Posts

CNN: E-cigarettes: Helping smokers quit, or fueling a new addiction?

By Meera Senthilingam, for CNN

(CNN) It’s a portable piece of technology providing seemingly bottomless access to a drug craved by more than 1 billion people worldwide — nicotine. That craving is caused by smoking tobacco but is now being increasingly satisfied by e-cigarettes and the trend to “vape” instead of smoke.

The selling point is the clean image e-cigarettes purvey by removing the simultaneous exposure to the tar and thousands of chemicals found in the tobacco smoke of regular cigarettes — removing the cause of lung diseases as well as other tobacco-related conditions.

Tobacco kills almost 6 million people each year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and a growing number of people are now “vaping” instead of smoking, resulting in industry worth $2.7 billion worldwide.

Since their introduction in 2006, e-cigarettes have become commonplace among smokers trying to kick their habit, with a third of smokers trying to quit in the United Kingdom turning to e-cigarettes to aid them, according to one study. But some critics argue these electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are fueling a new addiction to nicotine — particularly among young people experimenting with them.

Allure for adolescents

“While ENDS may have the potential to benefit established adult smokers … [they] should not be used by youth and adult non-tobacco users because of the harmful effects of nicotine and other risk exposures,” says Tim McAfee, director the Office on Smoking and Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Exposure to nicotine can harm adolescent brain development.”

Studies conducted by the CDC through its Adult and Youth National Tobacco Surveys found increased experimentation by youth trying out e-cigarettes but not conventional cigarettes. The gadgetry and flavors associated with the devices is suggested as a reason behind this, with fears of them acting as a gateway into real tobacco smoking.

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 2.49.51 PM

But others in the field of tobacco control disagree, stating that whilst people — including youth — may have tried e-cigarettes, the evidence is lacking for their regular use. “Kids like new technology and just experiment or use it once or twice,” says Jean-Francois Etter, professor of Public Health at the University of Geneva.

Etter has been researching the use of e-cigarettes since 2009 and believes they are much safer than conventional cigarettes. “The most dangerous way of consuming nicotine is to smoke it,” he says. Etter argued this point last week at the World Conference of Tobacco or Health in Abu Dhabi.

Whilst Etter says that use among young people should be monitored, he believes the role of e-cigarettes in reducing global tobacco consumption is more important. “They are a gateway out of smoking,” says Etter. The number of people using a combination of tobacco and e-cigarettes is on the rise, according to Etter, resulting in smokers switching and consuming less tobacco each day. “[They have] the same level of nicotine but people are less exposed to toxins … nicotine is not a health problem,” he says. However, further evidence on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes or nicotine is needed.

Satisfying the craving

Nicotine is the main substance keeping people addicted to smoking tobacco and consequently exposing them to the tar and toxins found in cigarettes. Whilst many people try to kick the habit cold turkey, nicotine replacement through gums and patches has long been advocated as a helping hand. “Nicotine withdrawal is a very unpleasant process,” says Linda Bauld, professor of Health Policy at the University of Stirling, whose recent report for Public Health England identified an extensive and growing market for e-cigarettes worldwide.

“The vast number of people using e-cigarettes are using them to stop smoking; [they’re] about 60% more effective than going cold turkey or buying nicotine replacement therapy over the counter.”

Bauld’s research hasn’t identified a dependence on nicotine with e-cigarettes in the same way as the addiction resulting from regular cigarettes. “E-cigarettes are not the best nicotine delivery devices,” she says referring to the fact nicotine is not seen to enter the bloodstream as readily when using e-cigarettes. That’s backed up by Etter’s research as well as a recent study by researchers at Penn State College of Medicine, in which e-cigarettes were found to be less addictive than tobacco cigarettes.

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 2.50.46 PM

They do, however, provide nicotine more effectively than aids such as patches or gums, according to Bauld.

“Patches and gums are a very small market,” says Etter about the quitting devices which first came onto the market 40 years ago. He fears too much restriction on e-cigarettes will limit their impact in achieving a world free of tobacco.

