The Bay Area Council On Drugs and Alcohol was awarded the Tobacco Environmental Coalition grant from the Department of State and Health Services.
The TEC prevents and reduces the illegal and harmful use of tobacco products in communities across Texas by promoting and conducting community-based environmental prevention strategies that have an impact on the social, cultural, political and economic processes of the community.
Coalitions broaden support for community projects and increase credibility, provide volunteers for activities, and maximize the power of participating groups through joint action. Coalitions are especially important when engaging in broad community actions to change public policy.
The coalition will conduct evidence-based strategies and evaluate activities in League City that address two major goals: Eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke; and reduce tobacco use among populations with the highest burden of tobacco-related health disparities.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
State lawmakers may use ‘sin taxes’ to fill budget holes in upcoming session
Huge budget gaps are looming for the Idaho state government and some lawmakers are scrambling to decide how to shore up funding for corrections, health and welfare, and education.
Some state lawmakers are examining increases for “sin tax” items, like cigarettes, alcohol, and other tobacco products. Idaho Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, told the Idaho Statesman that increases on those items could be part of a myriad of solutions to solve the budget crisis.
Idaho wouldn’t be the first state to increase “sin taxes” to fund government. Earlier this year, New York increased its taxes on cigarettes by $1.60 to $4.35 per pack, the highest rate in the nation. By comparison, Idahoans only pay 57-cents a pack in taxes. Idaho’s cigarette tax rate is eighth-lowest in the nation.
But just how much could those increases contribute to the state’s general fund? One report suggests that if Idaho were to add $1.00 to its cigarette tax, the state could gain as much as $46 million in revenue on an annual basis.
But that tax increase would come at a cost paid mostly by low-income residents of the state. A 2007 Heritage Foundation study relating to an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, found out who really pays when governments use cigarette tax hikes to fund government. Data suggests that 28 percent of the people who smoke make less than the federal poverty level. Another 26 percent of smokers are considered poor, making between 100 and 200 percent of poverty level guidelines.
Cigarette taxes don’t always provide a stable funding base. In 2005, Idaho saw $45.7 million in revenue from cigarette taxes alone. Since then, the state’s take in revenue has stayed mostly steady, with minor variations in revenue amounts. That was, until fiscal year 2010, when the state saw a 10.58 percent drop in total cigarette tax revenue. That decrease reduced the state’s revenues by more than $4.6 million to a total of $39.6 million.
Those in favor of increasing “sin taxes” note that hikes serve a dual purpose. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TBF), a group dedicated to developing policy options that prevent youngsters from taking up smoking cigarettes, notes that the tax increases revenue while decreasing the number of smokers, thereby decreasing potential costs to the public health caused by smoking. TBF believes that the $1.00 increase per pack for Idaho would save about $230 million in health care costs and would force as many as 6,200 Idahoans to stop smoking.
The state of Delaware, as cited in the group’s report, increased its cigarette tax by 60-cents per pack in July of 2007 and saw a 35.1 percent decrease in the number of smokers pared with a 35.1 percent increase in the state’s revenue. Delaware netted $31.6 million from the hike. Texas, which more than tripled its cigarette tax rate in early 2007, saw a revenue increase of more than $1 billion complemented by a 21 percent decrease in the overall number of packs sold each year.
Idaho House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, isn’t totally opposed to a hike in the cigarette tax. Rusche, a physician by trade, says the hike could do much good to prevent teens from taking up the habit of smoking. The Lewiston Democrat called a tax hike on cigarettes “another smoking prevention tool” in the fight against teenage tobacco use.
But is it fair for Idaho’s low-income resident to fund state government operations and social welfare programs? “It may be that they pay more,” said Rusche, a member of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. “On the other hand, it will go a long way to promote their good health.”
The minority leader would make no firm commitments to tax hikes. “This is a problem that requires investigation,” said Rusche, who echoed Geddes’ notion that legislators would use various methods to balance the state’s budget next year.
But one Republican on the tax panel says only desperation leads lawmakers to go after sin taxes. Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said she would oppose the hike because she is against tax increases in general. “Boil it down: stop spending and lower taxes,” Barrett told IdahoReporter.com. The Challis Republican said that she doesn’t think people should smoke or drink, but “that’s their choice and they’re not breaking the law.”
