Opinion: Raise tobacco tax

By: REBEKAH HARTMAN, Mandan
It is time for North Dakota to raise the tobacco tax. I know firsthand that raising the price is an effective way to help people quit smoking.
I am personally affected by our state’s low rate of tobacco taxes as my husband is in a constant struggle to battle his addiction to tobacco. When we lived in Minnesota, the price of cigarettes was high enough that buying a pack forced him to stop and think about what — exactly — the money was going for and if there was a better way to spend the dollars. Now that we’re in North Dakota, where the cigarette prices are shockingly low, there is little pause when deciding to buy a pack.
I’m urging our state legislators to support the proposals before them to increase the state tobacco taxes. Our elected officials should seize the opportunity to increase taxes on all tobacco products as it would reduce smoking rates, support countless people who are desperately trying to break their addiction, and ultimately lower health care costs for all North Dakotans.
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/raise-tobacco-tax/article_7d15ce12-df00-50f2-a0e2-47a0658cfa34.html

Proposed tobacco tax hike debated

By Nick Smith, Bismarck Tribune

Screen Shot 2015-02-08 at 5.28.04 PMHealth care officials gathered to voice support Tuesday for an increase to the state’s tobacco tax while business leaders lined up in defense of the status quo.

Nearly 50 people packed the Fort Totten Room for the hearing on House Bill 1421 before the House Finance and Taxation Committee.

HB1421 takes aim at North Dakota’s tax rate for tobacco. The state ranks 46th nationally in tobacco taxes at 44 cents per pack, ahead of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Virginia.

HB1421 would raise the state’s cigarette tax to $1.54 per pack. It would also raise the excise tax on other tobacco products from 28 percent of the wholesale purchase price to 43.5 percent.

Similar legislation died in 2013, one of several previous unsuccessful legislative efforts to raise the tax since it was last increased in 1993.

“This bill is intended to stop young people from beginning to smoke. This is primarily for the health of North Dakota,” said Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Rugby, who estimated $103.5 million in new revenue would be generated during the 2015-17 biennium.

That figures does not include the $50 million per biennium the state’s general fund would still receive in tobacco taxes.

Sixty percent of new revenue would go toward health-related programs in the state’s Community Health Trust Fund. The rest would go to local communities for health-related programs.

Cost of prevention

Data from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says a cigarette tax of $2 per pack would prevent approximately 7,500 people younger than 18 to not smoke and prompt an estimated 8,000 adult smokers to kick the habit. The organization also claims this could result in $300 million in savings in future health care expenditures.

“With the retail sector of the state’s economy hitting on all cylinders, why would any legislator support throwing a wrench into the economic engine?” asked Mike Rud, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2012 shows that tobacco use isn’t a major problem in North Dakota, according to Rud, pointing out that North Dakota ranked 37th in adult smoking and 49th in smokeless tobacco use. Rud said among youth smokers North Dakota ranked 34th among 44 states reporting data.

“Contrary to what some may believe, North Dakota retailers don’t stand in the driveway or on the storeroom floor attempting to sell tobacco products,” Rud said. “We simply attempt to meet consumer demand. Don’t tie our hands.”

Dr. Eric Johnson, of Grand Forks, said North Dakota largely gets top marks from the American Lung Association’s annual state by state report card on tobacco control. Prices are the one area in which North Dakota gets a flunking grade, which Johnson called the main hole in the state’s tobacco cessation program.

Johnson also criticized the state for being 46th in tobacco taxes.

“If we were 46th in diabetes and obesity management, I don’t think we’d be happy with that,” Johnson said.

Paul Mutch, owner of Mutch Oil Company in Larimore, also voiced opposition to HB1421.

Mutch said, with national discussion on middle class needs and taxes, he found it odd the state would consider raising any taxes that would impact lower-income individuals most. CDC data puts 32 percent of North Dakotans earning less than $15,000 annually as smokers compared to 15.5 percent for those earning more than $50,000.

“I don’t believe raising taxes would result in any fewer smokers,” Mutch said. “Just more North Dakota residents with less money in their pockets for the things they really need.”

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/proposed-tobacco-tax-hike-debated/article_421fdf67-d289-5036-ae3c-a170e0e882a4.html

Grand Forks Park Board still uncertain on tobacco ban

By Charly Haley, Grand Forks Herald

After about 15 people stood up simultaneously during a Grand Forks Park Board meeting Tuesday and told the board they support tobacco-free parks, most board members remained uncertain about banning tobacco use.

“A general issue is, does the Park Board want to keep in fidelity with its mission to promote a healthy lifestyle?” said Jim Whitehead, a representative of the Coalition for a Healthy Greater Grand Forks, to the board.

