If news accounts are correct, it apparently was worth a threatened veto of a comprehensive smokefree-workplace ordinance for our
city. Subsequently, the City-County Council tabled the proposal.
But is it freedom-enhancing to defend a veteran's "right" to commit slow-motion suicide and homicide?
In his 2006 acceptance speech, then-VFW Commander-in-Chief Gary Kurpius argued that VFW posts need to make significant
changes--including going smokefree--to remain relevant to current and future generations of veterans.
"Membership drives everything we do, but we won't get a new generation--or even the older generation--to join us if we don't
recognize and adapt to the changing world," Kurpius said. "There has to be something more attractive about the VFW than just the
bar."
He called on member posts to create family-friendly services, such as childcare facilities and health clubs.
"But I guarantee you," Kurpius said, "that no one will want to join a VFW health club, or bring their children to a VFW daycare center
... as long as smoking is still permitted indoors.
"We are a democratic organization that is letting 20 percent of the population tell us that the post will fail if people can't smoke inside.
That's bunk.
"I know many VFW members and spouses who will not attend post meetings or events because of the smoke. I have read many
articles about the VFW being the last building in town where indoor smoking is still permitted--and some members quoted in the
newspaper are celebrating as if they just won a great battle against government and social interference.
"Comrades, that is not a victory; it is a sad commentary that unfortunately paints all of us with the same brush."
I'm not a military man (they didn't want me), but I'm the son of one and the brother of two others.
So I know the VFW's mission is to "honor the dead by helping the living." Well, you don't honor anyone by helping veterans kill
themselves and everyone around them with tobacco smoke.
I also know the Marine Corps motto is Semper Fidelis or "always faithful"--to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to
the country, no matter what. The Marine Corps Web site also says "Respect for others is essential" and "Marines are expected to act
responsibly in a manner befitting the title they've earned."
Even if you're faithful to your fellow Marine's nicotine addiction, what's respectful or responsible about poisoning the air at the VFW
post, American Legion hall (or local tavern) for the bartenders, servers, janitors, caterers, delivery people, sales reps and others who
work there--or the guests who visit? Is that really something the few and the proud would do?
If that weren't cause enough, perhaps our veterans should set a healthy example for today's troops.
A report released in June by the Institute of Medicine--an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to
provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision-makers and the public--concluded that the departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs and Congress "should take stronger steps toward eliminating tobacco use."
"Because tobacco use impairs military readiness, harms the health of soldiers and veterans, and imposes a substantial financial
burden on the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, these agencies should implement a comprehensive strategy to achieve
the Defense Department's stated goal of a tobacco-free military," said the report.
Toward the same tobacco-free end, the military last month announced that it would ban smoking from Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital
at the Marine Corps Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California--and at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training
Center in Bridgeport, Calif., and at the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, Calif.
Martha Hunt, Bush Naval Hospital's health promotions and awareness coordinator, said, "Tobacco use is the leading cause of death
and disability in the United States ... It is also one of the leading detractors from combat readiness, impacting the healing of injuries,
heat stroke, night blindness, [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder], and others."
All of which begs a question for our elected officials contemplating smokefree workplace laws: Did our troops really fight and die for
our country so our veterans could sicken and kill themselves and innocent bystanders here at home?
If so, it's a sad new definition of "friendly fire."
city. Subsequently, the City-County Council tabled the proposal.
But is it freedom-enhancing to defend a veteran's "right" to commit slow-motion suicide and homicide?
In his 2006 acceptance speech, then-VFW Commander-in-Chief Gary Kurpius argued that VFW posts need to make significant
changes--including going smokefree--to remain relevant to current and future generations of veterans.
"Membership drives everything we do, but we won't get a new generation--or even the older generation--to join us if we don't
recognize and adapt to the changing world," Kurpius said. "There has to be something more attractive about the VFW than just the
bar."
He called on member posts to create family-friendly services, such as childcare facilities and health clubs.
"But I guarantee you," Kurpius said, "that no one will want to join a VFW health club, or bring their children to a VFW daycare center
... as long as smoking is still permitted indoors.
"We are a democratic organization that is letting 20 percent of the population tell us that the post will fail if people can't smoke inside.
