British American Tobacco (BAT) on Friday forecast that the world's consumption of cigarettes was likely to remain fairly stable at 6 trillion cigarettes a year, one-third of which are sold in China.
The cigarette company, responsible for the Dunhill, Kent and Lucky Strike brands, plans to ensure it is well-placed to meet the needs of consumers, whether they are down-trading in times of recession or up-trading as the economic situation improves.
Six years ago, the UN conducted a study of the world's tobacco consumption and found that the number of smokers in the world was expected to grow from 1.1 billion in 1998 to about 1.3 billion this year, an increase of about 1.5 percent annually.
This is in direct contrast to BAT's estimations in its latest annual report, which states that the global legal market had shown a decline in consumption by 1.5 percent annually over the long term.
BAT chief executive Paul Adams said trends indicated that individual smokers would consume fewer cigarettes each and smaller percentages of populations would smoke.
"However, offsetting these trends, the number of adults in the world over the age of 20 continues to grow," he said.
He said volume declines had been evident in a number of markets last year and BAT expected global volumes to remain under pressure this year.
"We estimate that the global legal market, excluding China, fell by 3 percent last year compared with its long-term trend of declining 1.5 percent," he said.
But pricing had remained positive, and the global profit pool was expected to continue to grow.
"In many key markets, legal volumes have been affected as consumers move to illicit products," Adams said.
He said illicit trade in tobacco products - smuggled, counterfeit or tax evaded - was in effect one of the company's major global competitors and represented nearly 12 percent of world consumption.
BAT reported a gross turnover of £40.7 billion (R447bn) for last year. Adams reported that acquisitions continued to play a part in its growth strategy and explained that its latest acquisition - Bentoel in Indonesia - gave the group a strong position in the fourth-largest cigarette market.
The UN in its report predicted that more tobacco would be smoked in developing countries, where tobacco consumption was expected to grow to 5.09 million tons this year from 4.2 million in 1998.
понедельник, 29 марта 2010 г.
понедельник, 15 марта 2010 г.
City Tries to Shut Club It Says Flouts Smoking Ban
The Bloomberg administration is moving closer to shutting one of the largest and busiest nightclubs in the city, as part of an aggressive new strategy to revoke the operating licenses of clubs that health officials believe promote smoking.
The nightclub, the M2 UltraLounge on West 28th Street in Manhattan, went on trial last week at a special administrative court that the city uses when it seeks to take away property. If the case against the club succeeds, it would be the first time the city had closed a business solely for flouting a ban on smoking.
City officials have also moved to take several other clubs before the court, seeking to revoke their food and beverage licenses. It has been an open secret for years among the late-night set that there is a network of so-called smoke-easies throughout the city, from little neighborhood dives to glossy, exclusive boîtes, that let patrons smoke illegally.
Health department officials say that the vast majority of businesses comply with the 2002 law forbidding smoking in clubs and bars, but that inspectors have struggled to enforce it at a handful of high-end places that seem to market themselves as smoker-friendly, some even offering loose cigarettes for sale.
Generally, health officials have looked for signs of active tobacco use as part of their inspections concerning other rules, like those for food safety, and have cited clubs for violations that often result in fines of $200 to $2,000.
But they have had difficulty gaining access to the clubs when patrons are actually smoking.
“Some of the clubs where smoking is going on tend to be very, very cool clubs, and a bunch of guys showing up in jackets tend to be very, very uncool,” said Thomas Merrill, general counsel for the health department.
So in recent months, the department has deputized a team of inspectors — many of them younger and hipper-looking than the stereotypical bureaucrat — to work into the wee hours, posing as patrons and hunting for tolerance of smoking by clubs’ employees.
Because the inspectors found many instances of patrons smoking without being asked to stop, the department petitioned the administrative court, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, known as OATH, to recommend revoking the food and beverage licenses of 16 bars and clubs.
“We found places with repeated nights of smoking, with sort of flagrant violations — selling cigarettes, clearly creating an atmosphere in which smoking appeared to be tolerated or even welcomed,” said Daniel Kass, the acting deputy commissioner for environmental health. “Those places are clearly not responding to the idea that we’re going to fine them periodically for violations.”
Five of the clubs have settled with the city, typically agreeing to devise a plan for correction and to pay for any violations, health officials said.
In all but one of the cases, if inspectors find indications of continued smoking during the next year, they can immediately shut the club down and bring it to trial.
Two clubs closed for other reasons, and most of the rest, including the downtown spots Lit Lounge, the Box, Tenjune and Southside, are weighing possible settlements against a looming trial date, city officials said.
The M2 case has gone the furthest. The administrative law judge hearing the case, Alessandra F. Zorgniotti, will make a ruling that will serve as a recommendation to the health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley.
