Posts

The 50-year war on smoking

By The Times editorial board, Los Angeles Times
The 1964 U.S. Surgeon General’s report on smoking — the first official acknowledgment by the federal government that smoking kills — was an extraordinarily progressive document for its time. It swiftly led to a federal law that restricted tobacco advertising and required the now-familiar warning label on each pack of cigarettes.
Yet there was nothing truly surprising about the conclusion of the report. Throughout the 1950s, scientists had been discovering various ways in which smoking took a toll on people’s health. Britain issued its own report, with the same findings, two years before ours. Intense lobbying by the tobacco industry slowed the U.S. attack on smoking. And even when then-Surgeon General Luther Terry convened a panel before the report was issued to make sure its findings were unimpeachable, he felt compelled to allow tobacco companies to rule out any members of whom they disapproved.
Saturday marks the report’s 50th anniversary. The intervening decades have seen remarkable progress against smoking in the United States, despite the stubborn efforts of the tobacco industry, which lobbied, obfuscated and sometimes lied outright to the public about the dangers of its products. During those years, though, independent research tied smoking and secondhand smoke to an ever-wider range of ailments. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking causes cancer of the lungs, larynx, bladder, bone marrow, blood, esophagus, kidneys and several other organs. It increases the risk of stroke, heart disease and cataracts. It can damage fetuses, weaken bones and harm teeth and gums. The list goes on.
The growing body of evidence bolstered important policies to combat tobacco use and the injury to nonsmokers barraged by the damaging effects of secondhand smoke. It can be hard for young Californians today to fathom that smoking was once practically ubiquitous throughout government buildings, restaurants and workplaces. In the 1970s, during hearings on legislation to curb smoking in public buildings, some legislators puffed away even as speakers described the asthma attacks they sometimes suffered from secondhand smoke. New restrictions helped smokers as well; if they could do without a cigarette for hours at a time at their jobs, many discovered, they could do without them entirely.
Limits on cigarette advertisements, rules that prevented sales to minors and new taxes on cigarettes helped bring smoking rates down.
In 1964, 42% of Americans smoked. Half the people on the panel that produced the surgeon general’s report smoked. Today, the U.S. smoking rate is 18%. Teen smoking rates fell to below 10% after the federal tax on cigarettes was increased by 62 cents a pack in 2009.
As smoking rates have declined, lung cancer rates have fallen as well. According to a report this week from the CDC, the rate among men ages 35 to 41 dropped by 6.5% per year from 2005 to 2009. One study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. estimated that 8 million premature deaths from all smoking-related causes have been prevented since the surgeon general’s report was issued in 1964.
Despite the good news, smoking is still the No. 1 cause of preventable death in this country. Smoking-related disease costs $183 billion a year in medical expenses and lost productivity.
We know what works against this: research, education, limits on secondhand smoke and higher cigarette taxes. But the tactics of tobacco companies continue to hold the nation back.
Knowing how heedless of our well-being they have been all along, we should ignore their ads and their lobbyists and take the following steps:
• Raise tobacco taxes, preferably at the federal level to avoid black-market sales across state lines. According to a 2012 report by the U.S. Surgeon General, every 10% increase in the cost of smoking leads to a 4% drop in smoking rates.
President Obama has proposed increasing the federal excise tax by 94 cents a pack, nearly doubling it from the current $1.01, and using the resulting revenue stream — an estimated $78 billion over the next decade — to fund pre-kindergarten education. The tax is a good idea, but we have concerns about using the money for preschool. If smokers are paying the tax, the revenue ideally should go toward education, research, affordable cessation programs, enforcement of existing laws and healthcare costs related to tobacco use.
• Place increased emphasis on reducing teen smoking. If there’s one thing all Americans, including staunch defenders of the right to smoke, should agree on, it’s that minors should be protected from smoking. According to the American Lung Assn., more than two-thirds of adult smokers developed the habit as teenagers. Studies have shown that many retailers don’t check identification and sell even when the ID shows the buyer to be underage.
In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should immediately impose a ban on sales and marketing of e-cigarettes to minors, including Internet sales. E-cigarettes, which allow users to inhale nicotine-laced vapor rather than tobacco smoke, may turn out to be significantly more healthful than regular cigarettes, but studies are still underway about their long-term effects, and there’s no question that they encourage nicotine addiction. They have been heavily marketed to minors, who are allowed to buy them without restriction in most states. Further research is necessary as the e-cigarette market expands dramatically.
• Push for indoor-smoking restrictions in all states. It may surprise Californians, who now face smoking bans in parks, open eating areas and beaches, to learn that some states lack smoking bans even in workplaces, bars and restaurants. Kentucky, for example, restricts smoking only in government and university buildings.
Smoking is and should remain a personal choice among adults, but the nonsmokers around them have the right not to be sickened by the choices of others.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-smoking-50th-anniversary-of-surgeon-general–20140110,0,3302586.story#ixzz2q27cKUYc

