Posts

CDC: No decline in overall youth tobacco use since 2011

Overall tobacco use by middle and high school students has not changed since 2011, according to new data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products in today’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Data from the 2015 National Youth Tobacco Survey show that 4.7 million middle and high school students were current users (at least once in the past 30 days) of a tobacco product in 2015, and more than 2.3 million of those students were current users of two or more tobacco products. Three million middle and high school students were current users of e-cigarettes in 2015, up from 2.46 million in 2014.

Sixteen percent of high school and 5.3 percent of middle school students were current users of e-cigarettes in 2015, making e-cigarettes the most commonly used tobacco product among youth for the second consecutive year. During 2011 through 2015, e-cigarette use rose from 1.5 percent to 16.0 percent among high school students and from 0.6 percent to 5.3 percent among middle school students.

From 2011 through 2015, significant decreases in current cigarette smoking occurred among youth, but there was no significant change in the prevalence of current cigarette smoking among this group during 2014 – 2015. In 2015, 9.3 percent of high school students and 2.3 percent of middle school students reported current cigarette use, making cigarettes the second-most-used tobacco product among both middle and high school students.

“E-cigarettes are now the most commonly used tobacco product among youth, and use continues to climb,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “No form of youth tobacco use is safe. Nicotine is an addictive drug and use during adolescence may cause lasting harm to brain development.”

Students use many forms of tobacco

In addition to e-cigarettes and cigarettes, high school students used other tobacco products:

  • 8.6 percent smoked cigars,
  • 7.2 percent used hookahs,
  • 6.0 percent used smokeless tobacco,
  • percent smoked pipe tobacco, and
  • 0.6 percent smoked bidis.

After e-cigarettes and cigarettes, middle school students reported using these products:

  • 2.0 percent used hookahs,
  • 1.8 percent used smokeless tobacco,
  • 1.6 percent smoked cigars,
  • 0.4 percent smoked pipe tobacco, and
  • 0.2 percent smoked bidis.

Among non-Hispanic white and Hispanic high school students, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used tobacco product. Among non-Hispanic black high school students, cigars were the most commonly used tobacco product. Cigarette use was higher among non-Hispanic whites than among non-Hispanic blacks. Smokeless tobacco use was higher among non-Hispanic whites than students of other races.

“We’re very concerned that one in four high school students use tobacco, and that almost half of those use more than one product,” said Corinne Graffunder, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., director of CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health. “We know about 90 percent of all adult smokers first try cigarettes as teens. Fully implementing proven tobacco control strategies could prevent another generation of Americans from suffering from tobacco-related diseases and premature deaths.”

FDA has regulatory authority over cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The agency is finalizing the rule to bring additional tobacco products such as e-cigarettes, hookahs, and some or all cigars under that same authority.

“The FDA remains deeply concerned about the overall high rate at which children and adolescents use tobacco products, including novel products such as e-cigarettes and hookah,” said Mitch Zeller, J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “Finalizing the rule to bring additional products under the agency’s tobacco authority is one of our highest priorities, and we look forward to a day in the near future when such products are properly regulated and responsibly marketed.”

Regulating the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products – coupled with proven population-based strategies – can reduce youth tobacco use and initiation. These strategies include funding tobacco control programs at CDC-recommended levels, increasing prices of tobacco products, implementing and enforcing comprehensive smoke-free laws, and sustaining hard-hitting media campaigns.

To learn more about quitting and preventing children from using tobacco, visit www.BeTobaccoFree.gov.

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0414-youth-tobacco.html

USA Today Column: Past time for MLB to ban smokeless tobacco

Use among teen athletes is rising and won’t fall until their MLB role models give it up.

By: Frank Pallone

The first pitches of the new Major League Baseball season in Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco mark the moment players there must abide by local laws that ban chewing tobacco use in ballparks. Similar restrictions in Chicago and New York will go into effect later this season. This is a first in the major leagues, and a welcome change, but it’s long past time to get chewing tobacco out of America’s pastime.

Chewing tobacco has been pervasive in the game since the rules of modern baseball were first written in 1845.

What’s different today is that the dangers are well known. The use of chewing tobacco has devastating health effects, including oral, pancreatic, and esophageal cancer. It also leads to heart and gum disease, tooth decay, and the loss of jaws, chins, cheeks and noses.

After years of suffering through a difficult and painful battle with cancer, former San Diego Padres Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn died in June 2014 of salivary gland cancer. While there’s no definitive way to pin down cause and effect, Gwynn said the cancer was located exactly where he placed his chew.

