Tobacco on legislators' agenda

ALBANY -- After a Friday of furious budget activity, the Legislature returns to the Capitol today to vote on Gov. David Paterson's latest provocative one-week budget extender -- including a chunky tax hike on cigarettes and tobacco products as well as stepped-up tax enforcement on sales of tobacco products on Indian reservations.

Under the plan, the current tax on a pack of cigarettes will rise from $2.75 to $4.35. The tax on other tobacco products -- such as cigars, chewing tobacco and pipe tobacco -- will increase from 46 percent to 75 percent. The increases are scheduled to take effect Sept. 1 and raise $290 million annually, according to the Paterson administration; stepped-up enforcement on Indian sales is expected to collect $150 million more.
Over the weekend, forces on either side of the debate over smoking weighed in. Altria, the parent company of cigarette giant Philip Morris, released a packet of information arguing that the hike would be an unfair burden that would hurt consumers and retailers, and could lead to increased illegal trafficking.

The American Heart Association was one of several groups that came out in support of the boost: "The higher the better," said Julianne Hart, the state organization's advocacy director.

The inclusion of the new taxes will make the extender harder to support for any of the three Republican senators who enabled last week's emergency appropriation to pass over Democrat Ruben Diaz Sr.'s "no" vote. The extender's defeat would lead to a broad government shutdown.

Sen. Hugh Farley, R-Schenectady, said last week that he wants to keep the state running, but would refuse to vote for anything that contains new taxes.

The Senate's Democratic majority will also take up a series of budget bills dealing with government operation, transportation, environmental protection and other sectors. The bill were passed by the Assembly on Friday but lagged in the Senate due to the absences of several Democrats.

Paterson and legislators still have to tackle the thorniest portions of the budget: the state's revenue plan and education funding.

The budget deadline for this fiscal year passed on April 1. Paterson said last week that if a final budget plan isn't settled this week, he'll put the remainder of his budget proposal into the extender to be passed on Monday, June 28.

Stephen Strasburg = Smoking Fastball + Smokeless Tobacco

By now, everyone knows that Washington Nationals ace pitcher, rookie Stephen Strasburg is the real deal.

His debut lived up to all the hype, with the 21-year old throwing furious heat into the seventh inning. He had 14 strikeouts and no walks, getting his first major league win against the Pittsburgh Pirates in a 5-2 win Tuesday evening.

But what I had somehow missed in all the coverage leading up to his debut is this: the young man uses dip, that is, smokeless tobacco.

Reading some of the Washington Post coverage Wednesday morning, I came across a description of the Nats clubhouse scene which starts off with a mention of Strasburg's wife:

While Rachel was making an early run on the Nationals' Team Store — coming away with a bagful of limited-edition Strasburg 37 jerseys, and paying full price — her husband was taking batting practice in an indoor cage, with a tin of dip tobacco in his back pocket and a pinch between his gum and lower lip.

As Phil Rizzuto and Harry Caray might have said: Holy Cow! Or as was said in an earlier baseball era, say it ain't so.

So Strasburg has a weakness after all.

Major League Baseball has for years wanted to get rid of smokeless tobacco, a known carcinogen which causes some of the most hideous cancers of the mouth and throat imaginable. It has been banned in the minors since 1993, though players there still sneak it.

For years, there's been a concerted effort to keep young people from starting the dip habit, especially because of the mistaken impression that it's safer than smoking tobacco.

The mlb.fanhouse.com site has an informative story that provides plenty of background on the use of the product in the majors and efforts to prohibit it. Apparently, the players' union has opposed a ban.

But there are players who support a ban, who understand that they are role models to youngsters, according to the Fanhouse piece:

An excerpt from the piece:

"I would be for [a ban]," A's infielder Eric Chavez said. "I don't do it. Sometimes when I'm watching the games you see a guy throw in a big dip and the camera focuses in on it, I know kids are watching. You want guys to be able to do what they want. Everyone is an adult, but you also have to be aware of the message that you send to kids. ... Since I don't dip, I think I'd be an advocate for trying to get it out of the game, or at least off the field."

As was made clear last night, Strasburg draws a lot of attention and will no doubt be a role model for many youngsters, especially because, by all accounts, he is a humble and level-headed young man.

