Letter: Tobacco tax is working

By:  Gina Johnson, Red Wing
In July 2013, a new law went into effect raising our state tobacco tax by $1.60, causing the average price of cigarettes to raise to $7.50 a pack.
Many people were concerned about how tobacco users who have limited income would manage. As a public health professional, I am pleased to see many tobacco users are now getting professional help to quit tobacco.
A recent study done by QUITPLAN Services, a free tobacco cessation program available to any Minnesotan, shows that this tax hike is reducing the smoking rates. The increased price of cigarettes has caused an increase in many smokers to seek out professional cessation support to help them quit.
QUITPLAN Services saw an increase of 256 percent in the first two weeks of July 2013 compared to the same time period in July 2012.
This data proves that price increases work, and that our communities are one gigantic step closer to becoming tobacco free.
Thank you to everyone who supported the $1.60 increase!
Gina Johnson is the Clearway Minnesota tobacco grant coordinator with Goodhue County Human and Health Services.
http://www.republican-eagle.com/content/letter-tobacco-tax-working#sthash.xxzIkHT6.dpuf
 

Letter of the Day (Aug. 13): Electronic cigarettes

An article last month (“Up in vapor,” July 13) described research related to electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation. As one who conducts research related to electronic cigarettes, I feel compelled to provide additional findings.
First, the Italian researchers cited in the article also conducted an experiment with smokers by randomly assigning them into using electronic cigarettes with or without nicotine (published in PLOS ONE). They found that smokers who used electronic cigarettes with nicotine reduced and quit smoking at the same rate as those who used electronic cigarettes without nicotine. This suggests the limited ability of nicotine-delivering electronic cigarettes to aid smoking cessation.
Second, researchers have studied the effect of secondhand electronic cigarette smoking. This work, published in Inhalation Toxicology, found that nonsmokers who stayed in the same room with electronic cigarette users showed elevated nicotine concentration in the blood, comparable to that of secondhand cigarette smoke.
The Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007 protects nonsmokers, particularly those who work at bars and restaurants, from the harmful effect of secondhand smoking. Given the known effects of secondhand electronic cigarette smoking, the Legislature should consider expanding the act.
KELVIN CHOI, Minneapolis
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/219329381.html

New cigarette tax saves lives in Minnesota

By: Lindsay Aijala, Two Harbors, Lake County News Chronicle
I’m writing in support of the $1.60 increase in the cigarette tax, which was included in the tax bill passed in the recently completed legislative session. The $1.60 per pack increase means that 47,000 Minnesota kids will never become addicted to cigarettes and have to face the life-long health problems that result from the addiction. My family and I have lived in Lake County for most of my life and I have noticed how cigarettes are getting into the hands of high school students and even middle school students. This increase could help the youth in our county from becoming lifelong users.
Thanks to this increase, youth smoking will decrease by 16 percent and save 5,700 Minnesotans from premature, smoking-related deaths. This increase in the cost of a pack of cigarettes is important because tobacco is still a big problem in Minnesota. Smoking costs our state $3 billion a year. The number of deaths in Minnesota caused by smoking is more than alcohol, homicide, car accidents, AIDS, illegal drugs, and suicides combined. This increase has contributed toward my efforts to help others improve their health, including many family and friends.
http://www.twoharborsmn.com/event/article/id/25323/group/Opinion/#sthash.1CHRwcRX.dpuf
 

Letter: Harm-reduction not best public policy for tobacco

There has been a good deal of talk about “harm-reduction” strategies (promoting alternative tobacco products, such as chewing tobacco or e-cigarettes, as safer alternatives to smoking cigarettes) as being good options for tobacco users to reduce the risk of using tobacco while maintaining the addiction to nicotine.
Reducing-harm strategies can be an option for an individual who wants to try to reduce his or her own risk of harm while maintaining an addiction. However, when it comes to tobacco use, harm-reduction strategies are not the best public policy to use to address the population-based well-being that public health strategies must address.
• How would it be if the public health professionals advocated for food handlers to wash their hands most of the time after using the bathroom rather than every time? After all, it would reduce the chances of contracting disease from someone who never washed his/her hands. One could say it is better than never washing one’s hands. The public policy must continue to be the best method of preventing disease transmission, that is: wash one’s hands every time, not just sometimes.
• I hear a lot about smokeless tobacco being a good alternative for adult smokers who don’t want to quit using tobacco. Consider this: It is not just adults who use chew. The sweeteners added and new products that have come on the market make it an easy way to addict our next generation to tobacco. North Dakota’s youth consume smokeless tobacco at a rate almost twice the national average (N.D., 13.6 percent, U.S., 7.7 percent). In addition, smokeless tobacco is not without its health hazards.
• E-cigarettes are often touted as a good alternative to tobacco use. We are told by some that the vapor is harmless. This is not true. It has not been regulated or studied enough to know how dangerous it is, but it is not harmless. There is another issue to consider. Have you ever noticed how candy cigarettes and now e-cigarettes mimic the activity a smoker would do with a cigarette? It models the smoking behavior and should not be discounted as harmless.
One of the core functions of public health is to promote strategies that protect the health and safety of the community. Public health providers are accountable to the community to provide up-to-date information and advocate for tried-and-true strategies to improve or maintain a community’s health status.
As a public health nurse, I cannot support harm-reduction policies that supports maintaining one’s addiction to tobacco. Harm- reduction policy is not sound public health policy.
The rationale that was brought up recently in a letter to the editor, that the tobacco user who is not willing or able to quit should have chewing tobacco or e-cigarettes researched and funded with tobacco prevention dollars in the state of North Dakota, falls short. The evidence is readily available regarding what works and how to gain access to help. The options are available, and they are FDA-approved and researched for safety and effectiveness. They are called nicotine replacement therapy and NDQuits at (800)-QUIT-NOW.
Knox, RN, is master of public health and certified tobacco treatment specialist with the Grand Forks Public Health Department Tobacco Prevention Program.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/408308/