Six years ago, at a congressional hearing in Washington, I demanded that chewing tobacco be banned from baseball. That hearing was followed by multiple letters to MLB and to individual teams asking them to take action to get chewing tobacco out of the game. MLB responded to that request by proposing a ban during the last contract negotiations with the players, but the final agreement fell short.  That’s why on Monday, in letters to MLB and the MLB Players Association, I’ll once again demand that they finally ban chewing tobacco completely from the game.

Some argue that professional players are adults and chewing tobacco is a personal choice. But these players are role models and their behavior and habits are often copied by young players and fans alike.

At the 2010 congressional hearing, Dr. Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health testified that “there can be no doubt that public use by MLB players directly contributes to youth smokeless tobacco use in the United States.”

Today, millions of teenagers and young adults in the U.S. use smokeless tobacco.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the use of smokeless tobacco by youth athletes increased from 2001 to 2013. Young athletes are almost 80 percent more likely to use smokeless tobacco products than non-athletes.

These trends will not stop until MLB players stop using chewing tobacco. It’s encouraging to see city governments in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco banning the use of chewing tobacco at ballparks in those cities. Letters posted in every clubhouse during spring training from both MLB and the MLB Players Association explained that players are expected to comply with the new laws.  It’s also encouraging that a number of players have voluntarily stopped chewing.

But it’s not enough.  We need to change the culture of baseball at all levels, and that starts at the major league level.  As Los Angeles Dodgers manager Dave Roberts recently said, “like it or not, players are role models, and we have a platform as coaches and players.”

It’s been more than 30 years since players were first banned from smoking cigarettes in uniform and in view of the public. MLB banned chewing tobacco in the minor leagues in the early 1990s, as did the NCAA. Baseball legend Joe Garagiola, who died last month, testified at our 2010 hearing as the longtime chair of the National Spit Tobacco Education Program. He told the committee, “I would like to see the Major League players agree to the terms of the Minor League Tobacco Policy, which bans Club personnel from using and possessing tobacco products in ballparks and during team travel.”

MLB and the MLB Players Association must finally ban the use of smokeless tobacco. It’s time to get chewing tobacco out of baseball for good. That would be a home run for the health of our nation.

Rep. Frank Pallone represents New Jersey’s 6th Congressional District and is the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/03/past-time-mlb-ban-smokeless-tobacco-column/82477512/

Grand Forks Herald: Ballot proposal would raise taxes on electronic cigarettes in North Dakota

By John Hageman

Heather Nelson is well-versed in the arguments over electronic cigarettes.

Armed with a stack of printed news clippings behind the glass counter at her Grand Forks shop, SnG Vapor, she’s adamant that the products her business sells helps smokers quit traditional cigarettes.

But Nelson worries that a proposed tax in North Dakota will harm her business and present an obstacle for those looking to stop smoking.

“I don’t think it’s fair to boost the tax on something that’s actually helping them,” she said.

But public health officials and backers of the proposed ballot measure argue the liquid nicotine used in electronic cigarettes is a tobacco product, and therefore it should be taxed as such. Moreover, they say the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not identified electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation product.

The proposal to tax vaping products is included in the ballot language put forth by Raise it for Health North Dakota, which is focused on increasing the state’s cigarette tax from 44 cents a pack to $2.20 a pack. The measure would classify liquid nicotine that’s derived from tobacco as a tobacco product and would raise the tax on it and other items from 28 percent to 56 percent of the wholesale purchase price.

Aside from the larger debate over raising taxes on traditional cigarettes, the proposal is likely to open discussion on the merits of electronic cigarettes, a relatively new product that has grown rapidly in popularity. Though it is much smaller than the traditional cigarette market, the vapor market grew by 23 percent in 2014, according to a Tax Foundation report released earlier this week, and several shops selling e-cigarettes have opened in Grand Forks in recent years.

Dr. Eric Johnson, a Grand Forks physician and chairman of the committee organizing the ballot measure, said electronic cigarettes are subject to sales tax in North Dakota but not a specific tobacco tax. He pointed out that more than 20 North Dakota cities, including Grand Forks, consider electronic cigarettes tobacco products for the purposes of preventing their sale to minors.

“It’s just kind of an example of the law not really keeping up with technology,” Johnson said. “The e-cig vape technology, they’re tobacco products by about just any medical definition.”