So his use of snuff is the kind of practice many people will find worrisome, not only for the personal health of one of the most gifted young pitchers baseball has ever seen but for the message it could send to many youngsters who may try to imitate their newest hero.

CDC Finds Higher Levels of Cancer-Causing Chemicals in U.S. Cigarettes

People who smoke certain U.S. cigarette brands are exposed to higher levels of cancer-causing tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), the major carcinogens and cancer-causing agents in tobacco products, than people who smoke some foreign cigarette brands. This was one of the findings from the first-ever study to compare TSNA exposures among smokers from different countries. CDC researchers compared mouth-level TSNA exposures and urine biomarkers among smokers from the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia. Results of this study are published in the June issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.

“We know that cigarettes from around the world vary in their ingredients and the way they are produced,” said Dr. Jim Pirkle, deputy director for science at CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Laboratory Sciences. “All of these cigarettes contain harmful levels of carcinogens, but these findings show that amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines differ from country to country, and U.S. brands are the highest in the study.”

The types of tobacco in cigarettes vary by manufacturer and location of production. The U.S. cigarette brands studied contained “American blend” tobacco, a specific mixture of tobacco from the U.S. that contains higher TSNA levels. The Australian, Canadian, and U.K. cigarette brands were made from “bright” tobacco, which is lighter in color and flue cured. Changes in curing and blending practices could reduce U.S. smokers’ exposure to one type of cancer-causing compound, however, this would not necessarily result in a safer product.
Study collaborators enlisted 126 persons from Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. who smoke cigarettes daily to participate in the study. Cigarettes smoked by study participants represented popular brands in each country.

Scientists measured chemicals in cigarette butts collected by each smoker over a 24-hour period to determine how much of a certain TSNA entered the smokers’ mouths during that period. They also collected urine samples from study participants to find out how much breakdown product from this TSNA appeared in the urine. Comparing the results from these two types of sampling showed a correlation between the amount of one TSNA that enters the mouth and the amount of its breakdown product that appears in the urine. This is the first time this relationship has been documented.

Malaysia gov't faces tobacco wrath over ban delay

A tobacco giant that exhausted its inventory of small cigarette packets in anticipation of a ban threatened Thursday to take legal action against the Malaysian government for reportedly deciding to delay the prohibition.

The Malaysian affiliate of Philip Morris International voiced disappointment with what it called a "precipitous" decision that would be "a devastating blow not only to our business but to foreign investor confidence in Malaysia."

Tobacco companies in the Southeast Asian country have been phasing out parts of their inventory and manufacturing equipment in recent months ahead of a government ban on cigarette packets containing fewer than 20 cigarettes that was supposed to take effect June 1.

However, the financial newspaper The Edge reported Thursday that the government had decided to postpone the ban. The Malaysian Insider news website later quoted Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai as saying that authorities feared the ban would spark a surge in demand for illegally produced cigarettes.

Health Ministry officials said they could not immediately comment on the reports, and that Liow was traveling late Thursday and could not be contacted.

"In the absence of clarity surrounding this decision, (we) will have no choice but to evaluate all possible avenues, including legal recourse, to recover any losses the company may suffer," Richard Morgan, the managing director of Philip Morris in Malaysia, said in a statement.

"How can any corporation plan for its future and maintain its viability in an environment of such legal uncertainty, where decisions that are supposedly set in concrete can be overturned so rapidly and without any consultation?" the statement added.

The government had been planning the ban for years as part of efforts to curb smoking among young Malaysians who consider smaller cigarette packs more affordable.

The Malaysian Insider quoted Liow as saying the government would make a final decision in "a few months" on when the ban might be enforced.

Tobacco funding: time to quit

Tobacco companies are not philanthropic institutions. As long ago as 1967 the late Senator Robert Kennedy said, "the cigarette industry is peddling a deadly weapon. It is dealing in people's lives for financial gain".

The Australian tobacco industry is dominated by three big companies (or in modern political parlance, three "great big" companies), British American Tobacco, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco - all overseas-owned, with decisions made not in Sydney or Melbourne but in London and New York.

These are tough and ruthless multinational corporations, promoting and selling a product that kills one in two of its regular users. They have known for sixty years that their product is lethal. During this time almost one million Australians have died because they smoked - while the tobacco companies have denied and downplayed the evidence, doing their utmost to oppose and delay any action that might be effective in reducing smoking. Around the world their products cause five million deaths a year - a figure which will only increase as their drive into developing countries bears lethal fruit.