That's bunk.
"I know many VFW members and spouses who will not attend post meetings or events because of the smoke. I have read many
articles about the VFW being the last building in town where indoor smoking is still permitted--and some members quoted in the
newspaper are celebrating as if they just won a great battle against government and social interference.
"Comrades, that is not a victory; it is a sad commentary that unfortunately paints all of us with the same brush."
I'm not a military man (they didn't want me), but I'm the son of one and the brother of two others.
So I know the VFW's mission is to "honor the dead by helping the living." Well, you don't honor anyone by helping veterans kill
themselves and everyone around them with tobacco smoke.
I also know the Marine Corps motto is Semper Fidelis or "always faithful"--to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to
the country, no matter what. The Marine Corps Web site also says "Respect for others is essential" and "Marines are expected to act
responsibly in a manner befitting the title they've earned."
Even if you're faithful to your fellow Marine's nicotine addiction, what's respectful or responsible about poisoning the air at the VFW
post, American Legion hall (or local tavern) for the bartenders, servers, janitors, caterers, delivery people, sales reps and others who
work there--or the guests who visit? Is that really something the few and the proud would do?
If that weren't cause enough, perhaps our veterans should set a healthy example for today's troops.
A report released in June by the Institute of Medicine--an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to
provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision-makers and the public--concluded that the departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs and Congress "should take stronger steps toward eliminating tobacco use."
"Because tobacco use impairs military readiness, harms the health of soldiers and veterans, and imposes a substantial financial
burden on the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, these agencies should implement a comprehensive strategy to achieve
the Defense Department's stated goal of a tobacco-free military," said the report.
Toward the same tobacco-free end, the military last month announced that it would ban smoking from Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital
at the Marine Corps Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California--and at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training
Center in Bridgeport, Calif., and at the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, Calif.
Martha Hunt, Bush Naval Hospital's health promotions and awareness coordinator, said, "Tobacco use is the leading cause of death
and disability in the United States ... It is also one of the leading detractors from combat readiness, impacting the healing of injuries,
heat stroke, night blindness, [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder], and others."
All of which begs a question for our elected officials contemplating smokefree workplace laws: Did our troops really fight and die for
our country so our veterans could sicken and kill themselves and innocent bystanders here at home?
If so, it's a sad new definition of "friendly fire."
"Did our troops really fight and die for our country so our veterans could sicken and kill themselves and innocent bystanders here at home? If so, it's a sad new definition of "friendly fire." |
Smoke-Free Fraternal and Service Clubs:
| General Clark, speaking about the great need to provide better health care support for our U.S. Veterans, at Tempe AZ meeting , June 29, 2009 |
| "At Downers Grove, IL Lodge 1535, membership triples in 18 months-- thanks to modern tech tools,and old-fashioned enthusiasm! (Plus, a well-timed state smoking ban was crucial, also.) By DARRYL MELLEMA" |
Moose Magazine credits smoking ban for contributing to tripling of membership numbers at Downers Grove
Illinois location!
Please click here or image below to read entire article (click, then go to page 28)
Illinois location!
Please click here or image below to read entire article (click, then go to page 28)
Thanks to Al Brasher for bringing this article to our attention.
"I served my country to protect the constitution, not Phillip Morris." Bernadette Chlebeck, at Phx, NCTOH, June 2009 |
The Association for
Nonsmokers - Minnesota
Nonsmokers - Minnesota
Focus on:
Bernadette Chlebeck, Program
Director: Veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan Champion Program:
VIA-ChamP-ansrmn .org
Bernadette Chlebeck, Program
Director: Veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan Champion Program:
VIA-ChamP-ansrmn .org
| •Restricting sales of tobacco products to youth. •Advocating for smoke-free work sites, restaurants, and multi-housing. •Creating tobacco-free environments in outdoor recreational settings. •Devloping best practices for assisting miliary veterans with smoking cessation. |
| Read excellent ANSRM March 2009 Newsletter HERE: |
Left: Bernadette Chlebeck accepts National Health Pioneer
Award for Minnesota Veterans for Smoke-Free Air, June 10,
2009.
