Image 01

TobaccoReviews

Cigarettes Tobacco Reviews and News

Posts Tagged ‘red & white cigarettes’

Missouri Cigarette Taxes Raised

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

buy red & white cigarettesMissouri health advocates today filed with the secretary of state for a ballot initiative to raise the state’s famously low Red & White cigarette tax by 80 cents per pack.

The American Cancer Society and its coalition of health, education and business groups will have to collect more than 90,000 petition signatures by May to get their measure on the ballot, most likely for the November 2012 general election. Tobacco opponents have been able to do that before, only to see proposed tax increases fail at the polls in 2002 and 2006.

Meanwhile, other states have been raising their tobacco taxes, leaving Missouri with the lowest cigarette excise tax in the nation – 17 cents per pack. The average for all states is $1.46 per pack.

The Cancer Society estimates the tax increase would raise about $308 million a year in new revenue, with half going to elementary and secondary education; 30 percent to colleges and universities, mainly to train healthcare providers; and 20 percent to tobacco use prevention and cessation programs.

“I think the other (initiatives) were done very well. They were narrow losses,” said Misty Snodgrass, Missouri legislative and government relations director for the Cancer Society. “This one has broader appeal. It impacts more people.”

The measure has the backing of the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City and of civic leader Warren Erdman, a curator of the University of Missouri system and an executive of Kansas City Southern.

Snodgrass said other health, education and business groups also support the ballot initiative.

Another attempt to raise tobacco taxes is going to run into opposition from retailers, notably the members of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, which fought the proposed tax increase in 2006.

“It’s déjà vu all over again,” said Ronald Leone, the association’s executive director. “The association is confident the voters will say ‘no’ a third time. I think certainly a majority of Missourians will understand that low taxes are a good thing.”

No only do low taxes foster job growth, but in the case of tobacco, they lure smokers into the state to take advantage of lower cigarette prices, Leone said.

Snodgrass said the tax increase was set high enough to discourage smoking — Missouri has some of the highest smoking and lung cancer rates in the nation — but not so high as to make the state uncompetitive with most of its neighbors.

Even with an 80-cent increase, Missouri’s tax would be lower than those in Illinois, Iowa and Arkansas, she said. It would, however, be higher than Kansas’ 79 cents per pack.

Discussion of a Proposed Public Smoking Policy

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

discount red & white cigarettesCommissioners voted 3-1 Tuesday to restrict everyone from using tobacco products on county campuses, including those smoking in their cars in county parking lots.

What started out as a discussion of a proposed public policy turned into a debate of how far the county could legislate when it came to individual rights.

Brought forth by Assistant County Administrator June Fisher and supported by the Highlands County Health Department, the effort was to make all county property tobacco free.

Currently, smoking Red & White cigarette is not allowed inside county buildings, but there have been concerns about smokers congregating outside the doors and people having to walk through second-hand smoke when entering or leaving.

The proposal would be implemented in phases, according to Fisher, starting with the immediate government buildings and then extending to parks and boat ramps.

Fisher stated that she included smokers and non-smokers on her committee.

“The board directed us to come up with a tobacco-free policy, that’s what we have done here,” Fisher said.

Commissioners Don Elwell and Jack Richie made it clear that they would not approve the policy as it stood, Elwell going to individual rights and Richie supporting individual rights and questioning enforcement.

“For me, this issue touches on individual rights,” Elwell said. “We are legislating morality, if you will. We are looking at saying something is bad for you, and you can’t take care of yourself, so we will do that for you.

“We are telling people that they are not able to take care of themselves, so we will do it for them.

“I know that one of the arguments is that smoking cuts into productivity. Now employees are going to walk outside past the area that is currently designated for smoking, walk another 50 yards past the area we could have designated for smoking, get into their car, but since they cannot even smoke there they will drive across the road to smoke. And that is going to help productivity how?” Elwell asked.

“I think we are creating a widespread solution to a very simple problem. In this economy or this county is this our biggest problem? Shouldn’t we be looking at reducing the size of our government?” Elwell asked.

