Posts

Higher cigarette prices do save lives

These findings are a result of a World Health Organization (WHO) study of 41 countries where smoking policies have been in place since 2007.
From their MPOWER model – which stands for Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies, Protecting people from tobacco smoke, Offering help to quit tobacco use,Warning people about the dangers of tobacco, Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, and Raising taxes on tobacco – the WHO was able to predict that 7.4 million deaths could be prevented by 2050.
The research has shown that increasing taxes on cigarettes by up to 75% had the greatest impact on smoking, even more so than anti-smoking policies. While smoke-free air laws in 20 of the focus countries had averted 2.5 million premature deaths, tax rises prevented 3.5 million smoking-related deaths.
“Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death in the world, with six million smoking-attributable deaths per year today, and these deaths are projected to rise to eight million a year by 2030, if current trends continue,” said Douglas Bettcher, WHO director of the department of non-communicable diseases.
However, even with greater scientific evidence that smoking kills, some people are still resistant to change. And South Africans are no exception.
An uphill battle
Readers’ responses to an article on Heath24 earlier this year, titled ‘SA set to go 100% smoke-free’, are redolent of the resistance faced by advocates for a smoke-free society.
The article covered the announcement by the South African government that new legislation would make all indoors and some outdoor areas 100% smoke-free.
According to the proposed legislation, smoking will be prohibited in:

  • Stadiums, arenas, schools and childcare facilities
  • Health facilities
  • Outdoor eating or drinking areas
  • Places where outdoor events take place
  • Covered walkways and covered parking areas
  • Outdoor service areas and queues
  • Beaches, within 50 metres of a demarcated swimming area
  • Five to 10 metres of entrances, doorways, windows and ventilation inlets

What some of our readers have to say:
Martin said: “I shall continue to smoke in my office, and people needing to see me will continue to wait outside… I’m sorry, cigarettes contribute so little to general air pollution. Look at cars, industries etc. – there are your culprits… my guys suck up welding fumes all day, but smoking is banned, WTF?!?”
Dieter asked: “Is he [the minister of health] that bored with life that they would do something like that? What about overweight people, are they gonna make them stop eating as well? Get a job you’re good at!”
Raven said: “So, my freedom of choice is removed. Where do I sign to have this law scrapped?”
Charmain Nel said: “People give me the sh*ts when all they talk about is smoking. First do something about the DRINKERS WHO KILL PEOPLE. I have never KILLED WHEN SMOKING. The ones that are having a fit are all DRINKERS, which is why nothing gets done. LEAVE US SMOKERS ALONE!”
But with more studies concretely pointing to the dangers of smoking, both for smoker and non-smokers, it’s clear that researchers are not ready to leave the matter alone.
Scientifically speaking
Scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in the USA, recently proved that third-hand smoke can also kill over time.
They proved that the smelly residue (third-hand smoke), which sticks to almost all surfaces long after the second-hand smoke has cleared out, can actually cause significant long-term genetic damage to human cells.
The researchers said that chemical compounds found in third-hand smoke are among the most potent carcinogens around and are capable of causing most cancers in humans.
And estimated 30% of South Africans are smokers, and about 60% of all lung cancer deaths in South Africa are due to tobacco smoking, according to the national Lung Cancer Association.
“By taking the right measures, this tobacco epidemic can be entirely prevented,” concluded WHO’s Douglas Bettcher.
Hayden Horner
http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Stop-smoking/News/Higher-cigarette-prices-do-save-lives-20130717

E-cigarette regulation and taxes once again on the front burner at the Capitol

By WAYNE GREENE World Senior Writer
OKLAHOMA CITY – Three lawmakers are renewing the fight over an issue that lit up the state House last year – electronic cigarettes.
Last week, Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon approved so-called “e-cigarette” study proposals by Speaker Pro Tem Mike Jackson, Rep. Mike Turner and Rep. David Derby.
Jackson, R-Enid, is the second-ranking member of the House leadership. Derby, R-Owasso, is chairman of the House Public Health Committee and will oversee the studies.
An e-cigarette is an electronic inhaler that vaporizes a liquid nicotine solution, simulating the act of tobacco smoking. Like cigarettes, users get a nicotine fix. Unlike cigarettes, there is no smoke.
During the final days of the Legislature’s last session, the House rejected a bill backed by Jackson to deal with the same issue on a 66-29 vote after nearly three hours of questioning and debate.
At issue in the interim studies is how the devices are taxed and how their sales are regulated.
Derby’s study would investigate “regulation of vapor and other emerging nicotine products.”
The Jackson-Turner study would look into “taxation, tobacco harm reduction, and youth access to electronic cigarettes.”
Currently, state law doesn’t adequately address sales of e-cigarettes to minors, and “youth access is definitely something we need to address,” Jackson said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering classifying the devices as tobacco products, a move that could result in a significant tax burden on people using them, he said.
If FDA action made the devices subject to the state’s tobacco tax, it could make the e-cigarette equivalent of a pack of cigarettes taxed at $8.50 to $9, Jackson said.
“What we don’t want to do is put a higher tax on a less-harmful product,” he said.
Jackson said his brother has used an e-cigarette to gradually reduce his nicotine dependency. He hasn’t used a cigarette in three or four months, Jackson said.
“I have seen first-hand how they can help,” he said.
The American Cancer Society opposed Jackson’s efforts last year and will continue to fight against efforts to reduce taxes on e-cigarettes, said James Gray, director of government relations for the Cancer Action Network.
There is no scientific evidence to back claims that e-cigarettes are an effective means of weening smokers from their habit.
No other state has taken the actions Jackson has proposed for Oklahoma, Gray said.
“I think this is a new direction of Big Tobacco, and (legislators are) really cautious about doing anything that provides a new market to Big Tobacco,” he said.
Doug Matheny of tobaccomoney.com said the claim that an FDA regulation could lead to a dramatic state tax hike is a “scare tactic.”
“It’s one of those classic examples of the tobacco industry – and I do believe the tobacco industry is behind this – to make legislators feel like they have to do something – they have to act,” Matheny said. “And actually they don’t need to at all in Oklahoma.”
A simple bill to restrict youth access to e-cigarettes should take less than one page, but the design here is about expanding markets for nicotine, not reducing smoking, Matheny said.
“These companies don’t really care what you buy from them as long as you continue to buy from them. They’re selling an addictive product that contains nicotine. As long as you don’t quit altogether, they’re happy.”
Tobacco lobbyists are a powerful force at the state Capitol, Matheny said.
According to Oklahoma Ethics Commission reports, contributions to Oklahoma state legislative campaigns from the Reynolds American Inc. political action committee increased by 70 percent in the 2012 election cycle. Meals purchased by lobbyists on behalf of Reynolds American Inc. increased by more than 50 percent, Matheny said.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/E_cigarette_regulation_and_taxes_once_again_on_the/20130716_11_A1_CUTLIN990334?subj=1

