Tobacco.org

WAUGH: Commentary- Bring back smoking rooms 

The trouble with zealots is they almost never think about the consequences of their zeal.

And there was no bigger caped crusader than Edmonton Tory MLA Dave Hancock during his brief stint as Ed Stelmach's health minister.

Last November, Hancock hailed his Tobacco Reduction Act as an "important part of our government's wellness agenda."

The legislation banned smoking from all "public places and workplaces" in the province on January 1.

The jury is out on whether Dave's Directive has actually done what it's supposed to - cut the number smokers.

Iris Evans's finance department beancounters certainly don't think so. . . .

Up to 35% of the small trash collected is now made up of butts, he said.

This problem hardly existed when smokers puffed in sealed, ventilated smoking rooms.

Now that Liepert is in charge, is it time to lighten up? Let the nicotine addicts back into smoking rooms where they only have themselves to harm.

Jump to full article »

Tribune Co.'s smoking policy sparks debate 

Yesterday, two colleagues were discussing the Tribune’s recent change of heart over charging smokers more for their health insurance.

That policy was instituted as of the first of the year, but under the leadership of new Tribune owner Sam Zell it’s been retracted.

Bad idea, argued my male colleague, who sits just a few cubicles over. Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of illness and death. Anything you can do to stop it is good, including giving people financial incentives to quit.

Let the company penalize workers for their personal habits and you’ve started down a slippery slope, argued my female colleague . . .

This informal late-afternoon discussion reflects an important debate going on across the country. Are we all in the same boat together when it comes to health insurance – do we share risk and responsibility for each other when we become ill – or should we stand on our own? In turn, this mirrors a larger social debate about what it means to be part of a community and how that meshes with individual freedom.

Which of my colleagues' positions makes sense to you and where do you stand?

Jump to full article »

• Jill Burcum: Breathe deeply and ponder this anniversary 

It had all the elements of a John Grisham novel: a crack legal team filing a long-shot lawsuit, a behemoth defendant peddling cancer-causing products, secret stashes of incriminating documents, and a mind-boggling, multibillion-dollar settlement. Yet Minnesota's landmark tobacco case was a real-life legal thriller. Ten years ago today, after a dramatic trial in St. Paul, the state settled with the nation's tobacco companies for more than $6 billion.

As Minnesota's sesquicentennial approaches, we're marking 150 years of statehood with wagon trains and faded photos of early settlers. But the 10-year milestone of the tobacco settlement reminds us that the state's more-recent history also offers much to celebrate, including the risk-taking legal pioneers who beat Big Tobacco. The Minnesota case not only paved the way for other states to settle, but blew once and for all the industry's smokescreen on how much it knew about the dangers of its own products.

Jump to full article »

ABDULLAHI: Effective Panacea to Illicit Tobacco Trade (1) 

No single national government or international agency, however sophisticated and powerful it may be, can single-handedly confront the ills of illicit trade. . . .

For example, the Framework Convention Alliance rightly noted that, illicit trade is a major international problem that requires an international solution. And to reduce the consumption of risk prone products like alcohol and tobacco and save lives, combat organised crime as well as recoup billions of dollars in lost government revenue. How can Nigeria participate in the global initiatives to halt the growth and development of illicit trade? . . .

While pointing out that there were about 10,000 wholesale tobacco traders in the world, the convention suggested that these could be built into a licensed system in which they would record movements of tobacco products by scanning pack markings, adding that technology is available to do this at less than USSO.02 per pack. Another transnational initiative is the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA), an international alliance of more than 300 non-governmental organisations. The FCA urges countries to negotiate a strong treaty that can help reduce tobacco use and its health and financial consequences around the world.

Jump to full article »

• IVISON: Just say no to contraband cigarettes 

Stockwell Day launched a new contraband tobacco control strategy yesterday that could only work in Canada: He appealed to Canadians to please, please drive past smoke shacks selling 200 cigarettes in clear, plastic resealable bags for as little as $6 and instead fork over $75-$90 for legal cartons.