Looking at the data

Mike Jacobs smoked cigarettes for more than 20 years before picking up an e-cigarette last year.

“My last cigarette was Nov. 11,” he said from the other side of the counter at SnG Vapor, which is on South 18th Street just south of DeMers Avenue.

Nelson points to Jacobs as one story of how the products at her store can help people dump traditional cigarettes. She also cited the Public Health England’s statement last year that vaping is safer than smoking, though the agency stressed the products aren’t without risk, according to the Guardian.

That was echoed in the Tax Foundation’s report, which argued “vapor products have the potential to be a boon to public health by acting as a less risky alternative to traditional incinerated cigarettes.”

“Further, to the extent that smoking cessation is a stipulated goal of tobacco taxation, exposing vapor products, which many see as a promising cessation method, to such hefty tax rates as traditional tobacco would be counterproductive,” the report added.

But not everyone is convinced.

Johnson said electronic cigarettes are not FDA-approved as smoking cessation devices and there isn’t sufficient evidence that they help people quit traditional cigarettes. Indeed, a study published in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine in January found adult smokers who use e-cigarettes were less likely to quit smoking, according to CBS News.

“If they had data, I would recommend them just like any other stop-smoking product,” Johnson said. “Since we don’t really know whether these help or promote use, it’s very difficult as a health care provider to recommend them at this time.”

Moreover, Johnson is worried that they act as a gateway for young people to move on to other tobacco products. While the percentage of North Dakota high school students who smoke has dropped substantially over the past 20 years, roughly 20 percent of Grand Forks students use electronic vapor products, according to survey results previously provided by the Grand Forks Public Health Department.

“We’re kind of wondering, ‘Is what we’re doing in public health working or are they switching from one product to another?'” said Haley Thorson, tobacco prevention coordinator with the health department, who added they’ve “also accomplished some very successful policy initiatives in our state.”

Becoming law

Raise it for Health submitted its petition to the North Dakota Secretary of State’s office last week. Supporters will need to collect 13,452 signatures to get the measure on November’s ballot.

Minnesota became the first state to tax vapor products in 2012 by imposing a tax of 95 percent of their wholesale price, and only a handful of other states have similar policies in place, according to the Tax Foundation.

Meanwhile, at least 25 states and the District of Columbia considered legislation to tax vapor products in 2015. North Dakota was among them, but the bill ultimately failed to become law.

“We want all of those products taxed at the same rate so one addiction doesn’t cost less than the other,” said Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, who was a sponsor of the bill last year to raise tobacco taxes and is a member of the ballot measure’s sponsoring committee. “The goal really here in this measure is to reduce the amount of people who are addicted to these products in order to keep them healthy and in order to keep our society healthy.”

But for Nelson, the tax “will put a damper” on a product she argues is helping people move away from more dangerous traditional cigarettes. She said it may prompt shops like hers to unite in opposition.

“We want to get organized and we want to be heard,” Nelson said.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/business/3995243-ballot-proposal-would-raise-taxes-electronic-cigarettes-north-dakota

ESPN: New York approves smokeless tobacco ban at sporting events

Adam Rubin, ESPN Staff Writer

Smokeless tobacco will soon be off-limits for players and patrons at Citi Field and Yankee Stadium.

The New York City Council approved a ban on smokeless tobacco at ticketed sporting events on Tuesday afternoon by a vote of 44-3. The law is due to take effect immediately once Mayor Bill de Blasio signs the bill, which is expected to be a formality.

“Today we’re taking tobacco out of baseball in New York City,” council member Corey Johnson said. “In New York City we’ve seen smoking rates precipitously decline, but chewing tobacco use has remained steady. When athletes who are role models to children are regularly shown on TV using smokeless tobacco, that sends a harmful message.

“By allowing smokeless tobacco at the ballparks, we are sending mixed signals about the dangers of tobacco use. There may not be many baseball issues where Mets and Yankees fans can agree, but this certainly is one of them.”

Chicago last week joined San Francisco, Boston and Los Angeles in enacting a similar ban.

Yankees setup man Andrew Miller said players will not picket over the issue, but he did allude to some players being addicted to the otherwise legal substance, which makes the situation tricky.

“It is what it is,” said Miller, who once chewed tobacco but says he doesn’t anymore. “I didn’t vote on it. I didn’t put it into effect. I didn’t publicly ask one way or the other for it. It is just something we are going to have to deal with. People will have to find a way to approach it and how strictly it will be enforced.”

