Red River Valley Fair limits smoking to three designated areas

WEST FARGO – This year’s Red River Valley Fair here will be smoke-free.
Management for the fair, which runs at the Red River Valley Fairground here July 9-14, announced Monday that smoking will largely be banned at this year’s event, except for three designated areas.
The fair had to come into compliance with the new statewide ban on public smoking, which went into effect last winter, general manager Bryan Schulz said.
The grandstands are considered an “outdoor athletic venue” under that law, and therefore smoking in that area must be outlawed, Schulz said.
Schulz said fair management then had to consider the smoking law’s provision that bans puffing within 20 feet of any door, window or ventilation opening.
“That would eliminate just about every building on the grounds,” Schulz said.
Schulz said besides the state ban, the “trend” to ban smoking at fairs got a kick start last fall, when a child was poked in the eye by a cigarette at the Minnesota State Fair.
Schulz said the Minnesota State Fair is installing a similar smoking ban this fall.
The attractions company that the Red River Valley Fair hires for carnival rides has been notified of the change. It could be a “tough sell” for the carnies who are used to smoking around their rides and attractions, Schulz said, but he’s not expecting major problems.
The attractions company is aware that fines can be levied against it and any of its employees who run afoul of the ban, Schulz said.
The fine for a person smoking where it is outlawed is $50 per violation.
There is a $100 fine per violation that can be levied against an owner or person with “general supervisory responsibility over a public place or place of employment who willfully fails to comply” with the law, according to state law.
Smoking will be allowed in parking lots and the campground area, Schulz said. There will be three designated open-air spaces for smoking within the general fairgrounds.
Fairground staff and security will enforce the ban, and there will be signs to inform fairgoers of the change, said Schulz, who doesn’t expect any issues with the ban.
“I think people realize, when the law changed, they knew that things were going to happen,” he said.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/404939/

As Minnesota cigarette tax spikes, Moorhead retailers feel the burn

MOORHEAD – The cheapest pack of cigarettes at Brady’s Service Center located off Interstate 94 here jumped to $6.50 on Monday, the first day of a new per-pack tax increase in Minnesota.
Just a few miles away at Fargo’s Gateway Service Center-Cenex along Main Avenue, that same pack of Pall Malls was $3.79.
A pack of Marlboros at Brady’s totaled $8.30 after taxes, more than $3 more than the $5.15 being charged for the same brand at the Cenex station.
On the first day cigarette sales in Minnesota drew an additional $1.60 in taxes per pack, Brady Olson, owner of Brady’s Service Center, said the disparity is another disadvantage for Minnesota convenience stores that have no way of lowering their prices to compete.
“It puts a very unfair advantage for North Dakota because we’re also at a disadvantage on the gas tax, sales tax and whatever other taxes,” he said. “It’s just getting worse and worse.”
The per-pack cigarette tax in Minnesota jumped to $2.83 – the nation’s sixth-highest. North Dakota ranks 46th among the states with a tax of 44 cents per pack, which hasn’t changed in more than a decade.
Olson said the high state tax, in addition to the $1.01 of federal taxes on each pack, leaves little wiggle room for Moorhead retailers – especially when it comes to courting cigarette smokers, the top convenience store customer.
“They do more volume and more dollar sales than anybody on average,” he said. “They also shop more, so they stop more often.”
Moorhead resident Jeremy Myers said he wasn’t even aware of the latest tax hike in his home state because he’s been buying cigarettes in North Dakota for years.
“They’re just cheaper,” he said.
Even before Monday’s increase, the average pack of cigarettes was about $1 cheaper in North Dakota than Minnesota, he said. Myers said the only time he buys in Minnesota is if he has to, and then he’ll just buy one pack to hold him over until he can stock up at a North Dakota store.
Manager Shari Bettenhausen said that’s been common for years at the Cenex station just blocks from the Red River in downtown Fargo.
“I think we’ve always gotten customers from Moorhead just because North Dakota’s always been a little bit cheaper,” she said.
But she said the latest tax hike in Minnesota hadn’t been much of a boost to business in Fargo, at least through Monday morning.
“A few more cartons are going out the door today,” she said.
Olson said he’s been frustrated with the idea behind Minnesota’s latest tax increase, especially after years of hearing politicians talk about the need to make the state’s taxation fairer across all income levels. He also said statements from public health officials that the tax hike will prevent kids from starting smoking and motivate current smokers to kick their habit could be overly simplistic.
“It’s $15 in Las Vegas and over $10 in New York, and they’re still smoking,” he said. “If you want something, you’re going to do it whether you like to pay for it or not.”
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/404925/

Are E-Cigarettes a Boon, a Menace or Both?