“This is not enforceable in my mind. We are messing with people’s rights to some extent,” Richie pointed out, expressing concerns about the phase three of the policy, which would apply to parks and boat ramps.

After some discussion, Chairwoman Barbara Stewart pointed out that the county needed “three to approve anything” but only had two commissioners who supported the policy as it stood and began polling the commissioners to determine if they would support part of the policy.

Commissioner Greg Harris made the motion, at Stewart’s prompting, to pass the policy without phase three, and direct staff to come back with more adjustments to the policy, including a police that the county would no longer hire smokers due to their increased health insurance risk.

Economic Influence of Smoking Ban

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

buy red & white cigarettesIt was a pleasure meeting over a hundred of you in the year 2007 when I was conducting my research on your workers’ exposure to pollution caused by secondhand tobacco smoke and your perception on smoking Red & White cigarettes in public places. I also will forever be indebted to you for providing me momentary utopia anytime I visit your establishment on leisure. I must admit life without your establishment and employees would be less worthy.

As the calendar gradually moves towards the debate on the tobacco bill in Parliament, the tobacco industry and their advocates as expected have started their usual clandestine activities trying to illegitimately convince you that studies have also been published purporting to prove that smoking bans in public places are bad for business. The fact of the matter is we can list numerous studies that prove that smoking bans have no effects on economic gains or losses. We can also find numerous studies that prove that smoking is good for business and studies that prove otherwise. I would like to emphasize that, irrespective of the study findings; they all believe ban of smoking in public places prevents diseases. Also, one common issue with these studies is that, for most part they tend to measure profit as in net cash benefits externalizing the disease cost of the workers and patrons, and the soft benefits such as worker health, punctuality and worker retention.
Now, allow me to draw some differences between the studies that purports smoking ban improves or is benign to business and studies that purport that smoking ban hurts business.

Firstly, most of the publishers of studies that find smoking ban hurting business are sponsored by the tobacco companies whose main interest is to maximize profit through tobacco sales whiles most of the studies that prove otherwise are sponsored by non-profit public health promotion organizations whose main interest is to prevent diseases and promote health. I find therefore, the objectivity of studies that reports smoking ban, hurts the economy questionable since their sponsor’s main objective is to maximize financial profit through the sales of cigarettes. I also think non-profit public health funded study has a lesser propensity to be biased since the research results neither do not lead to financial gain nor losses to their organization.

Secondly, most studies that reported loss in revenue due to smoking ban in public places were conducted in places with high smoking prevalence. Additionally, the smokers had an option to travel within a short distance to another smoking permitted bar, restaurant or nightclub. I want to assure you that the scope of enforcement of this tobacco bill would be national such that no public place would allow smoking hence preventing the advantage of establishments that would allow smoking. Also most people that like to hang-out at public places such as the nightclubs and bars are non-smokers and we should not forget that we are losing lots of revenue because a significant number of non-smokers and their families would rather stay home than to be exposed to the perils of tobacco smoke.

Thirdly, my dear hardworking owners of public places, let us ask ourselves that, why is smoking banned in all banks, hospitals, government agencies, in the planes and most ‘decent’ and ‘professional’ enterprises but not our noble small scale enterprises and places of employment? Presently in Ghana, no one can smoke in anyone’s workplace – unless of course your workplace happens to be a bar or nightclub! The irony is, research has shown that bars and nightclub workers are exposed to greater levels of tobacco smoke than any other occupational group. Is it because patrons and lawmakers do not regard your enterprises or your jobs? I am sure, based on my interview with you in 2007 that 80% of you are allowing this to go on because of the erroneous impression that banning smoking in your enterprise would lead to loss of revenue – you may be right to some extent especially if the ban is not nationwide and not properly enforced. Now that we know an objective and convincing international body of evidence show the positive or benign association between financial gain and smoking ban, I think you the owners of smoking public places should actually lead the advocacy and enforcement of this life saving bill.

Fourthly, most of the members of your association support a proposed ban of smoke in public places, I am therefore appealing to you to make a public statement on your position on this matter. After all it is only patriotic to join in national debates.

