Look at the science – smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation

The recent frenzy following the events in Japan suggests that the media are keen to feed our nuclear fears, by focusing on exposure to radiation that is extremely unlikely to result in a single death, compared with a natural catastrophe that has killed at least 20,000 people and displaced more than 100,000.

We are a successful species inhabiting a radioactive world and must have evolved protective mechanisms to deal with the effects of natural radiation. Let's inject some science into the nuclear debate to find out just how dangerous exposure to radiation might be, and apply it to our daily lives.

What can our experience of the atomic bombs and Chernobyl tell us about the health effects of radiation exposure? Radiation can be divided into two main types – highly penetrating such as X and gamma ray, and isotopic such as iodine-131, which needs to enter the body to have an effect. The radiation exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a short-lived, intense, exposure to relatively high doses of penetrating radiation. Following the Chernobyl accident, the radiation was prolonged and mainly isotopic. Exposure was therefore via ingestion and inhalation of radiostopes, mainly iodine-131 and caesium-137.

The majority of those who died following the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from flash burns or other injuries; 15-20% died as a result of acute radiation sickness. Long-term studies between 1950 and 1997 show that, of the 9,335 cancer deaths in the 86,572 population, only 440 (5%) of the solid cancers and 103 of 310 leukaemias were attributed to radiation exposure. A very small proportion (0.8%) of non-cancer related deaths were also associated with radiation. In addition, there are no inherited effects observed in the subsequent generation.

The decrease in average life expectancy is 2.6 years and 21 days respectively for those who received the highest and lowest doses. Since the majority of the population received low doses, the average loss of life expectancy is four months. The argument can be made that the full consequences will only be known when the last of the exposed generation have reached old age, but we can already ask the question, "does radiation exposure at this level, cause as many health problems as we thought?" I do not think so.

The only proven radiobiological effect has been an increase in thyroid cancer in those who were young at the time of the accident. The increase was rapid, and is still apparent today, although the level of thyroid cancer is back to what it was prior to the accident for those who were born from 1987 onwards – when the radioactive iodine disappeared from the environment.

Alleged Illegal Searches By NYPD Rarely Challenged in Marijuana Cases

Illegal searches are more common than people realize, but few end up getting challenged in court, law enforcement officials and defense attorneys say.

Checks and balances within the criminal justice system are intended to ferret out improper arrests, but many defendants and their lawyers say they face insurmountable obstacles when fighting marijuana charges – and the alleged illegal searches that sometimes led to them.

More than 50,000 people were arrested in the city for misdemeanor marijuana possession last year – the highest in a decade. And a substantial number of these arrests take place in the police precincts where the most stop-and-frisks occur, which are predominately black and Latino neighborhoods.

More than a dozen men who were arrested in these precincts for misdemeanor marijuana possession told WNYC the police recovered marijuana on them through illegal searches. None of them challenged these allegedly illegal searches in court.

Limitations of Prosecutors as Watchdogs

The District Attorney is supposed to throw out cases based on illegally seized evidence. But only police, not prosecutors, are at the scene of the arrest. So what prosecutors decide to charge a person with depends largely, at first, on what officers reveal in their paperwork.

Under New York state law, a person can be charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession if he or she is smoking or displaying pot in "public view." Each of the men WNYC interviewed said their marijuana was never in public view until police removed the pot from their clothes.

Jeannette Rucker, a supervising prosecutor at the Bronx District Attorney’s Office, heads the Complaint Room, where prosecutors first review police paperwork before they bring formal charges. She reads thousands of police reports about marijuana arrests.
"When an officer charges somebody for 'marijuana open to public view,' when they write in their paperwork that they found it in the defendant’s pants pocket, I have to dismiss it," said Rucker.

Rucker (Photo left) said her office throws out 10 to 15 misdemeanor marijuana cases everyday because the police paperwork states the marijuana was actually not in public view. These cases she chalks up to honest mistakes. But if a cop lies in his report – and fails to mention that the marijuana was actually found in someone’s clothing – Rucker said there’s no way for her office to know that without a further investigation.

That creates a substantial problem for defendants who were wrongfully arrested. Rucker said in most cases, prosecutors don’t even interview arresting officers until after a defendant is arraigned – but she said too many defendants plead guilty right at their first court appearances. Therefore, Rucker said defendants who think they’ve been illegally searched or otherwise improperly arrested have to stand up for themselves right at the beginning of a case.