By THE NY TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

Rapidly growing numbers of consumers are turning to electronic cigarettes to satisfy their nicotine addiction without inhaling the carcinogens and toxic chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Buyers need to beware. Unlike nicotine gum and skin patches, electronic cigarettes have not been evaluated for safety or effectiveness.

Global sales of electronic cigarettes, although small compared with overall tobacco sales, have been rising quickly in both Europe and the United States. Several major tobacco companies have announced plans to introduce new or revamped e-cigarettes. And regulators for the European Union and Britain have released plans to regulate e-cigarettes more stringently, possibly starting in 2016.

Electronic cigarettes turn liquid nicotine into a vapor inhaled by the user. The liquid comes in dozens of flavors, mimicking everything from a standard cigarette to a piña colada or bubble gum. Smoking the devices is undeniably safer than inhaling tobacco smoke, a carcinogen, but there are some risks. Nicotine is extremely addictive, and very high doses can be dangerous. Toxic chemicals have been found in some devices, suggesting serious quality control problems at the factories.

Health officials also fear that flavored vapors coupled with advertising aimed at young people might induce them to start smoking and then move on to traditional cigarettes.

The Food and Drug Administration has two avenues for regulating e-cigarettes. If a manufacturer claims its device will help smokers quit smoking, the agency can demand proof that it is safe and effective for that purpose. However, if a manufacturer makes no such claim and leaves it to smokers to infer that the devices will help them kick the habit, courts have held that the F.D.A. must regulate under a different law that doesn’t require the same level of proof.

Even under that weaker standard, the agency has broad powers to protect public health. It could ban flavorings (like fruit or candy) that make products appeal to youngsters and even ban sales or marketing to buyers under 18. It could ensure that advertising is not deceptive and that factories follow good manufacturing practices.

The F.D.A. has been working since 2011 to draft new regulations to exert its authority over nontraditional tobacco products, potentially including electronic cigarettes. It needs to move as aggressively as possible to protect the public in this rapidly expanding market.

Smokers Cost Employers Nearly $6,000 More Annually: Study

Smokers may feel the ultimate toll of their addiction, but its their bosses who are footing the bill in the meantime, according to a new study.
Employees who smoke cost the typical U.S. company an average of $5,816 more a year than non-smokers, according to research released Monday from Ohio State University. The researchers note that the annual cost of employing a smoker can reach up to $10,125, but also fall as low as $2,885.
Although nearly half of large companies have instituted wellness programs for employees, a majority of them are centered around factors like weight, cholesterol and blood pressure, rather than smoking. Micah Berman, the report’s lead author and an expert on health policy and management, told The Huffington Post that the lack of focus on nicotine consumption is a mistake, but one that can be explained by the “sensitive and challenging nature” of the addiction.
“I think it can be easier to focus on other issues,” he said. “You can encourage people to work out more without necessarily singling them out.”
Additional health care costs are not the only financial burden that employers have to worry about with smokers, according to the study. Smoke breaks may account for a per-smoker cost of $3,077 due to the loss in productivity. “Presenteeism,” or reduced productivity related to nicotine addiction, can cost $462.
Berman’s study notes that the research focuses only on the economic cost of employees that smoke, rather than the ethical and privacy considerations that surround the issue. While federal law does not protect smokers against hiring discrimination, a majority of states and the District of Columbia have passed smoker-protection laws, USA Today reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/smoking-employer-costs_n_3383685.html

Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Senator in His 5th Term, Dies at 89

