Tobacco.org

EDITORIAL: Our Opinion: Don't get fooled again with tobacco tax hike 

EDITORIAL: Lights out on tax on cigarettes?  

Now that the election is in the history books, Danville City Council's next task is to finish work on the 2012-13 budget -- one that's likely to include a new local tax on cigarettes.

Danville's proposed budget doesn't try to justify this new tax on health grounds. In that argument, the cost of smoking is raised to the point where smokers are forced to quit. That's not happening here.

Neither is there any acknowledgment of tobacco's role in Danville's rich history. The city is, of course, best known for being a transfer station for tobacco from nearby farms to the companies that turn that tobacco into cigarettes. You won't find any references to that irony in this proposed budget.

Instead, Danville's proposed cigarette tax is simply about adding another 30 cents to the price of pack of cigarettes, with the hopes of generating another $100,000 in the upcoming budget year and as much as three times that amount once the cigarette tax is levied for an entire year.

Danville is one of nine Virginia cities (out of 39) that do not charge the cigarette tax. . . .

Tax increases may be a forgone conclusion, but their bite is numbed when people know their political leaders were willing to take a tough look at spending before they raised an entirely new tax.

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: State Grabs Money Meant For Quitting Smoking 

When it comes to tobacco addiction, Connecticut's state government has been nearly as exploitative and venal as the tobacco companies it went after more than a dozen years ago.

The state led the nation in suing Big Tobacco, with then-Attorney General Richard Blumenthal demanding compensation for the high cost of Medicaid patients who are prone to smoke. The idea was that tobacco companies would give states money to care for the ill — and prevent others from becoming addicted.

The argument won the day. Connecticut and 45 other states won billions of dollars in 1998 as part of the historic tobacco settlement. But hypocrisy soon followed.

This income stream of $100 million-plus annually will end in 11 more years. It has become little more than a slush fund to pay for practically everything but quitting smoking. . . .

Between 2000 and 2009, according to an excellent Yankee Institute study (bit.ly/tobaccoct), of the $1.3 billion sent to Connecticut from the settlement, only $134 million went to the Tobacco and Health Trust Fund. But it gets even worse: The state government raided that "trust fund" of all but $9.2 million for other goals.

Mr. Blumenthal, now U.S. senator, says, "We should be embarrassed and ashamed that one of the nation's leading states in public health is failing to use the money to help people quit. "

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Our view: Smoking ban is good, or bad, for all  

EDITORIAL: Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 29, tobacco tax increase  

Even so, the potential benefits of raising the tobacco tax outweigh the uncertainties posed by Prop. 29 governance. And that's the bottom line. To discourage smoking and save lives, California must again raise the tobacco tax. It must again overcome the specious arguments and hired guns of the tobacco barons.

It won't be easy – the tobacco industry could end up outspending supporters of the initiative by a 15-to-1 margin. But the cigarette companies and their minions have no credibility. All they have is a dangerous product to sell.

The Bee's past stands

"The tobacco industry, in the guise of Californians Against Unfair Tax Increases, is betting that $15 million in TV ads will create enough confusion to beat a cigarette tax initiative that voters had once heavily favored. There's a fair chance that it will win its bet."

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Big Tobacco wants you to think doctors oppose cigarette tax  

Plain Packaging – Our View 

We are strongly opposed to the plain packaging of tobacco products. The possible consequences of plain tobacco packaging are very serious:

* While we support the government tobacco control programmes focussing on education and awareness, there is no proof that plain tobacco packaging will have any effect on smoking uptake.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Smokers pay the price  

Whether the Federal Government will agree to introduce such litigation in Australia remains to be seen. However, it should not be deterred by the tobacco giants' stature in the business landscape.

A failure to act in such a manner would risk demonstrating to the public that governments are not serious about bringing tobacco companies to heel and would undermine the efforts of the anti-smoking lobby. The evidence seems abundantly clear on the issue. Now our leaders must show some spine and act accordingly.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: B.C.’s stop-smoking program comes with a few conditions 

Editorial: Smokers don't give a fag about plain packaging 

EDITORIAL: Cotinine Conundrum—A Step Forward but Questions Remain ($$) 

In this issue of the Journal, Munafò et al. (8) provide convincing evidence that genetic variation at chromosome 15q25 locus influences cotinine levels more strongly than smoking quantity (self-reported cigarettes per day). Two single-nucleotide variants in this region were studied for their association with serum cotinine level and smoking intensity—rs16969968, which has a functional effect on nicotine signaling mediated by CHRNA5, and rs1051730, which is strongly correlated with rs16969968. Their data from 2932 smokers replicate and extend those reported in 2009 by Keskitalo et al. (9) in a smaller sample size. Both of these studies showed a much stronger association between variants in the CHRNA5-A3-B4 gene cluster with cotinine than with reported cigarette per day use. In an interesting and valuable application of their results to a published case–control study of cotinine levels and lung cancer risk, Munafò et …

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Our Opinion: Make noise to support public ban on smoking ($$) 

EDITORIAL: Rules for civility are not genocide 

EDITORIAL: There should be a better way to curb campus smoking ($$) 

Like other public and private institutions, UW-Stout has the right idea in discouraging students, employees and visitors from smoking. Not only is smoking inside workplaces illegal in Wisconsin, but the habit is harmful (even deadly) to smokers themselves and those who inhale secondhand smoke. Furthermore, the odor and litter from inconsiderate smokers don't do much for campus beautification.

However, UW-Stout is poised to take its zeal to stamp out smoking a step too far. Last week, campus officials announced plans to hire and train student "tobacco monitors" who, beginning next academic year, will patrol university property to enforce the campuswide smoking ban.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Our View: Increasing cigarette tax a good step in Illinois Medicaid plan