Omaha cigarette tax will likely pass

Omaha's new, proposed cigarette tax still appears to have enough support to win approval despite criticism from Gov. Dave Heineman and local businesses, a city councilman said Tuesday. Councilman Ben Gray said he still plans to back the ordinance when the council votes on it, and he doesn't expect any other council members to shift. The measure's sponsor, Councilman Chris Jerram, has said four of the seven council members have agreed to sponsor the measure.

Council members held a public hearing on the proposal Tuesday and were expected to vote next week. The measure would impose a 7 percent occupation tax on tobacco products sold in Omaha — 35 cents for every $5 pack of cigarettes — which would generate an estimated $35 million for a proposed University of Nebraska cancer center. Gray said he's willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, but added: "You're going to have to go a far stretch to try to convince me that not building this cancer center is a bad idea — and that it's a bad idea to use a tobacco tax to do it."

The university's cancer center is expected to cost $370 million, with money coming from a combination of private and public sources. University officials estimate the cancer center will create 1,200 high-paying jobs and provide a significant boost to the Omaha economy. Douglas County, which includes Omaha, has also pledged $5 million for the Omaha-based project over a decade. Heineman supports the project and approved the state funding earlier this year, but said he opposes the use of local tax dollars.

He criticized the Omaha proposal this week as a form of "double taxation" on smokers, because the project is already receiving $50 million in state money. But Gray noted that gasoline, property and other items are often taxed multiple times by state, city and county governments. "Take gasoline, for example," he said. "The feds tax it. States tax it. Some municipalities tax it. Is that a double tax, or a quadruple tax? I don't get what the governor means when he says this is a double tax. I don't understand that logic."

The proposal would affect more than 500 grocers and retailers in Omaha, according to the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association. Kathy Siefken, the group's executive director, said her member businesses are contacting council members in hopes of swinging the vote against the ordinance. She said petition circulators collected nearly 10,000 signatures against it in one week, but she noted the group hasn't had much time to mobilize against it. "It's a great project, and not one person is going to say it is not a good idea," Siefken said. "Everybody's going to benefit from this project, and people are excited about it. But you could lose a lot of that momentum when you start putting independent business people out of business."

Smoking ban rejected by Swiss referendum voters

cheapcigarettes.allmyblog.com - cheap cigarettes online in packs and cartons.

A recent attempt to ban smoking in all public enclosed spaces nationwide meets resounding failure in a Swiss referendum held among the nation's 26 cantons today. According to a survey conducted a week prior to voting, nearly 52% indicated an opposition to the ban, with 41% supporting and the rest remaining undecided. When it came to the actual vote count, the only canton that had a majority supporting the initiative was Geneva (with a slim 52% to 48% in favor).

Currently, eight cantons in the Swiss Confederation implement their own independent bans on public indoor smoking while the remaining 18 have no such legislature. Those who supported the legislature, including the Swiss Socialist party, hoped a successful passage of the law would further improve health and work conditions of employees across the country, particularly those in the hospitality and restaurant industries.

Those who opposed the ratification of the law, according to the newspaper La Tribune Geneve, did not want to impede on the rights of individual cantons to determine their own local policies.

Some 42,000 Americans die from secondhand smoke annually

Secondhand smoke is to blame for some 42,000 nonsmoker deaths annually in the United States, including nearly 900 infant deaths, according to a new University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) study. Altogether, annual deaths from secondhand smoke represent nearly 600,000 years of potential life lost -- an average of 14.2 years per person -- and 6.6 billion U.S. dollars in lost productivity, amounting to 158,000 dollars per death, the researchers say.

The new research, published on Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, reveals that despite public health efforts to reduce tobacco use, secondhand smoke continues to take a grievous toll on nonsmokers. "In general, fewer people are smoking and many have made lifestyle changes, but our research shows that the impacts of secondhand smoke are nonetheless very large," said lead author Wendy Max, a professor of health economics at the UCSF School of Nursing.

Exposure to secondhand smoke is linked to a number of fatal illnesses including heart and lung disease, as well as conditions affecting newborns such as low birth weight and respiratory distress syndrome.

Anti-Smoking Needs Constant Campaigns

Smoking habits or the lack thereof can be linked to anti-smoking campaigns. Tough economic times can slash prevention budgets. The fallout—a spike in smoking related health issues. A recent study looked at a nationwide survey of smoking habits and attitudes over 8 years. Results found that reduced smoking prevention efforts led to increased smoking. Xinguang Chen, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and Feng Lin, PhD, professor of electrical and computer engineering, at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, led investigations into adolescent smoking.