Frank R. Lautenberg, who fought the alcohol and tobacco industries and promoted Amtrak as a five-term United States senator from New Jersey, died on Monday in Manhattan. He was 89.
The cause was complications of viral pneumonia, his office said. In 2010, it announced that he had stomach cancer. Though he and his doctors expected a complete recovery, Senator Lautenberg, a Democrat, decided not to seek re-election next year.
His death leaves a vacancy in the Senate that will be filled by Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican. If the governor appoints a Republican, as expected, his party will hold 46 Senate seats while the Democrats’ number will drop to 52. Two independents caucus with the Democrats.
Mr. Lautenberg was the Senate’s oldest member and last surviving veteran of World War II. He had been frequently absent from the Senate in recent months because of failing health but did appear in April in a wheelchair to cast votes in favor of tougher gun-control measures, which were defeated.
First elected in 1982 at age 58 after a successful business career, Mr. Lautenberg served three terms, retired and instantly regretted the decision. When Senator Robert G. Torricelli made a last-minute decision not to seek re-election in 2002, Mr. Lautenberg ran in his place and won the seat. He was re-elected in 2008.
Never a flashy senator — his colleagues Bill Bradley and Mr. Torricelli got more attention — Mr. Lautenberg acquired influence on the Appropriations Committee and had a consistently liberal voting record. Americans for Democratic Action said he had voted liberal 94 percent of the time.
Mr. Lautenberg’s first major victory came in 1984. A freshman senator in the minority party, he pushed through a provision to establish a national drinking age of 21, a measure that threatened to cut 10 percent of a state’s federal highway money if it did not comply. He argued that the change would save lives by ending “a crazy quilt of drinking ages in neighboring states” and prevent those under 21 from driving over “blood borders” to get drunk and then try to drive home.
“He had to fight like hell to get it through,” Jay A. Winsten, associate dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said in an interview. “The estimates are that the cumulative lives saved are in excess of 25,000.”
Mr. Lautenberg followed that move 16 years later with another condition on highway spending: States must designate 0.08 percent blood alcohol as the level that would constitute being drunk.
In 1989, he led a successful fight to ban smoking on all commercial airline flights. Mr. Lautenberg, once a two-pack-a-day smoker, told the Senate: “With this legislation, nonsmokers, including children and infants, will be free from secondhand smoke. Working flight attendants will avoid a hazard that has jeopardized their health and their jobs.”
He later pursued legislation that prohibited smoking in federal buildings and in all federally financed places that serve children.
Mr. Lautenberg’s other legislative achievements include a 1996 law denying gun ownership to people who have committed domestic violence. He was also the author of legislation requiring that by 2012 all cargo destined for United States ports be screened for nuclear material, a requirement that both the Bush and the Obama administrations said could not be met.
Passenger railroads were another priority of the senator. He won an important victory in 2008 with legislation that nearly doubled Amtrak’s subsidy, and he advocated for federal money to help build another commuter rail tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan. When Mr. Christie killed the tunnel project in 2011, saying it was too expensive, Mr. Lautenberg, who was a critic of the governor, said the move “will go down as one of the biggest public policy blunders in New Jersey’s history.”
Another Lautenberg measure gave refugee status to people from historically persecuted groups without requiring them to show that they had been singled out. The senator estimated that 350,000 to 400,000 Jews entered the United States under that 1990 law. Evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union also benefited from the law.
Mr. Lautenberg had never held elected office before running for senator, but he immediately took to the sharp style of New Jersey politics. His entry to the Senate and his return were preceded by scandals involving another Democrat. In 1982, Senator Harrison A. Williams Jr. resigned after being convicted of bribery in the federal corruption investigation known as Abscam. In 2002, the Senate Ethics Committee declared that Mr. Torricelli was “severely admonished” for failing to report gifts from a contributor while helping the contributor’s business through official acts. Mr. Torricelli quit the race six weeks before the election.