But what about the positive effect a tax hike would have on public health? “That’s a fallacy,” said Barrett, an ex-smoker herself. “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price. You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”
Some state lawmakers are examining increases for “sin tax” items, like cigarettes, alcohol, and other tobacco products. Idaho Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, told the Idaho Statesman that increases on those items could be part of a myriad of solutions to solve the budget crisis.
Idaho wouldn’t be the first state to increase “sin taxes” to fund government. Earlier this year, New York increased its taxes on cigarettes by $1.60 to $4.35 per pack, the highest rate in the nation. By comparison, Idahoans only pay 57-cents a pack in taxes. Idaho’s cigarette tax rate is eighth-lowest in the nation.
But just how much could those increases contribute to the state’s general fund? One report suggests that if Idaho were to add $1.00 to its cigarette tax, the state could gain as much as $46 million in revenue on an annual basis.
But that tax increase would come at a cost paid mostly by low-income residents of the state. A 2007 Heritage Foundation study relating to an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, found out who really pays when governments use cigarette tax hikes to fund government. Data suggests that 28 percent of the people who smoke make less than the federal poverty level. Another 26 percent of smokers are considered poor, making between 100 and 200 percent of poverty level guidelines.
Cigarette taxes don’t always provide a stable funding base. In 2005, Idaho saw $45.7 million in revenue from cigarette taxes alone. Since then, the state’s take in revenue has stayed mostly steady, with minor variations in revenue amounts. That was, until fiscal year 2010, when the state saw a 10.58 percent drop in total cigarette tax revenue. That decrease reduced the state’s revenues by more than $4.6 million to a total of $39.6 million.
Those in favor of increasing “sin taxes” note that hikes serve a dual purpose. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TBF), a group dedicated to developing policy options that prevent youngsters from taking up smoking cigarettes, notes that the tax increases revenue while decreasing the number of smokers, thereby decreasing potential costs to the public health caused by smoking. TBF believes that the $1.00 increase per pack for Idaho would save about $230 million in health care costs and would force as many as 6,200 Idahoans to stop smoking.
The state of Delaware, as cited in the group’s report, increased its cigarette tax by 60-cents per pack in July of 2007 and saw a 35.1 percent decrease in the number of smokers pared with a 35.1 percent increase in the state’s revenue. Delaware netted $31.6 million from the hike. Texas, which more than tripled its cigarette tax rate in early 2007, saw a revenue increase of more than $1 billion complemented by a 21 percent decrease in the overall number of packs sold each year.
Idaho House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, isn’t totally opposed to a hike in the cigarette tax. Rusche, a physician by trade, says the hike could do much good to prevent teens from taking up the habit of smoking. The Lewiston Democrat called a tax hike on cigarettes “another smoking prevention tool” in the fight against teenage tobacco use.
But is it fair for Idaho’s low-income resident to fund state government operations and social welfare programs? “It may be that they pay more,” said Rusche, a member of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. “On the other hand, it will go a long way to promote their good health.”
The minority leader would make no firm commitments to tax hikes. “This is a problem that requires investigation,” said Rusche, who echoed Geddes’ notion that legislators would use various methods to balance the state’s budget next year.
But one Republican on the tax panel says only desperation leads lawmakers to go after sin taxes. Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said she would oppose the hike because she is against tax increases in general. “Boil it down: stop spending and lower taxes,” Barrett told IdahoReporter.com. The Challis Republican said that she doesn’t think people should smoke or drink, but “that’s their choice and they’re not breaking the law.”
But what about the positive effect a tax hike would have on public health? “That’s a fallacy,” said Barrett, an ex-smoker herself. “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price. You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
JAPAN - WITH TAX INCREASE, AFTER FIRST MONTH THREE OF FIVE QUITTERS STILL SMOKE-FREE
As of Friday, October 1, 2010 an increase in the tobacco tax pushed cigarette prices up by a record-high 60 yen (0.72 USD) to 140 yen (1.68 USD) per 20-cigarette pack. According to a survey conducted on 316 smokers by pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson K.K. before the hike, about 60 percent said they would quit. Of these, 58 percent cited financial reasons. (Japan - with tax increase in place, fewer smokers buying cigarettes so far..)