In the trial, which could end as early as Thursday, the city has introduced photos of people with cigarette packs on their tables or with burning cigarettes held aloft on the dance floor.
One inspector testified that a bouncer told her she could smoke in a back area near an exit door; another said he was able to buy a loose cigarette for $2 from a collection of items for sale in the men’s bathroom.
But lawyers for the club say the city’s case is flawed, arguing that the undercover inspectors could not know whether the staff had tried to get patrons to stop smoking. The club, which has been under new management since July, submitted reports showing that bouncers had ejected at least two patrons for smoking, and Robert Bookman, a lawyer representing M2, said it had fired the two employees who had been selling loose cigarettes in the bathroom.
“The law is being misconstrued by the health department purposely to make it sound like it’s an automatic violation for a club having a patron smoking on their premises,” Mr. Bookman said. “All the law says is that we have to make a good-faith effort to inform patrons that they were breaking the law, and not with a nod and a wink.”
He added that investigators had found only a few smokers on each of their visits to the club, which can hold thousands of people. “Not only do the numbers bear out that this is not a smoking lair,” he said, “but it shows that they are in fact doing what they’re supposed to do.”
Mr. Bookman also criticized the city for not going after the smokers themselves, saying that officials were accusing employees of doing what the inspectors do when they see smoking, “which is not doing anything.”
Health officials contend that their obligation is to ensure that the clubs they license follow the law, and that cracking down on the clubs is a more effective deterrent. “The entity is the repeat offender,” Mr. Kass said. “On any given night there might be one person, or 2 people or 10 people or even way more than that, who on their own are welcomed to smoke or allowed to smoke, but they’re not necessarily back the next night.”
The nightclub, the M2 UltraLounge on West 28th Street in Manhattan, went on trial last week at a special administrative court that the city uses when it seeks to take away property. If the case against the club succeeds, it would be the first time the city had closed a business solely for flouting a ban on smoking.
City officials have also moved to take several other clubs before the court, seeking to revoke their food and beverage licenses. It has been an open secret for years among the late-night set that there is a network of so-called smoke-easies throughout the city, from little neighborhood dives to glossy, exclusive boîtes, that let patrons smoke illegally.
Health department officials say that the vast majority of businesses comply with the 2002 law forbidding smoking in clubs and bars, but that inspectors have struggled to enforce it at a handful of high-end places that seem to market themselves as smoker-friendly, some even offering loose cigarettes for sale.
Generally, health officials have looked for signs of active tobacco use as part of their inspections concerning other rules, like those for food safety, and have cited clubs for violations that often result in fines of $200 to $2,000.
But they have had difficulty gaining access to the clubs when patrons are actually smoking.
“Some of the clubs where smoking is going on tend to be very, very cool clubs, and a bunch of guys showing up in jackets tend to be very, very uncool,” said Thomas Merrill, general counsel for the health department.
So in recent months, the department has deputized a team of inspectors — many of them younger and hipper-looking than the stereotypical bureaucrat — to work into the wee hours, posing as patrons and hunting for tolerance of smoking by clubs’ employees.
Because the inspectors found many instances of patrons smoking without being asked to stop, the department petitioned the administrative court, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, known as OATH, to recommend revoking the food and beverage licenses of 16 bars and clubs.
“We found places with repeated nights of smoking, with sort of flagrant violations — selling cigarettes, clearly creating an atmosphere in which smoking appeared to be tolerated or even welcomed,” said Daniel Kass, the acting deputy commissioner for environmental health. “Those places are clearly not responding to the idea that we’re going to fine them periodically for violations.”
Five of the clubs have settled with the city, typically agreeing to devise a plan for correction and to pay for any violations, health officials said.
In all but one of the cases, if inspectors find indications of continued smoking during the next year, they can immediately shut the club down and bring it to trial.
Two clubs closed for other reasons, and most of the rest, including the downtown spots Lit Lounge, the Box, Tenjune and Southside, are weighing possible settlements against a looming trial date, city officials said.
The M2 case has gone the furthest. The administrative law judge hearing the case, Alessandra F. Zorgniotti, will make a ruling that will serve as a recommendation to the health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley.
In the trial, which could end as early as Thursday, the city has introduced photos of people with cigarette packs on their tables or with burning cigarettes held aloft on the dance floor.
One inspector testified that a bouncer told her she could smoke in a back area near an exit door; another said he was able to buy a loose cigarette for $2 from a collection of items for sale in the men’s bathroom.
But lawyers for the club say the city’s case is flawed, arguing that the undercover inspectors could not know whether the staff had tried to get patrons to stop smoking. The club, which has been under new management since July, submitted reports showing that bouncers had ejected at least two patrons for smoking, and Robert Bookman, a lawyer representing M2, said it had fired the two employees who had been selling loose cigarettes in the bathroom.