The penalty in New York is expected to match the fine for smoking where it is prohibited in the city, roughly $100.

“There are different tobacco laws in place for multiple different states — obviously smoking and smokeless,” New York Mets outfielder Curtis Granderson said. “So it’s not something that surprises me if New York or Citi Field were to go ahead and pass something like this. The only question we have is, the guys who do it, how do they know what’s going on?

“The Players’ Association is going to provide alternatives for them. But if a player accidentally chooses to do it, will he get a citation? Will we stop the game? And will the same thing happen to the fans in attendance? That hasn’t been identified yet, so we’re still waiting to hear that.”

ESPN’s Andrew Marchand contributed to this report.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15045514/new-york-city-approves-smokeless-tobacco-ban-sporting-events

USA Today Editorial Board: Raise cigarette sales age and see: Our view

The Editorial Board

When California lawmakers voted this month to raise the legal age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21, they joined Hawaii and more than 100 localities in seeking a new way to prevent vulnerable teenagers from getting hooked.

Almost everyone who smokes started by age 18, research shows. The tobacco industry, among the world’s slickest marketers, has known and used that fact to its benefit for decades. “Raising the legal minimum age for cigarette purchaser to 21 could gut our key young adult market (17-20) where we sell about 25 billion cigarettes,” a Phillip Morris report noted in 1986.

This suggests that raising the age is worth a try. Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., ought to sign the measure, and careful study is warranted to find out to what degree the change  affects teen smoking.

Parents and public health advocates shouldn’t get their hopes too high. Teenage behavior is unpredictable and resourceful; many teens use fake IDs to buy alcohol and no doubt would do the same for tobacco. But unless a few states make the change, the value can’t be calculated. Right now, all but five states set the legal purchase age at 18. In Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey and Utah, it is 19. Hawaii went to 21 on Jan. 1.

Although smoking rates among high school seniors have fallen drastically, from 33.5% in 1995 to 11.4% last year, that still leaves millions of adolescents addicted and vulnerable in later years to cancer, heart disease and premature death. Raising taxes, running anti-smoking ad campaigns, and making smoking less cool  have worked, but more is needed.

Last year, the respected Institute of Medicine projected that if the legal age were raised to 21, by the time today’s teenagers became adults smoking prevalence would be cut by 12%. The greatest impact, the IOM found, would likely be among teens 15 to 17. Meanwhile, other avenues of getting cigarettes are drying up: Vending machines have all but vanished, and less than 10% of stores sell illegally to minors.

Plenty of reasons exist to try to cut further into youth smoking. Nicotine exposure during adolescence is likely to adversely affect cognitive function and development. Adolescents are more prone to addiction than adults because parts of the brain most responsible for decision-making, impulse control and susceptibility to peer pressure are still developing. As for the health effects, the risks for smoking-related illness rise not only with the number of cigarettes smoked per day but also with the number of years a person smokes.

The most persistent argument against raising the age is that at 18, people have the right to marry, to vote and to serve in the military, so they should be able to choose to smoke. But society does set 21 as the age for another dangerous activity, drinking alcohol — a change that has prevented about 900 drunken driving deaths per year. Smoking is the public’s business, too: Everyone helps pick up the tab for the enormous health care costs of tobacco-related illnesses.

In Finland, daily smoking dropped significantly among 14- to 16-year-olds after the legal age was raised from 16 to 18 and enforcement was bolstered. There’s no comparable research in the United States, which is precisely the point. Given the tobacco industry’s success in getting young people hooked, teenagers deserve to find out whether the U.S. has been missing a powerful tool to save their lives.

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/2016/03/21/cigarettes-21-sales-age-california-hawaii-editorials-debates/81730332/

Dr. Eric Johnson: Tobacco tax will deter young people from using products

By Dr. Eric Johnson, Grand Forks – Jamestown Sun

As a Grand Forks physician and chairman of the recently announced efforts to initiate a ballot measure to increase North Dakota’s tobacco taxes, it’s important the public be given the facts right off the bat.

First, North Dakota’s tobacco taxes have not been increased since 1993, ranking us 47th in the nation for cigarette tax rates. If passed, this measure would bring North Dakota’s cigarette tax from 44 cents per pack to $2.20 per pack, just slightly above the average of $2.08 per pack of our neighboring states.

Second, it will treat the liquid nicotine drug (smoked via electronic cigarettes) and those who sell it exactly the same as all other tobacco products.