Adding roughly a third onto the price of the average bra Macromill Research doesn’t look at what percentage quit, but instead focuses on how the quitters are coping. Over the 1st and 2nd of November 2010 500 members of the Macromill monitor group who had resolved to stop smoking following the tobacco price rise in October completed a private internet-based questionnaire. 68.4% were male, 12.8% in their twenties, 33.2% in their thirties, 31.8% in their forties, and 22.2% aged fifty or older.
I (Macromill Research Group) suppose it’s a good sign that at least some people are quitting, although looking at Q1 (Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500)) and from tales from smokers, relapses can happen at unexpected times, so after a month free from smoking one cannot really say one has kicked the habit. Furthermore, with the end of year party season coming up, thus placing the quitters around people smoking and around drink, the second and third greatest temptations according to Q3SQ1, the risk of relapse will be pretty high, I fear.
Research results
Q1: Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500) First time 31.6%, Twice 25.6%, Thrice 18.8%, Four times 5.4%, Five times
5.4%, Six times 0.4%, Seven times 0.8%, Eight times 0.2%, Nine times 0.0%, Ten or more times 4.8% Don’t know 7.0%.
More older people had fallen off the wagon, with 24.3% of the over-fifties back to their old habit. However, although almost the same percentage of two packs a day or more people had restarted, 73.1% had managed to quit completely. Those with spouses or other family members who smoked were also more less than average to have managed to resist temptation.
For those who had given in to temptation, 1.1% didn’t manage a day, 4.8% two days, 10.6% three days, and 24.3% four days.
Adding roughly a third onto the price of the average bra Macromill Research doesn’t look at what percentage quit, but instead focuses on how the quitters are coping. Over the 1st and 2nd of November 2010 500 members of the Macromill monitor group who had resolved to stop smoking following the tobacco price rise in October completed a private internet-based questionnaire. 68.4% were male, 12.8% in their twenties, 33.2% in their thirties, 31.8% in their forties, and 22.2% aged fifty or older.
I (Macromill Research Group) suppose it’s a good sign that at least some people are quitting, although looking at Q1 (Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500)) and from tales from smokers, relapses can happen at unexpected times, so after a month free from smoking one cannot really say one has kicked the habit. Furthermore, with the end of year party season coming up, thus placing the quitters around people smoking and around drink, the second and third greatest temptations according to Q3SQ1, the risk of relapse will be pretty high, I fear.
Research results
Q1: Including this time, how many times have you tried to stop smoking? (Sample size=500) First time 31.6%, Twice 25.6%, Thrice 18.8%, Four times 5.4%, Five times
5.4%, Six times 0.4%, Seven times 0.8%, Eight times 0.2%, Nine times 0.0%, Ten or more times 4.8% Don’t know 7.0%.
More older people had fallen off the wagon, with 24.3% of the over-fifties back to their old habit. However, although almost the same percentage of two packs a day or more people had restarted, 73.1% had managed to quit completely. Those with spouses or other family members who smoked were also more less than average to have managed to resist temptation.
For those who had given in to temptation, 1.1% didn’t manage a day, 4.8% two days, 10.6% three days, and 24.3% four days.
IDAHO - HEALTH GROUPS PUSHING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE TOBACCO TAX.
The state of Idaho is being pushed by many health groups to increase the tax that they currently have in place on cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Idaho has a lower cigarette tax than any of its neighbors at 57 cents per pack, Radke (Jodi Radke, Rocky Mountain regional director for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids). Wyoming charges 60 cents per pack, Nevada 80 cents, Oregon $1.18, and Montana and Utah $1.70. Washington just raised its tax by $1, to $3.02. The nationwide average in states that don't grow tobacco is $1.54. Idaho ranks in at number 42 in regards to their tax on tobacco products such as cigarettes. The tobacco tax rate is 40 percent of the wholesale sales price of the tobacco. Tobacco tax is imposed on all “other tobacco products,” excluding cigarettes.