"If they’re claiming that, 'I had it in my pants’ pocket,' then you hold that officer accountable, you come in and testify, or you tell us something," said Rucker. "You cannot just stay mute and say, 'Oh, I’m gonna take my plea.'"

Colorado medical-marijuana bill draws U.S. attorney's warning

The U.S. attorney for Colorado warned state lawmakers Tuesday that pending legislation adjusting rules for medical marijuana would conflict with federal law and could lead to federal prosecutions.
U.S. Attorney John Walsh's letter was sent to Colorado Attorney General John Suthers in response to his request for clarification on how federal treatment of medical marijuana use may conflict with pending legislation now under consideration in House Bill 1043.
"The Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the federal law and the Controlled Substances Act in all states," Walsh wrote. "Thus, if the provisions of H.B. 1043 are enacted and become law, the Department will continue to carefully consider all appropriate civil and criminal legal remedies to prevent manufacture and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations."
Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, a sponsor of the bill, said that in his mind the letter only further muddies the federal Department of Justice's stance on medical marijuana rather than providing clarification.
"We have had mixed messages from the federal government on this," Steadman said. "I think this casts a big shadow upon this industry in Colorado. It does cause some uncertainty and trepidation."
Possession and sale of marijuana are illegal under federal law. But several states, including Colorado, allow the use of small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes.
Feds' two key concerns
Colorado's medical-marijuana industry has exploded in the past two years, partly because of the state constitutional amendment allowing marijuana for medical use, partly because of prior state court decisions allowing expanded use based on that amendment, and partly because of the Justice Department's previous declaration that targeting medical marijuana usage in states where it was legal would be a low priority for federal agents.
As the number of marijuana dispensaries, and users, has surged across the state, the legislature has tried to provide some rules for the burgeoning industry.
The intent of the current bill, by Steadman and Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, was to close loopholes and fix portions of the state's medical-marijuana laws.
But as it has moved through the committee process, it has drawn the concern of Suthers and others in law enforcement.
Suthers sent his own letter to members of the Colorado General Assembly on Tuesday, including Walsh's guidance and similar letters sent by U.S. attorneys to stakeholders in other states.
The Walsh letter restates the federal position that the "Department of Justice will not focus its resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen."
But Walsh targets two portions of the proposed law — one that has been removed for now, and another that remains in the bill.
The first is an amendment to the bill that would have allowed the state to license a marijuana investment fund to help fund commercial marijuana operations, which struggle to get loans because of the nature of their business. It did not pass the House.
Walsh wrote that the Department of Justice would consider civil and criminal action for those who invest in or facilitate marijuana production.
But Steadman said he does not plan to reintroduce the notion of a state-authorized investment fund in the Senate.
Second, the bill as currently drafted would authorize state licensing of "medical-marijuana infused product" facilities with up to 500 marijuana plants, along with the possibility of granting waivers to license even larger facilities.
"The Department would consider civil actions and criminal prosecution regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries, as well as property owners, as they will be acting in violation of federal law," Walsh wrote.
"Know our limitations"
"I don't know that this letter forces us to change the language in the bill," Steadman said. "It may make it advisable for product manufacturers to never apply for such waivers."
But Massey said it may be wise to simply restrict the number of plants a growing facility can have, without providing a waiver procedure that would allow such a facility to get bigger.
"I think by limiting the size to a degree, it is not a bill-killer," Massey said.
"Prior to this, the federal government had been silent, which was even more confusing because we are trying to craft legislation on how the federal government would react," he said. "The fact that we are getting feedback probably lets us know our limitations and boundaries, and that is a good thing."

Redcliffe business joins plain packaged cigarette debate

EDCLIFFE Friendly Grocer’s Terry Stehbens said businesses had been left in the dark over the Federal Government’s plan for plain packaging on cigarettes.

``We have heard nothing,’’ he said.

Mr Stehbens said the reforms would have a ``disastrous’’ impact on the ability of staff to serve customers.

``There will be no identification or branding, so trying to find the cigarettes at the point of service will waste a lot of time,’’ he said.

Mr Stehbens said the reforms were good in theory, but not practice with plain packaging being a ``nightmare’’ for staff trying to organise and re-order stock.

The plain packaging plan was recommended by Kevin Rudd’s Preventative Health Taskforce in a 2009 report Australia: The Healthiest Country by 2020.

The Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 is due to be introduced to Parliament this year. If passed, the changes will come into effect on January 1.

The Alliance of Australian Retailers spokesman Craig Glasby shared concerns over the plan to become the first country to enforce plain packaging.

