Some snusophobic opinions from Rochester Minnesota:
Opinion
Bill Boyne: Tobacco products need to disappear
11/7/2007 10:24:25 AM
The merchants of death -- tobacco companies -- have come up with some different ways to use tobacco to spread disease.
Recognizing the decline in smoking, they have invented new ways that nicotine can be disguised in seemingly harmless products.
The strategy was the subject of discussion at the recent National Conference on Tobacco or Health in Minneapolis. Dorothy Hasukami, a tobacco researcher at the University of Minnesota, described the new array of products for 3,000 anti-tobacco experts who attended the conference.
The new products include snus -- small packets of tobacco that users can place in their cheeks. The product is sometimes referred to as "spitless tobacco." Experts say that snus contain fewer carcinogens than the usual types of tobacco, but just as much nicotine.
Another new product is a lozenge that contains tobacco and can be kept in the mouth like cough drops.
Hookahs are another way to use tobacco that some claim is less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Hookahs are water pipes that enable the user to draw tobacco smoke through water. Some believe that tobacco pulled through water is cleaner, but one expert at the conference challenged that idea. Barry Matthews, a marketing expert at the conference, said tobacco used in hookahs contains more nicotine and much more tar than cigarettes.
A fourth new marketing idea is to produce small cigars -- such as the Winchester and Swisher brands -- that have many different flavors. An estimated 4.5 billion of those small cigars were sold in the U.S. in 2006.
It is still a mystery how Philip Morris and the other big tobacco outfits continue to be allowed to make big profits while selling death-dealing products to consumers. It is illegal to sell food containing poisons that can cause illness and it is illegal to sell opium, methamphetamine or other drugs that can cause addiction.
But it is till a highly profitable business to sell tobacco products even though they cause 430,000 deaths a year, according to the American Cancer Society. Some efforts have been made to reduce smoking. They include laws to prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants and public places. This has reduced the number of workers who are exposed to second-hand smoke and has had a small effect in reducing the number of smokers.
In addition, lawsuits have resulted in financial penalties against major tobacco companies but these have apparently had little effect on the companies' profits.
The question remains: Why do we allow these companies to continue to undermine peoples' health and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year? One can only conclude that money talks and that public officials are reluctant to confront the leaders of powerful corporations.
The time has come to stop the killing. Congress should take these steps:
1. Impose a $3-a-pack tax on cigarettes (as well as snus, lozenges and flavored cigars) and use the proceeds to help pay for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. The price increase would also discourage some people from starting to smoke.
2. Pass laws requiring tobacco companies to gradually reduce the nicotine content of cigarettes over a period of 10 years (just as the tobacco companies have increased the nicotine content in previous years).
3. Finally, at the end of 10 years, require the companies to cease production of all tobacco products.
The 10-year delay would avoid the psychological trauma that would afflict long-term, addicted smokers if tobacco production were stopped instantly.
There is no legal, logical or moral reason to continue to allow tobacco companies to continue to cause so much illness, suffering and death without experiencing any consequences. It is time for political leaders to accept the challenge and lead the way to a healthier future.
Bill Boyne is a retired publisher and editor of the Post-Bulletin. His column appears weekly.
E-mail this | Digg this | Bookmark this
Login to post
danthornton - 11/07/2007
Higher excise taxes disproportionately impact the lower middle class and the poor. A $3/pack tax would give some people more motivation to quit, but for others it would end up chipping away another $90 or more a month that they really can't afford. I think point #2 is the way to go - start requiring lower amounts of nicotine, and continue to move it down over time. This will reduce the amount of new smokers who get addicted. But, what do you do for the currently addicted who then need to smoke twice as much to get the same effect? Some plan would be needed there, or that group's lung cancer risk will shoot much higher in no time. I guess that's where prohibition might come in, but then we just get more illegal drugs in the country. I'm not in favor of legalizing pot, but making cigarettes illegal wouldn't be as good for society as some think it would be. If it's already illegal to buy a cigarette, then what's the difference in buying some pot instead, or cigarettes laced with pot for a little extra twist? If we drive cigarette smokers underground, we could end up inadvertently boosting the marijuana trade far beyond where it is today.
110736 - 11/07/2007
No Bill, there is a "legal, logical or moral" reason to allow tobacco products, its called personal freedom. I also despise smoking, but it is not my right (nor desire) to tell you how to live your life. If you are stupid enough to smoke multiple packs a day, I will stand aside and let natural selection run its course. What is the next target after tobacco? Alcohol, dairy products, oils, fats? Anything in excess (even water) leads to early death, so where does it end? We need less government intervention in our lives, not more.
rrm419 - 11/07/2007
I don't smoke, actually despise it....but I am disappointed to see that the editor of the great Post Bulletin doesn't know that tobacco can never be banned or made illegal. Our government officials agreed to those terms in exchange for the master tobacco settlement and the billions of dollars that the states would receive. Thanks for looking out for our interests Gov. officials.
