New Hampshire’s Irresponsibility on the Smoking Behavior

In a new fiscal adventure, Republicans in Concord this week voted to reduce tobacco taxes by a dime per pack of cigarettes. The thinking: Out-of-state smokers will flock to New Hampshire to load up on Bond cheap smokes and, while they’re here, buy who knows what other products to bring about a retail boomlet.
The politicians, apparently taking the fictional part of Reaganomics for real, say that the tax cut will cause state revenues to grow. Time will tell. For what it’s worth, in a fiscal no te to House Bill 156, where the tax cut originated, the Department of Revenue Administration predicts that state tobacco tax revenue in 2012 could fall by more than $7.5 million if the levy is cut from the current $1.78 per pack to $1.68.
But assume the Republicans are right in their expectations of more revenues. Does that make the tax cut the responsible thing they say it is?
It does not, for a larger reason. The tax cut strategy is to draw smokers from neighboring states that, unlike New Hampshire, are making an effort to discourage tobacco consumption among their people on the grounds that smoking is a public health menace; the New Hampshire strategy would reduce the flow of cigarette tax dollars to those states, which run tobacco-education programs. Here are the facts:
Vermont, which levies a tax of $2.24 per pack, is spending $4.5 million of its own money this year on anti-smoking programs for its citizens.
Massachusetts, which levies a tax of $2.51 per pack, is spending $4.5 million of its own money on anti-smoking programs for its citizens.
Maine, which levies a tax of $2 per pack, is spending $9.9 million of its own money on anti-smoking programs for its citizens.
New Hampshire, which may soon have a tax of $1.68 per pack, spends zero dollars of its own money on anti-smoking programs, though annually 1,700 of its adults die from smoking-related illnesses and many more Granite Staters are exposed to tobacco smoke.
The only money spent in this state to discourage smoking comes from the hated feds: $1 million this year from the Centers for Disease Control to draft anti-smoking policies and messages, plus about $800,000 from the federal stimulus to help fund such things as a telephone-based service for people who want to quit smoking, in addition to $56,815 from last year’s heath reform bill to discourage pregnant women from smoking.
There you have it. New Hampshire, which ranks dead last among all states in trying to reduce smoking among its own citizens, sees a fiscal bounty in robbing other states of the resources that they would use to minimize the danger of the habit among their citizens.

How Big Tobacco’s Trying to Regain Lost Ground in the U.S.

With the Big Apple in the grip of a new anti-smoking law enacted late last month, some Red & White cigarette makers are seeing an opportunity to shore up their top lines — a smokeless opportunity.

Quick to capitalize on the situation, Reynolds American has launched print-ad campaigns in some national newspapers to promote Camel Snus, for those who love tobacco but hate smoke.

In an environment that’s becoming increasingly hostile toward smoking, Reynolds America knows that clever marketing is key to an intelligent, sustainable, and successful business strategy. Other tobacco giants are following suit quickly.

Tobacco in the no-smoke zone
Cigarette makers have long been testing out alternative tobacco products. Today, they’re plunging even deeper into it — perhaps out of necessity, but also because that’s where the most innovation is taking place.

This segment is stacked with competition. British American Tobacco sells similar products, and it says that Swedish and Norwegian adults alone consume more than 240 million cans of smokeless tobacco every year.

Thanks to a large takeover several years back, Altria’s U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company is the world’s leading manufacturer of moist smokeless tobacco. When reporting their first-quarter results, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco and Philip Morris USA said they believed volumes within the smokeless category to have grown by an estimated 7% in the first quarter of 2011.

A company seemingly on the cutting edge of the industry, Star Scientific, markets dissolvable smokeless-tobacco products, the first of their kind on the commercial market.

This is a very competitive industry that may get even more competitive in the near future.

Thank you for not smoking
The market for snus and snuff is already big, with the United States and Scandinavia being the largest regional markets. Swedish Match has estimated that more than 1.5 billion cans are sold annually, with around 30 million to 40 million in the U.S. market. Slap on an average price tag of roughly $5 per can (my own estimates), and you can see how big a business this really is.

