Posts

Education secretary pushes for higher cigarette tax to extend early childhood education to another 1.1 million kids

By Milan Simonich, Texas-New Mexico Newspapers
SANTA FE — U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan rode a brightly painted bus into New Mexico on Monday, then gave a gloomy overview of state schools.
New Mexico begins each school year with about 30,000 students in ninth grade. But only about 20,000 of them graduate from high school in four years, Duncan said during a town hall meeting.
He said the problems of failing students and dropouts begin long before high school. That is why the Obama administration wants to spend more than $75 billion to expand prekindergarten education, Duncan told a room jammed with more than 150 supporters of the idea.
Under President Obama’s plan, much of the money to expand early childhood education would come from a federal tax increase of 94 cents a pack on cigarettes. States that wanted to tap into the national account would voluntarily join the program and then contribute a portion of the cost for expanding early childhood education.
In New Mexico, about 17,000 kids are without access to pre-kindergarten programs. Including them would be the key building block for success in school at every level, Duncan said.
“This is the best investment we could make in our babies,” he said.
Duncan called this “an uphill battle so far,” but said it should have bipartisan support.
He said the initiative would double the number of kids in pre-kindergarten programs nationally, from 1.1 million to 2.2 million.
The pre-kindergarten education proposal is the main reason that Duncan and his staff are on their back-to-school bus tour of New Mexico, El Paso, Arizona and Southern California. Their campaign for more early childhood education funding is called Strong Start, Bright Future.
Rick Geraci, New Mexico Military Institute commandant of cadets, joined Duncan in publicly backing the initiative.
Geraci said improving early childhood education would improve national security. As it stands, he said, many young people who want to join a branch of the military are denied because they are poorly educated.
He said extra emphasis on early childhood education would keep more kids out of jail and enable them to serve their country in the military.
Milan Simonich, Santa Fe Bureau chief of Texas-New Mexico Newspapers, can be reached at 505-820-6898.

Underage tobacco sales reported at record lows

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM
AP Tobacco Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — New statistics show that the sale of tobacco to minors in the U.S. were held near all-time lows last year under a federal-state inspection program intended to curb underage usage.
The violation rate of tobacco sales to underage youth at retailers nationwide has fallen from about 40 percent in 1997 to 9.1 percent in the last fiscal year, according to a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration report released Tuesday. The rate, which reached an all-time low of 8.5 percent in 2011, is based on the results of random, unannounced inspections conducted at stores to see whether they’d sell tobacco products to a customer under the age of 18.
A U.S. Surgeon General’s report issued last year found that more needs to be done to prevent young Americans from using tobacco, including stricter smoking bans and higher taxes on tobacco products. According to that report, almost one in five high school-aged children smokes. That’s down from earlier decades, but the rate of decline has slowed. It also said that more than 80 percent of smokers begin by age 18 and 99 percent of adult smokers in the U.S. start by age 26.
The inspection program, named for late U.S. Rep. Mike Synar of Oklahoma, is a federal mandate requiring each state to document that the rate of tobacco sales to minors is no more than 20 percent at the risk losing millions in federal funds for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention and treatment services.
Frances Harding, director of the federal agency’s Center for Substance Abuse, said that while the program has made “remarkable strides,” far more needs to be done to curb underage tobacco use.
In the last fiscal year, 33 states and Washington, D.C., reported a retailer violation rate below 10 percent, according to the Tuesday report. It was the seventh time that no state was found to be out of compliance. Maine reported the lowest rate of 1.8 percent, and Oregon reported the highest rate at 17.9 percent.
The latest federal data shows that about 14 percent of minors reported buying their own cigarettes in stores in 2011, down from 19 percent a decade earlier, suggesting that children may instead be getting their cigarettes and tobacco products from places other than convenience stores or gas stations.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/08/27/health/underage-tobacco-sales-reported-at-record-lows