“The law is being misconstrued by the health department purposely to make it sound like it’s an automatic violation for a club having a patron smoking on their premises,” Mr. Bookman said. “All the law says is that we have to make a good-faith effort to inform patrons that they were breaking the law, and not with a nod and a wink.”
He added that investigators had found only a few smokers on each of their visits to the club, which can hold thousands of people. “Not only do the numbers bear out that this is not a smoking lair,” he said, “but it shows that they are in fact doing what they’re supposed to do.”
Mr. Bookman also criticized the city for not going after the smokers themselves, saying that officials were accusing employees of doing what the inspectors do when they see smoking, “which is not doing anything.”
Health officials contend that their obligation is to ensure that the clubs they license follow the law, and that cracking down on the clubs is a more effective deterrent. “The entity is the repeat offender,” Mr. Kass said. “On any given night there might be one person, or 2 people or 10 people or even way more than that, who on their own are welcomed to smoke or allowed to smoke, but they’re not necessarily back the next night.”
вторник, 9 марта 2010 г.
Senecas See Comeback Over Cigarette Sales
An article in the New York Times last week provides an overview of the Seneca Nation and its strength in opposing legislation that would ban mail-order cigarette sales.
The Senecas control a cigarette “empire” that generates more than $1 billion a year, and subsequent to House and Senate bills to block the shipment of cigarettes, they began a campaign of “back-room lobbying” that for now has derailed the legislation while sustaining the tribe’s cigarette business.
“Isn’t that the way things go in the American system?” asked Richard Nephew, co-chairman of the Seneca Nation’s foreign relations committee. “It is something new for us to actively get involved in the American political process, [b]ut we are trying to learn what works in America, and I guess making political contributions is something that works.”
In November 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed unanimously the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act — a bill that closes gaps in current federal laws regulating “remote” or “delivery” sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. The bill enhances penalties for violations and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. NACS supports passage of the PACT Act and is a member of the Coalition to Stop Contraband Tobacco.
However, according to the New York Times, a handful of senators told party leaders privately that they were considering blocking the bill. The Senecas viewed this as a victory, which had suffered a setback five years ago when then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer banned FedEx and UPS from delivering cigarettes, leading to a decline of roughly 60 percent of the Senecas’ sales volume.
Since then, the tribe has increased its lobbying presence in Washington, spending more than $300,000 last year in lobbying fees.
The lobbying effort has appeared to work, painting anti-mail order cigarette trade as a ploy by tobacco companies to scapegoat the Indians for teen smoking. Additionally, the Senecas warned that the ban could cost 1,000 jobs in the cigarette business.
By mid-December, the campaign had won two converts: Democratic New York Reps. Brian Higgins and Eric Massa, who have since urged Sens. Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand to block a proposed Senate ban. “I do not believe that western New York can afford any more job losses,” Higgins wrote to the senators.
The Senecas have dedicated $1 million to fight New York officials whose proposals countered the tribe’s activities. In January, it approved an expenditure of $250,000 to oppose Sen. Gillibrand’s reelection campaign because she supports the PACT Act, according to the newspaper.
Meanwhile, not all New York legislators share the Senecas stance against the PACT Act. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is the lead sponsor of the PACT Act in the House, H.R. 1676, which overwhelmingly passed the House by a 397-11 vote on May 21, 2009.
“We must crack down on the illegal sale of tobacco, which gives terrorists and criminals the ability to raise more money,” said Weiner during a press conference in November. “Every day we delay is another day that states lose significant amounts of tax revenue and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the Internet. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the bipartisan PACT Act.”
The Senecas control a cigarette “empire” that generates more than $1 billion a year, and subsequent to House and Senate bills to block the shipment of cigarettes, they began a campaign of “back-room lobbying” that for now has derailed the legislation while sustaining the tribe’s cigarette business.
“Isn’t that the way things go in the American system?” asked Richard Nephew, co-chairman of the Seneca Nation’s foreign relations committee. “It is something new for us to actively get involved in the American political process, [b]ut we are trying to learn what works in America, and I guess making political contributions is something that works.”
In November 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed unanimously the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act — a bill that closes gaps in current federal laws regulating “remote” or “delivery” sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. The bill enhances penalties for violations and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. NACS supports passage of the PACT Act and is a member of the Coalition to Stop Contraband Tobacco.
However, according to the New York Times, a handful of senators told party leaders privately that they were considering blocking the bill. The Senecas viewed this as a victory, which had suffered a setback five years ago when then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer banned FedEx and UPS from delivering cigarettes, leading to a decline of roughly 60 percent of the Senecas’ sales volume.
Since then, the tribe has increased its lobbying presence in Washington, spending more than $300,000 last year in lobbying fees.
