Posted on 08/10/2005 8:27:03 PM PDT by Incorrigible
BY BRUCE TAYLOR SEEMAN
Newhouse News Service
WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of thousands of Americans will die from preventable cancer and heart disease in coming years because states are short-changing proven anti-smoking programs, health experts say.
About $20 billion is available annually through tobacco lawsuit settlement funds and cigarette taxes, but only 3 percent of it is spent on anti-smoking programs, critics say.
The funding backslide is a primary reason that U.S. officials concede there is little hope of cutting smoking rates, now about 22 percent, to 12 percent by 2010, one of the federal government's top public health goals.
Only three states -- Delaware, Mississippi and Maine -- are investing the minimum recommended by federal health officials for anti-smoking programs. Thirty-eight states spend less than half of what's needed; six spend nothing.
States struggling with budget problems have shifted potential tobacco control money to pay for rising Medicaid costs and non-health expenditures on highways, schools and other items.
Public health experts say the consequences will be lethal and expensive. Avoidable cases of smoking-related lung cancer and heart disease will result not only in premature deaths, they note, but huge medical costs.
Larry Downs, executive director of New Jersey Breathes, a coalition of anti-smoking groups, says program funding in the state has dwindled from about $30 million in 2000 to $11 million today. That's about 25 percent of the minimum needed, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tailors recommendations to each state.
"Between 10,000 and 13,000 people die early in New Jersey each year from tobacco," Downs said. "Before they die, they wrack up huge health care costs. The numbers are so high they become incomprehensible to the average person."
A 2003 CDC survey found there were about 45 million adult smokers in the U.S. Of those, about 40 percent reported having tried to quit in the preceding year.
"If we were able to help all the people who want to quit be successful, we would meet the goal" of reducing the smoking rate to 12 percent, said Terry Pechacek, associate director of science for the CDC's office on smoking and health.
Federal officials say research has shown what works, including local education programs involving teens, parents, doctors and teachers; projects to promote clean air, restrict access to tobacco and provide addiction treatment; enforcement of laws against tobacco sales to minors and smoking in public places; media campaigns to counter tobacco advertising; and programs to help smokers quit.
In 2002, New York City passed a tobacco control program that outlawed smoking in public places, boosted taxes on cigarettes and expanded smoking cessation services. The smoking rate dropped 11 percent in the first two years, resulting in 140,000 fewer smokers in the city, according to a study this year in the American Journal of Public Health.
It is difficult to say how many deaths would be prevented if federal guidelines were adhered to, experts say. But a study this year of the population under age 18 concluded that funding at federal minimums would prevent 2 million kids from becoming smokers, saving 600,000 from premature smoking-related deaths. Better-funded prevention programs aimed just at kids would save $23.4 billion in long-term smoking-related health care costs.
"It's a travesty," said Daniel McGoldrick, research director for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which conducted the study with the University of Illinois-Chicago. "We know the programs work. We know we have the money for them. But when there's money on the table, everybody goes after it."
In Alabama, the money devoted to CDC-recommended tobacco prevention efforts dropped from $6 million in 2000 to $360,000 in 2005. In Illinois, funding in the same period declined from $28.6 million to $11 million; in Florida, from $44 million to $1 million.
Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said at least three factors led states to spend potential tobacco funds elsewhere when they became available in 2002:
First, the 1998 multistate settlement with tobacco companies -- expected to yield $246 billion over 25 years -- did not mandate how the money should be spent. Second, some state politicians believed years of spending on rising health care costs had forced them to neglect non-health programs. And settlement money became available during a period of plummeting state revenues.
"States started looking for money everywhere, including seat cushions," Perez said.
But public health advocates say the decision was a long-term blunder.
Michigan commits tobacco settlement money to education and senior health care programs, but devotes $6 million in general revenue to anti-tobacco efforts. Some members of the state Legislature have pushed to reduce the general fund amount, said T.J. Bucholz, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Community Health.
After cigarette taxes were raised to $2 per pack last year, Gov. Jennifer Granholm tried to dedicate $30 million to health promotion programs, including tobacco control. The proposal failed.
"We absolutely believe prevention is key to making Michigan a healthier place to live, but the Legislature doesn't seem to want to hear that," Bucholz said.
Last year, Michigan spent about $880 million to treat Medicaid patients with smoking-related illnesses, Bucholz said.
Ohio, while it has passed no statewide smoking restrictions, ranks fifth in the nation on smoking prevention spending. One element is a quit line that has received 40,000 calls since opening in September 2004.
About 25 percent of the callers succeed in staying "smoke-free" for at least six months, according to the Ohio Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation. One of them is Joyce Szwagulak, 61, of Fairview Park, a Cleveland suburb.