The Real Reason Big Tobacco Loves E-Cigs

By Kyle Stock
Apparently, the nicotine business never changes—with smoke or without. Big Tobacco fought government overseers for decades, but eventually traditional cigarettes became heavily regulated products. Now the Food and Drug Administration is working on a package of regulations for e-cigarettes devices, which vaporize liquid nicotine with heat, rather than burning it via tobacco leaves. Among other things, the FDA is considering a ban on online sales of e-cigarettes to cut down on sales to minors, and discussing whether to curtail advertising. A roster of proposed rules is expected in October.
The regulatory chatter comes as the e-cigarette market is finally expected to top $1 billion this year. Tobacco giant Altria Group (MO) is just this month rolling out its e-cigarette, dubbed “MarkTen.” Reynolds American (RAI) is also rushing to ship its VUSE product. Meanwhile, Lorillard (LO) booked $57 million in e-cigarette revenue in the first three months of the year.
Bloomberg Industries estimates that at their current pace, e-cigarette sales will top that of traditional smokes by 2047. The estimate comes with a big caveat: the assumption that politicians won’t heap a bunch of new taxes on e-cigarettes—levies that have served as a sort of emphysema to the body of the cigarette business.
VIDEO: E-Cigarettes Take on Public Stigma of Smoking
Currently, e-cigarettes are subject to ordinary sales taxes—just like, say, pencils. Big Tobacco loves that. Here’s why: In the average state, 11 percent of cigarettes are smuggled, according to a recent report by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank. “Smuggled” in this case has a few meanings. It includes smokes that are illegally ferried from states and countries with lower taxes, as well as counterfeit cigarettes.
“Once a tax gets too high, it acts in the same way that Prohibition did: You get substantial black-market activity,” says Scott Drenkard, an economist at the Tax Foundation.
Meanwhile, the preponderance of smuggled cigarettes is alarming and the Mackinac Center says counterfeits—often stuffed full of sawdust and “human excrement”—are a growing problem. Here’s a look at the share of cigarettes that are smuggled in the top five states:
STORY: Cigarettes: The Most Stable International Currency
• New York 61 percent ($4.35 taxes per pack)
• Arizona 54 percent ($2.00)
• New Mexico 53 percent ($1.66)
• Washington 49 percent ($3.03)
• Rhode Island 40 percent ($3.46)
As tobacco giants roll out their e-cigarette offerings, the new smokeless devices are where they’ll focus their efforts. And as long as the government doesn’t burn them with a bunch of new taxes, they will probably be happy to keep e-cigarettes off billboards or Web stores or whatever requirements regulators throw their way.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-26/the-real-reason-big-tobacco-loves-e-cigs

Letter: Tobacco tax is working

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

Cigarette Taxation Helps to Reduce Drinking Among Groups Considered Vulnerable

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the U.S., while heavy drinking ranks as the third leading cause of preventable death. Cigarette taxation has been recognized as one of the most significant policy instruments to reduce smoking. Given that smoking and drinking often occur together, a first-of-its-kind study has examined cigarette taxation and found that increases are associated with modest to moderate reductions in alcohol consumption among vulnerable groups.
Results will be published in the January 2014 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research and are currently available at Early View.
“Smoking and heavy drinking co-occur at alarmingly high rates,” said Sherry McKee, associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine as well as corresponding author for the study. “Tobacco can enhance the subjective effects of alcohol and has been shown to increase the risk for heavy and problematic drinking. Smokers drink more frequently and more heavily than non-smokers, and are substantially more likely than non-smokers to meet criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence. The co-occurrence of smoking and drinking is of particular clinical significance given evidence that health consequences exponentially increase with combined versus singular abuse of alcohol and tobacco.”
“Smoking and drinking are strongly linked for a host of reasons including complementary pharmacologic effects, shared neuronal pathways, shared genetic associations, common environmental factors, and learned associations,” added Christopher W. Kahler, professor and chair of the department of behavioral and social sciences at Brown School of Public Health. “However, it is possible to intervene through behavioral treatments, pharmacotherapy, and policy to affect both behaviors in a positive way.”
“Cigarette taxes have broad population reach and have been recognized as one of the most significant policy instruments to reduce smoking,” said McKee. “Increases in cigarette taxes predict decreases in smoking initiation, increases in quitting, and reductions in cigarette-related morbidity and mortality. By increasing the price of cigarettes, taxes are thought to encourage smokers to reduce their use of cigarettes or quit altogether, and discourage non-smokers from starting to smoke.”
McKee and her colleagues examined data gathered through personal interviews with 21,473 alcohol consumers as part the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a survey conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Analyses evaluated whether increases in cigarette taxes between Waves I (2001-2002) and II (2004-2005) were associated with reductions in quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption. These analyses were conducted by gender, hazardous drinking status, age, and income group, and were further adjusted for demographics, baseline alcohol consumption, and alcohol price.
“We hypothesized that the public health benefits of cigarette taxes would extend beyond smoking to reduce alcohol consumption,” said McKee. “Results suggest that increases in cigarette taxes were associated with reductions in alcohol consumption over time among male smokers. The protective effects were most pronounced among subgroups who are most at risk for adverse alcohol-related consequences, including male heavy drinkers, young adults, and those with the lowest income.”
“These findings suggest that if states increase taxes on cigarettes, they are not only likely to reduce smoking — based on a large body of literature — but they also may have a modest impact on heavy drinking rates among men, those with lower income, and those who drink most heavily,” said Kahler. “In other words, policies that target one specific health behavior may have broader benefits to public health by affecting additional health behaviors that tend to co-occur with the targeted health behavior.”
Kelly Young-Wolff, post-doctoral research fellow at Stanford Prevention Research Center, and one of the study’s co-authors, agreed, adding that these results support research that targets the interactions of tobacco and alcohol. “Results from our study can pave the way for a productive line of future research aimed at reducing secondary public health harms such as alcohol-related violence, drunk driving, and alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.”
“While the study does not show a causal association,” added Kahler, “in the context of laboratory, clinical, and policy studies conducted to date, it suggests that policy makers and clinicians may have significant opportunities to address heavy drinking and smoking together.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130810063508.htm

