Tobacco Articles: category oped

Show me the money: tobacco suit funds and the mollycoddle myth

Fri, 16 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

Currently, the state collects just over $600 million a year as part of this settlement and tobacco taxes. It spends a paltry 2.5% of that on tobacco prevention programs. This is in stark contrast to the recommended amount as laid out by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which suggests states spend between $31.2 and $82.4 million a year. To add insult to injury, these funds have been raided for other purposes several times now. . . . And speaking of shenanigans! Our good friends over at Ban the Ban Wisconsin have decided to change course and attack the people of the state instead of the "pro-ban activists." In a little something they cleverly call Operation Mollycoddle, the authors are calling on anti-ban types to convince regular folks that groups like Smoke Free Wisconsin think they're all "idiots" and "can't think for themselves." . . . So in order to bolster their cause, Ban the Ban seems to be advocating the use of mollycoddling to tell the people they're being mollycoddled by Smoke Free Wisconsin. Interesting. Instead of speaking plainly and sticking to the facts, both methods that seem to have failed them totally (understandably), they're now going to "avoid [the opposite sides'] strong points" and "filter away the politically correct garbage and public health crap." That "public health crap" they're talking about are the inconvenient facts about second-and-first-hand smoking: * EPA has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in adults who do not smoke. . . . This isn't a matter of Smoke Free Wisconsin (or any other pro-ban group) accusing the people of not being able to think for themselves. It's a matter of keeping those who have thought for themselves and still decided that they don't care about public health from hurting others. Y'know, like laws against assault. Regardless, Ban the Ban seem hell-bent on mollycoddling the state, apparently thinking so little of their fellow citizens as to believe they can be duped into believing the crap that BtB is putting out there, in the air, for all to breathe.

WATERS: Fight cigarette taxes and you fight terrorism

derry@bipps.org (Jim Waters) — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

I may have the best reason yet for Kentucky lawmakers to not raise cigarette taxes: High cigarette taxes pay for terrorism. I know. I know. I flinched when I first heard about this connection, too. The notion that cigarette smuggling, driven by higher taxes, created a big-enough business to fund terrorists seemed goofy. But the truth here is at least as strange as the fiction. A report released April 29 by New York Rep. Peter King shows how terrorists benefit from high cigarette taxes. . . . Politicians don't want to fund terrorists. But when they raise cigarette taxes, they do just that. All of which gives new meaning to President Ronald Reagan's quip: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

Stutzman: Limits to outdoor smoking : University takes a good approach to campus smoking

newsroom@dailycamera.com (Erika Stutzman) — Fri, 16 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

The University of Colorado, in its move to limit smoking to designated outdoor areas, is taking the right approach. The Boulder Faculty Assembly this month overwhelmingly passed a resolution signaling support for outdoor smoking limits, which have been proposed by Regent Michael Carrigan, D-Denver. . . . Incidentally, there's some evidence that having fewer places to smoke is influencing some people from picking up the habit. A recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that teens in towns with complete smoking bans in restaurants were 40 percent less likely to become smokers compared with teens in towns without the bans. What the study's authors found was that kids were less likely to start smoking when they had less exposure to places where smoking is socially acceptable. But indoor smoking bans were designed, and enacted, as workplace safety measures. So as unintended consequences go, that's a good side effect. Unlike any single one attributed to second-hand smoke.

DICKERSON: How a bill becomes roadkill

bdickerson@freepress.com (RIAN DICKERSON * FREE PRESS COLUMNIST * May 14, 2008) — Wed, 14 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

The bill passed by a 25-12 vote, and with the Democratic House already on record in support of a similar measure, the ban seemed destined for the desk of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has promised to sign it. The Senate's poison pill But of course, it's not that simple. State Rep. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit, who chairs the House Detroit caucus, joined with most of his Democratic colleagues in supporting the House's smoking ban, which -- unlike the Senate version -- exempted Detroit's casinos. Now Johnson is worried that Detroit's casinos will lay off workers if the Senate's broader bill prevails. He says he'll withdraw his support for a smoking ban unless the exemption for his city's casinos is restored. Problem is, the Senate's GOP leaders insist they have no plans to revisit the issue if House members fail to adopt the Senate's bill as is. "If you want a smoking ban in Michigan, you're going to have a smoking ban in Michigan," Senate GOP spokesman Matt Marsden told the MIRS news service this week. "You're not going to have special carve-out islands that benefit the Democratic Party."

KEAST: Dancing with the devil: Why is a Crown corporation investing in tobacco stocks when the B.C. government is suing tobacco companies?

sunnewstips@png.canwest.com (Gordon Keast, The Vancouver Sun) — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

This doesn't make sense. While the provincial government has been fighting for the right to sue tobacco companies to recover health-care costs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the British Columbia Investment Management Corp., a Crown corporation, has been pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into tobacco stocks. Its investments in tobacco stocks had a market value of more than $385 million in 2007. Established in 1999, BCIMC manages more than $83 billion in assets, including $64 billion administered on behalf of public-sector pension funds. Its clients also include the province of British Columbia, public trusts and insurance funds. . . . But should a Crown corporation be using public sector pension fund contributions to buy stocks in tobacco companies and foreign military contractors? There may be wide differences of opinion on the issue of military contractors, but I seriously doubt that a majority of B.C. residents would defend the tobacco investments. The right thing to do is for the B.C. Investment Management Corp. to divest itself immediately of all tobacco stocks. Those investments are an embarrassment to the government and a serious health hazard for the rest of us.