Szwagulak said she smoked for 39 years -- mostly Doral 100s -- before she stopped cold turkey. She called the quit line about once a day for a month to get the job done.
"I talked to a gentleman, his name was Diego," Szwagulak said. "I told him why I wanted to quit: My niece had a little baby boy, and she wouldn't bring him over. I live in a small apartment, and you could smell it. I said, `It's time to do something."'
The longer she refused to light up, the more determined she became, Szwagulak said. "I called Diego and he said, `Joyce, another 24 hours. I am so proud of you.' It makes your chest raise another inch. And now I'm going to start crying."
Tabithia Engle, associate director of the Tobacco Free Coalition of Oregon, said that state was experiencing startling gains when tobacco prevention efforts were fully funded. During 1997-2003, the number of adult smokers in Oregon fell by 75,000. An estimated 2,700 fewer pregnant women were smoking.
But funds for the prevention programs, once about $7.5 million per year, have dropped to about $3.5 million despite continued revenue from the tobacco settlement and a $1.18 per pack tax on cigarettes.
"It's devastating to think that more than 7,000 die every year" in Oregon from smoking-related causes, Engle said. "That averages out to 18 people a day. Those are family members who won't get to see graduation, won't get to see weddings. If tobacco use is a disease, we have a vaccine for it. But we have a vaccine that we're not using."
Aug. 9, 2005
(Bruce Taylor Seeman can be contacted at bruce.seeman@newhouse.com)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Okay. Then my view is that Hostess and McDonald's should do the same for fat people and their related illnesses.
How bout Smith and Wesson doing the same for anyone disabled with a gun?
Or Harley Davidson doing the same for someone in a motor cycle wreck, or Ford for someone who doesn't wear their seat belt, or . . .
I hope you get my point. We ALL do things that endanger our health, and many of those things have lasting consequences. Athletes pay physically in their later years, coal miners have health related problems, hell, tellers are notorious for getting carpal tunnel. Should banks set up a special fund for that?
I know, I know, smokers are especially evil and burdensome. I'm so tired of this same old racket.
Actually, I fully agree with this. As a smoker, I have paid the government and insurance companies thousands of dollars that other citizens are not required to pay.
If this was for an established smoker's insurance program, then this money would have been wisely invested. Smoker's health costs would be self-funded and available to them when needed.
Instead, smokers have been forced to pay thousands of dollars, which they will never see returned. When they do need health insurance, it will be denied them.
This is a criminal action directed against 25 percent of the American population.
So far you have about $25,000 invested. That won't get you far in today's system. I have been smoking over fifty years but only about a pack a day. I don't how much I have paid in taxes but I know the government ripped it off like they do everything else.
What? Government politicians used ear-marked extortion money for something other than they promised?
SHOCKED! I'm shocked I say!
How do we continue to let these pinheads get away with this crap? Oh yeah, the average voter (forget the idiots that thankfully don't vote) is a moron.
I am interested in hearing how you came up with such a low number.
Consider that the average cost of a pack of cigarettes is around $1.00, but because of "health related taxes" is priced at $3.50, then we are looking at around $2.50 being confiscated by the Government for your health.
Multiply $2.50 per pack in taxes, 3 packs a day, 365 days in a year, and 30 years of smoking.
The total is.....
$82,125
I know, the $2.50 is in today's dollars, but consider it as inflation adjusted.
$82 THOUSAND dollars in tobacco taxes alone. Do I need to get into all of the extra dollars that the health insurance programs are changing?
Cigarette tax is like mother's milk to these politicians.
They don't want sales of cigarettes to decline..not really.
Cigarette tax, social security, gas tax etc etc..all going to support high govt salaries, big retirements and screw the taxpayer.
I am reminded that Cromwell hung most of the politicians who betrayed them..maybe we should do the same.
When I need that health care, which I have already paid for, and my medical is denied, I will personally hunt down the politicians that are responsible for stealing my money over the years.
Remember, when that time comes, I will only have 3 months to live...
Wise politicians would create a smoker's health insurance plan that is self-funded from the tobacco taxes.
my taxes were increased by $821 per year for tobacco related health costs.
and didn't remember it correctly. I thought that was what you were saying was your annual tax cost on cigs. That times 30 was how I figured.
If my memory serves, Several of Ernest Hemingway novels mention the fact that it is well known that cigarettes are bad for your health. These novels were written in the 20's and 30's. I don't know the easiest way to search this out. The idea that the tobacco companies kept it a secret is total hogwash. What the tobacco companies did was common practice in all commercial speech. That is you point out the good things about your product and you don't mention any negative aspects of your product. That is just simple marketing savvy. Anyone who claims they were purposely lying just doesn't understand commercial speech.