Below, Ms. Chlebeck with Arizonans Concerned About
Smoking President, Dr Leland Fairbanks, in front of ACAS
table at 2009 NCTOH Convention in Phoenix, Az.
Award for Minnesota Veterans for Smoke-Free Air, June 10,
2009.
Below, Ms. Chlebeck with Arizonans Concerned About
Smoking President, Dr Leland Fairbanks, in front of ACAS
table at 2009 NCTOH Convention in Phoenix, Az.
Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Champion Program: Helping veterans
quit smoking:
Attention National Guard! We Need Your Help!
Researchers at the VA Medical Center are currently
seeking National Guard members to participate in a
focus group. Focus groups will help these
quit smoking:
Attention National Guard! We Need Your Help!
Researchers at the VA Medical Center are currently
seeking National Guard members to participate in a
focus group. Focus groups will help these
from Iraq and Afghanistan.
To qualify you must:
•Currently smoke cigarettes or use tobacco
•Have served in Iraq or Afghanistan
The principal investigator for this project is Dr. Steven Fu, Lead Smoking Cessation Physician
for the Minneapolis VA. Participation in a focus group will take about 2 hours.
A $100 Visa gift card will be given to participants!
For more information, or to sign up for the focus group, please contact:
Bernadette Chlebeck at 651-646-3005 or bc@ansrmn.org
To qualify you must:
•Currently smoke cigarettes or use tobacco
•Have served in Iraq or Afghanistan
The principal investigator for this project is Dr. Steven Fu, Lead Smoking Cessation Physician
for the Minneapolis VA. Participation in a focus group will take about 2 hours.
A $100 Visa gift card will be given to participants!
For more information, or to sign up for the focus group, please contact:
Bernadette Chlebeck at 651-646-3005 or bc@ansrmn.org
The Association for
Nonsmokers - Minnesota
Nonsmokers - Minnesota
| Our Purpose Is To Save Lives |
525 W Southern Ave. Suite #110 Mesa, AZ 85210 | ph: 480.733.5864 | fax: 480.733.1844 | ACASinc@msn.com
ACAS / Arizona News | USA / World News | Casinos | Fraternal / Service Clubs | In Cars w/ Kids | Multi-Unit Housing
Calendar | ACAS Officers | Health Pioneer Biographies | Tobacco Cessation | Health Links | Contact Us
Smokefree Reports:
| For technical issues or errors, please contact webmasterACAS@live.com | Rick Johnson |
Please make your tax deductible donation to: Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, Inc.
Note: All contributions to the work of ACAS, Inc. are fully tax deductible as ACAS, Inc. is a 501C3 Corporation
Please copy, paste and print the following:
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is my tax deductible contribution to ACAS of: [ ]$25 [ ]$50 [ ]$100 [ ]$500 [ ]$1,000 [ ]Other $________________ Name _______________________________________________________________ Address_____________________________________________________________ City ______________________________ State ______ Zip ___________________ Make checks payable to: Arizonans Concerned About Smoking 525 W. Southern, Suite 110, Mesa, AZ, 85210 (480) 733-5864 E-mail: acasinc@msn.com www.acasinc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
ACAS / Arizona News | USA / World News | Casinos | Fraternal / Service Clubs | In Cars w/ Kids | Multi-Unit Housing
Calendar | ACAS Officers | Health Pioneer Biographies | Tobacco Cessation | Health Links | Contact Us
| Smoke-Free or Freedom to Smoke? |
| By Margaret Davidson | Monday, January 5, 2009 | http://www.legion.org/homepage.php |
| Once glorified on the silver screen and accepted in society, cigarette smoking has since been driven to the brink of illegality. It all started with a study by a VA doctor. |
HOW SOCIABLE, EVEN GLAMOROUS, it all once seemed. Today, the lighting of a cigarette is commonly regarded as the epitome of antisocial behavior.
Leading men and women of the silver screen once puffed away before audiences of all ages, but today the New York State Department of Health
announces in full-page ads that cigarettes "don't belong in youth-rated movies, period."
Cigarette smoking - having seen its romantic allure blown away by a whirlwind of health studies, education programs and advertising campaigns - is now
at the center of a heated national debate. Controversial bans on smoking in public places divide the "right to smoke" crowd from those who demand to
breathe smoke-free air. Questions over the legality of lighting up - and where one can do so - have ignited a feud that tests the boundaries of individual
rights. Uncertainty remains about where the line should be drawn between personal choice and public health.