In terms of overall share in the U.S. market for snus and snuff, Altria claimed an estimated 56% by volume in 2010, while Reynolds stood at 30.3%.

The market for smokeless tobacco in the United States is forecasted to grow at a compounded annual growth rate of 7% between 2010 and 2012. Considered together with the government’s increased emphasis on stricter smoking bans, this segment should continue to grow.
While cigarette volumes have declined in the U.S., moist snuff volumes grew at an average rate of around 6% annually in the past five years. Even better, moist snuff products generally render higher profit margins than cigarettes do. Combined with tougher regulations in their core businesses, this reality explains why more and more tobacco companies are interested on focusing on such smokeless products.
The key lies in how well the companies market these products and generate profits from their sales.
New York’s citywide smoking ban makes smoking illegal in the city’s 1,700 public parks and beaches, along with several plazas. And at the national level, the FDA is continuing to study measures to curb tobacco use. In the past few months, the agency has contemplated limiting or banning menthol and other mint-flavored cigarettes. Such a move would hit companies heavily reliant on menthols, including Lorillard.
Amid stricter regulation and even outright bans on smoking, it makes a lot of sense for the tobacco companies to diversify their product base. Keep an eye on Reynolds by adding it to your watchlist, so you can watch future developments in the industry.

Tobacco Agreement Funds Being Abused

Tobacco companies have been giving Pennsylvania $350 million dollars a year for the past 10 years and will continue to do so for 15 more. But Auditor General Jack Wagner says $1.3 billion has floated away in recent years as lawmakers raided an unprotected pot of money. ”The general assembly during a recession was looking for money in every way, every direction they could find it,” said Wagner.
Wagner says tobacco money should be funding Adultbasic health insurance, and he points to Cigaronne smoking cessation programs that got $50 million eight years ago.
“Have any of you in the media seen an ad in the newspaper radio or TV related to smoking prevention and cessation?,” asked Wagner. “I would challenge you…I haven’t in recent memory…it’s because there’s no more funds devoted to the program.”
Wagner says trailer bills with convoluted language let Governor Rendell and lawmakers raid the fund. And he criticizes Governor Corbett for moving the money to the general fund.
“That is a major change in how those dollars are utilized moving forward,” Wagner said.
But House Republican Spokesman Steve Miskin says the money will still fund health programs -it’ll just be streamlined.
“These are programs that everyone feels is appropriate for state to fund,” he said. “Just putting it all in the general fund…how many budgets should there be?”
Corbett will also use tobacco money to create a liberty loan fund for investment in health-related industries. Wagner has his doubts.
“To take the majority of those dollars away from health purposes and put them in a so-called loan fund is not in the best interest of Pennsylvania,” Wagner said.

Smoking More Dangerous for Diabetics

Cigarette smoking causes many health problems that can even be more serious for people with diabetes enhancing their risks to heart disease and amputation. An article that has appeared in the latest edition of Diabetes Digest, a publication of Diabetic Association of Pakistan warned diabetics to particularly detest from smoking Davidoff as it shrinks the way blood flows through the body and aggravate complications of diabetes.
Heart disease and amputation of leg are the commonest risks for the people with diabetes, warned the expert Dr. Abdus Samad Shera.
To further substantiate the fact, he maintained that smoking damages the blood vessels that makes it harder for the human body to heal ultimately causing infection in legs and feet.
Similarly smoking severely hampers oxygen flow inside the human body and can cause heart attack or stroke.
A diabetic who also smokes is more likely to get nerve damage and kidney disease. Moreover, smokers also contract colds and respiratory infections more easily.
These, he mentioned are besides the fact that smokers in general are more vulnerable to cancers, breathing problems and impotence. Children are more likely to start smoking if their parents smoke, warned the senior health expert.
The good news, he writes, is the fact that no matter how long a person may have smoked his health would start to improve right after he or she quit or cut down a lot on the amount they smoke.
Kicking the habit is hard to do – but worth it and that there are many ways to quit it.