RUSS SMITH - Mugger: Thank Me For Smoking: Mugger coughs up some memories of when cigarettes were cool.

mug1988@aol.com (Russ Smith) — Wed, 14 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

It's in the tradition of oral history handed down to succeeding generations: Some of the details spun out will be wrong, apocryphal or innocently burnished by the passage of time. However, what's more disturbing to me, a longtime smoker, is that when such reminiscences are recorded in written essays--and thus recorded as gospel via the Internet--is that some authors are simply getting their facts wrong. David Sedaris, born in 1956, recently published a typically entertaining piece on his own smoking history in The New Yorker, "Letting Go: Smoking and non-smoking," and his fiddling with the truth (probably inadvertent, for he is over 50 years old) resulted in my immediate thought that none of his editors at the weekly ever fell prey to the now-reviled habit. . . . The following is just one example of where Sedaris is off base: "[C]oolness, for most of us, had nothing to do with it. It's popular to believe that every smoker was brainwashed, sucked in by product placement and subliminal print ads." No doubt, New York anti-smoking activist Gene Borio, a pleasant enough fellow who used to bombard New York Press with letters to the editor in the golden days (at least on the revenue side for publishers) after a full-page cigarette advertisement was published, will disagree--and Gene, the war's over: you won--but smoking had everything to do with "coolness." It wasn't Ricky and Lucy Ricardo casually lighting up on I Love Lucy reruns that led me to start smoking at the age of 14; it was the far more compelling example of my fourth-oldest brother . . . it is important in terms of 20th-century pop culture and business history not to distort a staple of American life (like horse-drawn carriages or transistor radios) that was once so prevalent and vibrant.

LEONARD: Connecting the dots between Big Tobacco and DDT

aleonard@salon.com (Andrew Leonard / How the World Works) — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

The myth that Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring," was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in Africa because her denunciations of DDT led to a "ban" . . . But I did not know until reading John Quiggin and Tim Lambert's enlightening story in the British Prospect (thanks to The New Republic's Energy and Environment blog for the tip) how exactly the assault on Carson ever got started. . . . DDT had been replaced by less environmentally damaging alternatives. But soon the situation changed radically. The tobacco industry, faced with the prospect of bans on smoking in public places, sought to cast doubt on the science behind the mooted ban. But a campaign focused on tobacco alone was doomed to failure. So the industry tried a different tack, an across-the-board attack on what it called "junk science." Its primary vehicle was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a body set up by PR firm APCO in the early 1990s and secretly funded by Philip Morris. . . . DDT had been replaced by less environmentally damaging alternatives. But soon the situation changed radically. The tobacco industry, faced with the prospect of bans on smoking in public places, sought to cast doubt on the science behind the mooted ban. But a campaign focused on tobacco alone was doomed to failure. So the industry tried a different tack, an across-the-board attack on what it called "junk science." Its primary vehicle was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a body set up by PR firm APCO in the early 1990s and secretly funded by Philip Morris. TASSC, led by an activist named Steve Milloy, attacked the environmental movement on everything . . . As for the "orthodoxy of mainstream U.S. Republicanism" -- judging by the recent Democratic pickups of purportedly "safe" Republican Congressional seats in three consecutive special elections, it seems to have fallen a bit out of favor with the mainstream U.S. general public. Could it be that the ill effects of embracing charlatans like Steve Milloy are finally taking their toll? Just as overuse of DDT for agricultural purposes led to the development of resistant mosquitos, overuse of Steve Milloy may be leading to resistant voters.

Should I design a tobacco firm’s new HQ? : In the first of a new series, Irena Bauman, author of How to be a Happy Architect, tackles your ethical dilemmas

Fri, 16 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

A tobacco firm has asked me to design its new headquarters and the brief looks exciting. But I have ethical objections to its business. Should I accept the commission?

. . . My advice is: resist the vanity of the compliment and refuse the commission. Architects lack direct political or financial powers to shape society’s ethics. But we can help shape social values by deciding who we will or will not work for. In accepting commissions, we sign up to the values they represent.

Gary Gosselin: Statewide workplace smoking ban sensible

garyg@mbusinessreview.com (Gary Gosselin * Oakland Business Review) — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

A recent study by Lansing's Public Sector Consultants showed increased business after bans were enacted. The study was commissioned by Campaign for Smokefree Air, a coalition of health advocacy groups. More than two dozen states have enacted similar bans, and by most accounts businesses have not been impacted greatly. If the ban is across the board, each business will be on equal footing, and a smoke-free environment would favor no one business. . . . As more information comes available about the health dangers smoking poses, changes are made to mitigate its effects. This is one of those changes.

