Saturday, July 05, 2003 :::
 

Let me show you all just how dumb the anti-tobacco settlement was.

Here in Oklahoma we have about 3.5 million people total populatiion.

Statistics show that on average a population has about 25% smokers. Oklahoma is more llike 35% but I will use the average figure.

Statistics also show that the average smoker smokes 2 packs per day.

If we raise the price of a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents per pack due to te tobacco settlement then it costs the average smoker an extra dollar per day to smoke. So that amounts to about a million dollars a day going out of Oklahoma's economy into the tobacco companies coffers.

And that means that over the course of the 25 years duration of the tobacco settlement 8.5 billion will go out of our economy while the state gets back 2.5 billion during that same time frame.

Multiply that out for the total population of the U.S. and it is easy to see why the tobacco companies were so eager to sell smokers down the drain.

And to make matters even worse, some states sold their total settlement to private companies so they could get it all at once and lost about half of it in the process.

Now then, that 6 billion in difference between outgo and income to the economy comes right off the tables and the backs of the very kids that the settlement was supposed to protect and that is so because it took jobs out of Oklahoma's economy. That money could have helped grow our economy since it would have been spent on goods and services which would have helped produce more jobs.

And what does it get spent on? Teacher's pension funds from which the state has stolen far more than the tobacco settlement will ever produce and which was spent on whatever stupid project the state thought was important at the time. Mostly dumb junk like a new airplane for the governeor, new sidewalks and whatever.

::: posted by Creditwrench at 6:37 AM



Monday, June 30, 2003 :::
 

December 18, 2002
Guest Commentary: WWL News, New Orleans
Donna Neely Producer
Norman E. Kjono, Participant
Redmond WA

Background: Mr. Kjono is a spokesperson for www.forces.org. Forces is an international consumer advocacy group that opposes government intrusion in lawful personal choices. Forces presently focuses its efforts on opposition to anti-fat and anti-tobacco campaigns that seek to mandate food and product choices, while imposing new “Target Product” taxes on consumers. Mr. Kjono has testified before state legislatures and regulatory agencies on tobacco issues. Mr. Kjono is also a free-lance writer with one published novel and several articles regarding tobacco issues published in newspapers and magazines.

Question: The New York City Council has indicated it will pass a smoking ban that will be the toughest in the nation. The ban will prohibit smoking in restaurants and taverns. Should the choice to ban smoking on private business premises be made by government or the business owner?

Answer: That choice should be by made the business owner.

Discussion: Recommended text as follows:

Why is that, Mr. Kjono?

Because smoking bans are about taxpayer subsidized marketing of pharmaceutical nicotine products. The more smoking is banned the more likely it is that persons who smoke will use “Tobacco Free” nicotine products such as Nicotrol or Nicorette in place of smoking. Why should any restaurant or tavern owner suffer reduced patronage and sales revenues to subsidize the marketing efforts of pharmaceutical special-interests?

What is the connection between smoking bans and pharmaceutical special-interests?

Currently there are about $32,900,000 in current grants to New York recipients from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, including two grants to New York City that total $700,000 to reduce tobacco substance abuse.

How does that foundation fit into the picture?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, which distributes Nicotrol nicotine patches and inhalers. The more you ban smoking the greater the increase in “Smoke Free” nicotine product sales such as Nicotrol. Public health departments have become marketing agents for pharmaceutical interests. Johnson & Johnson is using its $7 billon private foundation to buy public policy that effectively substitutes pharmaceutical nicotine for tobacco products. $700,000 in grants to the City of New York buys that public policy.

But isn’t getting people to quit smoking and eliminating secondhand smoke good for public health?

On the surface that would seem to be the case. But consider three important factors:

First: Last year USA Today published an article about 52 studies on the effectiveness of smoking cessation products. On average those studies show the products to be about 25 percent effective to help people quit smoking at 6 months. At one year that percentage drops to about 15 percent, which is to say 85 percent ineffective. We wind up with folks not quitting smoking and many becoming addicted to pharmaceutical nicotine gums, patches and inhalers. Most of those people will also continue to smoke or resume smoking, while those who quit cold turkey tend to quit for good. Why should taxpayers support public health department promotion of smoking cessation products that are 85 percent ineffective, and can tend to support people continuing to smoke? Smoking cessation nicotine products help tobacco companies in the long run because most who become dependent on nicotine gums and patches will eventually return to smoking, while most who quit cold turkey are lost as nicotine customers forever!

Second: The smoking ban in New York will reduce patronage and sales in restaurants and taverns. California restaurant and tavern sales have increased at only one-half the national average each year since its smoking ban was passed. Each year California restaurants and taverns fall further behind sales growth that other states enjoy. Why should restaurant and tavern owners lose money, while being forced by Mayor Bloomberg to support public policy that increases sales for pharmaceutical nicotine special-interests?

Third: July 1998 a federal district court ordered the 1993 EPA report that stated secondhand smoke was a known human carcinogen to be vacated. For four years anti-tobacco has ignored that ruling, continuing to make exaggerated claims about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Last week the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the EPA report, and clearly stated that it did not rule on the merits of the case against EPA. The case is now set for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and could finally lead to a trial on the merits of EPA’s exaggerated claims about secondhand smoke. Why should public policy be established based on exaggerated claims about workplace hazards that are not yet fully decided through due process?

Does public policy that uses taxpayer money and city health departments to promote ineffective medical products make sense? Is forcing business owners to lose money in support of a special-interest mercantile agenda fair? Is imposing mandates on consumers and businesses to avoid an exaggerated health risk common sense or legitimate?

After all, shouldn’t business owners and consumers have a say in mandated special-interest policies that directly effect their well-being and finances?

::: posted by Creditwrench at 6:18 PM

ARCHIVES :::

find out more at smokers.meetup.com

Oklahoma Smoker's Rights Group weblog.