The lobbying effort has appeared to work, painting anti-mail order cigarette trade as a ploy by tobacco companies to scapegoat the Indians for teen smoking. Additionally, the Senecas warned that the ban could cost 1,000 jobs in the cigarette business.
By mid-December, the campaign had won two converts: Democratic New York Reps. Brian Higgins and Eric Massa, who have since urged Sens. Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand to block a proposed Senate ban. “I do not believe that western New York can afford any more job losses,” Higgins wrote to the senators.
The Senecas have dedicated $1 million to fight New York officials whose proposals countered the tribe’s activities. In January, it approved an expenditure of $250,000 to oppose Sen. Gillibrand’s reelection campaign because she supports the PACT Act, according to the newspaper.
Meanwhile, not all New York legislators share the Senecas stance against the PACT Act. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is the lead sponsor of the PACT Act in the House, H.R. 1676, which overwhelmingly passed the House by a 397-11 vote on May 21, 2009.
“We must crack down on the illegal sale of tobacco, which gives terrorists and criminals the ability to raise more money,” said Weiner during a press conference in November. “Every day we delay is another day that states lose significant amounts of tax revenue and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the Internet. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the bipartisan PACT Act.”
понедельник, 1 марта 2010 г.
Smoking is smoking
In an era of increasing awareness about the negative health effects of tobacco, it seems to me that we may be missing the boat on tobacco prevention in ways other than cigarette smoking and chew tobacco. With the help of Amendment 35 funding, Colorado has achieved tremendous success in the prevention of tobacco in our state in regard to cigarette smoking and tobacco use. From 2001 to 2008, Coloradans consumed 66.3 million fewer packs of cigarettes, Colorado’s high school smoking rate has dropped to 11.9 percent — well below the US Dept. of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2010 goal of 16 percent — 85 percent of Colorado’s homes have smoke-free home rules and the Colorado Quitline has enrolled 100,000 tobacco users in the past seven years.
Locally, we are seeing achievements being made that will help our community be healthier in regard to tobacco use. However, tobacco in any form is not a healthy product and much of the marketing from tobacco companies and retailers is targeted toward youth ensuring an ongoing consumer base. Once addicted, they may continue to purchase and use tobacco for a lifetime. Smokeless tobacco may not impose secondhand smoke on others, but it carries many of the same risks to the user as cigarettes.
As a community, our best defense and method of prevention is awareness and education for ourselves and especially our youth. Did you know that there are many additional tobacco products available in our local marketplace? These products are “sold cold,” “spitless,” flavored in “yummy” flavors and the packages are very appealing to males and females alike. The common component to all of these products is that they contain nicotine, are highly addictive, and can kill you if used as directed.
As for smoking, whether it be cigarettes, cigars, natural cigarettes or hookah, there is no safe form of smoking. Even all natural, herbal cigarettes produce harmful toxins when they burn and emit smoke. According to the CDC, during a one-hour hookah session, a hookah smoker may inhale 100 to 200 times the volume of smoke inhaled from a single cigarette. The American Lung Association has released a statement that “smoking hookah is not a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes.” Think of smoking as smoking, no matter what the form. And secondhand or even third-hand smoke exposures are proven environmental health hazards.
As a community health educator and registered nurse, I work with individuals who struggle to end their addiction to nicotine and see the damage that has been caused. Our youth have the opportunity to never start. If they never start, they never will have to quit. What an awesome gift we will be giving our children, our future generations. Tobacco is not a benign product in any form. As a community, we can help undo the damage that can be caused by tobacco. Early education to our youth and awareness for us all can change and improve all of our lives.
Locally, we are seeing achievements being made that will help our community be healthier in regard to tobacco use. However, tobacco in any form is not a healthy product and much of the marketing from tobacco companies and retailers is targeted toward youth ensuring an ongoing consumer base. Once addicted, they may continue to purchase and use tobacco for a lifetime. Smokeless tobacco may not impose secondhand smoke on others, but it carries many of the same risks to the user as cigarettes.
As a community, our best defense and method of prevention is awareness and education for ourselves and especially our youth. Did you know that there are many additional tobacco products available in our local marketplace? These products are “sold cold,” “spitless,” flavored in “yummy” flavors and the packages are very appealing to males and females alike. The common component to all of these products is that they contain nicotine, are highly addictive, and can kill you if used as directed.
As for smoking, whether it be cigarettes, cigars, natural cigarettes or hookah, there is no safe form of smoking. Even all natural, herbal cigarettes produce harmful toxins when they burn and emit smoke. According to the CDC, during a one-hour hookah session, a hookah smoker may inhale 100 to 200 times the volume of smoke inhaled from a single cigarette. The American Lung Association has released a statement that “smoking hookah is not a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes.” Think of smoking as smoking, no matter what the form. And secondhand or even third-hand smoke exposures are proven environmental health hazards.