War on smoking, at 50, turns to teens: Our view

The Editorial Board, USATODAY

Want kids to quit? Raise cigarette taxes. It works.

The war on smoking, now five decades old and counting, is one of the nation’s greatest public health success stories — but not for everyone.
As a whole, the country has made amazing progress. In 1964, four in ten adults in the U.S. smoked; today fewer than two in ten do. But some states — Kentucky, South Dakota and Alabama, to name just a few — seem to have missed the message that smoking is deadly.
Their failure is the greatest disappointment in an effort to save lives that was kick-started on Jan. 11, 1964, by the first Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. Its finding that smoking is a cause of lung cancer and other diseases was major news then. The hazards of smoking, long hidden by a duplicitous industry, were just starting to emerge.
The report led to cigarette warning labels, a ban on TV ads and eventually an anti-smoking movement that shifted the nation’s attitude on smoking. Then, smokers were cool. Today, many are outcasts, banished from restaurants, bars, public buildings and even their own workplaces. Millions of lives have been saved.
The formula for success is no longer guesswork: Adopt tough warning labels, air public service ads, fund smoking cessation programs and impose smoke-free laws. But the surest way to prevent smoking, particularly among price-sensitive teens, is to raise taxes. If you can stop them from smoking, you’ve won the war. Few people start smoking after turning 19.
Long before health advocates discovered this, the tobacco industry knew that high taxes kill smoking as surely as cigarettes kill smokers. “Of all the concerns … taxation … alarms us the most,” says an internal Philip Morris document, turned over in a gaggle of anti-smoking lawsuits in the 1990s.
The real-life evidence of taxing power is overwhelming, too. The 10 states with the lowest adult smoking rates slap an average tax of $2.42 on every pack — three times the average tax in the states with the highest smoking rates.
New York has the highest cigarette tax in the country, at $4.35 per pack, and just 12% of teens smoke — far below the national average of 18%. Compare that with Kentucky, where taxes are low (60 cents), smoking restrictions are weak and the teen smoking rate is double New York’s. Other low-tax states have similarly dismal records.
Foes of high tobacco taxes cling to the tired argument that they fall disproportionately on the poor. True, but so do the deadly effects of smoking — far worse than a tax. The effect of the taxes is amplified further when the revenue is used to fund initiatives that help smokers quit or persuade teens not to start.
Anti-smoking forces have plenty to celebrate this week, having helped avert 8 million premature deaths in the past 50 years. But as long as 3,000 adolescents and teens take their first puff each day, the war is not won.
USA TODAY’s editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/08/war-on-smoking-50th-anniversary-cigarette-tax-editorials-debates/4381299/

