Monday, January 31, 2011

Raising Missouri Taxes a Smoky Issue

Both the Republican controlled Missouri General Assembly and Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon actually agree on something. They don't want to see taxes increase.
But at least two detractors say raising Missouri's cigarette tax can help fund government shortfalls of around $500 million. GOP Senate Appropriations Committee chair Kurt Schaefer agrees smoking is a financial burden to Missourians. Even if he were to vote for raising the cigarette tax, the increase would go to a vote of the people because of Missouri's Hancock Amendment limiting tax increases.
Schaefer's op-ed in the Columbia Tribune said he would support either an initiative petition to put the issue to Missouri voters or a joint resolution of the General Assembly. Schaefer has been a champion of smoking cessation programs.
His Democratic colleague in the House, Rep. Mary Still of Columbia, has filed two bills to be considered this year. One raises the cigarette tax on a single pack by 12 cents and the other by one dollar. Those proposals are likely to fail because of the Republican anti-tax majority.
But even if the cigarette taxes are raisen people still love to smoke their Winston cigarettes or Esse cigarettes.
Even Time magazine commented Missouri's cigarette taxes are the lowest in the country after South Carolina raised taxes. South Carolina went from seven cents to 57 cents to help pay for government programs.
Missouri's tobacco production was 12th in the nation 2002 with just 2,667 acres in the state set aside for tobacco. The same study said as much as 40 percent of America's tobacco for cigarettes is actually imported. South Carolina, 4th in the country as far as tobacco growing acreage, decided to raise taxes in a move which could jeopardize tobacco growers in their own state.
Raising taxes on cigarettes won't hurt Missouri's agricultural sector whatsoever. Rice, corn, soybeans and cotton are Missouri's most prominent cash crops.
Similar tax increases were proposed in 2002 and 2006. Those initiatives failed by 49 percent. Smokers, which number nearly a quarter of the adult population in Missouri, apparently form a huge voting bloc.
Schaefer's op-ed points out reducing the number of smokers would save money on Medicaid, reduce the number of babies born prematurely and lessen health care costs. Raising taxes on cigarettes is one way to do that but he points out the General Assembly may have to get more creative.
A blogger has suggested Jay Nixon should do what Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty did. He was able to declare an increase in cigarette taxes a "health impact fee." If the General Assembly were to call it a "tax" then the populace would have to vote on it.
One bill submitted by Still raises taxes by only 12 cents and wouldn't require voter approval. Why not submit eight bills of 12 cents each? That's 96 cents in extra taxes per pack of cigarettes. Gradually increasing cigarette taxes each year would also be a way to get around the Hancock Amendment.
If the House believes paying $2 million for drug testing for welfare recipients is a good way to save money then the same should be said of cigarettes and tobacco products. Raising taxes on cigarettes won't hurt Missouri's economy at all and those citizens who don't smoke won't have to pay.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Connecticut's Failing Grade In Tobacco Concerns Local Dentists

Connecticut dentists, today, expressed their concern about tobacco use in the state, prompted by a new report from the American Lung Association, which issued the state of Connecticut an "F" in its efforts to help low-income residents quit smoking.

"The fact that the state received a failing grade in helping people to quit using tobacco products is of great concern," said Dr. Jon Davis, President of the Connecticut State Dental Association (CSDA). "As dentists, we've seen how smoking and tobacco products can be harmful to a person's oral health. That's why the CSDA is committed to educating the public about the dangers of tobacco use and the importance of early detection in diagnosing and treating oral cancer."

Connecticut dentists want to remind patients that good oral health is critical to a person's overall physical well-being. According to the American Dental Association, the effects of smoking and smokeless tobacco products can lead to oral cancer. Oral cancer, often first noticed by dentists, starts out as tiny, unnoticed white or red spots or sores anywhere in the mouth and can grow over time. Oral cancer can affect any part of the mouth including the tongue, lips, gum tissue and both the hard and soft pallet.

An estimated 34,360 Americans are diagnosed with oral cancer each year. An estimated 7,550 people (5,180 men and 2,370 women) died of these cancers in 2007. The incidence of oral cancer in Connecticut is on par with national levels - those at low income levels are especially vulnerable.


The best way to prevent oral cancer is to avoid tobacco use and see a dentist for regular check-ups which includes a full examination of the entire mouth. This is essential in the early detection of cancerous and pre-cancerous conditions.

"Knowing the facts and seeing your dentist regularly for screenings are important steps in preventing oral cancer," said Carolyn Malon, Vice President of the CSDA and a practicing dentist from Farmington. "When our patients learn the facts about tobacco use, and have access to tools to help them quit, their oral and overall health improves dramatically." She also stressed that smokeless tobacco products such as chew are not a healthier means of using tobacco.

Solana Beach receives ‘B’ grade from American Lung Association

About two-thirds of all cities and counties in the state, including 10 in San Diego County, received failing grades in an annual report released Jan. 20 by the American Lung Association rating policies to restrict smoking and sales of tobacco products.
The city of San Diego earned an overall “D” grade, while San Diego County received an “F.”
Only nine cities in California earned an “A” grade, none in San Diego County. El Cajon and Solana Beach were among 20 cities across the state that earned “B” grades.
According to the report, California cities and counties earned mixed results, even though the state used to be a national leader on tobacco-control policies.
“It’s time to raise the grade,” Jane Warner, president and CEO of the Lung Association in California, said. “Strong state and local tobacco control policies must be a top priority for our elected officials.”
The report rates cities in the areas of providing smoke-free outdoor environments, smoke-free housing and reducing sales of tobacco products. Tobacco products can be different cigarette brands like Winston cigarettes or Esse cigarettes.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Reviews To Be Required For New Tobacco Products

Certain tobacco products introduced into the United States or changed after Feb. 15, 2007, must now be reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In newly-published guidance, the agency outlines a pathway for marketing a product whereby the a company must prove that it is “substantially equivalent” to products commercially available on Feb. 15, 2007.