As a community health educator and registered nurse, I work with individuals who struggle to end their addiction to nicotine and see the damage that has been caused. Our youth have the opportunity to never start. If they never start, they never will have to quit. What an awesome gift we will be giving our children, our future generations. Tobacco is not a benign product in any form. As a community, we can help undo the damage that can be caused by tobacco. Early education to our youth and awareness for us all can change and improve all of our lives.
понедельник, 22 февраля 2010 г.
Cigarette tax hike draws fire
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids describes a $1 tax increase on cigarettes as a win-win-win scenario - a win for states' budgets, a win for health care and a political win.
According to a recent news release, raising West Virginia's tax on cigarettes by $1 from the current 55 cents would generate an additional $117.6 million annually, "keep 19,100 kids from becoming addicted smokers" and save about $475 million in health care costs over the short and long term.
While a national poll found 67 percent of voters of all stripes support a $1 tobacco tax increase, according to Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, West Virginia legislators from the tri-county are split on the proposal.
The Journal surveyed via e-mail the eight state delegates and four state senators representing Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties. Of those who responded, five opposed the tax increase and three did not.
The Journal asked, "What do you think about raising the tax on cigarettes by $1, and do you think such a proposal would have any chance of passage in the West Virginia Legislature?"
Delegate Jonathan Miller, R-Berkeley, wrote:
"Raising the tobacco tax harms the poor. It is a tax increase on poor people, and during this recession, we definitely shouldn't be raising taxes on the poor.
"Poor people addicted to tobacco don't need to be punished for their addiction, and especially not during this recession.
"West Virginia state government collects plenty of tax money from its citizens. We don't need to collect any more money from our citizens, and we definitely don't need to soak the poor any more. Instead of raising taxes on poor people, we should spend our money wisely.
"If we want to spend taxpayer money in an attempt to reduce tobacco use, we should find a way to pay for that with the amount of money we have now, not raise taxes on the poor.
"Lastly, some will claim raising the tobacco tax is a way to stop people from smoking. Trying to stop people from using tobacco is not the purpose of government taxing its citizens. Government taxes people to pay for government services, not to coerce them to engage or not to engage in a particular activity. It is morally wrong for the government to use the force of taxation to manipulate people's behavior."
Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, responded:
"I applaud and support efforts to stop or discourage teen smoking. However, I have zero interest in voting for any tax or fee increase of any kind. Our economic times are tough for smokers and non-smokers alike. Government can and should be ran more efficiently rather than increase any tax burdens on consumers or business.
"Actually, I would entertain one exception, and that's to eliminate the food tax by increasing the tobacco tax. West Virginia smokers would actually see their additional tax returned via their savings when purchasing food. And, I'll admit that I'm not completely sold on this idea, but it's worthy of careful consideration.
"Also, it's always been my understanding that a $1 increase would generate $80 million in West Virginia, not $117 million. The food tax generates $25 million for every 1 percent of tax ($75 million). New Jersey thought tobacco tax revenues would increase but ended up with a loss of $30 million.
"Basically, when our state government stops wasting taxpayers' dollars on programs like prevailing wage, then and only then will I support any tax or fee increases to balance our state's budget."
Delegate Daryl Cowles, R-Morgan, replied:
"I do NOT support a tax increase on cigarettes in West Virginia at this time.
"It might be important to note the attorney general of West Virginia, Darrell McGraw, won a huge settlement from tobacco companies - an amount in excess of $800 million.
"This money was to be spent on prevention, education, cessation, health care costs of smokers, etc. over a 29-year period.
"The money was cashed-out by the Legislature for 50 cents on the dollar by selling bonds with the immediate proceeds used for bailing out retirement funds, teacher pensions and other unrelated programs.
"To now further tax smokers - after misappropriating their settlement award, granted on their behalf and due to their suffering - is simply not proper.
"The irony of the Legislature complaining about Darrell McGraw not sending other settlement monies to the Legislature for appropriation is interesting. But that is a story for another day."
Delegate John Overington, R-Berkeley, said:
"I would be opposed to the $1 cigarette tax increase unless there would be an equal or greater reduction elsewhere, such as a food tax reduction. We are increasing the penalty for selling to and possessing cigarettes for minors."
Delegate Walter Duke, R-Berkeley, responded in part:
"I do not think West Virginia could afford to raise the cigarette tax by an additional $1. I do not think it is good fiscal policy to link revenue with efforts to reduce the activity which brings in the revenue in the first place. It seems you would be working at cross purposes.
"I do support efforts (even spending of tax dollars) to get people to never start smoking and to get people to quit smoking."