Triple tobacco taxes? Researchers say yes to save 200M lives

By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times
Tripling tobacco taxes would save 200 million smokers around the world from premature deaths over the course of the next century, researchers say.
That’s because the higher costs would make it nearly impossible for many to afford the habit and at the same time serve as a deterrent to youth from taking their first puffs, scientists said, AOL Money reported.
The scientists said they reviewed 63 different studies about the causes and effects of tobacco smoking around the world — and discovered a link between lower smoking statistics and higher priced product. Raising the price of cigarettes by 50 percent lowers the rate of smoking by about a fifth, the scientists found.
So now study authors suggest that prices of tobacco should be raised significantly, by boosting taxes of the product by three times the present amount.
“The two certainties in life are death and taxes,” said study co-author Professor Sir Richard Peto, from the nonprofit Cancer Research UK, in the AOL Money report. “We want higher tobacco taxes and fewer tobacco deaths. It would help children not to start, and it would help many adults to stop while there’s still time.”
They estimate the death rate could be cut by almost half if the tax rate increase is accepted.
“Globally, about half of all young men and one in 10 of all young women become smokers and, particularly in developing countries, relatively few quit,” Mr. Peto said, in AOL Money. “If they keep smoking, about half will be killed by it. But if they stop before 40, they’ll reduce their risk of dying form tobacco by 90 percent.”
The researchers say that in the European Union alone, 100,000 lives per year of those under the age of 70 could be saved by doubling the cost of cigarettes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/2/triple-tobacco-taxes-researchers-say-save-lives/

Trebling [tripling] tobacco tax 'could prevent 200 million early deaths'

By: Kate Kelland, Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) – Trebling [tripling] tobacco tax globally would cut smoking by a third and prevent 200 million premature deaths this century from lung cancer and other diseases, researchers said on Wednesday.
In a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists from the charity Cancer Research UK (CRUK) said hiking taxes by a large amount per cigarette would encourage people to quit smoking altogether rather than switch to cheaper brands, and help stop young people from taking up the habit.
As well as causing lung cancer, which is often fatal, smoking is the largest cause of premature death from chronic conditions like heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure.
Tobacco kills around 6 million people a year now, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and that toll is expected to rise above 8 million a year by 2030 if nothing is done to curb smoking rates.
Richard Peto, an epidemiologist at CRUK who led the study, said aggressively increasing tobacco taxes would be especially effective in poorer and middle-income countries where the cheapest cigarettes are relatively affordable.
Of the 1.3 billion people around the world who smoke, most live in poorer countries where often governments have also not yet introduced smoke-free legislation.
But increasing tobacco tax would also be effective in richer countries, Peto said, citing evidence from France, which he said halved cigarette consumption from 1990 to 2005 by raising taxes well above inflation.
“The two certainties in life are death and taxes. We want higher tobacco taxes and fewer tobacco deaths,” he said in a statement. “It would help children not to start, and it would help many adults to stop while there’s still time.”
While smokers lose at least 10 years of life, quitting before age 40 avoids more than 90 percent of the increased health risk run by people who continue smoking. Stopping before age 30 avoids more than 97 percent of the risk.
Governments around the world have agreed to prioritize reducing premature deaths from cancer and other chronic diseases in the United Nations General Assembly and in the WHO’s World Health Assembly in 2013. They also agreed to a target of reducing smoking by a third by 2025.
The CRUK analysis found that doubling the price of cigarettes in the next decade through increased taxes would cut worldwide consumption by about a third by that target, and at the same time increase annual government revenues from tobacco by a third from around $300 billion to $400 billion.
This extra income, the researchers suggested, could be spent on boosting health care budgets.
Peto noted that the international tobacco industry makes about $50 billion in profits each year, saying this equated to “approximately $10,000 per death from smoking”.
“Worldwide, around half a billion children and adults under the age of 35 are already – or soon will be – smokers, and many will be hooked on tobacco for life. So there’s an urgent need for governments to find ways to stop people starting and to help smokers give up,” said Harpal Kumar, CRUK’s chief executive.
He said the study, which examined 63 research papers on the causes and consequences of tobacco use in many different countries, showed tobacco taxes are “a hugely powerful lever”.
They are also potentially a triple win, Kumar said, cutting the number of people who smoke and die from their addiction, reducing the health care burden and costs linked to smoking and at the same time increasing government income.
(Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/281348/