Cigarette Taxes Linked to Binge Drinking

By Elbert Chu, Associate Producer, MedPage Today
Cigarette tax hikes were associated with a drop in the number of binge drinking bouts among male smokers and the amount of alcohol consumed when they did drink, investigators found.
Compared with male smokers who were not hit with any cigarette tax increases, those who were binged seven fewer times a year — a 22% drop — and drank 11% less — roughly a third of a drink — per “episode,” according to a study published online inAlcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.
Excessive drinking costs the U.S. about $234 billion each year, noted Sherry A. McKee, PhD, of Yale University School of Medicine and colleagues.
“We were surprised at the strength of the associations between increases in cigarette taxes and reductions in alcohol consumption,” McKee told MedPage Todayin an interview. She and her co-authors noted that to their knowledge, “no prior study has considered the potential for crossover association of cigarette taxation on drinking outcomes using a longitudinal, epidemiological U.S. sample.”
The researchers dug into prospective surveys of 21,473 U.S. alcohol drinkers from theNational Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Two data sets provided the before-and-after cigarette tax increases. One set from 2001 and 2002, and another from 2004 and 2005.
Among the sample, 51% lived in the 31 states that increased cigarette taxes. Increases ranged from seven cents to $1.60 (mean = 61 cents, SD= 42 cents, median = 40 cents).
The investigators also accounted for alcohol prices, education, marriage status, and ethnicity. They further stratified their sample by age, drinking level, sex, and income.
The survey asked respondents about their drinking habits in the previous 12 months on a scale that ranged from “every day” to “never in the last year,” and how many drinks in consumed in each bout. Drinking was classified as “hazardous” when men reported downing more than 14 drinks per session, or women seven drinks. Also labeled as a “hazardous” drinker was anyone who binged at least once in the year they were surveyed.
Only people who said they smoked daily were included as smokers. Smokers who were also hazardous drinkers were more likely male, younger, and less likely to be married, compared with other drinkers.
Women drinkers showed no associated response to increased cigarette taxes. McKee attributed the difference between the sexes to higher rates of male drinkers in the U.S. population. “Eight percent of the population meets the criteria for alcohol use disorder. Out of that, five percent are men and three percent are women,” she told MedPage Today.
In young adults ages 18 to 29, increased cigarette taxes reduced the frequency of binge drinking (b= -0.19, P= 0.02). A similar effect was seen among smokers 50 and older (b = -0.23,P=0.04). Non-smokers showed no changes in their drinking habits.
“Nicotine acts with specific receptors in the brain unrelated to alcohol but have non-nicotine compounds that induce triggers and cues unrelated to nicotine receptors,” said Gregory N. Connolly, DMD, MPH, faculty director for the Center for Global Tobacco Control at the Harvard School of Public Health. “So the researchers may have found something big.
“We do know the opposite is true. Alcohol and the social acceptance of smoking in the bar induces relapse. The bar or pub has become the nicotine classroom for the young,” Connolly continued.
The primary limitation of the study was the reliance on people to accurately recall and record their drinking habits. In addition, the timing of the tax increases was not consistent across all states, nor does the data account for online or bulk purchases of alcohol that could be exempt from taxes.
“Absolute magnitude of increases in cigarette taxes was in the direction expected (greater increases in tax were associated with less heavy and less frequent drinking); however, the pattern of results was unchanged,” the authors wrote. It is unclear whether there’s any upper limit to the effect of increased taxes and associated drinking reductions, McKee said.
To be sure, there are other avenues for future research on other associated behaviors mentioned in the study like the rates of sex crimes and drunk driving among youth.
Although there are attempts to develop a safer cigarette underway, “smoking is the number one leading cause of morbidity in the U.S., and alcohol is the number three preventable cause of morbidity,” McKee said. “This study suggests that there are positive spillover effects to enacting these tax policies. If you can change one, you’re likely to change the other behaviour.”
Smokers are more likely to drink too much alcohol, particularly more vulnerable young men. With both behaviors so closely linked, what are the most effective strategies you use with your patients to curb binge drinking? Let us know by Adding Your Knowledge below. — Sanjay Gupta, MD
http://www.medpagetoday.com/theguptaguide/publichealth/40918