Letter to the Editor: North Dakota should take lesson from Minnesota on cigarette tax

Minnesota just raised its cigarette tax by $1.60 per pack, leaving me in envy of our neighbor’s efforts to help people quit smoking.
High cigarette prices and noticeable price hikes like Minnesota’s recent increase prevent young people from getting hooked and help current smokers to kick the habit. That’s good. One in three who try cigarettes get addicted and a majority of those who smoke want to quit. A high tobacco tax is an effective health policy; kudos to Minnesota’s elected leadership for recognizing that and investing in this prevention strategy.
By contrast, North Dakota ranks as one of the “best” states for cheap tobacco. North Dakota’s tobacco tax is outrageously low at a mere $0.44 per pack — the 46th lowest cigarette tax in the nation. Across the river, Minnesota’s cigarette tax is the sixth highest at $2.83 per pack. Is “cheap tobacco” the policy North Dakota wants for its children? From my perspective as a public health advocate and mom, no. North Dakota needs to take action to significantly increase the price of tobacco here. It’d be the first time since 1993.
I love North Dakota, but not the current price of our cigarettes. In addition to its tobacco tax, sometimes I also envy Minnesota for its trees — when the wind blows and we have few to stop it. But we’re proactive and plant trees for the immediate and long-term benefits they provide. For the same reasons, raise North Dakota’s tobacco tax — and the sooner the better.
Valerie Schoepf,
Bismarck
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/article/id/70212/group/Opinion/
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/envying-sister-state-s-high-tax/article_df913772-ee8a-11e2-ad6c-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/406373/

Letter: NDQuits wins a commendation

By: Jessie Azure, West Fargo, INFORUM
I would like to commend those with NDQuits on finding a creative way to reach a “tobacco at risk community!”
Clearly, representatives from the North Dakota Policy Council need to sit down and read the 2007 Best Practices manual issued by the CDC on Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy before commenting. Maybe then they’d understand the importance of reaching target populations with education and support.
Their comments make me ask a far more important question: What if the parade had been for an organization raising awareness for mental health (as this is another community with a high rate of tobacco use)? Would Zach Tiggelaar still be compelled to question such actions? I bet he’d agree that we shouldn’t dismiss one community over another; rather, look to find ways to reach all of our citizens, just as the folks at NDQuits did. After all, as Rep. Josh Boschee, D-Fargo, reminds us, the cost of tobacco is far more staggering to treat than prevent.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/406374/

Tobacco tax: Myth vs. facts

To the editor:
We were disappointed to read the opinions expressed in the July 6 editorial. We would like to provide your readers with accurate information based on fact (references readily available).
The following points address several myths presented by Mr. Peterson:
Myth: The new tobacco tax will help pay for the Vikings Stadium. Fact: The revenue from the tobacco tax will go into the general fund. Some of the money from a one-time tax on cigarette inventory in stores may go to the stadium.
Myth: Raising the tobacco tax is unfair to smokers. Fact: The cost of treating tobacco-related disease far exceeds the amount of tobacco tax collected by smokers. Every man, woman and child in Minnesota pays $554 in excess health care costs due to smoking whether they smoke or not.
Myth: Smokers won’t quit even if the price increases. Fact: Research shows that a $1.60 per pack tax increase will help more than 36,600 current Minnesota smokers quit. In our state, we are fortunate that all smokers have access to free cessation services through QUITPLAN. In addition, low-income smokers suffer disproportionately from the health effects of smoking, and are 70 percent more responsive to price increases.
Myth: Tobacco tax revenue isn’t reliable. Fact: Every state that has significantly raised its tobacco tax has seen an increase in state revenue and health benefits for residents.
The new tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products is estimated to generate approximately $400 million over the next two years and will save our state more than $1.65 billion in long-term health care costs.
Myth: Raising the tobacco tax will force people over the border. Fact: In most places, the price difference isn’t substantial enough to cause people to cross the border to buy cigarettes. Some may cross occasionally, but the number of individuals who do this is statistically very low. Most smokers will continue to buy their cigarettes in Minnesota.
Research has consistently shown that raising the price of tobacco is one of the most effective ways to help smokers quit and prevent kids from starting. Saving Minnesota lives and our kids from a lifetime of addiction is “fair” and a great idea in our book (of facts).
Southwest Community Health Improvement Program (C.H.I.P) members
Paula Bloemendaal
Val Dallenbach
Judy Pitzl
Kris Wegner
http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/540688/Tobacco-tax–Myth-vs–facts.html?nav=5072

