Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
To hear Sharp rant is to understand why Kay Hagan, North Carolina's new senator, joined Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and 15 other senators to become the only Democrat to vote against the tobacco bill. And if any tobacco farmer has Hagan's ear, it is Sharp.
Last year, when Hagan was a little-known candidate running in an uphill battle to unseat Republican Elizabeth Dole, she campaigned at Sharp's farm. The fiscally conservative tobacco farmers along the I-95 corridor here make up a constituency that often helps swing statewide elections, and they backed Hagan strongly.
Hagan, 55, is no stranger to tobacco. A former lawyer and bank executive, she spent summers as a child stringing the leaves on her grandparents' farm. In the state legislature, she represented Greensboro, the headquarters of Lorillard Tobacco, which employs about 2,500 workers there.
To call Hagan merely a defender of the "golden leaf" industry would be an understatement. She is among tobacco's fiercest backers. In 2005, as co-chairman of the state Senate's appropriations committee, she helped shave back an increase in the cigarette tax from the 45 cents a pack proposed by the governor to 30 cents. During last year's campaign, Hagan received $19,200 from the tobacco industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Jump to full article »
The tobacco industry has cleverly gone beyond a merely defensive cam-Marlboro Man: From the Wild campaign to one which is positive and West to the Far East pro-cigarettes.
Other industry tactics include creating doubt without actually denying medical evidence linking smoking and cancer, philanthropy to buy friends and social respectability, and using trade agreements, bribery and lobbying to force entry into closed markets.
The tobacco industry has also used its slick promotional skills to perfect a "customised" approach to marketing products and brands by identifying and "hunting" segments of population, including the women, teens and children of the developing world.
Unfortunately, many developing countries provide a conducive atmosphere for tobacco companies to test their latest insidious tactics to get around strict legislation in developed countries. . . .
In Uganda, while still waiting for the National Environment Management Authority and the Police to enforce the Control of Smoking in Public Places legislation enacted in 2004, the vulnerable tobacco consumer needs to have an overview of the tobacco industry tactics and their corresponding goals -
- Intelligence Gathering - Monitor opponents and social trends to anticipate future challenges
- Public Relations - Mold public opinion using the media to promote pro-industry positions
- Political Funding - Use donations to win votes and legislative favours from politicians
- Lobbying - Cut deals and influence political process
- Consultancy Programmes - Produce "independent" experts critical of tobacco control measures
- Smokers' Rights Groups - Create impressions of spontaneous, grassroots public support
Representatives of the tobacco industry are scheduled to meet the director general implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) here today (Thursday) to demand an extension in the January 1, 2010 deadline for incorporation of pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs and outers, credible sources informed 'The News' here on Wednesday.
Rumours are also rife in health circles about the tobacco industry's intention to persuade the Ministry of Health against the use of shocking and fear-arousing photographs and to settle on graphics and images that are 'mild' and 'light' -- deceptive terms, which the industry itself prints on cigarette packs to mislead consumers and to promote the false impression that brands with such inscriptions offer lower tar exposure and risk, compared to other varieties. Such terms have the potential to influence health-concerned smokers to delay or prevent quitting.
The meeting will be attended by DG Implementation FCTC and head of the Tobacco Control Cell Shaheen Masud, health education advisor Mazhar Nisar, and Abdus Sattar Chaudhry. The tobacco industry will have its point of articulated by representatives of Pakistan Tobacco Company and Lakson Tobacco Company. . . .
If the World Health Organisation can prohibit its staff from meeting persons associated with the tobacco industry, why can't the Ministry of Health institute similar curbs? In an interesting development, one of the tobacco giants operating in Islamabad has appointed its 'tobacco guru' working in Indonesia, as the head of government and media relations in Pakistan to counter the blitz of negative media and continuing onslaught of the regulators against the tobacco industry.
The decision is said to have been taken in view of the company's frustration with the waning influence of retired senior bureaucrats working for it against hefty salaries.
Opponents of Salina's clean indoor air ordinance have come up significantly short of the signatures they needed on a petition seeking a special election to repeal the ordinance.
Although the opponents claimed to have gathered 2,150 signatures, the Saline County Clerk's office counted only 1,757 signatures on the 90 pages of petitions that were turned in June 9 by Gary Swartzendruber and Beth Owens.
