Why Can’t the Pentagon Stop Smoking?

By The Editors

Even the most oblivious member of Congress knows that smoking is bad for you. As it turns out, it’s even worse for you if you happen to be a soldier. So why would Congress insist that the Pentagon sell cigarettes — at a discount, no less?

The rationale has long been that members of the military have to smoke because their jobs are so stressful. There’s no denying the stress of military service, or that troops who smoke experience more of it than their comrades who don’t (though it may come more from their nicotine addiction than from their work).

Yet soldiers who smoke are not immune to lung cancer and the other lethal pulmonary illnesses that smoking causes. And like all smokers, they face an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. In fact, as an article in the current New England Journal of Medicine points out, smoking is especially harmful to soldiers because it lowers their fitness for service: It makes them more susceptible to injuries and infections, slows the time it takes for their wounds to heal, and leads them to take more frequent breaks than nonsmoking soldiers take.

The Pentagon, to its credit, has been trying for decades to restrict smoking. Most recently, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said he’s considering banning tobacco sales on Navy ships and Navy and Marine Corps bases. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has asked for a Defense Department-wide review of tobacco policies.

Sadly and predictably, political forces are fighting back. In response to the Navy’s possible sales ban, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, has inserted language in the defense authorization bill that would require military commissaries to keep selling tobacco products. Congress responded the same way in the early 1990s after the captain of the USS Roosevelt said he planned to make that aircraft carrier smoke-free.

So it’s little wonder the military has continued to have a smoking problem. The Defense Department spends more than $1.6 billion a year on medical care and lost days of work due to smoking, and the Veterans Administration spends billions more treating ex-soldiers with lung disease.

About 1 in 4 members of all branches of the U.S. military smoke, compared with about 1 in 5 of the general population. But the percentages differ across the military: While about 30 percent of Marines smoke, members of the Air Force and Coast Guard smoke less than the national average, as do officers in all branches.

Millions of troops, in other words, have found more healthy ways to deal with the stress that inevitably accompanies military service. Nor are smoking bans especially difficult to impose or enforce: There is no smoking allowed during basic training, for example, and a 2010 ban on smoking on submarines — instituted after a warning period, to allow sailors time to quit — went off with no trouble.

The policy review Hagel has requested is expected to be finished within a couple of months, and it can be expected to take account of the Institute of Medicine’s 2009 recommendation to work toward a tobacco-free military. That need not result in an immediate ban on all smoking. But gradual limitations on where and when troops are allowed to smoke are necessary, as are greater efforts to help them quit.

In the meantime, the military is right to want to get out of the cigarette-sales business — and Congress should let it.

To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.

Letter: Tobacco taxes should be raised

By Jay Taylor from Durbin, N.D.

Hey! I have a great idea! Let’s raise a tax on something,” said no North Dakota legislator ever.

Wow! Raising a tax on anything, with North Dakota being so flush from oil money, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

And yet, taxes (or fees if you want a more politically correct term) do continue to inch up here and there.

During the 2013 legislative session, North Dakota lawmakers passed a bill that increased fees for many hunting and fishing licenses.

A tax is generally imposed to gain funds to pay for specific services or products: “It is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.”

As said, to raise a tax in North Dakota today just doesn’t seem to make any sense, unless it’s a tax to protect the health of our residents, prevent disease and thwart kids from starting a path of extremely unhealthy behavior.

OK, I’ve beat around the bush long enough. I have read a lot about the idea of increasing the tobacco tax in North Dakota, and I am totally in favor of such an action. Here’s why:

The tobacco tax in North Dakota is one of the lowest in the nation (we are 46th at 44 cents per pack of 20 cigarettes), the lower-than-us states include: Missouri at 17 cents; Louisiana at 36 cents; Georgia at 37 cents and Alabama at 42 cents.

Our tobacco tax hasn’t increased since 1993.

The effects of North Dakotans’ tobacco use also affects the wallets of those who don’t use tobacco. North Dakota’s annual health care costs directly caused by smoking are $326 million. The portion covered by state Medicaid is $47 million.

But the most important reason is that a higher tobacco tax encourages people to quit and discourages younger folks from starting. According to the Tobacco Free Kids organization, “tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.”

For all the work being done by public health and health advocacy organizations, raising the tobacco tax is win-win.