A ban on all tobacco use, both smoking and chewing, has been discussed by the Park Board for about two years. The idea is championed by Park Board member Molly Soeby, but other board members haven’t stated clear opinions on the issue.

In a back-and-forth between audience members speaking in favor of a tobacco ban, most Park Board members said the answer isn’t simple.

“I don’t think any of us are here to say we want smoking for our kids,” board member Tim Skarperud said. But, “We already have a pretty substantial law in place, and are we here to set laws?”

Board President Jay Panzer agreed.

“Who are we to make additional laws above and beyond what the city has already done?” Panzer said.

Grand Forks city code prohibits smoking at the Park District’s softball fields and golf courses, but that does not include chewing tobacco, and the law does not encompass playgrounds or dog parks, Soeby said.

She offered health statistics in favor of a full tobacco ban, including that more children than adults chew tobacco in North Dakota, at 13.8 percent of children versus 7.6 percent of adults.

Other board members said they agree there are health problems associated with tobacco use, but they still aren’t sure about the effectiveness of a tobacco ban, especially because it would be difficult to enforce.

Board member Paul Barta said he’s also undecided, but he’s leaning in favor of the Park Board “setting the trend” by banning all tobacco use in public parks.

While several audience members spoke in favor of the tobacco ban, none spoke against it.

“You have people here, in chairs, telling you how important this is for Grand Forks,” one audience member said. “Where are they?”

LaDouceur, Skarperud and Panzer said they’ve received several calls from people against the ban, and they want to consider those people, too, in making a decision.

“There are certain people that want to be out in the front like this,” Skarperud said, referring to the audience at the meeting, “and there are certain people we talk to behind the scenes.”

Park District Director Bill Palmiscno said he’s hopeful the Park Board will vote in favor of some sort of expanded tobacco ban, whether that’s banning all tobacco use in parks or extending the smoking ban to all parks.

“I don’t want us to not move forward because we can’t have a compromise,” Palmiscno said. “I would rather get part of this done than nothing done.”

Park Board members did not vote on a tobacco policy Tuesday.

Palmiscno said he’d have Park District staff draft two ordinances — one with a full tobacco ban, and another with an increased ban — to be reviewed at a future board meeting.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/3670918-grand-forks-park-board-still-uncertain-tobacco-ban

Pro-business lobby speaks out against ND tobacco tax bills

By Nick Smith / Bismarck Tribune

BISMARCK – Lawmakers attempting to raise the state’s tax on tobacco products for the first time in more than two decades acknowledge long odds as they face off with business groups that have successfully beaten back previous efforts.

One tobacco tax bill has been introduced in each chamber. The head of a state retail association says lawmakers’ efforts are misguided and would hurt businesses when the state is wrestling with a potentially tough budgeting effort due to slowing oil activity.

North Dakota ranks 46th nationally in tobacco taxes at 44 cents per pack, higher than Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Virginia. The price hasn’t been raised since 1993.

The two pieces of legislation aimed at tobacco taxes are House Bill 1421 and Senate Bill 2322.

HB1421 would raise the state’s cigarette tax to $1.54 per pack. It would also raise the excise tax on other tobacco products from 28 percent of the wholesale purchase price to 43.5 percent. The House Finance and Taxation Committee picks up the bill at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.

SB2322 would raise the cigarette tax in the state to $2 per pack.

North Dakota Retail Association President Mike Rud is adamant in his opposition.

“This isn’t the time to tax any business in North Dakota,” Rud said. “The idea that a tax increase is going to help people not smoke, it doesn’t hold any water.”

HB1421 prime sponsor Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Rugby, disagreed.

“We’ll just present factual data that should support the fact that this will decrease the number of smokers,” Nelson said.

The recently unveiled legislation was touted along with data from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The organization’s data says a cigarette tax of $2 per pack would prevent an estimated 7,500 people younger than 18 to not smoke and prompt an estimated 8,000 adult smokers to kick the habit. The organization also claims this could result in $300 million in savings in future health care expenditures.

Long odds

Nelson admitted the tobacco tax bills face long odds: Similar legislation failed in 2013.

“We’re going to need a lot of help from our stakeholder groups to get over the hill,” Nelson said.

He said HB1421 would generate an estimated $103.5 million during the 2015-17 biennium. This doesn’t include the $50 million per biennium the state’s general fund would still receive in tobacco taxes.

“I think public sentiment is the main thing,” Nelson said. “We need the public to weigh in.”

Through HB1421, 60 percent of the new revenue would go toward health-related programs in the state’s Community Health Trust Fund, Nelson said. The rest would go to local communities for health-related programs.