In her response, Delegate Tiffany Lawrence, D-Jefferson, refers to a bill that was introduced Monday (Feb. 15) to ban smoking in the state Capitol, including lawmakers' offices:
"West Virginia has the second highest use of tobacco products in the nation. Due to this alarming statistic, I have long been an advocate of reform. As a member of the House Health and Human Resources Committee, I was a part of the discussion that took place yesterday surrounding this interesting debate. I do believe that this piece of legislation will spur more discussion as we move forth in the final weeks of the legislative session."
Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, replied:
"I'm very much in favor of increasing the tax on tobacco products by at least that amount. Sadly, I think this effort has little chance of success in an election year."
Delegate Terry Walker, D-Jefferson, wrote succinctly, "This would have my support."
Chuck Hamsher, a spokesman for Coalition for a Tobacco-Free West Virginia, said specific poll results for West Virginia are not available, but that national poll results tend to reflect state results, although there are some variations from state to state.
The national survey of 847 registered voters was conducted from Jan. 20 to 24 by International Communications Research and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points, according to the news release.
According to a recent news release, raising West Virginia's tax on cigarettes by $1 from the current 55 cents would generate an additional $117.6 million annually, "keep 19,100 kids from becoming addicted smokers" and save about $475 million in health care costs over the short and long term.
While a national poll found 67 percent of voters of all stripes support a $1 tobacco tax increase, according to Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, West Virginia legislators from the tri-county are split on the proposal.
The Journal surveyed via e-mail the eight state delegates and four state senators representing Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties. Of those who responded, five opposed the tax increase and three did not.
The Journal asked, "What do you think about raising the tax on cigarettes by $1, and do you think such a proposal would have any chance of passage in the West Virginia Legislature?"
Delegate Jonathan Miller, R-Berkeley, wrote:
"Raising the tobacco tax harms the poor. It is a tax increase on poor people, and during this recession, we definitely shouldn't be raising taxes on the poor.
"Poor people addicted to tobacco don't need to be punished for their addiction, and especially not during this recession.
"West Virginia state government collects plenty of tax money from its citizens. We don't need to collect any more money from our citizens, and we definitely don't need to soak the poor any more. Instead of raising taxes on poor people, we should spend our money wisely.
"If we want to spend taxpayer money in an attempt to reduce tobacco use, we should find a way to pay for that with the amount of money we have now, not raise taxes on the poor.
"Lastly, some will claim raising the tobacco tax is a way to stop people from smoking. Trying to stop people from using tobacco is not the purpose of government taxing its citizens. Government taxes people to pay for government services, not to coerce them to engage or not to engage in a particular activity. It is morally wrong for the government to use the force of taxation to manipulate people's behavior."
Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, responded:
"I applaud and support efforts to stop or discourage teen smoking. However, I have zero interest in voting for any tax or fee increase of any kind. Our economic times are tough for smokers and non-smokers alike. Government can and should be ran more efficiently rather than increase any tax burdens on consumers or business.
"Actually, I would entertain one exception, and that's to eliminate the food tax by increasing the tobacco tax. West Virginia smokers would actually see their additional tax returned via their savings when purchasing food. And, I'll admit that I'm not completely sold on this idea, but it's worthy of careful consideration.
"Also, it's always been my understanding that a $1 increase would generate $80 million in West Virginia, not $117 million. The food tax generates $25 million for every 1 percent of tax ($75 million). New Jersey thought tobacco tax revenues would increase but ended up with a loss of $30 million.
"Basically, when our state government stops wasting taxpayers' dollars on programs like prevailing wage, then and only then will I support any tax or fee increases to balance our state's budget."
Delegate Daryl Cowles, R-Morgan, replied:
"I do NOT support a tax increase on cigarettes in West Virginia at this time.
"It might be important to note the attorney general of West Virginia, Darrell McGraw, won a huge settlement from tobacco companies - an amount in excess of $800 million.
"This money was to be spent on prevention, education, cessation, health care costs of smokers, etc. over a 29-year period.
"The money was cashed-out by the Legislature for 50 cents on the dollar by selling bonds with the immediate proceeds used for bailing out retirement funds, teacher pensions and other unrelated programs.
"To now further tax smokers - after misappropriating their settlement award, granted on their behalf and due to their suffering - is simply not proper.
"The irony of the Legislature complaining about Darrell McGraw not sending other settlement monies to the Legislature for appropriation is interesting. But that is a story for another day."
Delegate John Overington, R-Berkeley, said:
"I would be opposed to the $1 cigarette tax increase unless there would be an equal or greater reduction elsewhere, such as a food tax reduction. We are increasing the penalty for selling to and possessing cigarettes for minors."