I think it’s about time the North Dakota legislators started having a serious talk about this rather serious idea.

http://www.westfargopioneer.com/content/letter-tobacco-taxes-should-be-raised

Letter: Tobacco taxes should be raised

“Hey! I have a great idea! Let’s raise a tax on something,” said no North Dakota legislator ever.

Wow! Raising a tax on anything, with North Dakota being so flush from oil money, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

And yet, taxes (or fees if you want a more politically correct term) do continue to inch up here and there.

During the 2013 legislative session, North Dakota lawmakers passed a bill that increased fees for many hunting and fishing licenses.

A tax is generally imposed to gain funds to pay for specific services or products: “It is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.”

As said, to raise a tax in North Dakota today just doesn’t seem to make any sense, unless it’s a tax to protect the health of our residents, prevent disease and thwart kids from starting a path of extremely unhealthy behavior.

OK, I’ve beat around the bush long enough. I have read a lot about the idea of increasing the tobacco tax in North Dakota, and I am totally in favor of such an action. Here’s why:

The tobacco tax in North Dakota is one of the lowest in the nation (we are 46th at 44 cents per pack of 20 cigarettes), the lower-than-us states include: Missouri at 17 cents; Louisiana at 36 cents; Georgia at 37 cents and Alabama at 42 cents.

Our tobacco tax hasn’t increased since 1993.

The effects of North Dakotans’ tobacco use also affects the wallets of those who don’t use tobacco. North Dakota’s annual health care costs directly caused by smoking are $326 million. The portion covered by state Medicaid is $47 million.

But the most important reason is that a higher tobacco tax encourages people to quit and discourages younger folks from starting. According to the Tobacco Free Kids organization, “tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.”

For all the work being done by public health and health advocacy organizations, raising the tobacco tax is win-win.

I think it’s about time the North Dakota legislators started having a serious talk about this rather serious idea.

http://www.westfargopioneer.com/content/letter-tobacco-taxes-should-be-raised

The Post's View: Raising all federal tobacco taxes can stop tax avoidance

By Editorial Board, Washington Post

ENACT A LAW, and companies will find loopholes to exploit. That was the fear which drove lawmakers in 2009 to raise cigarette taxes together with taxes for roll-your-own tobacco and small cigars, both easy substitutes for cigarettes. To prevent manufacturers from shifting toward lesser-taxed alternatives, Congress equalized taxes between all three products — hiking the existing roll-your-own tobacco tax by over 24 times and small cigars by over 27 times.

These products have plunged in sales since 2009. But tobacco manufacturers, unfazed in their quest to fatten their purses, found a new loophole. Unlike these three highly taxed tobacco products, post-2009 taxes on pipe tobacco and large cigars are relatively low. All it took to shift consumers to those products was relabeling roll-your-own tobacco as pipe tobacco, and slightly adding weight to qualify small cigars as large cigars. As evidence from a recent Senate finance committee hearing shows, the popularity of pipe tobacco and large cigars have exploded.

That market shift has cost the federal government up to $3.7 billion in forgone revenue. Even worse, it’s hampered the effect of high tobacco prices on preventing teen smoking.

The first instinct might be to blame the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which has yet to sharpen definitions of many of these products. While action by the bureau could help close the loopholes, it faces a daunting task. For example, where should it draw the line between roll-your-own and pipe tobacco? In many cases, “it is difficult to establish objective physical standards for differentiating between the two products,” the bureau’s chief said in his testimony. Sometimes the difference is virtually nothing at all.

So forget rewriting definitions. The foolproof solution is for Congress to pass a law equalizing all tobacco taxes. That would raise taxes for pipe tobacco and large cigars to the same level as cigarette taxes, preventing any market shift. A bill introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) in 2013, still stuck in committee, would accomplish this task.

Better yet, Congress should hike all tobacco taxes — not just the lower ones — up to higher and equal levels. State taxes vary widely, from $4.35 per cigarette pack in New York to $0.17 per pack in Missouri, making smuggling a big problem for law enforcement. The current cigarette and small cigar federal tax is a meager $1.01 per pack of 20; a higher federal tax would diminish the effect of inconsistency between states and allow for a more uniform response.