Campaigning was rough in Mr. Lautenberg’s first two races. In 1982 he implied that this opponent, Millicent Fenwick, a 72-year-old moderate Republican who had clashed with President Richard M. Nixon, was too old. He called her “eccentric” and offered doubts about her “fitness.” He won an upset victory with 51 percent of the vote.
In 1988, he and Pete Dawkins, a former West Point football star and Vietnam War hero, slugged it out with blunt and sometimes provably false campaign television advertisements. “Gladiator sports are in,” Mr. Lautenberg observed. He won with 54 percent.
Mr. Lautenberg contributed heavily to his own campaigns, using the wealth he had gained after joining with two boyhood friends to develop a payroll services company, Automatic Data Processing, now better known as ADP.
Mr. Lautenberg was a strong backer of motorcycle-helmet laws. Mark V. Rosenker, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, recalled on Monday that the senator had kept a broken helmet in his office and showed it to visitors.
“He was skiing and he hit a tree or a rock or something, and that thing broke open like an egg, and it saved his life,” Mr. Rosenker said.
Frank Raleigh Lautenberg was born in Paterson, N.J., on Jan. 23, 1924, to Sam and Mollie Lautenberg, Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia. The family was poor. His father repeatedly tried to start up small businesses, returning to work in Paterson’s silk mills when the ventures failed.
In 2000, Mr. Lautenberg accompanied a reporter for The Star-Ledger of Newark to a long-closed silk mill. “My father took me in there one time and told me to look around,” he told the reporter. “He said you must never work like this. He said you have to get an education. I was 12; it didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. But it must have sunk in, because I did get an education. I didn’t want to work and struggle like he did.”
Mr. Lautenberg served in the Army Signal Corps in World War II and, after his discharge in 1946, used the postwar G.I. Bill of Rights to attend Columbia University, graduating in 1949. That experience, he said later, made him a strong supporter of the G.I. Bill enacted over Bush administration objections in 2008. The measure sharply increased educational benefits.
He briefly worked for the Prudential Insurance Company, but in 1952 approached Joe and Henry Taub, the classmates who had only recently started the payroll firm. Mr. Lautenberg persuaded them to hire him to sell the company’s services.
When he joined the company, he was its fifth employee. But it grew rapidly, and by 1982, when he left the company as its chief executive, it was one of the largest computer service companies in the world, with 15,000 employees.
He is survived by his wife, the former Bonnie Englebardt, whom he married in 2004; 4 children from his first marriage, to Lois Levenson, which ended in divorce in 1988: Nan Morgart, Ellen Lautenberg, Lisa Birer and Josh Lautenberg; 2 stepchildren, Danielle Englebardt and Lara Englebardt Metz; and 13 grandchildren.
As a boy Mr. Lautenberg did not have a bar mitzvah because his family’s poverty and frequent moves precluded joining a synagogue. But after he became aware of the Holocaust during the war, he began to contribute to Jewish causes. In 1968 he established the Lautenberg Center for General and Tumor Immunology at the Hebrew University Medical Faculty in Jerusalem. He served as president of the American Friends of Hebrew University, was a member of the Jewish Agency for Israel’s board of governors, and from 1975 to 1977 was general chairman of the United Jewish Appeal.
He also began donating money to Democratic candidates, including $90,000 to George McGovern’s presidential race in 1972, the last before there were effective limits on individual contributions.
When asked once why he had decided to enter politics at 58, he said he had been giving money to liberals like Mr. McGovern, Birch Bayh, Edward M. Kennedy and Gary Hart. “If I’m willing to support them,” he asked rhetorically, “why shouldn’t I support myself?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/nyregion/frank-lautenberg-new-jersey-senator.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&#h[]