Delegate Walter Duke, R-Berkeley, responded in part:
"I do not think West Virginia could afford to raise the cigarette tax by an additional $1. I do not think it is good fiscal policy to link revenue with efforts to reduce the activity which brings in the revenue in the first place. It seems you would be working at cross purposes.
"I do support efforts (even spending of tax dollars) to get people to never start smoking and to get people to quit smoking."
In her response, Delegate Tiffany Lawrence, D-Jefferson, refers to a bill that was introduced Monday (Feb. 15) to ban smoking in the state Capitol, including lawmakers' offices:
"West Virginia has the second highest use of tobacco products in the nation. Due to this alarming statistic, I have long been an advocate of reform. As a member of the House Health and Human Resources Committee, I was a part of the discussion that took place yesterday surrounding this interesting debate. I do believe that this piece of legislation will spur more discussion as we move forth in the final weeks of the legislative session."
Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, replied:
"I'm very much in favor of increasing the tax on tobacco products by at least that amount. Sadly, I think this effort has little chance of success in an election year."
Delegate Terry Walker, D-Jefferson, wrote succinctly, "This would have my support."
Chuck Hamsher, a spokesman for Coalition for a Tobacco-Free West Virginia, said specific poll results for West Virginia are not available, but that national poll results tend to reflect state results, although there are some variations from state to state.
The national survey of 847 registered voters was conducted from Jan. 20 to 24 by International Communications Research and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points, according to the news release.
понедельник, 15 февраля 2010 г.
To quit, 'nicotine-free' smokes as good as lozenges
Trying to quit smoking? So-called nicotine-free cigarettes may be as helpful as nicotine lozenges, hints a small study.
Smokers who used the nicotine-free cigarettes before quitting were as likely not to be smoking six weeks later as those who used nicotine lozenges, authors report in the journal Addiction. (Such cigarettes actually have a tiny amount of nicotine.)
And nicotine-free cigarettes and the lozenges both beat low-nicotine cigarettes, Dr. Dorothy K Hatsukami, at the University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center in Minneapolis, and colleagues note.
Nicotine-free cigarettes have 0.05 milligrams of nicotine per cigarette, while low-nicotine cigarettes each have 0.3 milligrams. For comparison, light cigarettes have between 0.7 and 1.0 milligrams of nicotine.
While scientists have tried various ways to reduce the amount of nicotine smokers inhale to help them cut down, they have been concerned that smokers may just smoke more cigarettes to make up for what they're missing.
The idea of nicotine-free cigarettes is to make that much less likely, because it would take so many such cigarettes.
Hatsukami's team compared smoking habits and rates of quitting in 165 mostly middle-age men and women who had smoked for an average of about 15 years, reported multiple previous attempts to quit, and appeared highly motivated to try again.
The investigators supplied nicotine-free cigarettes to 53 participants and identical looking low-nicotine cigarettes to another 52. Each group was to solely smoke supplied cigarettes for 6 weeks, then quit. The remaining participants went cold turkey and used nicotine lozenges for 6 weeks.
Urine and lung tests in those who completed the study showed 19 in the nicotine-free group and 12 in the lozenge group abstinent after 6 weeks. Just 7 in the low-nicotine group were not smoking at that point.
Compared with the low-nicotine group, the nicotine-free smokers had lower levels of tobacco-related toxins and symptoms of withdrawal, though both groups reported similar cravings.
As scientists have suspected, low-nicotine cigarette smokers were more likely to compensate their withdrawal by smoking more cigarettes. Nicotine-free cigarette smokers were not.
Although nicotine-free cigarettes "can be used potentially as a cessation tool," the authors note, the results from this one small study aren't enough to suggest that smokers should use nicotine-free cigarettes instead of nicotine lozenges, Hatsukami told Reuters Health by email.
Part of what limits the conclusions scientists can draw from the study is that a third of the smoking group and half the lozenge dropped out during the course of it.
Still, the results are "encouraging," write Mitch Zeller and Saul Shiffman of Pinney Associates, Bethesda, Maryland, in an accompanying editorial, and should be followed up to explore "how nicotine reduction might affect smokers."
Pinney has consulted for GlaxoSmithKline, which has a smoking control division. Members of the study team have served as expert witnesses in lawsuits against tobacco companies, and have consulted for various drug companies.
Smokers who used the nicotine-free cigarettes before quitting were as likely not to be smoking six weeks later as those who used nicotine lozenges, authors report in the journal Addiction. (Such cigarettes actually have a tiny amount of nicotine.)
And nicotine-free cigarettes and the lozenges both beat low-nicotine cigarettes, Dr. Dorothy K Hatsukami, at the University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center in Minneapolis, and colleagues note.
Nicotine-free cigarettes have 0.05 milligrams of nicotine per cigarette, while low-nicotine cigarettes each have 0.3 milligrams. For comparison, light cigarettes have between 0.7 and 1.0 milligrams of nicotine.