“Substantially equivalent” means the products must be the same in terms of ingredients, design, composition, heating source and other characteristics to an existing, single predicate product or have different characteristics, but not raise different questions of public health.

FDA evaluation
“This specific part of the law is meant to ensure that new tobacco products are evaluated by the FDA before they are cleared to enter the marketplace. The law requires FDA to carefully examine the impact those products may have on the public health,” said Lawrence R. Deyton, M.S.P.H., M.D., director of the agency’s Center for Tobacco Products. “Products that are equivalent to those which were on the market on February 15, 2007, may be cleared to go to market; those that are not may be prohibited from the market, or withdrawn if they are already available, if the changes raise different questions of public health.”

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became law June 22, 2009, gave the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products. Generally, the law allows the agency to deny applications for new products if marketing the product poses harm to public health.

FDA may deny applications for substantial equivalence if the marketing of that modified product would raise different questions of public health. An example would be a product that poses an increased health risk to users of the product or to nonusers by causing more of them to start smoking.Many smokers start by smoking a Camel cigarette or a Marlboro Red cigarette and then the habit continues for many years.

Deadline approaching
In general, in order to continue to market these products, manufacturers of tobacco products that were introduced or changed after Feb. 15, 2007 -- which include cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and all smokeless products -- must apply for equivalency by March 22, 2011.

Manufacturers intending to introduce new products into the market after that date must submit an application for the new product and obtain a marketing order from the FDA before introducing the product to market.

“No known existing tobacco product is safe, and a market order issued by the FDA for these products should never be interpreted as such,” said Deyton. “One of the FDA’s missions required by this new law is to ensure new products do not pose an increased threat to the American public. These products will not be safer, but we are required by this law to not allow even more dangerous products to cause further harm to those Americans who use tobacco products.”

Monday, January 10, 2011

FDA requires list of tobacco ingredients

WASHINGTON — By late March, manufacturers of most tobacco products must begin giving the Food and Drug Administration information on new additives and other alterations in their products — enabling the agency for the first time to weed out chemical or manufacturing tweaks that make cigarettes and other products more addictive or otherwise more harmful.

The FDA was directed to collect ingredient information by the 2009 Tobacco Control Act and on Wednesday the agency offered guidance to the tobacco industry about what details it’s looking for.
Tobacco products “are the only mass-consumed products in which users don’t know what they’re consuming,” said Lawrence Deyton, director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “No longer will changes be made without anyone knowing.”
Tobacco companies have had a history of adjusting levels of additives to make products more appealing. Companies have until March 22 to file their reports.
The deadline comes as FDA considers several other tobacco initiatives, including posting visually graphic warning labels on cigarette packaging and advertising and a ban on menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The head of a leading anti-smoking group said the information collection is crucial because it provides a window on how the tobacco industry manipulates products to make them more addictive or appealing.
“This may be one of the most important actions FDA takes on tobacco regulation,” said Matthew Myers, of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. “They’re going to get the chemistry. They’ve never had that before.”
Under the new requirements, companies must notify the FDA about any tobacco product introduced into the market or changed in the past four years. And the new or altered products must have “substantial equivalence” to products on the market on Feb. 15, 2007 or risk removal from the market.
If manufacturers don’t submit a report, they must yank their products from the market by March 23, according to FDA guidelines.
Companies are being asked to disclose the composition of a product before and after an alteration is made so that evaluators can isolate on the changes and determine potential for harm.
Companies unveiling new products after the March deadline must submit an application and get an FDA market order before selling to the public.
Companies that don’t comply with reporting requirements could face product seizures, injunctions or other penalties.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Marijuana: Miracle Herb or Dangerous Addiction?

Marijuana Legalization is one of the most debated issues of the twenty first century. Use of the plant even dates back "further than 7,000 B.C. and was legal as recently as when Ronald Regan was a boy..."

The drug is the most commonly used illicit substance around the world and there are numerous slang terms for the plant such as cannabis, reefer, mary jane, weed, etc. Most Americans are familiar with the anti-marijuana commercials and the side effects of smoking pot as well as seeing athletes and celebrities reprimanded for the legal use and sale of cannabis. However, according to NORML ("The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws") in 2008 "more than 80 million Americans admit that they have smoked in the past year." This is a very large number considering how much money the United States government spends on advertising for the war against drugs. Many people agree that the drug is no more dangerous than the use of any other legal drugs such as the consumption of alcohol or cigarette smoking. For this reason, marijuana should be decriminalized and available to the public while regulated as cigarettes and alcohol.

The most obvious reason for a number of Americans to avoid marijuana is the belief that it is morally unethical. Jobs, that do drug testing, make it clear that it is not socially acceptable in the work place and that it will not be tolerated. Most Christians especially do not approve of smoking pot. Ironically, the Rastafarian religion has found numerous references to pot in the bible. For example, "...thou shalt eat the herb of the land (exodus 10:12)" ("BBC").Though all religions vary in teachings, in general American parents are concerned that legalizing Marijuana sends the wrong message to children. Which is a good indication that most American parents of teenagers do not realize that "47% of high school students have tried marijuana" (Leachman 2). In 1936, "Reefer Madness", a propaganda film framed as a documentary, warned parents and children of the dangers of the marijuana. The film was a far cry from reality and showed very unrealistic "scenes of high school kids smoking pot and quickly going insane, playing 'evil' jazz music, being committed, and going on a murder spree" (Murphy 1). "Reefer Madness" is now a musical and has been used for entertainment purposes because of its outdated and exaggerated views on marijuana.