Attitudes toward smoking began to change significantly in 1964 when the U.S. Army Surgeon General's Office issued a report about the health risks to
smokers, based largely on findings of VA hospital pathologist Oscar Auerbach. He meticulously established the correlation between smoking and lung
cancer with research on thousands of human lung-tissue samples (another part of his research featured 86 beagles trained to smoke cigarettes).
Heeding the Army surgeon general's warning, waves of Americans began snuffing out, never to light up again. The percentage of adult Americans who
smoked cigarettes dropped from about 42 percent in 1965 to 37 percent in 1970. In later years, the association between smoking and lung disease
became clearer, and the cost of health care and insurance began to climb. The financial impact of smoking shifted from what it cost for a pack of
cigarettes to what it cost in taxes and government-funded medicine.
In 1986, the conundrum no longer belonged only to the nicotine-addicted. That year, the surgeon general's office produced new alerts about the menace
of secondhand smoke. "Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke," one report warned.
Today, little scientific question remains about the dangers of smoking. Smokers will, on average, live 13 to 14 fewer years than nonsmokers, according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recognize cigarette smoking as the greatest preventable cause of death. About 438,000 deaths in
the country each year are deemed to have been caused by smoking. That's more than the number of deaths from AIDS, automobile crashes, alcohol,
cocaine, heroin, fire, homicide and suicide combined, according to the Institute of Medicine.
The same report calculates the economic ramifications of smoking in the billions of dollars. Lost work productivity resulting from tobacco-related death is
estimated at about $92 billion per year, with related health-care expenditures at another $89 billion a year. Some question the estimates of health costs.
In a macabre argument, they say the government saves money because smokers die at a younger age, thereby reducing Medicare funds needed for
health care in their senior years.
Smoking can be tough to quit. Daryl Bly, 61, of Ripon, Wis., who smoked for about 35 years, says he made about 10 attempts but couldn't break the habit
until he got connected with a smoking-cessation program designed for veterans. "They gave me a lot of ideas that I didn't think of to do," he says. The
increasing price of cigarettes and his employer's new health initiative - taking $60 each month from the salaries of employees who smoked - served as
strong incentives.
Bly is among about 400 military personnel and veterans in Wisconsin who have enrolled in Operation Quit Tobacco, which provides veterans with free
coaching and a starter kit of nicotine patches or nicotine gum.
"Evidence-based counseling, combined with one of the FDA-approved medications, is the best prescription for quitting," says Dr. Michael Fiore, director of
the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, which works with the veterans program. Similar smoking-cessation programs
for current and former servicemembers are offered elsewhere in the country.
On average, veterans and servicemembers smoke more than the general population, Fiore says. Tobacco has accompanied soldiers to war as long as it
has been available. Combat troops were once issued cigarettes in their rations, and servicemembers could purchase cigarettes at greatly reduced prices
from the PX or ship's store. Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing reportedly said his soldiers needed "tobacco as much as bullets" to win at war. Some have
argued that, because the military introduced them to tobacco, the federal government should be liable for compensation to veterans with tobacco-linked
ailments.
Fiore says the number of smokers in the military varies by branch of service, citing these 2005 rates: Army, 38 percent; Marines, 36 percent; Navy, 32
percent; and Air Force, 23 percent.
Among all Americans, about one in five smokes.
But smoking isn't as easy as it used to be.
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 23 states have adopted smoking bans that include restaurants and bars, and four more have laws
prohibiting smoking in restaurants but not in stand-alone bars. More such laws are in the works, often held up by heated debates over the variety of
locales where restrictions are to be imposed.
Tavern owners have been among the most fervent opponents of smoking bans, arguing that if their customers can't smoke, they won't come at all,
especially if smoking is allowed in establishments in nearby cities or states. Supporters of bans, on the other hand, argue that more customers will come
and stay longer if they don't have to sit in a smoky haze. The battle has often developed into a war of numbers, fired off by both sides trying to emphasize
the economic consequences.
