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.
Just another tax to fund ever growing government!
Then you have states like New Jersey where disgraced Governor McGreevey basically flipped the tobacco annuity into a single payout and thus there's practically nothing now.
I don't like to be around people who are smoking at the time but I have nothing against smokers. My view is that the tobacco companies should fund an insurance program and pay out according to those diagnosed with a smoking related illness. The only role for the government is as an insurance regulator which every state has. Smokers wouldn't be dependant on the government to pay their healthcare but that would mean the state would have little justification for high cigarette taxes. This would probably wind up LOWERING the prices of cigarettes since the state gets a big chunk of that price per pack.
If anyone knows of any info about when trhe American public became generally aware of cigarettes causing cancer, I'd appreciate a url. I mention this because someone said this was known in the '40s but the companies kept it secret, yet the doctor (who just died) who discovered the link in Britain did so in the 50's, and the US surgeon general announced it in 1964, I believe.
Why is it unsurprising that politicians spend any money they can get their grubby little hands on?
The former governor of American Samoa supposedly sold the settlement awarded to the territory for a fractional lump sum.
That money is currently unaccounted for. He was a Democrat. Died of a heart attack.
His Lt. Governor is currently following in his footsteps, and exceeding the corruption of his predecessor. The Lt. Governor was recently elected to the governorship in his own right, and he continues his march to ruin American Samoa.
Pray the FBI is onto him.
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/smokingcancer2.html
Hope this helps! It was the first hit I found, but if you want more, let me know and I'll FReepmail you some more, or post them on the thread, either way.
Thank very much. I've been searching for awhile and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for, but this looks good. Much appreciated.
You're welcome. :)
Some day soon, I will need that medical care. If the tax money that I have invested (as a smoker) is not used for my own personal health care, then there will be a retribution.
Today, politicians think that a tobacco tax is free money, that they can spend in any way that they wish. Once they are no longer serving in an elected position, they falsely consider themselves as free and clear.
Some of us make a point of remembering the elected individuals responsible, and even 20 years later, these people can be tracked down.
While someone is serving in an elected position, that office will be respected. Once these people return to civilian life, they will be held accountable for their actions.
I don't have a URL, but I know that my father (who smoked) called them "coffin nails" and "cancer sticks" as early as the '40s. The warning notes showed up on packs around 1960.
It was never a secret.
"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."
They also lose all their accumulated earnings into the social security trust fund.
These are people who have paid thousands of dollars for health care which they never received in return.
These are also people who have nothing else to loose.
When I was a little kid, I thought "Why would I put smoke where air is supposed to go?" I didn 't need The Government to tell me smoking was something I didn't want to pursue. Now I eat too much red meat--I guess we're going to damn the meatpacking industry for not coming to my house and regulating my diet?
Someone please tell me which those are. Non smokers get lung cancer, throat cancer, emphasyma, and heart disease. Why? Not smoking didn't prevent them from getting it. Were they cheated? If non smokers get thse things how then can we KNOW that tobacco causes them?
I gather this is a list of some of the earliest studies done on the links between cancer and cigarettes...
1. Doll R, Hill AB. A Study of the Aetiology of Carcinoma of the Lung. British Medical Journal 1952;2:1271-1286.
2. Hammond EC, Horn D. Smoking and Death Rates- Report on Forty-Four Months of Follow-up of 187,783 Men. Journal of the American Medical .Association1958;166:1159-72, 1294-1308.
3. Auerbach O , Stout AP, Hammond EC, Garfinkle L. Changes in bronchial epithelium in relation to cigarette smoking and in relation to lung cancer. New Enland J Med August 10, 1961;265:253-67.
OK, promise I won't post any more unless you ask, but this seemed to be more "official" than the link I sent you, kwim? :)
They should at least be required to put a warning on your steak.
Sorry, "Sin taxes" don't count!
Despite all the taxes I've paid on beer, I still can't expect the government to pay my gym fees to rid me of my beer belly!
"These are people who have paid thousands of dollars for health care which they never received in return."
I was gonna mention that too, but refrained since the lost future SS benefits overrides whatever the state pays to those w/o insurance.
There is no excuse by states/cities to put an additional $3.00 of taxes to each pack of cigarettes. For a two-pack-a-day smoker this amounts to almost $2,200 per year per person, or about $30,000 for a ten-year period, if you take into account future tax levies and imputed lost interest. Multiply that for a husband and wife smokers and you can drive a family into bankruptcy.
Ping.
You mess with my personal life, I will mess with your personal life.
This month, my taxes were increased by $821 per year for tobacco related health costs. When I need health care in the future, I demand that my $821 be returned by the State.
I have never asked for, or will accept, health care finances that I have not already personally invested in over the last 30 years.
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.