For the study, 142,913 people aged 12-17 participated in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2000-2008. Exposure to smoking prevention efforts, smoking history and habits and attitudes were evaluated in the survey. Over 80 percent of smokers claim to have begun smoking before turning 18 years old. Results of the study indicate that the earlier people started smoking, the less likely they were to quit and the more cigarettes they were likely to consume on a daily basis. Study authors said that now is no time to let up on smoking prevention efforts.

While these efforts do cost money, the cost of smoking in health care far exceeds that of prevention campaigns. Dr. Chen said, “It’s an investment. Given the financial difficulties the nation is facing, policymakers should consider the potentially powerful impact offered by relatively low-cost nationwide substance use prevention campaigns.” Dr.’s Chen and Feng have demonstrated a way to collect and analyze data necessary to understand the impact of prevention efforts or the lack thereof. Results of the study indicated smoking prevention efforts helped keep kids from starting smoking, quit smoking or prevent relapse if they had quit.

From 2003-2005, smoking prevention program funding was reduced several states resulting in a smoking increase. Those who rated zero smoking in his or her lifetime went from 44 percent in 2000, to 40 percent from 2003-2005, down to 35 percent from 2006-2008. Ideally, the percentage would have increased from the 44 percent of kids not smoking instead of decreasing. Those who rated zero smoking currently went from 21 percent in 2000 down to 17 percent in the 2006-2008 group, meaning that at least some smoking behavior increased by 4 percent. Authors urge policy makers to invest funds into smoking prevention efforts now to save healthcare costs from smoking related illness in the future. This study was published in August in Evaluation and Program Planning. The National Institute on Drug Abuse provided funding for this study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Slashing tobacco crop will cut jobs

With the global economy stuck in neutral and world leaders struggling to find the right blend of policies to jump-start long-term growth, you would think every bureaucrat from Accra to Zurich would be tasked with helping to resolve the crisis. Yet a handful of international regulators in Geneva – working under the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) – is doing the exact opposite and threatening more than 30 million jobs worldwide.

This week the FCTC released its latest draft recommendations on tobacco farming and environmental practices defined under Articles 17 and 18. Instead of helping “aid the economic transition of tobacco growers and workers whose livelihoods are seriously affected as a consequence of tobacco control programmes” – as originally intended – the punitive recommendations, if passed into law, will drive tobacco growers out of business without offering economically viable alternative crops.

The four key proposals that the International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA) is calling into question relate to regulations governing when tobacco may be grown; limiting the land used for tobacco growing; restricting financial and technical support for tobacco growers; and enforcing a global co-operative move to compel tobacco growers to abandon their crop simultaneously. (The last proposal perhaps reflects best how out of touch the FCTC is with working conditions on the world’s farmlands.)

First, to restrict the periods during which tobacco can be grown on the assumption that this will protect the environment and ensure food security is as unfounded as it is impractical. Environmental issues are common to all agricultural production processes, so replacing tobacco with another crop will not solve the problem. In addition, many traditional tobacco-growing regions do not offer the climate, soil conditions and infrastructure required for food crops: tobacco is the only crop that guarantees an income for these farmers.

Governments should focus on promoting and intensifying good agricultural practices where they do not already exist to reduce the environmental impact of tobacco growing – and of other crops. Second, limiting and ultimately reducing the land on which tobacco can be grown will not reduce the demand for tobacco products. In this world economic crisis, artificially reducing tobacco production when there is still a strong global demand is illogical and inconceivable to most tobacco growers. Third, any moves to “restrict or stop financial and technical support for tobacco growers”, whether from the government or the private sector, would be devastating for the farmers.

This is especially true considering that viable, alternative crops or livelihoods to replace tobacco have not been identified or even researched extensively. Finally, the stipulation that “countries should reduce tobacco production simultaneously” is absurd for the simple reason that not all tobacco-growing countries (for example, the US) have signed up to the FCTC. This suggestion is entirely misguided, impractical and unrealistic. Despite being excluded from the debate that will decide our future, the ITGA believes there is still a chance to protect our jobs and influence the final decision on these unrealistic and punitive recommendations being put to the 175 FCTC countries at November’s Fifth Conference of the Parties (COP5) meeting in Seoul.