``This is the latest example of a policy that won’t work, but that will hurt small business,’’ he said.

Mr Glasby said it would cause unnecessary confusion for retail staff, create delays in service time and inconvenience for customers, and make managing stock more difficult and time-consuming.

``(They have) provided no real evidence that plain packaging will help smokers quit or prevent people from taking up smoking,’’ he said.

Mr Glasby said the AAR also believed the introduction of plain packaging would make counterfeiting packets easier.

5 Favorite George Soros Stocks

We admire investing guru George Soros and his team of analysts. Below are 5 of our favorite stocks in his portfolio.

Altria Group (MO): Soros owns 9,500 shares of Altria. It is a new buy for the latest full quarter in 2010. Altria, which produces and sells popular tobacco products such as Marlboro and Parliament cigarettes, Copenhagen and Skoal smokeless tobacco and more, offers a 6.10% dividend yield and has a market cap of just over $50B. The company has an impressive 84% ROE over the last 12 months and despite being a tobacco company, recently ranked 35th on a list of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens by Corporate Responsibility magazine.

Petroleo Brasileiro (PBR): This massive Brazilian producer has been boosted recently by the major discovery of reserves off the Brazilian coast. This type of extraction is more costly than traditional extraction, so, as prices for oil rise, the justification and margin on this type of extraction grows. Libyan instability leads to a spike in oil prices, which leads to increased value of PetroBras’ reserves. That said, this type of extraction is also known for its long-term nature. That means that investors are aware that the benefits of the reserves will be elongated over a period of time so momentary shakes to the oil market can have less of an effect on the stock. This is a double-edged sword.

City Files Suit Over Internet Cigarette Sales

New York City has filed a federal lawsuit against 32 residents it accused of ordering hundreds — and in some cases, thousands — of cartons of cigarettes online and reselling them illegally, avoiding millions of dollars in city cigarette taxes.

The suit, filed on Wednesday, accuses the residents and Chavez Inc., a tobacco dealer based in Kentucky that sold tobacco products over the Internet, of violating the law by selling or conspiring to sell cigarettes without a New York City tax stamp between 2003 and 2009. Chavez was also named as a defendant.

The city, which has a $1.50-a-pack tax, is seeking $6.5 million in lost revenues for 437,721 cartons of cigarettes it says Chavez sold to city residents during those six years. In addition, it seeks penalties of $13 million. The company was raided in 2009 by federal officials and has been effectively shut down since.

“Illegal cigarettes cost our city and state billions of dollars,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said in a statement, “through increased health care costs and by cheating law-abiding small businesses out of customers and cheating taxpayers out of much needed tax revenue.”

“We will continue working with our partners in the federal government to protect the public health and fiscal health of our city and state,” the mayor added.

In addition to the city tax, there is a $4.35 state tax per pack and 61-cent sales tax.

New York City has been cracking down on the purchase of cigarettes over the Internet or at nearby Indian reservations and their illegal resale in the city. The city currently has a suit pending against cigarette vendors on the Poospatuck Indian reservation on eastern Long Island, who are accused of selling the cigarettes to people who then return to the city and sell them.

One defendant, Roza Budansky, is accused of having nearly $1 million worth of cigarette cartons — 32,232 cartons of 22 brands — shipped to an apartment in Brooklyn between 2006 and 2009.

Reached by phone, Ms. Budansky said she briefly worked as a dispatcher for a limousine company in late 2005 and early 2006 and ordered a few cartons of cigarettes for what she believed was the drivers’ personal use “maybe two or three times.” They were to be sent to an apartment in Brooklyn that someone else owned, she said.

That was the last she had heard of the matter, she said, until the lawsuit, and she said someone must have continued ordering cigarettes under her name.

“I didn’t even know at that time it was illegal,” Ms. Budansky said. “I was just a dispatcher. I was ordering for drivers.”

Eric Proshansky, a lawyer for the city, said the suit was aimed at individuals who it believes bought cigarettes with the intent to resell them.

“It’s not people who purchased a couple of cartons — they bought thousands of cartons,” Mr. Proshansky said. “The main takeaway is: If you evade cigarette taxes, you’re potentially liable for legal action from the city.”

Palatine Creates Smoking Area Near Hotshots

The Palatine Village Council has designated a place for smokers outside of Hotshots, 53 W. Slade St.

The village had gotten complaints about people standing on the sidewalk in front of the bar and restaurant smoking. State law requires that a smoking section be at least 15 feet from any entrance which is impossible because of Hotshots configuration.