Opponents were seeking to force a vote to repeal the ordinance, which took effect May 2. The ordinance bans smoking in nearly all public places, including bars, private clubs and bingo parlors.
Of the 1,757 signatures on the petitions, workers in the county clerk's office could verify that only 994 belonged to registered voters living in Salina -- well short of the 1,390 required to trigger a special election . . .
Some ban opponents have expressed their desire to keep circulating petitions for repeal of the ordinance as often as every six months, if need be, until they reach the number of signatures necessary or city commissioners repeal the ordinance, Swartzendruber said.
But they should consider the staff time and its cost to the county, he said. He estimated that with 150 hours invested in verifying the signatures, the cost could reach as high as several thousand dollars.
Tobacco advertising has been declining since the 1970s, when TV and radio commercials for cigarettes were banned. The industry cut back heavily on magazine ads in 2000, under pressure after placing ads in magazines with many young readers.
Last year, tobacco companies spent $78.4 million on ads in the U.S., with $69.3 million of that in magazines, mostly male-oriented publications including Maxim, Playboy, Men's Journal and Field & Stream, according TNS Media Intelligence, an ad-tracking firm owned by WPP.
Any further loss of revenue, even the relatively small amount flowing from tobacco, would hit at a particularly hard time for the magazine industry, which saw ad spending drop 21% in the first quarter of 2009 from a year earlier, according to TNS.
The ad industry opposes the legislation, arguing that it violates free speech. . . .
Magazines that have "a significant readership of people" under the age of 18 wouldn't be allowed to run a tobacco ad unless it was black-and-white text only, a "tombstone" in ad-industry parlance. Tombstone ads would command a far lower rate than the colorful print ads that tobacco companies have relied on for decades.
Advertisers argue that their industry can regulate itself and that the legislation could set a dicey precedent for products such as alcohol and fast food. Last week's legislation would be "the most restrictive advertising bill ever passed in the U.S. for a legal product," says Dan Jaffe, executive vice president for government relations at the ANA.
A spokeswoman for Reynolds, a unit of Reynolds American, said she can't give details on its advertising plans for competitive reasons but that the tobacco company "will be in compliance with the law."
A spokesman for tobacco maker Lorillard said it is "premature to speculate on what the future will hold." Lorillard plans to spend about $12 million on magazine ads for all of 2008 and 2009.
As President Barack Obama moves to ease restrictions on trade with Cuba, cigar lovers are savoring the prospect of legally lighting up a smoke that has long required a black- market connection and a willingness to flout the law. . . .
The possible end to the 47-year-old embargo on Cuba trade has intensified a legal and lobbying fight between cigar makers Swedish Match AB of Stockholm and Imperial Tobacco Group Plc of Bristol, England. Each wants exclusive rights to sell Cuban-made brands in the U.S., the world’s largest market for premium cigars.
Swedish Match sells cigars in the U.S. made in Honduras and the Dominican Republic under Cuban brand names. It bought the brands from families that fled Cuba after Fidel Castro seized their cigar companies in the 1960s. Imperial distributes Cuban- made cigars under many of the same names to the rest of the world through an agreement with the Cuban government monopoly, Cubatabaco.
“Before serious commerce resumes, this is going to have to be resolved,” said Robert Muse, a Washington lawyer who advises clients on Cuba-related issues.
How does the tobacco tax work? Who does it help and who does it harm? Below, some questions and answers to help frame the debate.
What's the chief argument for hiking the tobacco tax?
That it's a good tax. Business taxes have negative consequences: They drive companies and jobs out of the region. High income taxes make the state a less desirable place to live. Sales taxes can stifle commerce.
But tobacco taxes are different. They raise revenues and simultaneously serve the public good by reducing smoking, at least in theory. That's not insignificant in a state where about 13.3 percent of residents smoke, where there are more than 30,000 smoking-related deaths each year, and annual smoking-related costs are estimated at more than $15 billion.
Can raising taxes really change behavior?
Yes. The tobacco tax is based on one of the most fundamental rules of microeconomics -- the law of demand -- which says that all else being equal, the more you raise the price of a product, the more demand for it will drop. Conversely, if you reduce the price, more people will buy, use or, in this case, smoke the product. . . .
Demand for tobacco is not perfectly inelastic, just relatively inelastic. Studies have shown that higher prices do persuade many smokers to stop. Especially poor people (who have more incentive to quit when prices go up) and younger smokers (who are both less addicted and more price-sensitive). . . .