Tobacco taxes, smoking bans set to save millions of lives: study

RECORDER REPORT
Anti-smoking measures including higher taxes on tobacco products, bans on adverts and controls on lighting up in public places could prevent tens of millions of premature deaths across the world, researchers said on Monday. Similar steps taken by Turkey, Romania and 39 other countries between 2007 and 2010 were already saving lives, the independent study published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) said.
“If the progress attained by these countries were extended globally, tens of millions of smoking-related deaths could be averted,” Professor David Levy, the study’s lead author from Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, said in the WHO’s monthly bulletin.
Wider use of the controls could also lead to lower health care costs and higher birth weights for babies, he added. Tobacco-control measures already introduced in the 41 countries, that also included Pakistan, Argentina and Italy, were on track to persuade an estimated 15 million people not to smoke, the study said. That would prevent around 7.4 million smoking-related deaths by 2050, it added. The researchers found the most effective measures were increasing taxes and banning smoking in offices, restaurants and other public places. The first method would prevent 3.5 million smoking-attributable deaths, while the second would prevent 2.5 million, they said.
“If anything it is an under-estimate,” Dr Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO’s department of non-communicable diseases, told Reuters in an interview in his Geneva office. “It is a win-win situation for health and finance ministries to generate revenues that have a major impact on improving health and productivity,” he added.
Turkey’s steps led to a sharp drop in smoking rates to 41.5 percent among men in 2012 from 47.9 percent in 2008, he said. Six million people die every year from smoking and the toll is projected to rise to eight million by 2030, according to the WHO, a United Nations agency waging war on “Big Tobacco”.
The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which came into force in 2005, lays down measures to curb smoking and tobacco use. About 175 countries have ratified the pact, shunned by others that are home to large tobacco companies, including the United States, Switzerland and Indonesia.
Measures include raising taxes on tobacco products to 75 percent of the final retail price, smoke-free air policies, warnings on cigarette packages, bans on advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and offering treatments to kick the habit. “We know that in many poor countries, the poor spend a lot of money on tobacco. They would be able to use it for nutrition and education which is a huge opportunity cost,” said Dr Edouard Tursan d’Espaignet, from WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative.

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/

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

How Obama’s tobacco tax would drive down smoking rates

By Sarah Kliff, Washington Post
President Obama’s proposal to nearly double the federal tobacco tax would help fund a universal pre-K program. And, if history is any guide, it would likely have a marked impact on driving down the country’s smoking rates.
“Increasing the price of tobacco is the single most effective way to discourage kids from smoking,” CDC director Tom Frieden told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “We estimate this would result in at least 230,000 fewer kids smoking than would have smoked if the tobacco tax does not go into effect.”
Researchers have conducted over 100 studies that have “clearly and consistently demonstrated that higher cigarette and other tobacco product prices reduce tobacco use,” Frank Chaloupka, a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, writes. While tobacco is an addictive substance, demand tends to be surprisingly elastic: Price increases have reliably shown to decrease cigarette purchases.
The Congressional Budget Office recently looked at what would happen if the country implemented a 50-cent per pack tax on cigarettes. It estimates, given the research we have on tobacco taxes, that the price increase would lead to 1.4 million fewer smokers by 2021.
Many of those gains would be concentrated among younger Americans, who would take up smoking at lower rates:
A few years after the hypothetical tax increase took effect, the number of 12- to 17-year-olds who smoked cigarettes would be about 5 percent lower than it would be otherwise, the number of 18-year-old smokers would be 4.5 percent lower, the number of 19- to 39-year-old smokers would be almost 4 percent lower, and the number of smokers age 40 or older would be about 1.5 percent lower.
The CBO data suggests that a cigarette tax is more successful at reducing tobacco use among shorter-term smokers, vs. older Americans who may have been smokers for a longer period of time.
Even among those who don’t fully quit, tobacco taxes do appear to effect the intensity of smoking. A 2012 study in the journal Tobacco Control interviewed thousands of smokers over a time period where states increased their tobacco taxes. It found that the most intense smokers — those who smoked 40 or more cigarettes per day — saw the steepest decline in cigarette consumption.
“The dramatic reductions in daily smoking might be driven,at least in part, by heavier smokers’ desire to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke per day,” lead study author Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg writes. “This could be because of their comorbid health problems and/or advice from influential persons (eg, doctors/friends/family) to try to quit and/or reduce smoking.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/11/how-obamas-tobacco-tax-would-drive-down-smoking-rates/