The new Chief Executive of Imperial Tobacco, Alison Cooper, was recently reported in the UK media as still refusing to accept that smoking causes cancer. Small wonder that only last week a survey of the reputations of the UK's largest 150 companies had Imperial Tobacco at 147 and British American Tobacco at a rock bottom 150.

There is massive evidence from once-confidential industry documents now available following litigation in the US that for decades tobacco companies have acted more cynically than even tobacco campaigners might have thought - summarised by a quote from an industry executive - "We don't smoke this shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid."

And as if all this were not enough, the industry has been found guilty of racketeering in the US.

Tobacco companies have only one aim, in London, New York or Canberra. In line with their responsibility to their shareholders, they spend money with the sole purpose of benefiting their interests.

So why would anybody want to take money from this pariah industry?

The Australian Electoral Commission website reports that in recent years both the Philip Morris company and British American Tobacco have been generous donors to the Liberal Party and the National Party. During the year 2008/9 Philip Morris contributed $158,000 to the Liberal and National parties around Australia.

No doubt in addition to direct contributions there is also much indirect funding from groups supporting and representing tobacco companies, but this is much harder to pin down.

The only reason for these contributions is to further the interests of tobacco companies. The website of the British American Tobacco company is quite explicit about political donations: "Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company or Group..."

A review of tobacco industry political donations in the US, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, concluded that, "tobacco industry monetary contributions are closely related to the way a legislator votes on tobacco issues", and "The more campaign contributions received by a Congress member, the more likely he/she votes pro-tobacco on tobacco-related bills".

Political donations are not simply about an intention to buy direct support: they are also about much less tangible benefits gained through indirect support, influence, contacts, access and credibility.

The Greens and Democrats took the lead in refusing tobacco industry funding, followed by the ALP. The other major parties understand the dangers of smoking; they know exactly why tobacco companies want to give them money; it is hard to imagine that they would knowingly take money from drug dealers - and yet they seem content to accept contributions from an industry whose products cause more than 80 per cent of Australia's drug deaths. Surely there is something awry with the moral radar of anyone who accepts this kind of blood money.

The argument we sometimes hear that this is a "legitimate industry" is old and tired. If cigarettes were a new product they would not be allowed on the market. Our parliaments have decreed that the product is so harmful that it should not be sold to children and adolescents, should not be advertised, and that its sales should be subject to ever-increasing controls. This is no ordinary product, no ordinary industry.

The Australian government now leads the world in action to reduce smoking, complementing strong action in most jurisdictions (other than the Northern Territory, whose lack of interest in tobacco remains a mystery).

It is time for all political parties to refuse tobacco funding, or for legislation that forbids such contributions from companies that still seek to oppose the work and recommendations of governments and health authorities, and whose products cause 15,000 Australian deaths each year when used precisely as intended. Then we can be assured that all parties are making policy on this vital public health issue free of the taint of association with tobacco companies, and free of any suspicion that their policies might be influenced by these disreputable, lethal donors.

Australian cigarette tax is all smokes and mirrors

THE first cigarette I smoked was a Peter Stuyvesant, described in its advertisements as "the international passport to smoking pleasure".

Hiding under the family home at Holland Park, I didn't really get the feeling I was on the Champs-Elysees. Perhaps the copy writers had it wrong.

Maybe I should have tried Benson and Hedges – "when only the best will do".

I remember the packaging – the pale blue of Belair packets, the heavily seriphed type of the Chesterfield packs, the white and blue of Rothmans, the red circle on white of Lucky Strikes and the dark red of the Lark brand which boasted "charcoal filters".

All gone, victims of another piece of political grandstanding by a Federal Government obsessed with the creation of shimmering PR images designed to dance on the political horizon until the federal election. Cigarettes will from 2012 be sold in plain packaging and the price will go up by $2.60 or more a packet. Wow! Another first for Australia!Watching Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on television announcing this, I cringed. The tobacco companies, he crowed, would hate the move and would fight it. "Bring it on" was the message from Action Man Rudd.

"PM gets tough on Tobacco Giants" was the message the PM's office was shovelling. Was this the same Man of Steel who'd tossed his ETS out the window the moment the political wind shifted?