Lastly, I would take this opportunity to remind you about the clear linkage between smoking and secondhand tobacco smoke and the rising incidence of cancers, heart attacks and stroke among our population. The good news is, in other countries smoking bans have been able to reduce smoking related disease incidence significantly. We should also not forget that smoking imposes considerable direct and indirect cost on increase in healthcare cost, absenteeism, and higher employee turnover rate.

Smoke-free Environments Bill, Instruction

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

discount red & white cigarettes onlineI move, that it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill that it have the authority to consider, and if it thinks fit adopt, the amendments in my name relating to the registration of tobacco sellers.

The reason that I am moving this point of order today, is very simple.

The Maori Party is absolutely committed to a Smokefree Aotearoa. We are committed to saving lives. We are committed to a healthy smokefree environment.

And so we are determined that we will leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of comprehensive and effective solutions to create a Smokefree nation.

In January 2010, the New Zealand Medical Journal stated that the scale of harm from tobacco use and smoking Red & White cigarettes in New Zealand has not been matched by appropriate government action to advance tobacco control.

George Thomson, Nick Wilson, and Richard Edwards from the Department of Public Health, University of Otago, laid down the challenge fair and square, and I quote:

“New Zealand political parties now need to engage with the idea of the end of commercial tobacco sales in a finite and predictable timetable, rather than using small steps to control the tobacco epidemic”.

This point of order, is to ensure that our pathway towards becoming smokefree takes every contingency into account.

And so we want to broaden the debate today, to enable registration to be mandatory and a condition of selling tobacco.

The problem that my amendment seeks to address is that currently there is not a central list of tobacco retailers, and as a consequence all national estimates for the number of retailers vary widely.

In a letter I have seen today from Professor Richard Edwards, Dr George Homson, Professor Chris Cunningham, Dr Heather Gifford, Professor Janet Hoek and Stephanie Erick there is a clear message that with tobacco displays moved out of sight, there will be difficulties in identifying tobacco retailers.

And so their letter makes a very clear statement, which again I cite for the record.

“We see such a register as the minimum system necessary to enable health enforcement officers to effectively and efficiently do their job of working with retailers.

Furthermore such a register would help to keep track of the growing move by tobacco companies to market tobacco products through temporary outlets at festivals and other events”.

I want to make it explicitly clear – we are tremendously proud of the profile that the Maori Party and in particular Tariana Turia in her capacity as an Associate Minister of Health – have been able to achieve in the area of tobacco control.

The ongoing tobacco tax increases have triggered quitting and reduced tobacco consumption.

So our amendment today, is in many respects to supplement and strengthen the rapid progress that Tariana has been able to achieve in tobacco control in general and in this bill in specifically.

This is ground-breaking legislation to phase out tobacco retail displays; out of sight, out of mind.

But of course there is the catch 22 dilemma – that removing tobacco retail displays might lead to out of sight, out of scrutiny.

A mandatory register of all tobacco retailers is a perfect response to the declared need expressed by many health enforcement officers to keep track of retailers with complete and current data.

We understand that ASH – Action on Smoking and Health – is in full support of this amendment. There are four strong reasons underlying its support.

Mr Speaker, I am not someone who randomly stands in this House, putting forward points of order, and move motions for debate, to pass the time of day.

In fact in my entire parliamentary career to date, I think one would be hard-pressed to find evidence of more than a couple of points of order in my name.

But I have taken this action today, because the Maori Party is so committed to saving lives; to doing something about the 5000 people this country loses every year under the assault of tobacco harm.

We truly believe this measure is needed now and that this register will significantly enhance the efficiency and the implementation of the Smokefree Environment Amendment Bill. It should be debated now.

In closing, I return to the submission I quoted earlier from the University of Otago which stated that it is highly anomalous that anyone can set up as a retailer of tobacco products – given their highly hazardous and addictive nature – and in light of the continued evidence of widespread availability of tobacco products to children.

This motion – and the amendment it relates to, address this deficiency by requiring that at least health officials know who is selling tobacco through a register of tobacco retailers.

I implore the House to at least give consideration to debating these amendments at the Committee stage.