"The evidence is clear that smoke-free laws protect health without harming business," the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids argues in its report. "Dozens
of studies and hard economic data have shown that smoke-free laws do not harm sales or employment in restaurants and bars, and sometimes have a
positive impact."
Not so, others say. "The problem with most studies that have been conducted is that they look at changes within a single city or municipality over time,
rather than at the relative revenue changes over time in comparable smoke-free and smoke-friendly areas," Julian Sanchez wrote in Reason, which calls
itself the magazine "of free minds and free markets."
Like the taverns, some veterans clubs face smoking bans that may threaten their continued existence. Some are already coping with empty bar stools as
old veterans die and many new veterans don't join.
Legislators have debated whether members-only establishments should be exempt. In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Robert Belfanti has been seeking
exemptions for small bars, social clubs and veterans organizations. Belfanti, who served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War, estimates that
about half the veterans he represents are smokers. "When I was in the service, probably 80 percent of the people in the service smoked," he says.
While some veterans opposing the bans argue they fought for individual rights, including their right to smoke, others see it differently. "No one is taking
away anyone's right to smoke," Robert Mehrman of Beverly, Mass., wrote in a letter on a newspaper Web site, but he said he also has a right to breathe
clean air. "As a veteran, I believe that the government I fought for makes laws not to satisfy one individual's wishes but to serve the greater public good."
Why not let business owners decide whether to allow smoking, and customers decide whether they want to frequent a smoking or nonsmoking place?
Opponents of that idea argue it would jeopardize the health of employees exposed to smoke in the workplace.
Nor will separating smokers, ventilating buildings or cleaning the air eliminate nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke, according to the surgeon
general's report. "Conventional air-cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke,"
it says.
The degree of secondhand smoke risk is often debated. ABC broadcaster John Stossel, known for his "Give Me a Break" segments, questioned the extent
of risks in a 2006 report. He conceded that nonsmokers can be harmed by smokers but questioned the amount of exposure before harm is done.
"Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease," he acknowledged. "But they studied
people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some
of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless, it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere."
Some have proposed tax incentives to businesses that ban smoking, or imposing ventilation requirements and higher license fees on businesses that
permit smoking. Two University of Wisconsin-Madison professors, Robert Haveman and John Mullahy, have suggested the adoption of a system of
tradeable smoke-pollution permits, as has been done by the Environmental Protection Agency, to help control emissions.
Smokers, too, are being creative in their responses. Reports are cropping up of "smoke-easies" and other illicit responses reminiscent of Prohibition
days. Efforts are under way to make the lives of ostracized smokers more comfortable. For example, smoking tents and shacks have arisen outside
taverns in Anchorage, Alaska.
As the controversy smolders, the rate of decline in the number of smokers has stalled. The anti-smoking lobby is calling on the FDA to assume more
authority over tobacco. "There are more consumer health protections for dog food than there are for tobacco," an editorial on the American Medical
Association's Web site said in urging federal action. Bipartisan bills were introduced last year in the House and Senate that would give the FDA greater
authority, but, more than a year later, they had not reached a vote.
As state and local smoking bans proliferate, tobacco companies are creating new types of smokeless products. U.S. cigarette companies have been
test-marketing "snus" (rhymes with goose), a small tobacco-filled pouch, similar to a tea bag, that users generally put between their upper lip and gum for
about a half hour and then throw out. Unlike chewing tobacco, the user doesn't need to spit frequently. They have been used in Sweden for decades, and
studies have indicated they are less harmful to smokers' health than cigarettes (ingredients for the Swedish product are a closely held secret).
In general, studies indicate users of smokeless products do not face the same risks as smokers, simply because of the way nicotine is ingested.
However, medical experts warn they are not harm-free.
For smokers facing bans that force them outside for a quick smoke, Middleton's new six-pack of 21/2-inch-long (not counting the plastic filter)
pipe-tobacco cigars promises "Perfect Size For Your Next Smoke Break!"
In the future, all such new tobacco products would have to receive FDA approval before marketing, if the proposed Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act before Congress is enacted. The bill calls for the establishment of "tobacco product standards to protect the public health, but
reserves to Congress the power to ban any tobacco products or reduce the nicotine level to zero."