Third, it will dedicate current revenues exactly where they currently are: to the state’s general fund and back to North Dakota’s cities. New revenues generated from the increase will be split evening between a fund created to support the unmet needs of North Dakota’s veterans and a fund to support health programs associated with chronic disease treatment, county health programs and the mental health and addiction crisis facing our state.

Luckily, North Dakota already fully funds a tobacco prevention program utilizing a small portion of the money won by the state of North Dakota when it sued tobacco companies in 1998 for lying to the public and to Congress about the deadly impacts of tobacco. No moneys from this measure will go toward these efforts.

These are the facts. Seventy-five percent of adult tobacco users started before the age of 18. Significant tobacco tax increases are proven as the most effective way to keep young people from ever starting tobacco. That’s an effort we can all support.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/letters/3990656-tobacco-tax-will-deter-young-people-using-products

Bismarck Tribune: Coalition pushes tobacco tax measure

Photo by Tom Stromme, Bismarck Tribune

Photo by Tom Stromme, Bismarck Tribune


Members of a coalition seeking an increase in the state’s tobacco tax say their proposed increase would reduce smoking rates as well as state health care costs among other benefits.
“That’s the missing leg of the three-legged stool,” Eric Johnson, a Grand Forks physician and head of the measure’s sponsoring committee, Raise It for Health North Dakota.
Two-thirds of North Dakota voters in 2012 approved a ballot measure making public places smoke-free. In 2008, nearly 54 percent of voters approved the creation of a state tobacco prevention and control program.
Other states that have raised the tax have seen decreases in smoking, according to Johnson, adding that the measure will help beef up the state’s tobacco prevention efforts.
“This is a tax nobody has to pay. It’s a product that creates death,” Johnson said.
Kristie Wolff, with the American Lung Association in North Dakota, said the measure would increase the tobacco tax for cigarettes in North Dakota from 44 cents per pack to $2.20. Taxes on liquid nicotine products would be increased from 28 percent of the wholesale purchase price to 56 percent.
The national average tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.61.
New tax revenues created through the measure, estimated at about $100 million per biennium, would be split between health-related programs in the state’s Community Health Trust Fund as well as a newly created Veterans Tobacco Tax Trust Fund.
“We’re confident that North Dakota voters will respond positively yet again,” Wolff said.
Only Georgia, Missouri and Virginia have lower tobacco taxes than North Dakota. The tobacco tax in North Dakota hasn’t been raised since 1993.
Being a statutory initiative, 13,452 legitimate signatures will be required at least 120 days before the election. The deadline for turning in signatures for the Nov. 8 election is July 11.
Several unsuccessful attempts have been legislatively in the year since the last tax increase.
Wolff said the increase would bring North Dakota in line with the surrounding states in the tax per pack of cigarettes. The tax in Minnesota is $3 per pack, in Montana it’s $1.70 and in South Dakota it’s $1.53.
“We based it on polling we’ve done,” Wolff told reporters when asked how the group came to the $1.76 per pack increase being proposed.
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the tax increase could result in a 20 percent drop in youth smoking, preventing about 5,800 youths from becoming adult smokers, Johnson said.
North Dakota Retail Association president Mike Rud said the group he leads will need to review the measure language and watch to see if it gets the necessary signatures for a vote. The group opposed both 2015 bills.
Rud said on first glance the proposed increase is substantial, adding that taxing cigarettes would negatively impact lower-income smokers.
“Taxing a group that can least afford it? It’s a bit troublesome to us,” said Rud, clarifying that tobacco products aren’t illegal and retailers sell them to meet demand among legal buyers.
“There’s got to be a limit to how involved we get with these things,” Rud said.

Valley News Live: Coalition wants to raise North Dakota tobacco tax

By: Natalie Parsons
FARGO, N.D. (Valley News Live) It has been proposed in the state of North Dakota to raise the tax on tobacco products.
If it passes, you will see it on your ballot this November.
Supporters already started collecting some of the required 13,000 plus signatures.
North Dakota has not increased its tobacco tax since 1993 and now the Raise It For Health North Dakota coalition thinks it’s time.
The proposed tobacco tax will increase the tax on cigarettes from $0.44 per pack up to $2.20 per pack.
Scott Platfers says, “Going to have to pay more if I want to continue but I’m hoping that it might deter me too because it’s something I’ve been wanting to quit for a long time.”
The ultimate goal for this tobacco tax increase is to hopefully decrease youth smoking by 20 percent and prevent 5800 youth from ever starting.
The Fargo smoker says, “It’s not going to prevent all of them but I think it’s going to get some of them and every little bit helps.”
The coalition has already started getting signatures on this initiated measure.
The petition needs exactly 13,452 signatures in order appear on the November 8th ballot.
Platfers says, “It’s a double edged sword. It’ll effect me but as long as it would help somebody? Yeah, I would sign it.”
The proposed tobacco tax is estimated to bring in over $100-million new revenue to North Dakota with plans to go towards many health care services.
http://www.valleynewslive.com/home/headlines/Coalition-to-raise-North-Dakota-tobacco-tax-372303722.html