These are two common-sense solutions to close tobacco tax loopholes. But the problem of tobacco manufacturers exploiting definitions has another dimension. The Food and Drug Administration, the other arm of the U.S. public health response, has proposed a long-awaited rule to expand its regulatory authority over “all” tobacco products. But premium cigars may be exempted from these regulations, potentially allowing manufacturers to “sweep other cigar products under its umbrella,” as the FDA has admitted before. This proposed exemption, as demonstrated by the tax avoidance case, is a disaster waiting to happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/raising-all-federal-tobacco-taxes-can-stop-tax-avoidance/2014/08/02/4b542a76-180d-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html

Taxes on cigarettes help reduce number of smokers

By Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
The Hill
Science and experience have demonstrated conclusively that cigarette tax increases are highly effective at reducing smoking, especially among kids. Thus, the conclusions in a Gallup poll The Hill recently wrote about (“High cigarette prices aren’t stopping smokers,” July 18) are inconsistent with what happens in the real world every time cigarette taxes are increased.

The most recent surgeon general’s report on tobacco concludes that “raising prices on cigarettes is one of the most effective tobacco control interventions.” The report called for additional cigarette tax increases “to prevent youth from starting smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.” The Congressional Budget Office has also reviewed the evidence and concluded that an increase in the federal cigarette tax would significantly reduce the number of adult smokers.

In the year after a 62-cent increase in the federal cigarette tax in 2009, cigarette sales declined by a historic 11.1 percent. Adult and youth smoking rates also declined. “This single legislative act — increasing the price of cigarettes — is projected to have reduced the number of middle and high school students who smoke by over 220,000 and the number using smokeless tobacco products by over 135,000,” the surgeon general’s report noted.

Even the poll The Hill wrote about reported that more than a quarter of adult smokers surveyed said they smoked less due to tax increases. As there are 42 million smokers in the United States, this translates into millions of smokers whose behavior is affected by cigarette tax increases. And this survey of current smokers would not have included former smokers who have already quit due to increased tobacco taxes.
Tobacco tax increases don’t have to cause every smoker or even a majority of smokers to quit or cut back in order to have a big impact on public health. As the scientific evidence and even the new Gallup poll show, such tax increases will impact the behavior of large numbers of smokers, saving many from a premature death.
From Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington, D.C.

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/213571-taxes-on-cigarettes-help-reduce-number-of-smokers#ixzz38sdK91IE
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Washington Post: Raise the smoking age

The Washington Post

New Jersey’s Senate approved a raise in the legal smoking age from 19 to 21 last week, pushing the groundbreaking experiment in public health one step closer to fruition. The bill, which the General Assembly will consider in the fall, would make New Jersey the first state to prohibit the sale of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to anyone younger than 21. It is designed to cut teenage exposure to tobacco, since about 90 percent of regular smokers have their first cigarette before turning 18. A few localities, such as New York City and the island of Hawaii, already raised the age.

Raising the smoking age eventually could cause a decline of 30 percent in adult smokers, according to one estimate, but whether it will have such a large effect in New Jersey remains to be seen. New Jersey’s current smoking age already prohibits virtually all high schoolers from buying cigarettes. Very few extensive case studies exist now, but the Food and Drug Administration is due to release a report on the effect of a 21- or 25-year-old smoking age next year.

There is no harm in trying. The experiment’s success could spur on the District of Columbia, which has a similar bill in committee, and other states that are contemplating the move. The only way the measure can hurt is if it distracts policymakers from implementing more proven prevention strategies, such as higher taxes.

Despite New Jersey’s campaign against smoking, some key areas still need work. E-cigarettes, many of which contain known carcinogens and whose popularity has skyrocketed, are taxed at a low rate. The cigarette tax has not been raised in five years; New Jersey’s $2.70-per-pack tax lags behind that of eight states. Most troubling, none of the revenue from the tobacco tax goes to tobacco prevention efforts. One good start would be to pass a bill that would equalize the tax between tobacco products.

In early June, when the smoking-age bill was still in committee, state Sen. Ronald Rice Sr., D, cast one of only two votes against it. “I’m getting tired of folk trying to tell adults what to do,” he said. But cigarettes, unlike some alcoholic drinks, have no health benefits and are destructive even in small doses. Exactly what New Jersey would be depriving its citizens of, besides a slow poison, is unclear.