Was it the same tower of strength who hung Environment Minister Peter Garrett out to dry when there was overwhelming evidence that despite the Prime Minister's office having been advised that the ceiling insulation scheme was fatally flawed, it insisted that it be rushed out into the suburbs regardless?

The same, and now he is challenging the tobacco companies to the best of 15 rounds to be fought bareknuckle with no quarter given, this titanic struggle to take place beneath the banner of a health initiative.

It's a stunt, and a transparent one. Of course the tobacco companies will fight it as Rudd hoped they would. They're defending their individual brands but in provoking this conflict, the PM is trying to portray himself as the fearless warrior unsheathing his sword to wage a holy war against the ravages of smoking-related disease.

People will stop smoking, we are told, if cigarettes are sold in plain packets. Crap. People will keep smoking because smoking is addictive and it's really hard to stop. I know what I'm talking about here.

People stop smoking because they are afraid it will kill them.

If this move is going to stop people smoking then why is the Government hoping that increasing the price will tip billions of extra dollars into the Treasury's coffers?

The other insupportable claim that is being woven around the announcement is that if cigarettes are sold in plain packaging, people who have not previously smoked will not take up the habit. Crap. People smoke because it's always been viewed as slightly outrageous and not something that "really nice" people do. It's marginally rebellious. It's a nose-thumb at society and its anti-smoking regulations.

Attractive packaging may well sway smokers in their selection of brand, the gold of the B&H exerting more visual allure than the blue and white of the Winfields, but it won't drive them to take smoking up in the first place.

If the Government is right in its approach, which is plainly an attempt to deflect attention away from the policy disasters now mounting around it, then it has unwittingly stumbled upon the answer to the social evil of binge drinking. Henceforth, all alcohol must be served in plain packaging. No more exotic beer labels or fine artwork on wine bottles which will now just read Fourex beer or Lindemans chardonnay.

This move, if the Government's case for tobacco is well-founded, will cause young people to lose all interest in drinking because it's the packaging that's been attracting them, not the product which lies within.

Putting up the price of cigarettes merely means more kids will go hungry. Thirty-eight per cent of unemployed people smoke, as do 50 per cent of indigenous Australians. They're not going to stop because it's become more expensive, which means the extra money will have to come from somewhere.

The tobacco companies will take legal action which will drag on. In due course, the PM's initiative may be disallowed by the courts but it doesn't matter.

The extra money will continue to be squeezed from smokers and the packaging issue can be held up as a "health initiative" until the election, which is all that was ever intended of it. If this is not the most cynical government in Australian political history, will someone please tell me which was.

Electronic cigarettes allow students to side-step no smoking rules

Ryan Prystash has gotten his nicotine fix a couple of times in the residence halls.

But not with regular cigarettes, chewing tobacco or cigars.

Instead, he smokes electronic cigarettes.

“I started about a month ago,” said Prystash, a New Baltimore freshman.

With the e-cig, there is no fire, tar, ash or carbon monoxide.

It’s about the same size as a regular cigarette, only with a few modifications.

The end where the cigarette is normally lit is where the battery is located. The part which is held by the smoker is the cartridge containing water laced with nicotine.

“The cartridges can be plugged into an outlet,” he said. “I even charged one of them from my laptop.”

Prystash said using the cigarettes inside a residence hall has caused some confusion.

“I was smoking in my room when an RA passed by,” Prystash said. “She started freaking out until I pulled it apart and showed her what it was.”

He said the RA then allowed him to continue smoking.

However, the popularity of the product does present an issue of how it conforms to the rules in no-smoking areas of campus.

“We have had no complaints yet,” said Shaun Holtgreive, associate director of Residence Life. “The FDA is still figuring out how to regulate them.”

Currently students can smoke e-cigs on campus without being held to the standards of regular cigarettes, he said.

“We don’t have enough info now,” Holtgreive said. “We’ll probably make a decision about them by next fall.”

The starter pack costs around $60, and comes with two batteries and six cartridges, which contain different flavors, Prystash said.

“It’s a good alternative for those trying to quit,” said Jonathan Grinter, a Farmington Hills freshman.

Grinter said he hasn’t received any complaints about his electronic smoking yet.

“I’ve smoked mine in class, the dorm and outside,” Grinter said. “They don’t smell and last longer than the real thing.”