"I'm asking individuals to consider that they are contributing to a dangerous pipeline of criminal activity. This is not a victimless crime or a benign activity," the Public Safety Minister said at a press conference.

Mr. Day's appeal to our better angels probably has more chance of success than the rest of the strategy, which consists of dismantling manufacturing facilities, disrupting supply lines and seizing illicit tobacco.

This is because 90% of the contraband seized thus far in Canada originated from factories on the U. S. side of the Akwesasne reserve, which straddles the American and Canadian sides of the St. Lawrence River, and there are few signs that U. S. authorities are anywhere near as enthusiastic about shutting down businesses on Indian land.

There are said to be 13 factories on the Akwesasne-St. Regis Mohawk reserve, churning out millions of cigarettes, which are then loaded into vans by organized criminal gangs . . .

Mr. Day has raised the issue with Michael Chertoff, U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security, but there seems to be no willingness on his part to expend political capital by cracking down on the problem before the tobacco leaves the factories.

It raises the question about the usefulness of the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the United States and all that bilge about smart borders and foiling transnational crime. . . .

If the roles were reversed, and the Americans were losing billions in foregone tax revenue, they would be demanding that we jump -- and we would be asking politely: "How high?" Is it too much for Ottawa to ask that the United States is as good as its promises?

Jump to full article »

• FLEENOR: Cigarette Taxes Are Fueling Organized Crime  

But if history is any guide, most cigarettes sold will actually be trucked up from Virginia, or shipped in from China, by "butt-leggers" who can make over $1 million on each tractor-trailer load of smuggled smokes. The blunt fact, which politicians of both political parties are determined to ignore, is that high cigarette taxes in New York have led to a bloody, decades-long smuggling epidemic. . . .

As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said in September 2002 of New York's cigarette smuggling, "Traditional organized crime is involved, terrorist groups are involved, and street gangs are involved." Rivalry among these groups has resulted in numerous shootings and homicides.

The connection to terrorism is no exaggeration. When New York police cracked another smuggling ring in 2005, they uncovered a multimillion dollar flow of funds from New York City to unknown individuals in the Middle East. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly gave voice to the obvious conclusion: Terrorists probably got the money. . . .

Politicians continue to use the health of smokers as their excuse for higher cigarette taxes. This view is myopic. As Gov. Wilson argued three decades ago, high cigarette taxes are bad public policy because of their effect on the rest of us. In the 1960s and '70s, organized crime exploited high cigarette taxes at our expense. Today we face an even deadlier adversary.

Mr. Fleenor is chief economist of the Tax Foundation and author of "Cigarette Taxes, Black Markets, and Crime: Lessons from New York's 50-Year Losing Battle" (Cato Institute, 2003).

Jump to full article »

POLITO: Does updated tobacco treatment "Guideline" reflect sham science? 

It appears that pharmaceutical influence continues to own official U.S. smoking cessation policy. According to an advance agenda, the newest U.S. policy pronouncement will be unveiled Wednesday, May 7, at 9 a.m. in room 3C at AMA headquarters located at 515 North State Street, Chicago. The revision panel's controversial chairman, Dr. Michael C. Fiore, whose significant financial ties to the pharmaceutical quit smoking product industry made front-page ethics news in the Wall Street Journal on February 7, 2007, is scheduled to summarize "findings and recommendations" from the 2008 update of the U.S. Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence.

According to an advance summary, as in 2000, Dr. Fiore will reveal that it is the Guideline's recommendation that, with few exceptions, "clinicians should encourage" pharmaceutical quitting product "use by all patients attempting to quit smoking." While this cessation quitting method monopoly will generate billions in pharmaceutical industry profits, does it serve public health?

Sadly, what should and could have been a national resource and treasure in helping teach physicians what is not taught in most medical schools, how to effectively counsel patient's to quit smoking, is instead little more than a glorified pharmaceutical quitting product guide and sales advertisement. . . .