However, you got my point.
The tobacco consumer pays extra for: Health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, and homeowners insurance. We also pick up the tab for the "settlement", along with all the taxes on a pack of smokes.
We would end up paying for an additional insurance program.
ENOUGH!
Just imagine a world without cigarettes. If you weigh 400 pounds and DIE, there would be no cigarettes to blame. If you work with carcinogenic dusts, chemicals, or fumes in your workplace and happen to have cancer, the cigarettes would not be blamed.
The parents of toddlers with leukemia would have to look for a different boogeyman.
If you fall off a damn bridge what would they blame if not the cigarette in your hand?
WOW! Doctors would have to start learning jack squat about their patients and practicing real medicine again!
Is this all tobacco nazi crap science or is it just an excuse to get rid of something some people don't particularly like?
Something safer for police to do (take cigarettes away from grandmas in a bingo parlor) rather than pursue criminals who might be making methamphetamine, who just might get violent?
And before anyone tries to palm off the "secondhand smoke" study as science, forget it. It is a computer model, not hard data. It has no basis in fact.
For the anti-smoker, go ahead, ban them allready. Get it over with, let your tax coffers go COLD TURKEY right along with the rest of us. Don't have the moral fortitude for that, do you?, just enough to treat us worse than Jim Crow Negroes and act condescending. (Negroes under Jim Crow at least had their own section at restaurants, bars, and the back of the bus.) But we smokers are just nicotine niggers, not real human beings, right?
For the consumer of tobacco:
You want to smoke?
There are only a half-million or so people in North Dakota, move here and we'll elect a tobacco friendly government. Yep, the weather sucks, it is either too cold or too hot. There are no really outstandingly splenid scenic areas the Government does not own allready, so we won't get overrun with Hollywood types and so many whiny tourists we can't keep it that way. We might have to give Fargo to Minnesota, but that would cut the state's crime (and budget!) nearly in half anyway.
I was one of the people who supported the idea of a no smoking SECTION so non-smokers would not have to be inconvenienced by me having a cigarette, and look where that went. I have learned my lesson. NEVER AGAIN! NOT ANOTHER INCH.
Like you, I never had a problem with smoking and non-smoking sections. We, as smokers, were considerate and respected the choices of non-smokers to have their own isolated territory. But that was not good enough.
Today, I am sick and tired of being treated like a nigger. Yes, I used that word for a very valid reason.
When you are the person being treated like a nigger, how dare the politically correct police censor our choice of words, when we are simply trying to express an outrage about being treated as the scum in America.
Have we not learned anything since the 1960's?
I have drawn my line in the sand.
When the time was right, Blacks Americans refused to be segregated to the back of the bus. The vast majority of White Americans understood how wrong this was, and stood up with them and made a historical change.
In today's America, smokers are not even allowed on the bus!
Like you, I never had a problem with smoking and non-smoking sections. We, as smokers, were considerate and respected the choices of non-smokers to have their own isolated territory. But that was not good enough.
Today, I am sick and tired of being treated like a nigger. Yes, I used that word for a very valid reason.
When you are the person being treated like a nigger, how dare the politically correct police censor our choice of words, when we are simply trying to express an outrage about being treated as the scum in America.
Have we not learned anything since the 1960's?
I have drawn my line in the sand.
When the time was right, Blacks Americans refused to be segregated to the back of the bus. The vast majority of White Americans understood how wrong this was, and stood up with them and made a historical change.
In today's America, smokers are not even allowed on the bus!
Thanks for the ping!!!!!!!
I need more coffee to digest this :)
This settlement was never about getting people to stop smoking. If there were no smokers, there would be no pot of money for the politicians to buy votes with. In Texas, the lawyers, who did practically no work on the lawsuit because the other states had already filed, divided 15 BILLION dollars from the settlement. It did land one crook, Atty. Gen. Morales (D) in jail though, for padding the pockets of greedy lawyer friends who were not even on the case, so it accomplished something.
Politicians see revenue as their money, the original intent is now gone. It just becomes MORE taxation and waste.
You are of course correct.
If you look at recent increases in cigarette taxes you will notice 2 reappearing themes.....they are needed for health care costs and for balancing budgets. the settlement funds, which have all but been depleted in many states, were for health care costs.......and intead of cutting spending they just up a tax paid only by a politically and socially unpopular segment of society.
Wow, his panic is palpable.
The spectre of making an honest living must have pushed him over the edge.
"States struggling with budget problems have shifted potential tobacco control money to pay for rising Medicaid costs and non-health expenditures on highways, schools and other items."
Proving that their case was fraud to begin with. When you can't substantiate a "cost" that cost does not exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.