The council voted earlier this week that smokers from Hotshots now will be expected to walk to the western edge of the parking lot across the street to an area located near the Metra tracks. Whether the smokers will actually go to the new smoking area remains to be seen.

"Actually this whole thing is getting stupid," said District 5 Council member Jack Wagner after a discussion by the council about what kind of signage was needed to inform the smokers. "Are we going to start putting signs up all over the village?"

"I'm not a smoker, but if I'm walking down a sidewalk and I notice an area where there's a bunch of people smoking and I don't want to walk through the smoke I'm going to walk around them," Wagner said.

Wagner said he thought the village was singling out Hotshots and that Hotshots deserved equal protection under the law.

District 6 Council member Brad Helms said one reason the village was dealing with Hotshots is that it's entrance was on a publicly owned sidewalk.

"The only reason why it's here is because I've received complaints. So it must be a problem," Helms said, adding that if he didn't address then he was not doing his job as a council member.

"No that's not necessarily true," Wagner replied. "Because if I did everything that every single resident wanted me to do in 24 years there'd be no cars on the street. No listening to the radio...There wouldn't be any wine served outside."

Palatine Village Manager Reid Ottesen said Hotshots was unique because the building had no location in front that would meet the state's 15 feet requirement. Most bars and businesses do have enough space to meet the requirment, but there are three or four do not.

"This is one attempt to have a solution," Ottesen said.

The village plans to review the situation in 90 days.

The Village Council also approve a special use permit which will allow Hotshots to offer live entertainment such as DJ shows, karaoke and bands.

Australia Unveils New Anti-smoking Regulation

Fighting tobacco in the political arena has proven to be a tough battle for those countries attempting it. As cigarettes and tobacco products are not actually illegal, governments that have wished to reduce smoking through regulation have been forced to seek alternative measures, such as heavy taxes and requiring tobacco companies to label their products with warnings of the addictive properties and dangerous health effects of tobacco use. Recently, Australia has unveiled a proposed set of new laws that would be far and away the most drastic attempt yet.

The new proposal would completely strip out branding and advertising on cigarette packs, leaving only the brand name stated in plain font. The packs themselves would be colored olive green, and each would display “the death and disease that come from tobacco use,” in the form of a disturbing photograph depicting someone suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. This design was chosen because of the results of studies on the effects of the various components of cigarette packaging. The studies found that health warnings were generally ineffective. Those who purchased cigarettes would look at the branding elements, such as logos or text, even when presented with a pack that also had a graphic picture on it.

The proposed legislation is clearly a dramatic step, and to me it seems unlikely to pass (though I don’t have much knowledge of Australia’s tobacco politics). It seems fairly inappropriate. Moreover, it may actually be illegal. Tobacco companies are challenging the legislation under international trademark law, as they feel it would prevent them from marketing their products with the proper source identifiers like logos and distinctive packaging.

The tobacco companies are right, of course. That’s the whole point. The plain packaging is absolutely intended to strip away source identifiers that influence consumers. The plain-packaging idea addresses a fundamental difference between the intended purpose of trademark law and its practice. Ideally, trademark law is meant as a protection for consumers as much as for producers; customers should be able to tell whose products they’re buying in order to make an informed decision. In practice, though, trademarks become not only source identifiers, but also a battlefield of psychological warfare waged through advertisements. Names have power, but logos catch people’s attention on the shelf.

Ultimately, I don’t like cigarettes and have little personal attachment to the right of tobacco companies to advertise. However, this step seems more than a little extreme and probably overboard.

Pot-smoking Bangladeshis stuck in container for 10 days

Singapore - Two Bangladeshi men who had snuck into a shipping container to smoke marihuana were too high to notice that the container was locked and loaded onto a ship, the Straits Times reported Friday.
Only one of the two men survived the 10-day ordeal of being trapped in the container while it made its way from Chittagong in Bangladesh to Singapore.
The survivor, Din Islam, 30, is now under investigation by Singapore authorities over the death of his fellow stowaway and has to attend a coroner's inquiry.
The two men, who worked as sweepers at Chittagong port, had dozed off in the container on April 1. They were discovered by workers in Singapore on April 10.
The second man, who was identified as Alamgir, died during the trip. The men had no food or water and could only breathe trough small holes in the container walls.

SCSU students vote on proposal to ban tobacco on campus

St. Cloud State University students are voting this week on a proposal to make their campus tobacco-free by August 2012.