An advance copy of Wednesday's recommendations indicates that recommendations 3, 6 and 7 will combine to continue to effectively destroy the legitimacy and prevent government backing of any and all non-pharmacology quitting programs, programs relying upon education, counseling, skills development, motivation and/or support.

While the May 2008 Guideline strongly encourages "counseling" it refuses to allow it unless accompanied by "medication." This is not a question of scientific study evidence. It is a question of policy, policy gone astray. . . .

Wednesday is a golden opportunity for health journalists to at last ask the tough questions. But will they? With roughly 40% of U.S. smokers making a serious quitting attempt during 2008, with the latest cure - Chantix - asking smokers to assume risk of death, with decline in the U.S. smoking rate having ground to a halt, those addicted to smoking nicotine deserve answers. But will they get them? Below are a few questions deserving of answers:

Jump to full article »

HANSEN: Do insurance companies want people to quit smoking or not? 

If someone decides to attempt the very difficult task of quitting, it seems to me that their insurance provider would be all over this remedy in an attempt to lessen their burden as smokers take to their beds with related illnesses. It would also have a ripple effect for those suffering the effects of second-hand smoke.

So, do they want people to quit or not?

The cost is about $500-$600 for the full regime . . .

Society vilifies smokers but then smacks them down when they finally decide to quit.

They are faced with an uphill battle on two fronts: A very difficult addiction has to be overcome, but they first have to come up with the money to undertake the battle. It seems those dollar signs turn up around every corner while we try to stay healthy in this country.

Jump to full article »

• SEDARIS: Reflections: Letting Go 

When I was in fourth grade, my class took a field trip to the American Tobacco plant in nearby Durham, North Carolina. There we witnessed the making of cigarettes and were given free packs to take home to our parents. I tell people this and they ask me how old I am, thinking, I guess, that I went to the world's first elementary school, one where we wrote on cave walls and hunted our lunch with clubs. Then I mention the smoking lounge at my high school. It was outdoors, but, still, you'd never find anything like that now, not even if the school was in a prison. . . .

The cigarettes I bought that day in Vancouver were Viceroys. I'd often noticed them in the shirt pockets of gas-station attendants and, no doubt, thought that they'd make me appear masculine . . .

I didn't much notice my fellow-smokers until the mid-eighties, when we began to be cordoned off. Now there were separate sections in waiting rooms and restaurants, and I'd often look around and evaluate what I'd come to think of as "my team." . . .

When New York banned smoking in the workplace, I quit working. When it was banned in restaurants, I stopped eating out and when the price of cigarettes hit seven dollars a pack I gathered all my stuff together and went to France. . . .

It is here that I'll identify myself as a Kool Mild smoker. This, to some, is like reading the confessions of a wine enthusiast and discovering midway through that his drink of choice is Lancers, but so be it. It was my sister Gretchen who introduced me to menthol cigarettes. . . .

I don't know what got her started again: stress, force of habit, or perhaps she decided that, at sixty-one, she was too old to quit. I'd probably have agreed with her, though now, sixty-one, that's nothing.

There were other attempts to stop smoking, but none of them lasted more than a few days. Lisa would tell me that Mom hadn't had a cigarette in eighteen hours. Then, when my mother called, I'd hear the click of her lighter, followed by a ragged intake of breath: "What's new, pussycat?"

My last cigarette was smoked in a bar at Charles de Gaulle airport. It was January 3, 2007, a Wednesday morning, and though Hugh and I would be changing planes in London and had a layover of close to two hours, I thought it best to quit while I was still ahead.

Jump to full article »

KAZEE: Tax can help workers, employers 

If the Senate wants to use cigarette tax revenue in a way that benefits the most people and gets the biggest bang for its buck, it needs to embrace Medicaid expansion. When working adults can access the program, it becomes something rare: a pro-worker and pro-business policy that we all should support.