HABERMAN: The House must stand up to casinos on smoking

Tue, 13 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

Last year, 56 members of the House decided that the comfort and convenience of smokers did not outweigh the interests of public health and economic growth. If those same representatives change their vote now, it will be because they have prostituted themselves to the sacred gods of the slots. The House can with one vote remind us that they are our representatives and not casino employees. Those who previously supported the bill must not bend. Those who opposed it can follow the wise words of Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township, who had previously opposed a public smoking ban but changed his mind in light of the evidence before him. "I'm now on the right side of this issue," he said. Time for all of Michigan to get there, too.

Smoking: Menthol Cigarettes Are Not 'Flavored,' Says Dr. Kool Newport

commenting+389890.5664579@gawker.com (Hamilton Nolan) — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

How popular are menthol cigarettes? Popular enough to reverse logic. The government is set to pass a bill that will ban "flavored" cigarettes, but menthols will be excluded. Because menthol, of course, is not a flavor. What menthol is is close to $20 billion in sales for the tobacco industry. As well as an important part of African-American culture! Tobacco companies advertise menthol brands disproportionately to minority communities, and it obviously works, although nobody really knows why. What we do know is that this bill is perfect--it protects my precious Kools, while saving America from the strawberry menace: . . . But let's be fair, those crying racial discrimination in advertising: how do you explain THIS?

SULLUM: The Times Discovers the Tobacco Bill's Flavoritism

mike.alissi@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

As I noted a few years ago, when an earlier version of this tobacco bill was introduced, anti-smoking activists consider good taste inherently objectionable, ostensibly because it appeals to minors.

LIMBAUGH: Congress Gives Big Tobacco a Pass on Menthol in Cigarette Bill

Tue, 13 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

RUSH: Okay, have you had enough time here to think about, ladies and gentlemen, why indeed the US Congress is going to exempt menthol flavoring from the ban on flavored cigarettes, especially when you find out that 75% of menthol cigarettes are purchased by African-Americans? Can you imagine what's going to happen when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright finds out about this? When the Reverend Jeremiah Wright finds out that 75% of blacks smoke menthol flavored cigarettes and that menthol is the only flavoring that's not going to be banned, what do you think he's going to charge? He's going to say that this is a planned genocide against African-Americans who smoke by the US government in this country, and would he be wrong? May I speak boldly here? We keep hearing, and we have heard, for years and years and years, that cigarette smoking kills, that tobacco kills. During these years, during these decades, what have we done? We have not banned the product, have we? No. We have banned the places it can be used, but we have not banned the product. In fact, we have increased taxes on the product. We used the taxes on the sale of tobacco product -- let's talk cigarettes here, for example -- to fund health care programs and other wasteful government spending. In fact, the tobacco settlements were all about socializing tobacco company profits. Governments routinely have looted these piles of money that states collected in the tobacco settlement plan. They will not ban the program. They will not ban the product . . . They're not about saving lives. They're about raising taxes. It's about increasing government revenue. It's about keeping people addicted to these things. . . . They're gonna ban all the flavorings in cigarettes except menthol 'cause 75% of blacks smoke menthol? (laughing) You just have to laugh because these people will show us who they are each and every day

RAMADOSS: If the Health Minister can’t do this, who can?: Front Page

Sun, 11 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

"I am responsible for the health of the nation" Tobacco and alcohol together make a perfect recipe for early death Creativity as an art should be used for improving lives instead of taking them Healthy criticism and freedom of speech, I always thought, were the strengths of a mature society. As an individual, I have always welcomed criticism - in fact accepted it graciously for it is a participatory process and helps improve performance. But criticism loses credibility when targeted against an individual only because he dares to speak courageously and with conviction against social evils. I have been a victim of this uncalled-for criticism. . . . I am just doing my duty as a Health Minister to protect the lives of millions of innocent young men and women who will be affected by these killers. I refuse to be cowed down by industry-sponsored campaigns and articles. The media too have an important role to play in creating awareness. I urge them to highlight the various achievements of the Health Ministry, which will help the Government to reach the people in a focussed manner. If the Health Minister should not address these issues, then who should?

Rich Perlberg: Don't let smoke get in your eyes

rperlberg@gannett.com (Rich Perlberg) — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:00:00 GMT

If I occasionally dine in a restaurant with smokers, my health is likely not jeopardized. That may not be so for the waitperson who has to work there five nights a week. Still, it's worrisome. If we can ban secondhand smoke because of the health threat to employees, then why would we allow parents to smoke in their own homes around infants? Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, but I'm not sure that's a parental choice we want regulated by the state. Look, our state lawmakers are the same yahoos who made a mockery of the state budget process last year. They are the same guys who acted like buffoons by forcing upon us a $10 million presidential primary that essentially disenfranchised the state's Democratic voters during the most competitive presidential race in our lifetimes. Do you want these guys running your personal lives? If so, you need to clear the smoke from your eyes.