Both Bauld and Etter recognize the need to monitor the consumption of nicotine among teenagers but feel the value of e-cigarettes among adult smokers and their potential to save lives by reducing tobacco consumption should not be underestimated — a sentiment recognized by the World Health Organization.

“[E-cigarettes] could be a way to help people quit but we need more evidence and regulation,” says Armand Peruga, program manager for the WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative, which has celebrated 10 years of its Framework for Tobacco Control whilst at the conference in Abu Dhabi.

Legislate and regulate

The greatest impact to date in reducing the number of smokers worldwide has been the taxation and legislation restricting tobacco advertising and increasing prices. “For every 10% increase in tax you have 4% reduction in tobacco consumption,” says Peruga.

The growing fear is the increasing domination of big tobacco in the e-cigarette market, which was once seen as a competitor. Their ownerships of popular e-cigarette brands could push out smaller companies in the field, reminiscent of the original tobacco epidemic.

“The intent of big tobacco is to sell their product,” concludes Peruga. “[They may] expand their market to other customers who didn’t use cigarettes but might consider nicotine use.”

But as it seems e-cigarettes are here to stay, most calls are for informed regulation rather than prohibition. “The majority of e-cigarettes — especially when they are well regulated — are likely to be less toxic than cigarettes — and that for smokers is an advantage,” says Peruga.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/health/e-cigarettes-smoking-addiction-nicotine/

Forum editorial: Raise cigarette tax in ND

North Dakota should raise taxes on tobacco products. The state’s tax is among the lowest in the nation (44 cents on a pack of cigarettes); indeed lower than some of the major tobacco-growing states.
Raising the tax, which has been at an embarrassing low level for decades, comports nicely with North Dakota’s successful anti-tobacco public health efforts, and specifically would deter young people from buying cigarettes. Every state that has raised cigarette taxes has found it is a significant factor in preventing youngsters and young adults from buying.
Two bills are in the legislative hopper. A House bill calls for an increase to $1.56 a pack; a Senate bill would raise the tax to $1.10. Both bills have bipartisan sponsors, recognition that recent public opinion surveys found support for a higher tax among all political persuasions, with the only resistance to a higher tax coming from smokers. The tax increases in both bills are too low, but would be a start if a majority of lawmakers see the issue for what it is: a public health initiative, not retail sales problem.
It is first and foremost a public health matter. Of course retail sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products would take a hit. That’s the aim of a higher tax. So the crux of the matter is the choice posited by columnist Steve Andrist in the Crosby (N.D.) Journal: “In the final analysis, it comes down to what you want to save: sales or lives.”
The retail lobby and legislators who oppose a higher tax are confronted with that stark choice.
The most recent poll of North Dakotans’ attitudes about a higher tobacco tax (and the e-cigarette phenomenon) shows a majority of all partisan subgroups support an increase. Not surprisingly, the state’s smoke-free law, which was resisted for years by the Legislature and was at last approved by ballot measure, has support across all partisan and demographic lines, according to the December 2014 Public Opinion Strategies poll.
Furthermore, the polling found that attempts to allow e-cigarettes in public places (that is, exempt them from the state’s tobacco restrictions law), “is a non-starter with North Dakotans.” The few lawmakers pushing e-cig exemptions might want to rethink their proposals.
Finally, the lesson of the Legislature’s longtime refusal to act on a statewide tobacco-use ban is instructive for the tax debate. A ballot measure to enact a ban – after several cities, large and small had imposed their own bans – easily passed a statewide vote. It was a clear repudiation of the Legislature’s intransigence on the tobacco issue.
If lawmakers remain in the pocket of a shortsighted and out-of-step retail lobby (the same group that vigorously fought a statewide smoking ban), North Dakotans would be justified in taking the tobacco tax to the ballot. All indications suggest it would win easy approval.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.
http://www.inforum.com/opinion/editorials/3675987-forum-editorial-raise-cigarette-tax-nd

Opinion: Shame on North Dakota tobacco product sellers

By Howard Oppegard from Valley City, N.D.