Some worry that FDA involvement would give the appearance of a seal of approval to the products. Nicotine has already been determined to be potentially
hazardous and, unlike the pharmaceutical products regulated by the FDA, cigarettes not only can cause harm to their users but also to those nearby.
Bans prohibiting smoking in an ever-widening range of locales may well help protect nonsmokers and deter smokers, but health advocates maintain
more resources should be devoted to smoking cessation and preventing youth from taking up the habit. They want the federal government to exercise
greater control and state governments to use settlements with major tobacco companies - and cigarette taxes - for tobacco cessation and prevention
programs.
"The tragedy of tobacco addiction and the disability, disease and death it causes will not be resolved with a halfhearted response consisting of partial
measures and weak policy," the American Lung Association says. "Tobacco use drops when states pass comprehensive smoke-free laws, increase
tobacco taxes, adequately fund tobacco control and prevention programs, and actively counter the industry's marketing."
Margaret Davidson is a freelance writer who lives in Wisconsin.
Leading men and women of the silver screen once puffed away before audiences of all ages, but today the New York State Department of Health
announces in full-page ads that cigarettes "don't belong in youth-rated movies, period."
Cigarette smoking - having seen its romantic allure blown away by a whirlwind of health studies, education programs and advertising campaigns - is now
at the center of a heated national debate. Controversial bans on smoking in public places divide the "right to smoke" crowd from those who demand to
breathe smoke-free air. Questions over the legality of lighting up - and where one can do so - have ignited a feud that tests the boundaries of individual
rights. Uncertainty remains about where the line should be drawn between personal choice and public health.
Attitudes toward smoking began to change significantly in 1964 when the U.S. Army Surgeon General's Office issued a report about the health risks to
smokers, based largely on findings of VA hospital pathologist Oscar Auerbach. He meticulously established the correlation between smoking and lung
cancer with research on thousands of human lung-tissue samples (another part of his research featured 86 beagles trained to smoke cigarettes).
Heeding the Army surgeon general's warning, waves of Americans began snuffing out, never to light up again. The percentage of adult Americans who
smoked cigarettes dropped from about 42 percent in 1965 to 37 percent in 1970. In later years, the association between smoking and lung disease
became clearer, and the cost of health care and insurance began to climb. The financial impact of smoking shifted from what it cost for a pack of
cigarettes to what it cost in taxes and government-funded medicine.
In 1986, the conundrum no longer belonged only to the nicotine-addicted. That year, the surgeon general's office produced new alerts about the menace
of secondhand smoke. "Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke," one report warned.
Today, little scientific question remains about the dangers of smoking. Smokers will, on average, live 13 to 14 fewer years than nonsmokers, according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recognize cigarette smoking as the greatest preventable cause of death. About 438,000 deaths in
the country each year are deemed to have been caused by smoking. That's more than the number of deaths from AIDS, automobile crashes, alcohol,
cocaine, heroin, fire, homicide and suicide combined, according to the Institute of Medicine.
The same report calculates the economic ramifications of smoking in the billions of dollars. Lost work productivity resulting from tobacco-related death is
estimated at about $92 billion per year, with related health-care expenditures at another $89 billion a year. Some question the estimates of health costs.
In a macabre argument, they say the government saves money because smokers die at a younger age, thereby reducing Medicare funds needed for
health care in their senior years.
Smoking can be tough to quit. Daryl Bly, 61, of Ripon, Wis., who smoked for about 35 years, says he made about 10 attempts but couldn't break the habit
until he got connected with a smoking-cessation program designed for veterans. "They gave me a lot of ideas that I didn't think of to do," he says. The
increasing price of cigarettes and his employer's new health initiative - taking $60 each month from the salaries of employees who smoked - served as
strong incentives.
Bly is among about 400 military personnel and veterans in Wisconsin who have enrolled in Operation Quit Tobacco, which provides veterans with free
coaching and a starter kit of nicotine patches or nicotine gum.
"Evidence-based counseling, combined with one of the FDA-approved medications, is the best prescription for quitting," says Dr. Michael Fiore, director of
the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, which works with the veterans program. Similar smoking-cessation programs
for current and former servicemembers are offered elsewhere in the country.