Opinion
Bill Boyne: Tobacco products need to disappear
11/7/2007 10:24:25 AM
The merchants of death -- tobacco companies -- have come up with some different ways to use tobacco to spread disease.
Recognizing the decline in smoking, they have invented new ways that nicotine can be disguised in seemingly harmless products.
The strategy was the subject of discussion at the recent National Conference on Tobacco or Health in Minneapolis. Dorothy Hasukami, a tobacco researcher at the University of Minnesota, described the new array of products for 3,000 anti-tobacco experts who attended the conference.
The new products include snus -- small packets of tobacco that users can place in their cheeks. The product is sometimes referred to as "spitless tobacco." Experts say that snus contain fewer carcinogens than the usual types of tobacco, but just as much nicotine.
Another new product is a lozenge that contains tobacco and can be kept in the mouth like cough drops.
Hookahs are another way to use tobacco that some claim is less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Hookahs are water pipes that enable the user to draw tobacco smoke through water. Some believe that tobacco pulled through water is cleaner, but one expert at the conference challenged that idea. Barry Matthews, a marketing expert at the conference, said tobacco used in hookahs contains more nicotine and much more tar than cigarettes.
A fourth new marketing idea is to produce small cigars -- such as the Winchester and Swisher brands -- that have many different flavors. An estimated 4.5 billion of those small cigars were sold in the U.S. in 2006.
It is still a mystery how Philip Morris and the other big tobacco outfits continue to be allowed to make big profits while selling death-dealing products to consumers. It is illegal to sell food containing poisons that can cause illness and it is illegal to sell opium, methamphetamine or other drugs that can cause addiction.
But it is till a highly profitable business to sell tobacco products even though they cause 430,000 deaths a year, according to the American Cancer Society. Some efforts have been made to reduce smoking. They include laws to prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants and public places. This has reduced the number of workers who are exposed to second-hand smoke and has had a small effect in reducing the number of smokers.
In addition, lawsuits have resulted in financial penalties against major tobacco companies but these have apparently had little effect on the companies' profits.
The question remains: Why do we allow these companies to continue to undermine peoples' health and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year? One can only conclude that money talks and that public officials are reluctant to confront the leaders of powerful corporations.
The time has come to stop the killing. Congress should take these steps:
1. Impose a $3-a-pack tax on cigarettes (as well as snus, lozenges and flavored cigars) and use the proceeds to help pay for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. The price increase would also discourage some people from starting to smoke.
2. Pass laws requiring tobacco companies to gradually reduce the nicotine content of cigarettes over a period of 10 years (just as the tobacco companies have increased the nicotine content in previous years).
3. Finally, at the end of 10 years, require the companies to cease production of all tobacco products.
The 10-year delay would avoid the psychological trauma that would afflict long-term, addicted smokers if tobacco production were stopped instantly.
There is no legal, logical or moral reason to continue to allow tobacco companies to continue to cause so much illness, suffering and death without experiencing any consequences. It is time for political leaders to accept the challenge and lead the way to a healthier future.
Bill Boyne is a retired publisher and editor of the Post-Bulletin. His column appears weekly.
E-mail this | Digg this | Bookmark this
Login to post
danthornton - 11/07/2007
Higher excise taxes disproportionately impact the lower middle class and the poor. A $3/pack tax would give some people more motivation to quit, but for others it would end up chipping away another $90 or more a month that they really can't afford. I think point #2 is the way to go - start requiring lower amounts of nicotine, and continue to move it down over time. This will reduce the amount of new smokers who get addicted. But, what do you do for the currently addicted who then need to smoke twice as much to get the same effect? Some plan would be needed there, or that group's lung cancer risk will shoot much higher in no time. I guess that's where prohibition might come in, but then we just get more illegal drugs in the country. I'm not in favor of legalizing pot, but making cigarettes illegal wouldn't be as good for society as some think it would be. If it's already illegal to buy a cigarette, then what's the difference in buying some pot instead, or cigarettes laced with pot for a little extra twist? If we drive cigarette smokers underground, we could end up inadvertently boosting the marijuana trade far beyond where it is today.
110736 - 11/07/2007
No Bill, there is a "legal, logical or moral" reason to allow tobacco products, its called personal freedom. I also despise smoking, but it is not my right (nor desire) to tell you how to live your life. If you are stupid enough to smoke multiple packs a day, I will stand aside and let natural selection run its course. What is the next target after tobacco? Alcohol, dairy products, oils, fats? Anything in excess (even water) leads to early death, so where does it end? We need less government intervention in our lives, not more.
rrm419 - 11/07/2007
I don't smoke, actually despise it....but I am disappointed to see that the editor of the great Post Bulletin doesn't know that tobacco can never be banned or made illegal. Our government officials agreed to those terms in exchange for the master tobacco settlement and the billions of dollars that the states would receive. Thanks for looking out for our interests Gov. officials.
Comment