Shame on retailers who oppose a tax increase on tobacco products in North Dakota (Forum story, Feb. 4).
Since greed may be their motivation, they should be reminded cancer victims do not buy anything. My sister, a smoker, died from lung cancer one month after her 50th birthday.
http://www.inforum.com/letters/3674263-letter-shame-north-dakota-tobacco-product-sellers

Letter: Shame on North Dakota tobacco product sellers

By Howard Oppegard from Valley City, N.D.

Shame on retailers who oppose a tax increase on tobacco products in North Dakota (Forum story, Feb. 4).
Since greed may be their motivation they should be reminded cancer victims do not buy anything. My sister, a smoker, died from lung cancer one month after her 50th birthday.
http://www.inforum.com/letters/3674263-letter-shame-north-dakota-tobacco-product-sellers

Bismarck Tribune: Legislators need to get tobacco bill right

Bismarck Tribune Editorial Board:

On the surface, a bill to raise tobacco taxes would seem a no-brainer to many North Dakotans.

The state ranks 46th nationally in tobacco taxes at 44 cents per pack, ahead of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Virginia.

Supporters of a higher tax argue it will deter young people from picking up the habit, nudge smokers to quit and provide more money to the state.

House Bill 1421 would raise the state’s cigarette tax to $1.54 per pack and increase the excise tax on other tobacco products from 28 percent of the wholesale purchase price to 43.5 percent.

There have been efforts to raise tobacco taxes since 1993, with the latest failed attempt in 2013. A hearing this week on the bill pitted health care officials against business interests.

Mike Rud, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association, suggested the state shouldn’t tamper with an economy that remains robust. He said his association opposes the bill, and that increasing the tax would make it more difficult for retailers along the Montana and South Dakota borders, states where the taxes would be lower.

However, Dr. Eric Johnson, of Grand Forks, noted the state gets a flunking grade from the American Lung Association when it comes to tobacco taxes.

Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Rugby, said the bill is intended to stop young preople from smoking, while generating an estimated $103.5 million in new revenue in the 2015-17 biennium.

Supporters of the bill expect to have it both ways. They predict the higher taxes will prevent approximately 7,500 people younger than 18 from smoking and prompt an estimated 8,000 adult smokers to quit. They also see a possible $300 million in savings in future health care expenditures. It’s likely fewer smokers will result in fewer health problems and reduce the impact on health care. Plus supporters expect the $103.5 million in new revenue.

Fewer smokers is a laudable goal — there’s no doubt that tobacco poses a health risk and increases medical costs for everyone. The bill’s health benefits should be the focus of legislative action — we shouldn’t be looking at the dollar signs.

Smoking remains legal, though where smoking can occur has been limited. Raising taxes for health reasons has merit, but raising them to punish people doesn’t.

Under the bill, 60 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.

Designating the money for health programs shouldn’t translate into funding more anti-smoking campaigns that already are well-financed. There are more deserving programs than can be counted. The Legislature needs to ensure the money goes to the right programs.

North Dakota needs to do everything it can to prevent more people from smoking and to encourage smokers to quit. Lawmakers need to take a close look at HB1421 to be sure it achieves those goals. It shouldn’t be done to create a new revenue stream.

Done correctly, HB1421 should be approved. Improving the health of the state’s residents should be the goal of all North Dakotans.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/legislators-need-to-get-tobacco-bill-right/article_629fb919-ead5-52b0-b62b-0a5143d7e6a9.html

Increases in tobacco tax opposed by businesses

By Mike Nowatzki, Forum Communications

BISMARCK — Retailers and distributors urged state lawmakers Tuesday to snuff out a bill that would raise North Dakota’s tobacco taxes for the first time in 22 years, warning it could have a “devastating” impact on businesses, spur cigarette smuggling and unfairly burden smokers who can least afford it.

Backers of the $1.10-per-pack increase in House Bill 1421 said it will put North Dakota on par with the national average, save millions in avoided health care costs, prevent young people from starting smoking and give adults the incentive they need to quit.

“I look at it as a silent intervention,” Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Rugby, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the House Finance and Taxation Committee during a standing-room-only hearing at the Capitol.