The proposal was crafted by a task force of students, administrators, health services workers and other St. Cloud State employees.

The students this week are voting to support or reject the proposal, which would phase in the change by first creating 17 designated tobacco use areas that would be in effect from Aug. 1, 2011, until July 31, 2012.

The campus would then become tobacco-free Aug. 1, 2012.

The student vote is one piece of information that would go to President Earl H. Potter III, who will make the final decision on whether to make the campus tobacco-free.

A similar survey is being taken of St. Cloud State employees and also will be forwarded to Potter before he decides.

Students will vote electronically through emails that were sent out this week. Students will vote until 3 p.m. Wednesday, and results of the vote will be announced Thursday night at the Student Government meeting.

Students this week also are voting for a new Student Government president and vice president as well as 18 senators-at-large.

Tobacco slams pending legislation to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens

A Staten Island Assembly member is denouncing pending state legislation that seeks to resurrect an attempt by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens, saying it has wide-ranging national security implications.

Assemblyman Lou Tobacco is also thumping the joint Assembly and state Senate bill because he said it would give young adults -- who were brought here illegally -- the ability to receive financial aid for college and earn a degree, as well as the opportunity to work legally in the state and access health care.

"In a post-9/11 world, and with the state facing economic constraints, New Yorkers cannot afford to provide driver's licenses and other benefits to individuals here illegally," said Tobacco (R-South Shore). "It's bad enough that Mohammad Atta was able to take flying lessons in this country. The only thing worse would have been taxpayers paying the bill for his terrorist training -- something that could become a reality if this legislation becomes law."

But Tobacco told the Advance: "I am not calling illegal aliens terrorists. I am not saying they are here seeking to do us harm."

Still, he said granting licenses to illegal aliens "would legalize an illegal activity" while "there are people who live here who follow the law of the land."

"While I have no problem with people coming to this country legally in search of a better life for themselves and their children, government needs to start enforcing current immigration laws instead of creating loopholes for illegal immigrants to live and work in New York state," said Tobacco. "If an illegal alien wants to attend college in the United States in order to better himself, then this person must apply as an international student and pay the appropriate tuition rates."

Tobacco's office said if the legislation is enacted, illegal aliens could on average be eligible for up to $5,000 in tuition assistance, $20,000 in student loans and $4,100 in health care coverage at a time when such services have been slashed to taxpaying citizens.

Added Tobacco: "This bill will only promote illegal immigration in New York state without getting to the root of the problem, which is the lack of a comprehensive national immigration policy."

The state measure, similar to the federal DREAM Act that was rejected last year by Congress, seeks to breathe new life into the controversial attempt by Spitzer to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants by executive order.

You like to smoke hookah? than enjoy the best flavor from Al Fakher producer. Buy Al Fakher tobacco for hookah.

3 Northeast States May Lower Cigarette Taxes

More cigarette sales can mean more tax revenues for state governments, which is why budget-conscious New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey are considering reducing tax rates on tobacco products.

Supporters claim lower tax rates would make cigarettes more competitive with the same brands sold in neighboring states, bolstering sales performance in those jurisdictions that lower taxes.

The proposed reductions, however, are far from dramatic. New Hampshire's House voted March 17, by 236-93, to lower the levy only by 10¢, to $1.68 a pack. A similar bill in Rhode Island would cut the tax by $1 per pack, while New Jersey considered a 30¢ slash last year without approving it.

By comparison, New York City smokers pay $5.85 a pack in state and local taxes.

According to The Wall Street Journal, opponents argue that if tax rates are slashed too deeply, sales may rise but state revenues could still fall. More smoking also means more long-term spending on healthcare, opponents claim.

Health Matters: The "Myth" Behind Menthol Cigarettes

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers a ban on menthol cigarettes, a new study comes out saying people who smoke these are no more likely to develop lung cancer than other smokers.
Researchers analyzed data from 85,000 people in 12 southern states taking part in another study.
They found menthol cigarettes were associated with a lower lung cancer incidence, and fewer lung cancer deaths than regular cigarettes.
Last week an FDA advisory panel recommended pulling menthol cigarettes from the shelves.
They said while these cigarettes do not pose a greater individual disease risk, the menthol makes them more enticing to people and may help develop them into lifetime smokers.
Findings appear in the "Journal of the National Cancer Institute."

BAT to Develop ‘Safer’ Nicotine Products for Long-Term Use

British American Tobacco Plc (BATS), the maker of Lucky Strikes, created a unit that will seek to develop nicotine products for people wanting an alternative to cigarettes as governments aim to reduce smoking.