Jump to full article »

MAKHIJANI: Health conscious America junks smoking, embraces fast food 

This is one of the many contradictions of American society: smoking is banned on health grounds in most public places - but not in the outdoors - while no steps are considered necessary to check the burgeoning consumption of junk food that is definitely considered a health hazard.

Thus, you have a situation in which smoking is banned in government offices, restaurants and even hotel rooms - but not in the areas surrounding these places.

So much so that a stern warning, very carefully worded, greets visitors to a swanky beach resort and spa an hours' drive from here.

"Enjoy your non-smoking room", reads the notice in bold capitals, adding: "A $250 cleaning fee will be charged for smoking in this room".

The ban also extends to the various restaurants and party rooms of the hotel.

At the same time, ashtrays are liberally provided in various other parts of the hotel - but outside the building complex. . . .

Wasn't this policy self-defeating in that it was not only failing to prevent people from smoking but also contributing to the pollution of the atmosphere at large?

Jump to full article »

McGINNIS: Living with the smoking ban 

Illinois has a pretty stringent smoking ban that prohibits lighting up in just about any building the public has access to, no exceptions.

Recently, I talked to two bar and restaurant owners and both are learning to live with the ban. . . .

Enforcement is another issue with the ban.

Right now the state is trying to decide whether penalties for violators should be civil or criminal.� While they sort that out, it's up to local health and police departments to enforce the ban as they see fit.

Jump to full article »

YOUNGWITH: Smoke-free is public health policy 

At the very least I'll give Ryan Evans credit for reading the Federalist Papers. It's nice to see political debates taken to a higher level.

But how he stretches Federalist Papers Number 10 into the right of smokers to make other people sick, doesn't do much justice to the Founding Fathers. In fact, it borders on laughable.

It is fairly clear that Evans, a blogger whose site is sponsored by two cigar makers, doesn't care much for the facts. But for everyone else, this might be a healthy time to review them:

First, the debate really is about protecting public health. . . .

There is nothing unusual about passing laws to protect health, just as we already do to restrict drunk driving or ensure that hamburgers are cooked in a clean kitchen.

This is the right thing to do. It is good public health policy. It is even the democratic thing to do. Evans' tobacco sponsors know this to be true.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Smoking bans are not progressive, they are positive change 

My daughter and I recently visited your beautiful and vibrant city on a college tour. We stayed downtown at the Hilton. The first thing we noticed as we entered the lobby was the stench of secondhand smoke. . . .

We both agreed that St. Louis is quite backwards�on this issue. We live in much smaller Louisville, KY where we have a comprehensive clean air ordinance for all indoor venues. All workers and visitors�to our city enjoy working and socializing in a healthy environment. Major cities such as Washington D.C., Chicago, New York, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and many others as well as entire states and countries guarantee clean indoor air for all. I'm not sure why St. Louis has not stepped up and joined the new century. This is not radical thinking, it is positive change.

Jump to full article »

Pete Robinson: German ban goes up in smoke 

There's a war going on in Germany, and this time they're winning.

I'm talking about the German smoking ban, currently jammed firmly in reverse gear. Angela Merkel's government has faithfully copied the tactics employed by our own beloved Nu-Labour - lies, propaganda and junk science - yet they've failed miserably in theface of people-power.

Remember when we were being told our pubs had nothing to fear from the smoking ban? How commercially successful it had been in Ireland and the USA, where bars were teeming with 'new' customers?

In my discussions with German landlords and their customers, when I inform them of the damage it's doing to our own licenced trade I'm always met with gobsmacked, shocked surprise. . . .

Plus Germany has no equivalent of ASH, the obsessive, powerful state-sponsored 'charity' with a vested interest in the decimation of our pubs. Antis have far linfluence in Germany where the words 'majority opinion' aren't considered offensive.

Which begs the question we must all ask ourselves: if the Germans can fight to successfully gain a fair interpretation of anti-smoking laws at what point will we follow suit?

When we've lost half of our pubs? Two-thirds? Or never?

Jump to full article »