The president of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association, which lobbied successfully against a similar bill last session, said cigarettes are the top revenue generator for convenience stores, accounting for 32 percent of in-store sales nationwide.

Raising the tax could drive smokers across state lines or to the Internet or American Indian reservations, where tobacco isn’t taxed, Mike Rud said.

“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?” he said.

Bill supporters lamented that North Dakota’s current excise tax of 44 cents per pack is the 46th lowest in the nation and hasn’t been raised since 1993.

The bipartisan bill would boost the tax to $1.54 per pack, which is the national average and 1 cent higher than South Dakota’s tax. Taxes would increase from $0.60 to $2.72 per ounce on snuff, and from $0.16 to $0.73 per ounce on chewing tobacco.

Rep. Kathy Hogan, D-Fargo, a bill co-sponsor, said the proposed tax was intentionally kept at or below the tax leves of surrounding states so as not to disadvantage North Dakota businesses. Montana’s tax is $1.70 per pack, while Minnesota’s is $2.90, seventh highest among states.

Committee member Rep. Wayne Trottier, R-Northwood, asked Nelson if the tax hike would end up “on the backs of children” of low-income parents who choose to keep smoking. Nelson and others acknowledged that statistics show smoking rates are higher among the less affluent, but he said the higher tax will hopefully make them think twice about smoking.

“If children don’t rank higher than a pack of cigarettes or a pouch of Copenhagen, for example, then what have we become?” he said.

The tax hike would boost state revenue by an estimated $138.6 million in the 2015-17 biennium, assuming an 11 percent drop in cigarette consumption and 15 percent drop in use of other tobacco products, according to the bill’s fiscal note. North Dakota collected roughly $31 million from cigarette and tobacco taxes last year, up from $21 million in 2004.

Sixty percent of the new tax revenue would go into the state’s Community Health Trust. Counties and cities would receive 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively, for local public health and safety programs.

Dr. Eric Johnson, president of Tobacco Free North Dakota, said North Dakota is a leader in tobacco prevention and control programs and has a strong smoke-free indoor air law.

“That’s really the hole in our preventive strategy right now,” he said of the tax.

Paul Mutch, owner of Mutch Oil Co. in Larimore, about 25 miles west of Grand Forks, said it’s “unbelievable” that a state in North Dakota’s financial condition would consider raising taxes on anything. He said a tobacco tax would hit the middle class the hardest.

“The lady on Social Security who comes in and buys two cartons per week as she carries an oxygen tank is not going to quit smoking because they now cost more,” he said in written testimony.

A companion bill, Senate Bill 2322, would raise the cigarette tax to $2 per pack. That bill has its first hearing Wednesday.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/news/state/3671277-increases-tobacco-tax-opposed-businesses

Teen tobacco users likely to use it in multiple forms

By Reuters Media

A national survey of U.S. middle and high school students finds that those who use tobacco or nicotine products are likely to also use more than one type of product.

About 15 percent of the adolescents reported smoking cigarettes, cigars, pipes, bidis, hookahs or water pipes, using dissolvable forms of tobacco or “vaping” e-cigarettes. And twice as many in that group used two or more of these product types compared to those who said they used only one.

“Our study really shows that kids are using more than one of these products at the same time,” said Youn Ok Lee of RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, the report’s lead author.

Lee said there are many varieties of tobacco products available. And each type of product also has a diverse range of options, such as flavors.

“So we don’t really know a lot about how this range of products might affect kids’ use of tobacco,” she told Reuters Health.

Using data from a 2012 national survey of nearly 25,000 U.S. students, researchers found that about 7 percent reported using one tobacco product in the past 30 days. About 4 percent said they used two tobacco products in that time. Another 4 percent said they used three or more products.

“I was a little bit surprised by just how many kids were using more than one product,” Lee said. “Even more surprising was that using three or more products is more popular than using cigarettes alone.”

Overall, about 3 percent of kids exclusively used cigarettes and about 2 percent exclusively used cigars. Those products were the most popular and their use increased with age.

The study team also found that almost 1 percent of students reported exclusively using e-cigarettes, which contain no tobacco but deliver a vapor laced with nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco.