Low smoking rates

Rud countered with 2012 data from the Centers for Disease control and prevention that shows tobacco use isn’t a major problem in North Dakota.

“North Dakota’s smoking rates are very low despite the state having some of the lowest tobacco taxes in the nation,” Rud said.

He said North Dakota in 2012 ranked 37th in adult smoking and 49th in smokeless tobacco use. Rud said among youth smokers, North Dakota ranked 34th among 44 states reporting data.

“Proponents of raising the state’s tobacco taxes would have us believe that low taxes are encouraging more tobacco use. But that contention isn’t supported by the data,” Rud said.

SB2322 prime sponsor Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, said the key target in tobacco tax legislation is youth.

“If we can keep them from smoking up to age 18, the odds of them ever smoking is close to zero,” Mathern said.

Mathern said North Dakotans have had smoke-free public places since June 2012. He said arguments against smoke-free public places were that it would negatively impact restaurants and bars.

“The scares that were around before … have proven not to be the case,” Mathern said.

He said retailers, such as gas stations, also have little to worry about.

“I would say to all these store owners: Do they want their children to smoke? Do they smoke? Consider the broader implications,” Mathern said.

Mathern said he believed the savings on health care to employees and having more healthy customers alive and able to come into their stores for other purchases would offset the losses in tobacco sales.

http://www.inforum.com/news/3670143-pro-business-lobby-speaks-out-against-nd-tobacco-tax-bills

Fargo Forum: Trygve Olson Cartoon

0201a
http://www.inforum.com/opinion/cartoons/3667507-trygve-olson-cartoon-020115

Valley City considering restrictions on e-cigarette sales; proposal would require licensing

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
VALLEY CITY, North Dakota — Officials in Valley City are considering measures that would restrict the sales of e-cigarettes in the city.
The Valley City Times-Record reports the ordinances could ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors as well as the self-service sales of e-cigarettes. They would also require local licensing for sellers of e-cigarettes.
Members of the City County Board of Health say they want an ordinance that would not allow flavored e-cigarettes, in liquid nicotine or any other form, to be sold to anyone in Valley City.
Tobacco prevention coordinator Vicki Roseneau says “flavors are aimed at enticing youth to buy” e-cigarettes.
Thirteen businesses currently sale tobacco products in Valley City.
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/6b8c1cd5f84948b39918751389336537/ND–Smoking-Ordinances-Valley-City/

LETTER: Tobacco tax can help smokers quit

By Rebekah Hartman

It’s time for North Dakota to raise the tobacco tax. I know firsthand that raising the price is an effective way to help people quit smoking.
I am personally affected by our state’s low rate of tobacco taxes, as my husband is in a constant struggle to battle his addiction to tobacco. When we lived in Minnesota, the price of cigarettes was high enough that buying a pack forced him to stop and think about what — exactly — the money was going for, and if there was a better way to spend the dollars.
Now that we’re in North Dakota, where the cigarette prices are shockingly low, there is little pause when deciding to buy a pack.
I’m urging our state legislators to support the proposals before them to increase the state tobacco taxes. Our elected officials should seize the opportunity to increase taxes on all tobacco products as it would reduce smoking rates, support countless people who are desperately trying to break their addiction and ultimately lower health care costs for all North Dakotans.
Rebekah Hartman, Mandan, N.D.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/3668410-letter-tobacco-tax-can-help-smokers-quit

OFFICIALS DECLARE E-CIGARETTES A HEALTH THREAT FOR CALIFORNIA

By , ABC News
SHERMAN OAKS, LOS ANGELES (KABC) —

Health officials have declared electronic cigarettes a health threat for California, and they are seeking statewide regulations.
The use of electronic cigarettes is growing. It’s called vaping, and there’s new shops opening up all over.
The California Department of Public Health released a report saying e-cigarettes emit cancer-causing chemicals and get users hooked on nicotine, but officials acknowledged that more research needs to be done.
“There’s a misnomer that e-cigarettes emit just water vapor, and that’s not true. They actually admit aerosol that contains particulate matter,” said Timothy Gibbs of the American Cancer Society.
California Health Officer Ron Chapman said if the products remain largely unregulated, new generations of young people will become nicotine addicts.
“There is propyleneglycol, which is a food substance. They have actually used it as medication. However, when it’s heated up, if it’s heated up high enough, it becomes ethylene glycol, that’s anti-freeze,” said Dr. Brian Tiep of City of Hope.
But proponents say it is never heated that much.
“There is a dangerous part when you are heating up … but we don’t do that. Usually vape shops don’t sell those kinds of things,” said Mike Mailyan, who owns the Vapor Shop in Sherman Oaks.
He says electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, and there is nothing burning like a cigarette. Instead, a heating element vaporizes a liquid that can have different flavorings.
“Basically it’s boiled water with vegetable glycerine,” Mailyan said.
California banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors in 2010, but the report raises concerns about children consuming liquid nicotine with flavors such as cotton candy and gummy bear. Reports of children under 5 with e-cigarette poisoning jumped from seven in 2012 to 154 last year.
There’s a proposal in the state legislature that would define e-cigarettes as a tobacco product and would prohibit its use in public places. A similar bill was defeated last year over opposition from tobacco companies.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is also proposing regulations that include warning labels and ingredient lists on e-cigarettes, although enactment could take years.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://abc7.com/health/officials-declare-e-cigarettes-a-health-threat-for-california/495375/