Mr. Rice also argued that it was unfair to ban smoking for 19- and 20-year-olds who “can buy real estate, pay state and sales taxes” and join the military. There he has a point; there is no societal consensus about when a citizen reaches adulthood. Yet when urgent practical needs are balanced with theoretical inconsistencies, initiatives that save lives should take precedence. As New Jersey and other states battle their smoking crises, they should undertake initiatives both innovative and tested.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58169701-82/smoking-age-jersey-tobacco.html.csp

Further Review: Hey, baseball, time to quit the spit

By Steve Hummer

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Tony Gwynn, hitter nonpareil, died in mid-June of the kind of cancer that should have sent a chill through every clubhouse in baseball. A member of the dip-and-spit set when he played, Gwynn suffered salivary gland cancer. He was only 54 at his death.
In a story looking at baseball’s and the Braves’ reaction to Gwynn’s death — to appear in Sunday’s print edition of the AJC, as well as on myajc.com — it was necessary to include the disclaimer that there was no precise science connecting Gwynn’s cancer to his past use of smokeless tobacco.
But, c’mon, a little common sense here. Gwynn had said the cancer begin very near the area of his mouth where he once loaded his dip. He blamed his fate on his tobacco use. Even without the seal of definitive medical proof, that should be good enough for the third of baseball that still spews foul brown juice.
The use of chewing and dipping tobacco has been a stain on baseball, literally, since forever. Trying it is a rite of passage for every young player — the nausea and the dizziness that the first-timer experiences, that’s just all good fun. Staying with it is a sort of concession, a player admitting he can figure no better way to spend his many idle hours than to stuff a caustic weed in his mouth and spit it out one dirty dribble at a time.
And once they get hooked, good luck trying to get off the nicotine dragon.
An athlete faces so many risks that he or she is powerless to avoid. Each sport takes its own kind of toll on joint and organ. Why in the name of Nike — the winged goddess of victory, not the shoe — would anyone willingly add to the potential harm by taking up such a frivolous, filthy habit?
Not as many in baseball use the stuff now as 20 years ago. And some have been forced to a reckoning by the news of last month. Braves closer Craig Kimbrel for one seemed genuinely motivated to quit his dipping when the season is done.
But I fear too many players will put off the hard work of quitting until the season passes, gradually set aside the lesson of this summer and stay with the slow, comfortable slide that smokeless tobacco provides. Then it will be just the same ol’ spit from there.
Gwynn’s legacy deserves so much more than that.
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/further-review-hey-baseball-time-to-quit-the-spit/ngYZ5/

Letter: Time for state to update, increase tobacco taxes

By Jay Taylor, Durbin, ND

The state of North Dakota just recently unveiled newly designed license plates that will be used and distributed over the coming months/years.

The total cost to the taxpayers of North Dakota for this update was $7 million. The last time the license plate was changed was more than two decades ago.

During the 2013 legislative session, North Dakota lawmakers also passed a bill that increased fees for many hunting and fishing licenses. This legislation passed with overwhelming support from legislators, hunters and anglers. This was the first comprehensive license fee adjustment in nearly two decades.

Do you know what else in our state hasn’t been updated in the last two decades? The cost of tobacco products. One of the best ways to prevent young people from ever entering a life of addiction to tobacco —something nearly everyone (except the tobacco industry, of course) can agree is a good thing —is to make the product more expensive.

Does the North Dakota Legislature agree that our state’s tobacco tax of 44 cents per pack —the 46th lowest in the nation —is also outdated?

The effects of North Dakotans’ tobacco use also impacts the wallets of those who don’t use tobacco. North Dakota’s annual health care costs directly caused by smoking is $326 million. The portion covered by state Medicaid is $47 million.

As the price of tobacco increases, more people quit and fewer young people start the addiction.

If it was time to update our state’s license plates to the tune of $7 million and raise the fees on hunting and fishing at the expense of the taxpayers, I think it’s time to engage in the long-overdue discussion about the costs of cheap tobacco to the health of our state.

Jay Taylor, Durbin

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/content/letter-time-state-update-increase-tobacco-taxes

 

Letter: N.D. needs a hefty tobacco-tax hike

By Brenda Jo Gillund from West Fargo, N.D.

WEST FARGO — My family and I have been really happy with North Dakota’s smoke-free indoor workplace law that passed in 2012. As a mother of young children, I feel very fortunate that young people today will have decreased exposure to secondhand smoke.

As my children get older, I worry about their exposure to marketing for tobacco products. I find it appalling that tobacco companies target their marekting to children, including enticing flavored tobacco products and colorful packaging.