That’s more than the 0.4 percent who reported using e-cigarettes in combination with traditional cigarettes.

The increasing popularity of e-cigarettes is a concern for U.S. health officials as use has tripled between 2013 and 2014.

Lee noted that the results don’t tell why young people are using more than one form of tobacco, or how often the survey participants had used the products.

The researchers did find that being a boy, using flavored products, being dependent on nicotine, being receptive to advertising and having friends who used any tobacco products were all factors linked to an increased risk of using more than one product.

Policymakers and researchers should look at how these products affect tobacco use among middle and high school students, said Lee, because little is known about the influence of non-cigarette products.

Moreover, these products may create a public health issue by introducing people who would never have smoked cigarettes to nicotine, she said.

Lee emphasized that it’s important to look at all tobacco products together – not individually.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1za0ykL Pediatrics, online February 2, 2015.

http://www.inforum.com/news/3671610-teen-tobacco-users-likely-use-it-multiple-forms

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

New CDC Report Shows Big Drop in Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Americans, But 58 Million Still Exposed – Every State and Community Should be Smoke-Free

Statement of Susan M. Liss, Executive Director, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

WASHINGTON, DC – The percentage of Americans exposed to secondhand smoke has fallen by more than half since 1999, but one in four non-smokers – 58 million people altogether – was still exposed in 2011-2012, according to a new report issued today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It is especially troubling that children have the highest levels of exposure, with 40.6 percent of children aged 3-11 and 67.9 percent of African-American children in that age group still exposed to secondhand smoke. While the sharp decline in exposure to secondhand smoke is great news, it is unacceptable that 58 million Americans, including so many children, are still exposed to this serious and entirely preventable health threat.

The CDC report demonstrates both the effectiveness of and continuing need for comprehensive smoke-free laws that apply to all workplaces and public places, including restaurants and bars. To date, 24 states, Washington, DC, and hundreds of cities have enacted such laws, protecting about half the U.S. population (an additional six states have laws that apply to all restaurants and bars, but not all other workplaces). It’s time for every state and community to go smoke-free and protect everyone’s right to breathe clean air, free from the serious health hazards of secondhand smoke.

States in the South have lagged behind in providing this important public health protection, which is easy and cost-effective to implement and very popular with the public. New Orleans set a terrific example for southern states and cities last month when it enacted a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance. The Kentucky Legislature should quickly follow suit and finally approve comprehensive, statewide smoke-free legislation that has been under consideration for several years.

The high level of child exposure to secondhand smoke also underscores the need for parents to take additional steps to protect children, such as ensuring that homes, cars and other places frequented by children are smoke-free. It is encouraging that the proportion of U.S. households with voluntary smoke-free rules has increased from 43 percent to 83 percent in the last two decades. For parents who smoke, the best step to protect children is to quit smoking.

Overall, the CDC reported that the percentage of non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke fell from 52.5 percent during 1999-2000 to 25.3 percent during 2011-2012. Exposure was higher among children, African Americans, those living in poverty and those who live in rental housing. Secondhand smoke exposure was determined based on blood levels of cotinine, a nicotine byproduct.

“Continued efforts to promote implementation of comprehensive statewide laws prohibiting smoking in workplaces and public places, smoke-free policies in multiunit housing, and voluntary smoke-free home and vehicle rules are critical to protect nonsmokers from this preventable health hazard in the places they live, work, and gather,” the CDC concludes. The report provides support for growing efforts to make public and subsidized housing smoke-free, with the report noting, “The potential for SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure in subsidized housing is particularly concerning because a large proportion of these units are occupied by persons who are especially sensitive to the effects of SHS, including children, the elderly and the disabled.”

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 69 that cause cancer. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and stroke in non-smoking adults and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), low birth weight, respiratory problems, ear infections and more severe asthma in infants and children.

The Surgeon General also found that secondhand smoke is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the United States each year, there is no safe level of exposure, and only smoke-free laws provide effective protection. The evidence is also clear that smoke-free laws protect health without harming business.

The CDC’s report was published in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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