 You may ask how we tobacco growers will make our voices heard above the cacophony of noise from those who understand the least about farming: the health advocates and Geneva’s suited and booted bureaucrats. Well, with more than 30 million farmers standing to lose their livelihoods, our strength is in our numbers. We, together with our African members, are opposing the latest draft recommendations by joining ITGA’s global petition campaign that calls for a realistic approach to help tobacco growers adapt – if and when demand for tobacco declines. We are therefore calling on African governments to oppose the measures ahead of the COP5 meeting. Articles 17 and 18, if passed, threaten to slash 30 million workers from a global economy that is already in dire straits.

NICE issue smokeless tobacco advice

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) claimed that the products play a significant role in the development of oral cancers, severe dental problems, heart attacks, strokes and pregnancy complications.

 The use of the tobacco products is growing among South Asian communities in England, with some theories suggesting that women of a South Asian background are four times more likely to develop oral cancer that women from other ethnic groups. Use of the product is widespread in nations between Pakistan and Papua New Guinea some 5,540 miles to the east, with users believing that the effects are a healthier option to smoking or bring other benefits.

 But NICE would like to see that perception changed and has urged practitioners in England to receive training to spot the signs of smokeless tobacco use and to ensure they can refer people to tobacco cessation services if they want to ditch their habit. NICE also advised that dentists, GPs, pharmacists and other health professionals should provide brief advice and referral to help South Asian people stop using smokeless tobacco products.

Norway rules in favor of tobacco display ban

The court on Friday rejected a complaint by Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro cigarettes, which argued the ban violates a free trade agreement linking non-EU member Norway to the European Union's market rules. The court said the display ban did not constitute a barrier to trade, and could be justified for public health reasons. "As the court sees it, the display ban is necessary and that there are no alternative, less intrusive measures that can have equivalent results," it said.

The ruling is being followed by countries including Britain, New Zealand, Canada and India, which are considering similar measures to help fight smoking. Tord Dale, political advisor to the Norwegian Health Minister, said: "We are glad that the court has decided that looking after people's health is more important than the profits of the tobacco industry." Since 2010, cigarette packets and other tobacco products have been covered up in Norwegian shops and are not visible to buyers, as part of a drive to discourage tobacco use.

In April, Britain implemented a similar ban for large vendors, while smaller vendors have until 2015 before having to conform to the legislation. The European Commission is due to propose a revision of EU rules on tobacco products by the end of this year, which is widely expected to include more prescriptive requirements for health warnings on packets. A Commission spokesman said the proposals would include new rules on packaging, but declined to comment on media reports the plans will introduce a single pack size for all cigarettes and require warnings on the health effects of smoking to cover 75 percent of the pack.

Norway's decision to rebuff Philip Morris' complaint comes less than two months before the fifth round of negotiations on the World Health Organization's global tobacco treaty in Seoul, South Korea, in November. "We are not happy with the ruling," said Philip Morris spokesman Nordan Helland. "We will now look carefully at the court's decision and assess if we are going to appeal." Norway has said that if the ban was upheld it would follow Australia and require plain packaging of tobacco.

"I know that this ruling will be read carefully in other European countries," said Knut-Inge Klepp, director at The Norwegian Health Directorate. "Currently we are waiting for a new strategy from the government on tobacco legislation. We are in dialogue with other European countries on the issue," he added. Australia's landmark decision means that from December 1, cigarettes and tobacco products must be sold in plain olive green packets with graphic health warnings, such as pictures of mouth cancer and other smoking-related illnesses.

Omaha Reveals Details of Tobacco Tax

Cigarettes online for cheap price here: cigarettesonline.getfreehosting.co.uk
The city of Omaha has gone public with the proposed ordinance for a tobacco tax to help fund the new UNMC Cancer Complex. The entire plan is now available online. Click below to read the interlocal agreement between Omaha and the Board of Regents to partially fund the cancer complex.

The ordinance has been submitted by five council members which suggests it will have no problem getting approval. Tom Mulligan, Garry Gernandt, Chris Jerram, Pete Festersen and Ben Gray requested the proposal. The ordinance is modeled after the occupation tax aimed at restaurants, bars and caterers in Omaha. This one targets "persons engaged in selling tobacco products within Omaha." The city is estimating the 7% tax will bring in $3.5-million annually.

The plan is to funnel a decade worth of income -- $35-million -- to go towards the $370-million UNMC Cancer Complex. Earlier this week, Douglas County agreed to contribute a total of $5-million to the project -- $500,000 each year for a decade -- from inheritance tax collections. The state of Nebraska has agreed to provide $50-million. A public hearing on the Omaha occupation tax will be Tuesday, September 25, at city hall.