Nicoventures Ltd. plans to develop tobacco-free nicotine products, Kate Matrunola, a spokeswoman for London-based BAT, said today. The unit employs four people and will discuss with regulators what sort of products might work, she said by phone.

“It’s not for cessation,” Matrunola said. “There is an unmet need out there for consumers” who don’t want to quit.

Tobacco companies have spent decades trying to develop a safer alternative to smoking, including RJR Nabisco Inc.’s 1988 test of Premier, a smokeless cigarette. Star Scientific Inc., based in Glen Allen, Virginia, said March 23 that a decision by U.S. regulators cleared the way for it to start selling tobacco lozenges. The global market for cigarettes excluding China, which is largely closed to foreign tobacco companies, will probably shrink by 2.5 percent in 2011, BAT Chief Executive Officer Nicandro Durante said Feb. 24.

Restrictions on advertising and marketing may be a challenge to smoking substitutes, according to analysts.

“The biggest obstacles will be regulatory,” Erik Bloomquist, an analyst at Berenberg Bank in London, said by phone. “The mindset in much of public health around tobacco is quit or die, not harm-reduction.”

Democrats eye hike of cigarette tax in informal hearing

The Republican super-majority wouldn’t let them do it through official channels, so House Democrats held their own informational meeting on a proposal to hike the state’s cigarette tax.

The idea of the tax hike was tossed around by Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, in the early days of the session, but he axed the proposal because he believed members of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee wouldn’t go for it.

Democrats wanted the issue to at least receive a hearing and protested last week on the House floor by forcing reading of all legislation prior to voting, meaning a delay to the end of the session.

Democrats held an informal hearing on the matter Monday, a meeting that nearly filled the House Health and Welfare Committee room in the lower east wing of the Capitol. Though many were there to testify in favor of the tax hike, not all wanted to do so.

Representatives for two Idaho convenience store chains testified that the hike would hurt businesses and consumers. Andrea Jackson of Jackson’s Food Stores said that her stores’ profit margins from ordering cigarettes are thin and would likely decrease with a tax hike.

Charley Jones of Stinker Stations pointed out that smokers pay enough and that a hike of cigarette taxes helped fund the $125 million renovation and expansion of the Idaho Capitol. “It’s beyond me why cigarette smokers are paying for it,” Jones mused. “Smokers pay much, much more than their fair share of taxes. “

Getting into the politics of the matter, Jackson said that it’s not right to force smokers to fund various facets of state government. “To single out one group in our society to pay for that is unfair,” said Jackson. Jones echoed the sentiment, but also said that government should work to control the populace. “Taxes aimed at punishing bad behavior … I think that’s a problem,” Jones said.

But supporters offered their own take on the proposal. Some argued that the increase would help public health, while others said it would help fund government programs.

Karen Des Aulniers of the Treasure Valley Alcohol Drug Coalition said the hike would aid public health. “It decreases uses. It decreases medical costs. It needs to be done,” said Des Aulniers. “Why isn’t everyone in favor of raising the tax?”

Andrea Shipley of the Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) said that cuts made in the last two years to Medicaid and public education are the result of a Legislature unwilling to look at tax and fee hikes. “We do not have a budget crisis,” said Shipley. “We have a revenue crisis.”

And what revenue a tax hike could bring in. Jack Miller of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare contended that Idaho could raise as much as an additional $77 million in taxpayer dollars annually for program. He also said that smoking-related illnesses cost taxpayers as much as $236 million each year in health care expenses, with $83 million of that being paid out by the Medicaid program.

Idaho charges 57 cent per pack of cigarettes. Lake’s measure – as well as a similar one drawn up by Rusche – would hike that figure by $1.25. Idaho’s tax per pack is the eighth-lowest in the nation.

But a hike of the tax wouldn’t necessarily mean lower smoking rates for Idahoans, however. Dan John of the Idaho State Tax Commission told Democrats that when rates are raised, citizens will often look elsewhere to find cheap cigarettes. “If you double the tax, you are not going to get double the revenue,” said John.

One presenter, Corey Jackson of Capitol Distributing, told lawmakers there are more than 8 million Internet sites through which smokers can purchase untaxed cigarettes. Jackson said that a hike in the state’s tax would fuel these sites and mean fewer dollars for the state and local businesses. “It’s going to cost jobs,” said Jackson. “It’s going to hurt people.”