Study: Companies Pay Almost $6,000 Extra Per Year for Each Employee Who Smokes

Employers Can Use Cost Estimates to Develop Tobacco Policies

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that U.S. businesses pay almost $6,000 per year extra for each employee who smokes compared to the cost to employ a person who has never smoked cigarettes.
Researchers say the study is the first to take a comprehensive look at the financial burden for companies that employ smokers.
By drawing on previous research on the costs of absenteeism, lost productivity, smoke breaks and health care costs, the researchers developed an estimate that each employee who smokes costs an employer an average of $5,816 annually above the cost of a person who never smoked. These annual costs can range from $2,885 to $10,125, according to the research.
Smoke breaks accounted for the highest cost in lost productivity, followed by health-care expenses that exceed insurance costs for nonsmokers.
The analysis used studies that measured costs for private-sector employers, but the findings would likely apply in the public sector as well, said lead author Micah Berman, who will become an assistant professor of health services management and policy in The Ohio State University College of Public Health on Aug. 21. Berman began this work while on the law faculty of Capital University in Columbus.
“This research should help businesses make better informed decisions about their tobacco policies,” said Berman, who also will have an appointment in the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State. “We constructed our calculations such that individual employers can plug in their own expenses to get more accurate estimates of their own costs.”
The study focuses solely on economics and does not address ethical and privacy issues related to the adoption of workplace policies covering employee smoking. Increasingly, businesses have been adopting tobacco-related policies that include requiring smokers to pay premium surcharges for their health-care benefits or simply refusing to hire people who identify themselves as smokers.
The researchers acknowledge that providing smoking-cessation programs would be an added cost for employers.
“Employers should be understanding about how difficult it is to quit smoking and how much support is needed,” Berman said. “It’s definitely not just a cost issue, but employers should be informed about what the costs are when they are considering these policies.”
The research is published online in the journal Tobacco Control.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated a decade ago that productivity losses and medical costs amount to about $3,400 each year per smoker. However, the report looked at overall costs to the American economy from smoking-related deaths and did not try to identify those costs that would be borne by an employer, Berman noted.
The CDC says smoking accounts for nearly one in every five deaths – or about 443,000 – in the United States each year and increases the risk for such illnesses as coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and other deadly lung illnesses.
The researchers used multiple studies that calculated a variety of specific costs to develop an estimate of the overall annual extra cost of each employee who smokes.
According to their annual estimates per smoker, excess absenteeism costs an average of $517 per year; “presenteeism,” or reduced productivity related to the effects of nicotine addiction, $462; smoke breaks, $3,077; and extra health care costs (for self-insured employers), $2,056.
The analysis also took into consideration a so-called death “benefit” in terms of economics. For employers who provide defined benefit plans, meaning they pay retirees a set amount in pension each year, a smoker’s early death could result in an annual cost reduction of an estimated $296. This occurs when smokers pay more into the pension system than they receive in retirement – in effect, subsidizing nonsmokers’ pensions because they live longer.
“We tried to be conservative in our estimates, and certainly the costs will vary by industry and by the type of employee,” Berman said. “Several of these estimates are based on hourly employees whose productivity can be tracked more easily.”
He noted that the analysis takes into account the known disparity in pay for smokers versus nonsmokers. In the calculations, smokers’ salaries were discounted by 15.6 percent to reflect their lower wages.
The researchers describe their findings as “needed factual context to discussions about workplace policies” intended to inform the debate over whether such policies should exist.
“Most of the places that have policies against hiring smokers are coming at it not just from a cost perspective but from a wellness perspective,” Berman said. “Many of these businesses make cessation programs available to their employees.
“Most people who smoke started when they were kids and the vast majority of them want to quit and are struggling to do so. This is a place where business interests and public health align. In addition to cutting costs, employers can help their employees lead healthier and longer lives by eliminating tobacco from the workplace.”
Co-authors of the study include Rob Crane of the College of Medicine and Eric Seiber of the College of Public Health, both at Ohio State, and Mehmet Munur of the Columbus law firm Tsibouris & Associates.

No Smoking Outside Starbucks Shops Starting Saturday

Starbucks is moving its smoking ban outdoors.
Starting Saturday, according to signs posted in its more than 7,000 shops across the U.S. and Canada, “the no-smoking policy … will include outdoor areas.”
“Smoking will be restricted within 25 feet of the store and within outdoor seating areas,” the notices read.
AdWeek says that “since smoking bans have swept the nation in the last decade, it’s doubtful there will be a huge backlash for the brand. In fact, there’s been an online movement from Starbucks consumers calling for the newly revealed policy since at least 2009.”
WJXT-TV in Jacksonville, Fla., which appears to have been first to notice the new policy, spoke to some customers at a Starbucks. It found split opinions:

“Meredith Robinson can’t wait. The non-smoker said the new rule allows her to enjoy the patio, too. ‘It makes for a better environment because a lot of people go to Starbucks and drink their coffee, too, especially on a pretty day like this,’ said Robinson.
“Long-time smoker Charli Dirani believes Starbucks will lose business under the policy by kicking people, like him, to their curb or even farther away. ‘I think for them to stop that is a conflict between the two,’ said Dirani. “Everybody knows coffee and cigarettes go hand-in-hand.’ ”

The news has the advocacy group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America calling on Starbucks to also ban loaded guns from inside its stores.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/31/187532646/no-smoking-outside-starbucks-shops-starting-saturday

Letter: Cigarettes kill more than wars do

By: Jay Taylor, Durbin, N.D., INFORUM
As I write this, I’m looking at a Forum editorial reminding me to take time to honor the war dead, and in my heart and head, I do that. I’m writing this after Memorial Day as I would not want to take one bit of respect away from the brave soldiers who have defended our country.
I am writing this to honor one particular World War II veteran who served in Germany and came home with stories that he couldn’t even bear to tell until shortly before his death at the age of 56. The war couldn’t kill him; the memories couldn’t kill him; working six to seven days a week couldn’t kill him. Cigarettes did! He was tough but not tough enough. He died from his addiction to smoking cigarettes. So as we honor those who fought for our country’s freedom, let’s take a moment to honor those who fought addictions fed by serving in the military, among other places.
Cigarettes and tobacco products are killing more people than wars ever could. Let’s fight that battle, too.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/401383/

Minnesota stores face loss of revenue after cigarette tax hike

MOORHEAD – The Legislature gave Josh Larson a huge incentive to quit smoking.
 