Forum editorial: Take deep breath and relax

Some folks in North Dakota are in a snit because anti-smoking funds are being used to promote the cause at specific events, such as the Fargo-Moorhead gay pride festival. They should take a deep breath, preferably at a nearby smoke-free bar, and calm down.
ND Quits and the state health department are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They are using funds, some state and federal, some from the multi-year settlement with tobacco companies, to get smokers to quit or others to never start. They are developing and implementing strategies to educate about the known dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke. The efforts can include targeting groups with high rates of tobacco use, such as the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population, which is 70 percent more likely to smoke than the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Since the federal dollars for state smoking-cessation programs come from the CDC, it logically follows that the state effort should include the at-risk LGBT community. It’s no different than spending a portion of the budget for information and education programs aimed at youth, women or oil workers – groups, by the way, that are in the anti-smoking agencies’ sights. ND Quits operates under a clear mandate from the people of North Dakota, who overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that set up an agency to manage and spend tobacco settlement dollars. That came a few years ago after an intransigent Legislature refused to act responsibly, even as anti-smoking sentiment took hold in the state.
More silliness about the application of anti-smoking money came from the North Dakota Policy Council’s Zack Tiggelaar. He said that while he supports efforts to encourage smokers to quit, “… is it something the public and taxpayers should be funding?” The answer, as made crystal clear by North Dakota voters, is “yes.”
He added: “The government shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to support specific causes.”
Where has he been? North Dakota has special state tax that goes to research sponsored by the Lignite Energy Council. That’s pretty specific. The state funds loans and grants for beginning farmers. That’s specific. The Renaissance Zone program for cities uses tax incentives (public money) to stimulate private development. Yet another specific cause.
Purists of the council’s ilk might wag a finger, but such programs evolved from long-standing public policy, and ND Quits is operating within the same ethic.
Oh, and by the way, those partnerships – whether associated with lignite research, farm and city investment or smoking cessation – work. The money is well spent.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Letter: Thoreson did not tell the full story

By: Vicki Voldal Rosenau, Valley City, N.D., INFORUM
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. State Rep. Blair Thoreson, R-Fargo, that is.
In last Sunday’s (July 7) Forum, Thoreson oozed indignation over Dr. Eric Johnson’s 2-months-old public debunking of Thoreson’s failed resolution touting the discredited, unproven “tobacco harms reduction” scheme.
Thoreson testily asserted he “never had any affiliations” with the out-of-state “special-interest groups” referenced in Johnson’s May letter, but I think he forgot about ALEC. Disingenuously named, the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council is a corporate bill mill. It connects corporate lobbyists and right-wing politicians behind closed doors where they craft ALEC “model” legislation serving corporate interests over the interests of ordinary Americans. The bills get introduced in statehouses nationwide (after being stripped of their ALEC origin).
Two big tobacco companies on ALEC’s private board, Altria (formerly Philip Morris) and Reynolds American, have long worked through ALEC to push “harm reduction” as their alternative to actually preventing and reducing tobacco use.
Thoreson is public sector chairman of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Committee, and is a former ALEC state chairman for North Dakota.
Small wonder that Mark Twain reportedly loved to proclaim: “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

Letter: Thoreson fronts for Big Tobacco

By: Jay Taylor, Mapleton, N.D., INFORUM
In a recent letter to the editor, Rep. Blair Thoreson, R-Fargo, criticized a Grand Forks physician for not supporting his support for e-cigarettes. Actually, Thoreson’s push was not supported by anyone in the Legislature, but you gotta give him points for keeping at it.
The push today is from those supporting a “Harm Reduction Strategy,” which includes Thoreson. This push kind of sneaks in the door as it’s supported by some of the Big Tobacco folks. Their theory is that we have failed to get everyone in the world to quit using tobacco, so why not try some products that may have less risk. They often recommend the e-cigarette as well as some smokeless tobacco products.
E-cigarettes have not been shown to be safe, and each brand that we look at seems to have different chemicals within. They are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and my guess is that they never will have that approval.
What is approved and what does work is three-fold: attitude, education and medicine. First, want to quit! Then learn why you should and use safe, effective medications in the correct dosage to get the job done. Call the Quit Line: 800-QUIT-NOW and get going.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/406052/