The health groups, including state sectors of the American Cancer Society, are pushing to increase this tax by at least 57 cents per pack. The belief is that if they are able to do this, they would not only increase funding for many state programs, but they would also be able to detract more people from smoking.
Health groups, who have support from Republican Rep. Dennis Lake, believe that it will drop the smoking rate of kids in the state of Idaho by nearly 4% immediately.
After the conservative turn of the Idaho Legislature during the November election, however, proposals to hike increases, regardless of which product is targeted, face a tough fight in the 2011 session.
American Heart Association lobbyist Adrean Casper said raising Idaho's 57-cent-per-pack cigarette tax 10% would cut youth smoking by about 6.5%.
There are some who oppose this, as the tax hike in Idaho on cigarettes would face some stiff competition in regards to trying to get it passed.
Idaho has a lower cigarette tax than any of its neighbors at 57 cents per pack, Radke (Jodi Radke, Rocky Mountain regional director for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids). Wyoming charges 60 cents per pack, Nevada 80 cents, Oregon $1.18, and Montana and Utah $1.70. Washington just raised its tax by $1, to $3.02. The nationwide average in states that don't grow tobacco is $1.54. Idaho ranks in at number 42 in regards to their tax on tobacco products such as cigarettes. The tobacco tax rate is 40 percent of the wholesale sales price of the tobacco. Tobacco tax is imposed on all “other tobacco products,” excluding cigarettes.
The health groups, including state sectors of the American Cancer Society, are pushing to increase this tax by at least 57 cents per pack. The belief is that if they are able to do this, they would not only increase funding for many state programs, but they would also be able to detract more people from smoking.
Health groups, who have support from Republican Rep. Dennis Lake, believe that it will drop the smoking rate of kids in the state of Idaho by nearly 4% immediately.
After the conservative turn of the Idaho Legislature during the November election, however, proposals to hike increases, regardless of which product is targeted, face a tough fight in the 2011 session.
American Heart Association lobbyist Adrean Casper said raising Idaho's 57-cent-per-pack cigarette tax 10% would cut youth smoking by about 6.5%.
There are some who oppose this, as the tax hike in Idaho on cigarettes would face some stiff competition in regards to trying to get it passed.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tobacco Free Colleges & Universities
A tobacco free campus policy prohibits smoking and the use of tobacco products everywhere on the property.
With thoughtful planning and communication, universities can experience a smooth policy transition and experience many positive outcomes:
Students, staff, and faculty have more incentive to quit tobacco and their efforts are more successful.
Exposure to secondhand smoke is completely eliminated on the property.
A safe and healthy environment for everyone who comes to your campus.
Students, staff, and faculty are healthier with fewer absences.
Increased work productivity when students, staff, and faculty are no longer taking multiple breaks to smoke.
More attractive grounds when people are not congregating to smoke and tobacco litter is eliminated.
Increased support for other initiatives that decrease tobacco use and protect health.
With thoughtful planning and communication, universities can experience a smooth policy transition and experience many positive outcomes:
Students, staff, and faculty have more incentive to quit tobacco and their efforts are more successful.
Exposure to secondhand smoke is completely eliminated on the property.
A safe and healthy environment for everyone who comes to your campus.
Students, staff, and faculty are healthier with fewer absences.
Increased work productivity when students, staff, and faculty are no longer taking multiple breaks to smoke.
More attractive grounds when people are not congregating to smoke and tobacco litter is eliminated.
Increased support for other initiatives that decrease tobacco use and protect health.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
FDA warns electronic cigarette companies about health claims
RICHMOND, Va. — The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning Thursday to makers of electronic cigarettes, saying some make unproven health claims, but also said the agency wants to work with them to clarify what's legal.
The FDA said Thursday it sent warning letters to five companies that make e-cigarettes or components for the plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales.
In the letters, the FDA said the companies are violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including unsubstantiated claims and poor manufacturing practices.
The FDA said Thursday it sent warning letters to five companies that make e-cigarettes or components for the plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales.
In the letters, the FDA said the companies are violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including unsubstantiated claims and poor manufacturing practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)