On average, veterans and servicemembers smoke more than the general population, Fiore says. Tobacco has accompanied soldiers to war as long as it
has been available. Combat troops were once issued cigarettes in their rations, and servicemembers could purchase cigarettes at greatly reduced prices
from the PX or ship's store. Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing reportedly said his soldiers needed "tobacco as much as bullets" to win at war. Some have
argued that, because the military introduced them to tobacco, the federal government should be liable for compensation to veterans with tobacco-linked
ailments.
Fiore says the number of smokers in the military varies by branch of service, citing these 2005 rates: Army, 38 percent; Marines, 36 percent; Navy, 32
percent; and Air Force, 23 percent.
Among all Americans, about one in five smokes.
But smoking isn't as easy as it used to be.
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 23 states have adopted smoking bans that include restaurants and bars, and four more have laws
prohibiting smoking in restaurants but not in stand-alone bars. More such laws are in the works, often held up by heated debates over the variety of
locales where restrictions are to be imposed.
Tavern owners have been among the most fervent opponents of smoking bans, arguing that if their customers can't smoke, they won't come at all,
especially if smoking is allowed in establishments in nearby cities or states. Supporters of bans, on the other hand, argue that more customers will come
and stay longer if they don't have to sit in a smoky haze. The battle has often developed into a war of numbers, fired off by both sides trying to emphasize
the economic consequences.
"The evidence is clear that smoke-free laws protect health without harming business," the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids argues in its report. "Dozens
of studies and hard economic data have shown that smoke-free laws do not harm sales or employment in restaurants and bars, and sometimes have a
positive impact."
Not so, others say. "The problem with most studies that have been conducted is that they look at changes within a single city or municipality over time,
rather than at the relative revenue changes over time in comparable smoke-free and smoke-friendly areas," Julian Sanchez wrote in Reason, which calls
itself the magazine "of free minds and free markets."
Like the taverns, some veterans clubs face smoking bans that may threaten their continued existence. Some are already coping with empty bar stools as
old veterans die and many new veterans don't join.
Legislators have debated whether members-only establishments should be exempt. In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Robert Belfanti has been seeking
exemptions for small bars, social clubs and veterans organizations. Belfanti, who served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War, estimates that
about half the veterans he represents are smokers. "When I was in the service, probably 80 percent of the people in the service smoked," he says.
While some veterans opposing the bans argue they fought for individual rights, including their right to smoke, others see it differently. "No one is taking
away anyone's right to smoke," Robert Mehrman of Beverly, Mass., wrote in a letter on a newspaper Web site, but he said he also has a right to breathe
clean air. "As a veteran, I believe that the government I fought for makes laws not to satisfy one individual's wishes but to serve the greater public good."
Why not let business owners decide whether to allow smoking, and customers decide whether they want to frequent a smoking or nonsmoking place?
Opponents of that idea argue it would jeopardize the health of employees exposed to smoke in the workplace.
Nor will separating smokers, ventilating buildings or cleaning the air eliminate nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke, according to the surgeon
general's report. "Conventional air-cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke,"
it says.
The degree of secondhand smoke risk is often debated. ABC broadcaster John Stossel, known for his "Give Me a Break" segments, questioned the extent
of risks in a 2006 report. He conceded that nonsmokers can be harmed by smokers but questioned the amount of exposure before harm is done.
"Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease," he acknowledged. "But they studied
people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some
of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless, it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere."
Some have proposed tax incentives to businesses that ban smoking, or imposing ventilation requirements and higher license fees on businesses that
permit smoking. Two University of Wisconsin-Madison professors, Robert Haveman and John Mullahy, have suggested the adoption of a system of
tradeable smoke-pollution permits, as has been done by the Environmental Protection Agency, to help control emissions.
Smokers, too, are being creative in their responses. Reports are cropping up of "smoke-easies" and other illicit responses reminiscent of Prohibition
days. Efforts are under way to make the lives of ostracized smokers more comfortable. For example, smoking tents and shacks have arisen outside
taverns in Anchorage, Alaska.