New cigarette tax saves lives in Minnesota

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

Higher Minn. cigarette prices drive more to try to quit

by Mark Zdechlik, Minnesota Public Radio
MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — Anan Barbarawi expected cigarette sales at his store to drop once Minnesota’s $1.60 a pack tax increase took hold in July. But Barbarawi, manager at Maplewood Tobacco, was shocked to see his numbers plunge “50 to 70 percent.”
On the bright side, Barbarawi said, sales of electronic cigarettes have taken off.
A month into the tax increase, it’s not clear yet how much cash Minnesota is collecting. The stiff tobacco levy, though, is changing behavior.
Programs that help people quit smoking say they’ve seen a dramatic increase in the number of Minnesotans contacting them for help because of the higher prices. Demand for tobacco alternatives is up.
State officials maintain that was always the goal when they pushed the total tax to $2.83 per pack. They say they’d be happy if they didn’t get any tax revenue from tobacco and argue the state would save huge amounts of money on health care if Minnesotans didn’t smoke.
There’s no doubt cost led Bob Holmes to stop at the end of May — a month before the cigarette tax increase took effect.
“Yeah, it might have helped push me into quitting smoking,” said Holmes of St. Paul, who’d driven his friend to the Maplewood smoke shop to pick up some cheap cigars.
It’s good the higher tax is getting people to stop smoking, he said. Still, he and many other smokers thinks it’s not fair that many of those hardest hit by the tax can least afford it.
Tobacco tax figures from July on are not yet available, but anti-smoking advocates say the effects are visible already.
Calls to Minnesota’s QUITPLAN program were up more than 250 percent over the same time last year and website hits were up almost 300 percent, for the first half of July, said Mike Sheldon, spokesman for ClearWay Minnesota, the group that runs QUITPLAN.
ClearWay offers free quit-smoking counseling using $202 million from Minnesota’s 1998 legal settlement with tobacco companies. Summer is usually not a busy time, he said.
The group says about 625,000 adults in Minnesota smoke. About three of every 10 QUITPLAN clients abstain from tobacco for at least six months, Sheldon added.
The tobacco tax increase inspired Erik Nordstrom, 38, to look for options. The St. Paul man, a smoker since age 14, hopes to wean himself from nicotine with e-cigarettes. That’s what brought him to the tobacco store in Maplewood.
Quitting tobacco is the ultimate goal, but there was an immediate need to cut spending. He was fed up with paying almost $300 for his monthly cigarette fix.
“When I go into a store and I’m paying $7.75 (for cigarettes), there’s something seriously wrong with that picture,” he said. “I had a pack of Newports on me which is the last pack I’ll be smoking.”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/08/02/health/cigarette-prices

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

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

Tobacco tax: Myth vs. facts

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