We know that as we increase the price of tobacco, fewer children start smoking, and more smokers make the decision to quit.

With so many lives at stake, my question is this: Why don’t we make cigarettes more expensive so people — especially children and young adults — can really start to see how much their habits cost them?

When it hits us in the pocketbook, we start looking for a way to quit an addiction or decide never to start in the first place.

I’ve heard that North Dakota is one of the cheapest places to buy cigarettes. There’s something wrong with that, and I think it is time for action.

Gillund is a registered nurse. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/nd-needs-hefty-tobacco-tax-hike

Andrew Knight: Extend to parks the push to reduce smoking

By Andrew Knight, Grand Forks Herald

Smoking should be allowed in Grand Forks parks because banning it “clamps down on personal freedom?” (“Too much cost for too little gain,” editorial, Page F1, June 1)

Is the argument really about progress vs. freedom?

The Herald’s “ThreeSixty” opinion section on June 1 includes the phrases “enjoy a cigarette on a park bench,” “cigarette smoke smells like roses,” and that a “(smoking) ban is ‘pointless’ from a traditional perspective.” It felt more like an opinion section from the 1960s.

Grand Forks Park District Commissioner Molly Soeby expertly lays out the issues with several pieces of evidence for this ban, and then non-local public policy wonks (Dennis Prager et al.) are trotted out as the counterpoint, with nary a point made specific to smoking in parks.

Soeby explains 78 percent of the Grand Forks community and 82 percent of golfers and softball managers are for a comprehensive tobacco-free policy. Even with sampling error, we can discern a clear majority opinion here.

How then, does Grand Forks City Council President Hal Gershman think the ban would be “very unpopular?” (“Banning smoking in parks a ‘needless intrusion,’” letter, Page A4, June 4).

This isn’t to say that I don’t expect a small but vocal backlash from the “hey, freedom!” crowd.

The supposed “counter” to Soeby’s arguments and statistics is a smattering of excerpts on the topic of smoking, starting with Simon Chapman from Australia (yes, Australia). Chapman compares car exhaust to secondhand smoke because we breathe in benzene from both sources. There are a LOT of car owners and not nearly as many smokers. How much benzene shoots out of exhausts in cars versus a single cigarette?

This argument fails because he’s using two different scales.

Chapman finishes the tortured analogy saying “we hear no serious calls for the banning of cars.” First, no one is calling for banning cigarettes; it’s about reducing smoking.

Second, there is substantial market pressure on car companies to reduce emissions. Science told us vehicle emissions are pretty bad, so we are trying hard to reduce them. Science also told us smoking is bad, so that’s why the push to reduce places where smoking is allowed needs to continue to parks and other public places.

The slippery slope fallacy continued with an excerpt from a New York Times editorial (from three years ago) to that city’s smoking ban, comparing it outright to alcohol prohibition 90 years ago. If we ban smoking in parks, it may lead to “a civic disaster,” according to the writer.

If this is the best group of arguments to keep smoking legal in parks, maybe it means there are few, if any, locals willing to write against the ban (in which case, kudos to Gershman and the Herald’s editorial board for being lone wolves on this minority opinion).

You have freedom to smoke on your property, in your car, while you walk around town and so on. You have freedom to do a LOT of things in your own home that you cannot do in a park because many of us believe it is better not to expose nature, playgrounds and children to it.

Add smoking to the list. We don’t want children to see adults smoking, feel cigarette butts in their toes or smell the cigarette smoke. Leave the cigarettes in the car for a round of golf or a volleyball match.

Soon my family is moving to Colorado — a state with acres ravaged by fires in recent years. Herald readers can probably understand that the residents there are skittish about smoking in places such as parks and playgrounds, and therefore have enacted smoking bans.

Like people in Grand Forks, they have natural beauty worth preserving, would prefer not seeing people “enjoying a cigarette on a park bench” and don’t want to take the chance that an errant cigarette butt could take down a forest range.

We’re packing up for the move and are already missing people we’ve befriended here, but we won’t miss the overly cautious, conservative approach to environmental protections.

This is not a simple false choice of progress or freedom. The Park Board should feel very confident moving forward in enacting this policy.

And to the Herald editorial board: Yes, the benefits are more than worth the costs.

Knight is an assistant professor in the music department at UND. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/andrew-knight-extend-parks-push-reduce-smoking