Oregon cigarette tax goes up Jan. 1

Written by Peter Wong

Oregon’s cigarette tax will go up Jan. 1.
The actual tax is applied on individual cigarettes. The tax will go up from $1.18 to $1.31 on a standard pack of 20 cigarettes. It will be the first increase since 2004, when it actually dropped from $1.28 to $1.18 as the result of voter rejection of a ballot measure for a budget-balancing tax increase. It had been at $1.28 for a decade, but a 10-cent increment had to be renewed every two years, and expired in 2004.
Proceeds from cigarette taxes go to the Oregon Health Plan, the state general fund, and a special account for tobacco-use reduction. There are earmarked shares for cities, counties, special transportation for older people and people with disabilities, and now, mental health programs. Lawmakers added the latter category in a special session this year.
“Ordinarily, the consumer pays the tax as a part of the price when purchasing cigarettes from an Oregon retailer. Consumers must remember that they are responsible for filing and paying the tax on cigarettes purchased on-line or otherwise brought in from outside the state,” said Chris Wytoski, manager of Oregon’s tobacco tax program in the Department of Revenue.
There is also a $1.01 federal tax.
pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745 or twitter.com/capitolwong 
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20131226/UPDATE/131226021/Oregon-cigarette-tax-goes-up-Jan-1

E-cig boom leads to taxation, regulation questions

WOODBURY, Minn. (AP) — Stores that sell increasingly popular e-cigarettes are popping up around the Twin Cities, highlighting the lack of regulation or taxation of the tobacco alternative.
E-cigarettes are battery powered and produce a nicotine vapor. Owners of stores that sell the devices told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that demand skyrocketed in July when a state tax increase sent cigarette prices up to about $7.50 a pack.
“Sales were insane,” said Angie Griffith, who owns several Smokeless Smoking stores and kiosks.
The surging sales have left regulators scrambling to react. The federal Food and Drug Administration is expected to release regulations on e-cigarettes soon, but for now there are very few state or federal rules applying to the devices.
That’s raised concern that some varieties could serve as an introduction to nicotine for youths. Some come in flavors including root beer, and cookies and cream.
But some former traditional smokers said e-cigarettes helped them kick a tobacco habit. A new Smokeless Smoking store in Woodbury, which opened Nov. 18, has already become a social hub for e-puffers, with its dimly lit lounge with sofas, TVs, games and books.
Griffith said the ability to form friendships and impromptu support groups with fellow e-cigarette smokers is important in helping customers kick tobacco.
“Smoking” an e-cigarette involves pushing a button on the small metal cylinder, examining its tiny computer screen, applying drops of flavoring and keeping an eye on the battery, then inhaling and exhaling the vapor. The vaporized liquids come in standard varieties but can be custom-made. Flavors mimic brands of cigarettes including Marlboro and Camel.
Gus Menth, a White Bear Lake truck driver, smoked cigarettes for 15 years. He tried to quit with nicotine patches but got so frustrated he once popped one in his mouth and chewed it. He can still remember the exact date he successfully switched to e-cigs: Jan. 15, 2011.
“I was tired of smelling bad,” Menth said. “And the cost savings is incredible.”
The metal e-cigarette costs from $30 to about $200, but is reusable. Menth and his wife, who also smokes e-cigs, estimate they are saving about $170 a month since their switch.
Menth said his breathing has improved. “I can run and play with my kid now,” he said.
___
Information from: St. Paul Pioneer Press
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/11/30/health/ecigarettes-twin-cities

Great American Smokeout an Opportunity for Congress to Decrease National Tobacco Burden by Increasing the Federal Cigarette Tax