 

Lab tests imply formaldehyde risk in some e-cigarette vapor

By Marilynn Marchione, The Washington Post
Using certain electronic cigarettes at high temperature settings may release more formaldehyde, a cancer-causing chemical, than smoking traditional cigarettes does, new lab tests suggest.
The research does not prove a health risk — it involved limited testing on just one brand of e-cigarettes and was done in test tubes, not people. It also does not mean e-cigarettes are better or worse than regular ones; tobacco smoke contains dozens of things that can cause cancer.
But it does highlight how little is known about the safety of the battery-powered devices, which heat liquid to deliver nicotine in a vapor rather than from burning tobacco.
“It’s a potential red flag,” one independent expert — Stephen Hecht, a tobacco researcher at the University of Minnesota — said of the study. “Under some conditions, e-cigarettes might be generating more formaldehyde than you’d want to be exposed to. But I don’t think we know enough yet. There’s a huge variety in the makeup of these cigarettes and how they are used.”
The study was published last week as a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. The journal said it had been reviewed by experts in the field.
Formaldehyde is found in many things, including building materials and disinfectants. An earlier study found e-cigarettes generated less formaldehyde than regular ones, but that study looked at just the gas portion of the vapor. The new one looked at the liquid particles in the vapor, like the spray from an aerosol can.
Some e-cigarette systems let users turn up the voltage to increase the heat and the amount of liquid in the vapor. David Peyton, a chemist at Portland State University, and colleagues tested one brand with two voltage settings. They used a syringe to collect vapor from 10 samples, each one representing several puffs, at both voltage levels.
They measured formaldehyde hemiacetal — a compound that can release formaldehyde — in the liquid portion of the vapor.
At low voltage, the chemical was not detected. But at the high setting, levels were five to 15 times as great as the amount of formaldehyde users would get from traditional cigarettes.
Virtually all e-cigarettes use similar materials in the heated liquid, so the formaldehyde finding “is not brand-dependent,” Peyton said.
However, Gregory Conley, a lawyer with the American Vaping Association, an advocacy group for e-cigarettes, criticized the study methods. “They use the device in a manner that no one does,” he said.
What the researchers did, he said, is like leaving a steak on a grill all day: Many cancer-causing substances might be formed, but no one would eat such charred meat.
— Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/lab-tests-imply-formaldehyde-risk-in-some-e-cigarette-vapor/2015/01/26/6f36fd9a-a266-11e4-b146-577832eafcb4_story.html

Surgeon general says e-cigarette safety needs "clarity"

TIM IRELAND/PA WIRE, CBS/AP

The U.S. surgeon general says officials are “in desperate need of clarity” on electronic cigarettes to help guide public health policies.
Dr. Vivek Murthy, the country’s senior public health official, addressed the battery-powered devices that heat liquid nicotine during a stop Tuesday in Richmond. The U.S. Senate confirmed the 37-year-old physician and Harvard Medical School instructor’s nomination in December. The surgeon general’s office has previously been instrumental in guiding tobacco control.
The newly-appointed Murthy says the technology should be embraced if evidence shows e-cigarettes are able to help those who otherwise have trouble quitting smoking. However, research has found that e-cigarettes won’t necessarily help smokers quit. Last year, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 smokers and found that while 13.5 percent of the total study pool quit smoking, only nine of the 88 e-cigarette smokers quit.
As is the case with all health officials, Murthy also expressed concern about the safety of the product. E-cigarette companies have used social media to market their product and appeal to young people, who are picking up vaping in surprising numbers. Companies claim they safer to use than standard tobacco. However, a study published last week found e-cigarette smokers are five to 15 times more likely to get formaldehyde-related cancers.
Last year, the FDA drafted recommendations to regulate marketing and sales of electronic cigarettes, though the laws have yet to be passed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/surgeon-general-dr-vivek-murthy-says-e-cigarette-safety-needs-clarity/