With me so far? Cigarettes, you'll recall, have a price elasticity of roughly -.4.
So multiply the 33 percent price increase by -.4, and you learn that it will reduce the demand for cigarettes by 13.2 percent.
They can really tell that?
Obviously, it's not exact. . . .
It's certainly true that tobacco taxes are regressive. But poor smokers are also more likely to benefit, because they are more likely to quit as a result of the tax. . . .
So what's the bottom line?
There aren't that many taxes that do good while raising money.
The gas tax, which discourages driving, is another example. Don't rule them out!
The future of menthol cigarettes, smoked by 12 million Americans and 75 percent of African American smokers, could be the next flashpoint in a decades-long campaign against smoking in the United States.
Last week, Congress passed a bill giving the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products. President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law soon. . . .
Under the bill, the FDA must study the medical effects and marketing of menthol and its impact on blacks, Hispanics and other groups and report within 18 months. In theory, the FDA could then move to ban menthol cigarettes but some anti-smoking activists are skeptical the agency will do so.
"I am pessimistic that menthol will be banned," said Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the American Association of Public Health Physicians, who described the bill as a fraud.
Some anti-smoking groups wanted the ban on flavored cigarettes to include menthol but were told repeatedly that would kill the bill, said William Robinson of the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network.
Tobacco industry lobbyists influenced some legislators, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to accept what amounted to a soft compromise for menthol, he said.
"They buy influence when you have the deep pockets the tobacco industry has," Robinson said. Other anti-smoking groups denied lobbyists influenced legislators to gain a more favorable outcome for companies that produce menthol brands.
AS PASSED
BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
JUNE 17, 2009
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Tobacco Act to provide additional protection for youth from tobacco marketing. It repeals the exception that permits tobacco advertising in publications with an adult readership of not less than 85%. It prohibits the packaging, importation for sale, distribution and sale of little cigars and blunt wraps unless they are in a package that contains at least 20 little cigars or blunt wraps. It also prohibits the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, little cigars and blunt wraps that contain the additives set out in a new schedule to that Act, as well as the packaging of those products in a manner that suggests that they contain a prohibited additive. It also prohibits the manufacture and sale of tobacco products unless all of the required information about their composition is submitted to the Minister.
It began as an attempt to get candy-flavoured cigarillos out of the hands of kids, but U.S. tobacco growers said a pending Canadian law would ban imports of virtually all U.S. tobacco products.
The U.S. industry has warned that the bill, now before a parliamentary health committee, would violate World Trade Organization rules by unfairly targeting most U.S. tobacco imports.
Makers of "American-blend cigarettes" typically use flavourings to remove or disguise the harsh taste of the tobacco varieties grown in several U.S. states, including Kentucky and Tennessee.
Canadian cigarettes, on the other hand, use mainly Virginia tobacco, which doesn't include flavouring.
The Canadian legislation, Bill C-32, has attracted the ire of key members of the U.S. Congress, as well as both the U.S. and Canadian chambers of commerce.
A discriminatory bill currently pending in the Canadian Parliament would endanger agricultural jobs and could signal a worldwide movement against Virginia burley. If passed, the bill would essentially ban all burley exports from the U.S. to Canada, resulting in far-reaching, negative implications for the burley growing industry.
The Virginia tobacco industry generates hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Virginia tobacco farms are typically small family farms with few alternative crops capable of generating the per acre returns necessary to support their operations.
"More than 900 Virginia farmers depend on the production of tobacco to support their farming operations and rural communities," said Wayne Pryor, President of the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation. "Farm sales of tobacco in Virginia will exceed $70 million in farm value this year, and this bill would have a devastating impact on Virginia agriculture."
The original intent of the bill (Canada Bill C-32) was to ban only candy-flavored little cigars. But it has been written so broadly that it will apply to all cigarettes and will ban all flavorings used with Virginia-grown burley, effectively prohibiting the manufacture and sale of American blend cigarettes - with Virginia-grown burley tobacco - in Canada. American blend cigarettes contain burley tobacco and use certain ingredients to aid in the manufacturing process and to provide the products with their distinct taste. Unlike the products that are supposed to be targeted by the bill, these American blend cigarettes do not have a fruity or sweet odor or flavor.