Statement from John R. Seffrin, PhD, CEO of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – November 21, 2013 – “Today is the American Cancer Society’s Great American Smokeout, a day that smokers are encouraged to make a plan to quit their deadly habit and lawmakers are urged to support proven tobacco control policies that save lives. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is urging members of Congress to support a proposal that would increase the federal cigarette tax by 94 cents and prevent 626,000 children from smoking-related death. S. 826, originally co-sponsored by Sens. Blumenthal, Harkin and Durbin, would also raise taxes on other tobacco products. ACS CAN estimates that the proposed cigarette tax increase would prevent 1.7 million children from becoming addicted smokers.
“Raising the price of tobacco products is one of the most effective approaches to encourage people to quit and prevent kids from picking up the deadly habit in the first place. Research has consistently shown that every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by 6.5 percent and overall cigarette consumption by about 4 percent.
“The benefits of an increase in the federal tobacco tax are not just limited to children. Congress can reduce the number of adult smokers by nearly 2.6 million over 10 years by passing a 94-cent cigarette tax increase. Furthermore, this proposal comes at a time when there is a lot of discussion about how to reduce health care costs. ACS CAN estimates show that a 94-cent increase would save the country more than $63 billion in long-term health care costs from fewer youth and adult smokers, in addition to generating more than $78 billion in new revenue.
“January will mark the 50th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Surgeon General’s report that scientifically linked smoking to disease and death. The smoking rate has been cut in half in the ensuing decades, but more than 443,000 Americans will still die from smoking-related diseases this year. Tobacco use remains the nation’s most preventable cause of death.  Increasing the federal tobacco tax will save lives, save money and prevent numerous tobacco-related diseases. There has never been a better time for Congress to become heroes in the fight against tobacco use by helping to protect kids from lifelong addictions.”
ACS CAN debuted a new advertising campaign in Washington, D.C., this month that challenges Congress to become heroes and save lives by increasing the federal tobacco tax. Click here to view the ad: ht.ly/qivrQ.
ACS CAN, the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society, supports evidence-based policy and legislative solutions designed to eliminate cancer as a major health problem. ACS CAN works to encourage elected officials and candidates to make cancer a top national priority. ACS CAN gives ordinary people extraordinary power to fight cancer with the training and tools they need to make their voices heard. For more information, visit www.acscan.org.

###

Hike in city cigarette tax will cut smoking, save lives, health chief says

BY FRAN SPIELMAN, City Hall Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s controversial plan to raise the city’s cigarette tax by 75-cents-a-pack will persuade 5,500 adults to quit smoking and 6,400 kids not to take their first puff, a top mayoral aide claimed Tuesday.
Health Commissioner Dr. Bechara Choucair went on the offensive for the most controversial element of Emanuel’s 2014 budget, armed with what he called an “independent analysis” conducted by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
It concluded that the 75-cents-a-pack tax that would leave Chicago with the nation’s highest combined state and local tax rate would persuade 6,400 kids “not to light up their first cigarette” and 5,500 adults to quit smoking.
The study further concluded that the tax would “save 3,500 lives long-term from premature death related to tobacco” and save the city $235 million in long-term health care costs.
Choucair and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids are hardly unbiased observers.
But the commissioner’s impassioned defense of the $10 million-a-year sin tax that Emanuel wants to use to expand health care for kids was aimed at persuading aldermen to think twice before attempting to snuff out the tax.
“The cigarette tax is a proven public policy approach to save lives, to save health care dollars and add revenue,” Choucair said Tuesday during testimony at City Council budget hearings.
A veteran family physician, Choucair added, “I saw a lot of patients here in Chicago. I also saw patients in Houston. I saw patients in Rockford, Lebanon, Iraq Guatemala and Mexico. And the No. 1 reason as to why people are dying in all of these places is related to smoking. So we have the responsibility to act.”
South Side Ald. Toni Foulkes (15th) said she’s concerned that the added 75-cents-a-pack will drive up the use of unfiltered, roll-up cigarettes.
“A lot of seniors—mostly male—[who] can’t afford cigarettes and wouldn’t go out and purchase loose cigarettes go for the roll-ups,” Foulkes said.
“They’re already at high-risk. They already have pre-existing issues. What are some of the health risks because I think more people, now younger, would probably go to the roll-ups because it’s much cheaper to buy the tobacco.”
Choucair noted that people who live in low-income communities are four times more likely to quit because of higher taxes.
He added, “When it comes to tobacco—whether it’s with filter or without filter—poison is poison. … We really need to be aggressively addressing this. Big Tobacco tries to give us the impression that, if we have a filter, that it’s safer. The reality is, tobacco is tobacco and people will die from smoking tobacco.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/23553833-418/hike-in-city-cigarette-tax-will-cut-smoking-save-lives-health-chief-says.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd), a smoker, said expanding the eye-care program for kids is a “noble cause” he wholeheartedly supports.
 