“I am currently working on that,” said Larson, store manager at Oasis Convenience store in north Moorhead.
His timing couldn’t be better. The Minnesota Legislature recently raised taxes on cigarettes $1.60 a pack, bringing state taxes to $2.52 per pack.
Larson said he’s not the only smoker he knows who is thinking of quitting. He said many of his friends plan to quit because the taxes have made a pack so expensive on this side of the Red River.
“I think people will definitely go into Fargo to buy cartons,” said Larson, adding that the tax will very likely cut into the Oasis’ cigarette sales. “The ones that are serious smokers, they’ll buy them every once in a while.”
The increase in cigarette taxes has convenience store owners in Moorhead worried that most of their customers will stop at Fargo convenience stores, said Chuck Chadwick, executive director of the Moorhead Business Association.
North Dakota hasn’t raised its taxes on cigarettes since 1993, where the state tax is 44 cents per pack.
“The devastating piece is, once the traffic patterns change … it’s really difficult to break a customer’s habits,” Chadwick said.
Convenience stores already operate on low margins, Chadwick said, and with the loss of customer traffic, stores won’t only lose the money from cigarette sales, which is a relatively small percentage of their overall sales. They will also lose impulse buys that go with cigarettes – coffee, sodas, candy and other incidentals customers bring to the counter with their smokes, he said.
Bobbi Orona, assistant manager at the Holiday Station in north Moorhead, said her boss isn’t looking forward to the increased cigarette tax.
“A lot of our regular customers – over half – are smokers,” she said.
Orona said she’s been hearing a lot of complaints recently, first about high gas prices and now about the cost of a pack of cigarettes.
A single pack of Marlboros at the Holiday will set you back about $7, Orona said.
At the Oasis, Larson said he thinks business will be saved by the fact that they’re one of the few stores around to sell bait. There are also the scratch-off lottery tickets, which he describes as the store’s No. 1 selling item.
Larson’s bigger concern these days is figuring out how to continue selling cigarettes at the same time he’s trying to quit.
https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=1&article_id=401163&a1=03851cc56021740ba1cba668f42ea91d&b1=ceebe76a67dd30f3a1451c00a89f6cf8&CFID=366614428&CFTOKEN=99736079

Minnesota Tobacco Tax Increase is Big Win for Kids and Health

Statement of Matthew L. Myers President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

WASHINGTON, DC — It is terrific news for Minnesota’s kids and health that the Legislature has voted to increase the state cigarette tax by $1.60 per pack and also increase the tax on other tobacco products. The tobacco tax increase is truly a win-win-win solution for Minnesota — a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will help to balance the state budget and fund essential programs, and a political win that polls show is popular with voters. We look forward to Governor Mark Dayton signing this legislation into law.
We applaud Governor Dayton and legislative leaders for siding with kids over the tobacco industry by supporting the tobacco tax increase. We also congratulate the Raise It for Health Coalition that has fought tirelessly to reduce tobacco use and save lives in Minnesota.
The evidence is clear that increasing the cigarette tax is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among kids. Studies show that every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by about 6.5 percent and overall cigarette consumption by about 4 percent. Minnesota can expect the $1.60 cigarette tax increase will:

  • Prevent more than 47,700 Minnesota kids from becoming smokers
  • Spur more than 36,600 current adult smokers to quit
  • Save more than 25,700 Minnesota residents from premature, smoking-caused deaths
  • Save more than $1.65 billion in future health care costs.

The state projects that the $1.60 cigarette tax increase and increased taxes on other tobacco products will raise $434 million in new revenue over the next two years (fiscal years 2014-15).
Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Minnesota, claiming 5,500 lives each year and costing the state $2 billion annually in health care bills. While Minnesota has made significant progress in reducing youth smoking, 18 percent of high school students still smoke and 6,800 more kids become regular smokers every year.
With Minnesota’s increase to $2.83 per pack, the average state cigarette tax will be $1.51 per pack. We call on states across the nation to significantly increase the tobacco tax to reduce tobacco use and its devastating health and financial toll.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2013_05_21_minnesota