Hot Topic (12/11): Should states increase anti-smoking programs?

[Cafe GroupAdmin]

 States Spending Less to Fight Smoking

State governments are collecting record revenues from tobacco companies but spending less and less of it on antismoking programs, especially in New York, a group of health and advocacy organizations said in a report released Wednesday.

In the report, titled “A Broken Promise to Our Children,” the organizations said state governments had reduced spending by 15 percent, to $567 million, for smoking prevention and cessation programs in the fiscal year that ended in September.

State spending on antismoking programs accounted for only 2.3 percent of the more than $25 billion that states are expected to collect from tobacco taxes and payouts from the $246 billion settlement that states reached with tobacco companies in 1998, the groups said in their 11th annual report since the settlement.

“It’s a travesty that only a small fraction of tobacco settlement funds is actually being used to support tobacco prevention programs in states,” Nancy Brown, chief executive of the American Heart Association — one of the groups behind the report — said in a statement.

States are not required to spend the money on antismoking programs. The National Conference of State Legislatures reported Wednesday that states had to fill a cumulative budget gap of $145 billion this year because of unprecedented revenue declines.

States’ tobacco-related revenue has grown because 14 states have raised taxes on tobacco in the recession and the payouts from the 1998 tobacco settlement increased in 2008.

New York State made some of the largest cuts to antismoking programs, reducing them by $25.2 million, or 31 percent, the groups said, adding that it did so “despite having a successful program that has reduced smoking to well below national rates.”

Other states that made large cuts last year were Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Only one state, North Dakota, has smoking prevention and cessation programs at the level recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the report said.

Matt Anderson, budget spokesman for Gov. David A. Paterson of New York, said the state had to cut the programs to help fill a $3 billion deficit.

“Because of the magnitude of the fiscal emergency, that’s going to mean less funding for some worthy programs,” Mr. Anderson said in a telephone interview.

He added that New York still spent more than $50 million on antismoking programs, including a smaller advertising campaign, free nicotine patches and a toll-free quit line.

Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, another advocacy group involved in the report, said state budget deficits should not be used as an excuse to cut tobacco prevention programs.

Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, said: “The cuts here are very disproportionate to what other states are doing. It’s like they regard it as some kind of fluffy program.”

The other groups involved in the report, including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said it was shortsighted to cut smoking programs. They called on Congress to ensure that more disease prevention initiatives were part of health care changes.

The report says tobacco companies spend $20 on marketing for every $1 that states spend on antismoking efforts. The five largest tobacco companies spent $12.5 billion on advertising and promotion in 2006, the latest year figures were available, a Federal Trade Commission spokeswoman, Betsy Lordan, said.

Adult smoking in the United States has leveled off at about 21 percent, virtually unchanged since 2004, the report said, while smoking among high school students declined to 20 percent in 2008, from 36 percent in 1997.

* * *

Should states fund anti-smoking programs?  Should they increase funding instead of cutting it?

What are your thoughts? 

Is smoking prevention a government responsibility?

[survivorinohio]

I am a fool who smoked for more than 30 yrs.  I am trying very hard to quit but have smoked a pack in the last 10 days.

The amount af taxes I have paid in the last 10 yrs is immense.  Really.  That money should serve people in some fashion I think so yes I think the government and the tobacco companies should fund anti-smoking programs.  After all they are both getting rich from the weakness of humans like me.

And really what would happen fiscally if all smokers just stopped tomorrow?  I think right now about 4.50 a pack is tax.  An average smoker smokes about a pack a day.  4.50 X 365= 1642.50 a person yearly.  Thats a little bit of money paid in by just my street. 

[cowgirlsr2]

This much I do know they are going to keep raising the taxes on them and the bans till they tax themselves out of the taxes. Then what will they do to replace that money?We are down to rolling our own because of 4.50 a day x2. Then everywhere we go 500 foot miniumum ban from smoking near public building.Don't dare throug a butt out of your car window thats $500.00.I know most of you want smoking gone you don't like it but hey I don't like any alcohol  and I'm not trying to get alcohol taxed to death and banned.You got your habits I got mine.Do I think the goverment should be liable for programs hell yes there bright idea to tax us in the ground so figure out how to help us stop other than cold turkey they do drug addicts everyday.Should they put more money in yes I know they get big bucks from tobacco.