But Reilly said he remains concerned about the “potential unintended negative consequences” for Chicago retailers.
 
“I wouldn’t encourage anyone to pick up smoking. It’s a stupid thing to do. I’m just concerned this could pose a potential boon for suburban retailers who are literally across the street from the city of Chicago and put some of our, especially gas station owners, at a competitive disadvantage,” Reilly said.
 
Reilly noted that politicians at all levels love to link an unpopular tax to a feel-good program to make the bitter pill easier to swallow.
 
But he noted that the eye-care program is likely to “grow over time” while the cigarette tax has a history of going in the opposite direction.
 
“The higher the tax, the expectation is fewer people will purchase cigarettes. My concern is that we may not have a stable revenue source to support a very good program that helps lots and lots of kids,” the alderman said.
 
Choucair replied, “Keep in mind that we’re investing $2 million for this vision program. Expected revenue from the cigarette tax is around $10 million. So, we’ll keep an eye definitely on the expected revenue from the cigarette tax.”
 
Emanuel’s plan to raise the city’s cigarette tax by 75-cents-a-pack remains a key sticking point in a relatively non-controversial budget.
 
Critics contend it will encourage people to stand on street corners hawking loose cigarettes, exacerbating a black market that’s already worse than the ones for marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
 
“The human costs are devastating. It creates an underground economy,” Ald. Roderick Sawyer (6th) said when City Council budget hearings opened last week.
 
Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) warned that the nation’s highest combined state and local tax would “disproportionately impact communities of color” by “creating a very large black market” for smokes.
 
“The loose sale of single cigarettes. The sale of cigarettes without tax stamps, which leads to increased loitering. Which means people who might be involved in illegal activity are visible and on the street. If I’m in a rival gang, then I’m going to come by and then we have another shooting,” she said.
 
Emanuel has a history of tinkering at the margins of his budgets to appease aldermen. But if the $10 million cigarette tax hike was thrown in as a bargaining chip to be dealt away, the mayor has not yet tipped his hand.
 
“Two years ago, the state increased the cigarette tax by $1. Last year, the county increased it by $1. We’ve increased it 75 cents and we’re putting it towards improving the health care of our children. That’s the right type of investment. And I think it’s the right step, because it also reduces health care costs for those associated with smoking,” the mayor said last week.