As the controversy smolders, the rate of decline in the number of smokers has stalled. The anti-smoking lobby is calling on the FDA to assume more
authority over tobacco. "There are more consumer health protections for dog food than there are for tobacco," an editorial on the American Medical
Association's Web site said in urging federal action. Bipartisan bills were introduced last year in the House and Senate that would give the FDA greater
authority, but, more than a year later, they had not reached a vote.
As state and local smoking bans proliferate, tobacco companies are creating new types of smokeless products. U.S. cigarette companies have been
test-marketing "snus" (rhymes with goose), a small tobacco-filled pouch, similar to a tea bag, that users generally put between their upper lip and gum for
about a half hour and then throw out. Unlike chewing tobacco, the user doesn't need to spit frequently. They have been used in Sweden for decades, and
studies have indicated they are less harmful to smokers' health than cigarettes (ingredients for the Swedish product are a closely held secret).
In general, studies indicate users of smokeless products do not face the same risks as smokers, simply because of the way nicotine is ingested.
However, medical experts warn they are not harm-free.
For smokers facing bans that force them outside for a quick smoke, Middleton's new six-pack of 21/2-inch-long (not counting the plastic filter)
pipe-tobacco cigars promises "Perfect Size For Your Next Smoke Break!"
In the future, all such new tobacco products would have to receive FDA approval before marketing, if the proposed Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act before Congress is enacted. The bill calls for the establishment of "tobacco product standards to protect the public health, but
reserves to Congress the power to ban any tobacco products or reduce the nicotine level to zero."
Some worry that FDA involvement would give the appearance of a seal of approval to the products. Nicotine has already been determined to be potentially
hazardous and, unlike the pharmaceutical products regulated by the FDA, cigarettes not only can cause harm to their users but also to those nearby.
Bans prohibiting smoking in an ever-widening range of locales may well help protect nonsmokers and deter smokers, but health advocates maintain
more resources should be devoted to smoking cessation and preventing youth from taking up the habit. They want the federal government to exercise
greater control and state governments to use settlements with major tobacco companies - and cigarette taxes - for tobacco cessation and prevention
programs.
"The tragedy of tobacco addiction and the disability, disease and death it causes will not be resolved with a halfhearted response consisting of partial
measures and weak policy," the American Lung Association says. "Tobacco use drops when states pass comprehensive smoke-free laws, increase
tobacco taxes, adequately fund tobacco control and prevention programs, and actively counter the industry's marketing."
Margaret Davidson is a freelance writer who lives in Wisconsin.
| Does your private club need a license to kill? |
By Bruce Hetrick
| Indianapolis Business Journal | Vol. 30, No. 36 | November 9, 2009 |
Some of the loudest complaints about smokefree-workplace laws involve private clubs, especially those affiliated with military
veterans.
"We went to war and fought for our freedom," the argument goes, "so government shouldn't take away that freedom by telling us we
can't smoke."
This manifested itself last week when Marine Corps veteran and Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard told WRTV News, "I'm never going
to tell an Iwo Jima vet that he can't smoke in the VFW. You can take that for what it's worth."
veterans.
"We went to war and fought for our freedom," the argument goes, "so government shouldn't take away that freedom by telling us we
can't smoke."
This manifested itself last week when Marine Corps veteran and Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard told WRTV News, "I'm never going
to tell an Iwo Jima vet that he can't smoke in the VFW. You can take that for what it's worth."
Bruce is chairman and CEO of Hetrick, an Indianapolis-based integrated marketing communications firm. His column appears twice a month, but
you can join the conversation anytime at tellhetrick.com.
you can join the conversation anytime at tellhetrick.com.
| " Thanks to: Karen Zielaski, Project Director | Healthy Policies | Office: 520.290.0032 | Email: healthypolicies@earthlink.net " |
| Used by permission: Painting by Arizonans Concerned About Smoking's own Advisory Board member Albert Ortiz. Caption by ACAS Vice President Al Brasher. |
| Arizonans Concerned About Smoking 'Health Leadership Award Winners' Group Photo from The Photographs: A Gallery of Honorees |
| Arizonans Concerned About Smoking Health Leadership Awards Ceremony Honoring 100% Smokefree Military/Fraternal Organizations, plus other Distinguished Individual/Organizational Achievements February 13, 2010 The Photographs: A Gallery of Honorees Also please view larger collection here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smokefreeaz/collections/ |