Forum News Service: Proposed ND ballot measure would boost tax on cigarettes by $1.76 a pack

By Mike Nowatzki / Forum News Service
A group frustrated with the North Dakota Legislature’s repeated refusal to raise tobacco taxes will attempt to put the issue to voters in November, announcing a ballot initiative Wednesday that would hike the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.76.
Backers will need to gather 13,452 signatures by July 11 to place the initiated measure on the Nov. 8 ballot.
Dr. Eric Johnson, a Grand Forks physician and chairman of the measure’s 30-member sponsoring committee, estimated the higher tax would reduce youth smoking by 20 percent, preventing 5,800 youths from ever starting smoking.
He noted North Dakota voters approved a tobacco use prevention and control program in 2008 and passed a smoke-free workplace law in 2012, calling the higher tax “kind of the missing leg of the three-legged stool.”
“We do know that it reduces usage, and that saves money for everybody,” he said.
Supporters estimate the tax increase would generate more than $100 million every two years. Half of the money would be dedicated to a new trust fund to support services and programs for military veterans, while the rest would go into a community health trust fund.

Poll results as of 9:30 am on March 17, 2016

Poll results as of 9:30 am on March 17, 2016


North Dakota’s current tax of 44 cents on a pack of cigarettes ranks 47th lowest among states and hasn’t been increased since 1993, despite several attempts in the Legislature, including two bills defeated last year after strong pushback from retailers and distributors.
If approved by voters, the proposed new tax of $2.20 per pack would be lower than Minnesota’s $3-per-pack tax but higher than Montana’s $1.70 and South Dakota’s $1.53. The national average is $1.61 per pack.
The measure is being pushed by the Raise it for Health Coalition, which consists of 10 groups: the North Dakota Medical Association, American Lung Association in North Dakota, North Dakota Veterans Coordinating Council, Tobacco Free North Dakota, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, North Dakota Nurses Association, North Dakota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, March of Dimes, North Dakota Association of Counties and the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch.
 
 

Bismarck Tribune: Group proposes to raise tax on tobacco

NICK SMITH, Bismarck Tribune

A coalition seeking to reduce tobacco use in North Dakota will unveil a proposed ballot measure Wednesday, which would raise the state’s tobacco tax — one of the lowest in the nation.
The group, Raise it for Health North Dakota, will make its announcement in Memorial Hall inside the state Capitol on Wednesday.
A spokeswoman for the group said details of the proposed measure wouldn’t be disclosed until the announcement.
As of January, data from the tobacco prevention group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids showed that North Dakota’s tobacco taxes are at 44 cents per pack. Only Georgia, Missouri and Virginia are lower. The tobacco tax in North Dakota hasn’t been raised since 1993.
Two bills proposing tobacco tax increases in the 2015 session failed.
House Bill 1421 would have raised the state’s cigarette tax to $1.54 per pack. It would also have raised the excise tax on other tobacco products from 28 percent of the wholesale purchase price to 43.5 percent. House lawmakers killed it by a 34-56 vote.
Senate Bill 2322 would have raised the cigarette tax in the state to $2 per pack; it failed in the Senate by a 17-30 vote.
Last session, health care officials supported the bills while retail groups opposed it. Several legislative attempts to raise the tax have failed since 1993.
Opponents of the 2015 bills used 2012 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to argue tobacco use isn’t a major problem in North Dakota. The data showed that North Dakota in 2012 ranked 37th in adult smoking and 49th in smokeless tobacco use. Among youth smokers, North Dakota ranked 34th among 44 states reporting data.
North Dakota voters in November 2012 approved a ballot measure making public places smoke-free. Two-thirds of voters supported the measure.
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/group-proposes-to-raise-tax-on-tobacco/article_4bd0f2cc-48bf-5e23-9008-be55a0db7268.html