272] » Next Page