While scientists have tried various ways to reduce the amount of nicotine smokers inhale to help them cut down, they have been concerned that smokers may just smoke more cigarettes to make up for what they're missing.
The idea of nicotine-free cigarettes is to make that much less likely, because it would take so many such cigarettes.
Hatsukami's team compared smoking habits and rates of quitting in 165 mostly middle-age men and women who had smoked for an average of about 15 years, reported multiple previous attempts to quit, and appeared highly motivated to try again.
The investigators supplied nicotine-free cigarettes to 53 participants and identical looking low-nicotine cigarettes to another 52. Each group was to solely smoke supplied cigarettes for 6 weeks, then quit. The remaining participants went cold turkey and used nicotine lozenges for 6 weeks.
Urine and lung tests in those who completed the study showed 19 in the nicotine-free group and 12 in the lozenge group abstinent after 6 weeks. Just 7 in the low-nicotine group were not smoking at that point.
Compared with the low-nicotine group, the nicotine-free smokers had lower levels of tobacco-related toxins and symptoms of withdrawal, though both groups reported similar cravings.
As scientists have suspected, low-nicotine cigarette smokers were more likely to compensate their withdrawal by smoking more cigarettes. Nicotine-free cigarette smokers were not.
Although nicotine-free cigarettes "can be used potentially as a cessation tool," the authors note, the results from this one small study aren't enough to suggest that smokers should use nicotine-free cigarettes instead of nicotine lozenges, Hatsukami told Reuters Health by email.
Part of what limits the conclusions scientists can draw from the study is that a third of the smoking group and half the lozenge dropped out during the course of it.
Still, the results are "encouraging," write Mitch Zeller and Saul Shiffman of Pinney Associates, Bethesda, Maryland, in an accompanying editorial, and should be followed up to explore "how nicotine reduction might affect smokers."
Pinney has consulted for GlaxoSmithKline, which has a smoking control division. Members of the study team have served as expert witnesses in lawsuits against tobacco companies, and have consulted for various drug companies.
пятница, 12 февраля 2010 г.
No Booze, Cigarettes, or Fancy Cars for Welfare Recipients -- if State Representative Frank Antenori Has Anything to Say About it
Welfare recipients may want to hurry up and buy that Bentley they've been saving up for because -- if state Representative Frank Antenori has his way -- there soon will be restrictions on how much money people receiving government assistance can spend on cars and other items.
Antenori introduced HB 2770, which would prohibit welfare recipients from not only using their money to purchase expensive cars but from "consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or illegal drugs."
Awesome. Now we can expect 40-year-old welfare recipients to be hanging out outside of gas stations playing "hey mister" to get a pack of Newports.
The bill would limit the amount of money a welfare recipient could spend on a car to $5,000, as well as limit him or her to only subscribing to basic cable and cell phone services (but only if the cell phone is the recipient's only phone).
Welfare getters may want to hurry up and buy that 72-inch plasma TV, too. If the bill becomes law, folks on government assistance would only be allowed to spend $300 on a boob tube.
If someone needs the government's help to provide the basics like food and clothing, do we really have to worry about them spending gobs of government loot (they are only doled out pittances in this state, for Christ's sake) on fancy cars and TVs. Cigarettes and booze maybe (we would sure want to stay as drunk as possible if we were on welfare). And, Representative Antenori, meth's already illegal to purchase.
We called Antenori to see how the hell the government is supposed to enforce this proposed law, but he hasn't gotten back to us.
Oh, we forgot to say what political party Antenori's in. Nevermind, it's obvious.
Antenori introduced HB 2770, which would prohibit welfare recipients from not only using their money to purchase expensive cars but from "consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or illegal drugs."
Awesome. Now we can expect 40-year-old welfare recipients to be hanging out outside of gas stations playing "hey mister" to get a pack of Newports.
The bill would limit the amount of money a welfare recipient could spend on a car to $5,000, as well as limit him or her to only subscribing to basic cable and cell phone services (but only if the cell phone is the recipient's only phone).
Welfare getters may want to hurry up and buy that 72-inch plasma TV, too. If the bill becomes law, folks on government assistance would only be allowed to spend $300 on a boob tube.
If someone needs the government's help to provide the basics like food and clothing, do we really have to worry about them spending gobs of government loot (they are only doled out pittances in this state, for Christ's sake) on fancy cars and TVs. Cigarettes and booze maybe (we would sure want to stay as drunk as possible if we were on welfare). And, Representative Antenori, meth's already illegal to purchase.
We called Antenori to see how the hell the government is supposed to enforce this proposed law, but he hasn't gotten back to us.
Oh, we forgot to say what political party Antenori's in. Nevermind, it's obvious.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)
