Tobacco.org

• LETTER: Tobacco displays  

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 »

• Letter - Regulating Tobacco  

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 »

• LETTER: Insurance-Industry Investments in Tobacco (PDF) 

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 »

• LETTER: Failure of efforts to curb smoking  

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 »

• LETTER: Tobacco regulation  

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 »

• Letters - Putting the Squeeze on Smokers  

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

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 »

• LETTER: ANDRIST: Good public policy not shenanigans 

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 »

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

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 »

• LETTER: SIEGEL: Nicotine replacement, effective?  

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 »

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

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 »

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

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 »

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

• LANDMAN: Beware Secondhand Rhetoric on Cigarette Taxes  

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 »

• LETTER: On my mother's behalf  

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 »