Maryland should hike tobacco taxes again

By , Washington Post

BOOSTING TAXES on cigarettes is an effective way to cut smoking rates among adults and, even more, among those college-age and younger, along with tobacco-related disease and death. A case in point is Maryland, where the incidence of smoking fell by a third from 1998 to 2010, a period during which the state more than quintupled its cigarette tax.
By the same token, states that have allowed cigarette levies to remain low, under the sway of Big Tobacco or anti-tax sentiment, generally suffer from higher smoking rates and the resulting impact on public health. Virginia’s cigarette tax is second-lowest in the nation, after Missouri’s; it is an example of a state that extends its smokers a license to kill — themselves.
Pleased with the results in Maryland, anti-
tobacco advocates want to build on their success. On the merits, they have an easy case to make. After the state doubled its levy in 2008, to $2 per pack, cigarette sales dropped sharply. Now advocates want to raise the per pack tax again, to $3. Lawmakers should take note.
Higher taxes are particularly effective in cutting tobacco use among younger smokers, whose habits are less entrenched and who are more sensitive to price. As a direct result of the 2008 tax increase, youth smoking rates plummeted by almost a third in two years. In 2009, just 12 percent of Maryland youths were smokers, compared with a national rate of almost 20 percent.
And while adult smokers are somewhat less sensitive to price increases, Maryland’s 2008 tax hike helped cut the number of adult smokers by about 13 percent.
Complacency is the wrong course of action. Anti-tobacco advocates point out that following the big drop after 2008, smoking rates in Maryland have started to inch up again over the past few years. That coincides with an 80 percent cut in spending on the state’s main anti-smoking program, which aims to help people to quit or not start in the first place. Despite its relatively high tax rate on cigarettes, Maryland ranks just 34th nationally among the states in spending on its anti-smoking program.
Each of the three increases in Maryland’s cigarette tax over the past dozen years has been followed immediately by a sharp drop in sales. True, some Maryland smokers may simply cross the border to buy their cartons in low-tax Virginia. But more have quit or cut back, as state-by-state smoking rates suggest.
The tobacco lobby remains strong enough to push back against further increases. In Annapolis, a bill this year to raise the state’s per-pack tax to $3 died in committee. A similar effort in the legislative session starting in January may suffer the same fate. Anti-smoking advocates are focusing their efforts on the next year or two in the legislative calendar. They should be helped both by the counter-example of Virginia — and by the facts.
Washington Post Editorials –  Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/maryland-should-hike-tobacco-taxes-again/2013/11/03/820e5ffc-433b-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

Tobacco Marketing Costs Exceed Those of Prevention Efforts

By Marisa DeCandido – email
There’s been a statewide effort over the past several years to cut down on tobacco use in North Dakota. And state lawmakers now know exactly how much those prevention programs are costing.
It’s not easy for smokers in North Dakota to find a place to light up, and state lawmakers now know just how much it costs to keep it that way.
The Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy says it spends about fifty-five dollars on each North Dakota Tobacco user. That money goes towards programs that help users break the habit.
“A great portion of the program is focused on preventing young people, youth and young adults, from ever using tobacco so we don’t have to spend as much on cessation, or getting them to quit later in life,” says Prom
And Prom says youth smoking rates have gone down in the last year. Even though the tobacco industry spends about one-hundred and ninety five dollars a year marketing to North Dakotans.
“It’s odd that we have a situation today where we have an industry, the tobacco industry, who promote a product that when used as intended kills. There’s really nothing normal about that. So we want to change that to where not using tobacco is the norm,” says Jeanne Prom, North Dakota Tobacco Prevention.
Prom presented these numbers on the same day that New York City proposed a law that would change the tobacco buying age from eighteen to twenty-one. But North Dakotans don’t thing that will happen here.
“North Dakota, at this time, we need to focus on our taxes and raising that, and that is going to make the biggest impact for stopping our youth from starting and helping others to quit,” says Kim Schneider, American Lung Association.
That’s because the tobacco tax here is only forty-four cents, one of the lowest in the country.
“We’ve spent a lot of time in the past year just educating again on the smoke-free law and on the tobacco tax. It’s a big issue in North Dakota,” says Schneider.
Tobacco prevention groups in the state say raising the tax is the next step towards fighting tobacco use.
For more information on how much smoking costs North Dakotans, visit breathend.com.
http://www.kumv.com/story/23842127/tobacco-marketing-costs-exceed-those-of-prevention-efforts