[AMBG825]

States should not increase their anti-smoking programs. What they should do, is increase their smoking cessation programs. All this money from taxes and lawsuits that were supposed to go to smoking cessation hasn't. There are tons of effective methods to quit. Unfortunately, they all have fairly expensive up front costs. Yes it's cheaper to pay out $170 for a prescription for Chantix in the long run, when you're standing at the counter looking at $170 or $5, the $5 wins out.

[Talee]

Quoting survivorinohio:

I am a fool who smoked for more than 30 yrs.  I am trying very hard to quit but have smoked a pack in the last 10 days.

The amount af taxes I have paid in the last 10 yrs is immense.  Really.  That money should serve people in some fashion I think so yes I think the government and the tobacco companies should fund anti-smoking programs.  After all they are both getting rich from the weakness of humans like me.

And really what would happen fiscally if all smokers just stopped tomorrow?  I think right now about 4.50 a pack is tax.  An average smoker smokes about a pack a day.  4.50 X 365= 1642.50 a person yearly.  Thats a little bit of money paid in by just my street. 

Once again...are you my long lost sister or something??? This is getting creepy! LOL

I smoke too, I wish I NEVER started...it is so hard to quit.

Yes I think they should have more programs.

[cheshirecat77]

I am a smoker and have been for 15 years.  I'm also 28 yrs old.  I have tried to quit many times, and each time I have started back up.  With any addiction, you have to truly want to quit- and unfortunately I don't want to.

I do like the idea of government funding for people who want to quit.  I don't like the idea of smoking being prohibited EVERYWHERE.

The city that I live in prohibits smoking within 25 ft. of a public entrance.  Additionally, restaurants that serve alcohol are the only ones that allow smoking.  This May, no restaurant will allow smoking.

This upsets me.  I don't believe that civil liberties should be forcibly and completely denied.  I do believe that because of the nature of cigarettes and cigarette smoke that a compromise should be made because it IS unhealthy for oneself and the people around the smoker.  However, I don't think that the city I live in should take it as far as they are. 

The way things are right now is a great compromise because you have the option to go to restaurants where you can smoke and those where smoking is not allowed.  It is an individual's choice as to whether or not they want to be in the environment; likewise, smokers have the option of going to restaurants where they can smoke.  If you don't want to be in an environment where smoking is allow, you simply choose a different restaurant.  Vice versa the same for smokers.  The fact that smoking is prohibited within a certain distance from public entrances is great too.  On a personal note, I hate it, but it's not an unfair compromise.  Non-smokers who are entering or exiting a building are not forced to inhale even the slightest amount of second hand smoke.

Completely prohibiting smoking in public areas is not the answer.  What will happen next?  Will they take us out back and shoot us?  LOL!

[EmmasMom0305]

Quoting AMBG825:

States should not increase their anti-smoking programs. What they should do, is increase their smoking cessation programs. All this money from taxes and lawsuits that were supposed to go to smoking cessation hasn't. There are tons of effective methods to quit. Unfortunately, they all have fairly expensive up front costs. Yes it's cheaper to pay out $170 for a prescription for Chantix in the long run, when you're standing at the counter looking at $170 or $5, the $5 wins out.

I agree

[JamieLeigh02]

Quoting AMBG825:

States should not increase their anti-smoking programs. What they should do, is increase their smoking cessation programs. All this money from taxes and lawsuits that were supposed to go to smoking cessation hasn't. There are tons of effective methods to quit. Unfortunately, they all have fairly expensive up front costs. Yes it's cheaper to pay out $170 for a prescription for Chantix in the long run, when you're standing at the counter looking at $170 or $5, the $5 wins out.

Chantix is $170? That's good to know. I know the military only pays for one month, but they recommend you to take it longer than that. I tried Chantix and had to quit taking it after a week.....guess it doesn't work for everyone.

[PsychMommie]

The government needs to stop regulating personal freedoms and start regulating the harmful products that are being sold instead. Once again though who are they going to go after the big business or the people without a voice.