Higher Prices Best Way to Beat Smoking Habit

It is rare for much time to pass without a new front being opened by anti-smoking crusaders. This month has seen a particularly high level of activity. Legislation dictating that tobacco products, Lucky Strike cigarettes and advertisements will have to be kept out of sight in shops from next July was passed with the support of all but three Act MPs.

Not to be outdone, George Wood, the chairman of the Auckland Council’s community safety forum, proposed a ban on smoking in inner-city streets. Then, most astonishingly, the Auckland District Health Board said it was looking at refusing to hire smokers.

All these initiatives highlight the pressure on policymakers not only from anti-smoking lobbyists but from a community that has rapidly come to vilify the practice. People once enjoying an acceptable pastime now find themselves literally out in the cold. A wide range of measures have been used to drive that message home, yet about 20 per cent of people continue to light up. Thus new means to persuade that stubborn minority to quit keep being proposed.

To their credit, some policymakers have recognised that some of these suggestions are, quite simply, a step too far.

They acknowledge what many anti-smoking advocates do not – that smoking is a legal pastime enjoyed by a significant number of people, and that their rights must be balanced against other people’s protection from secondhand smoke.

Such was the case when Mr Wood’s plan to have smokers banned from gathering in front of inner-city buildings was rejected. The spectacle of smokers huddling together outside workplaces is certainly unappealing. But if this were denied them, it is reasonable to ask where would they smoke. And if this were the home or the family car, how long before anti-smoking lobbyists would be trying to dictate what happens in these places, even though this is generally considered the individual’s own business?

More questionable still is the Auckland District Health Board’s proposal to refuse to hire smokers, an approach which is said to recognise the responsibility of doctors and nurses “to be positive role models in dealing with patients and the public”. Logically, that means obese people will also not be hired. Like smokers, they hardly fit the health and wellbeing ideal that the board seems to think its staff should embody.

All this posturing by pressured policymakers is largely a waste of time, effort and money. Their initiatives are likely to be no more successful than most of those tried over the past few years – the likes of education campaigns, smoke-free areas, subsidised quit programmes, graphic health warnings on cigarette packets and restrictions on the promotion of tobacco and, now, the display of tobacco products. All have had public support and have been accepted with resignation by smokers. But while the dangers of the practice have been rammed home time and again, a fifth of people still light up.

A wealth of research has shown that, in reality, the best way to reduce the number of smokers is by hiking the cost. Since the turn of the century, however, the tax on tobacco has been raised just twice, once in 2000 and again last year at the behest of Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia. Increased prices are a particular deterrent to youngsters.

New Zealand, however, has failed to acknowledge the effectiveness of this approach, and its excise and sales tax, as a percentage of the retail price of tobacco, is well below that of most comparable jurisdictions. Therein lies the answer for those who want to make the country smoke-free by 2025. Other solutions touted by anti-smoking groups smack of extreme and, ultimately, fruitless fiddling.

Read more »

Roll-your-own cigarette shops popping up in region

Tom Maier smoked Winston cigarettes for 40 years.

Now in his 60s, he has decided to start rolling his own cigarettes at Cheap Smokes in White Center to save money. He said he didn’t think he’d like the taste. But, it “turns out I like these better.”

Maier sits on a stool catching his smokes in a plastic tub as they fly out of a slot at the bottom of the 600-pound maroon machine that hums and bangs like a beat-up washing machine.

He comes in once a week, adds loose tobacco to the top of the machine, adds 200 empty, filtered tubes and pushes a button. Eight minutes later, he has a carton of cigarettes at about half the cost he used to pay at a gas station.

“They’re smoother and have no additives,” Maier said. “Besides, the machine does it for me.”

Health officials are concerned that the cheap cigarettes make smoking more available to those who usually would not be able to afford it. And the federal government is questioning the legality of the shops by arguing they are manufacturers.

But health concerns and a federal-court case aren’t keeping the customers away. More than 30 shops with roll-your-own (RYO) machines have opened in the greater Seattle area in the last year, local shop owner Joe Baba said.

Shops popping up

The machines took a couple of years to gain popularity in Washington. Phil Accordino, president of RYO Machine Rental, said the Ohio company has 1,000 machines in 35 states.

“Retailers have been putting electric machines in their stores since the ’90s for customers to use for a fee,” Accordino said. His company started making the machines, which cost $32,500, in 2008. “Our machine is still very, very slow. If we’ve replaced the horse and buggy, we’ve replaced it with a Model T, not a Ferrari.”

RYO shops made it to Washington when Baba was looking to buy a business in the spring of last year. He came across the machines online and decided to give it a shot. He opened Washington’s first RYO store, Tobacco Joes, a year ago in Everett. He now has more than 400 repeat customers and two RYO machines.

Clint Hedin, owner of Cheap Smokes, did his own research and saw Baba’s success. A nonsmoker, Hedin still saw the business potential. He’s the only employee right now, but he said he has seen a steady increase in business and wants to hire five employees eventually.

Now, there are shops in Port Orchard, Bellingham, Mount Vernon, Fife, Graham, Arlington, Monroe and Renton, and the list goes on. Baba licensed the name “Tobacco Joes” to other stores, but he owns only the one in Everett.

The tobacco and tubes for 200 smokes and machine rental costs about $34. The state tax for pre-manufactured cigarettes was increased by a dollar to $3.025 last year, making a store-bought pack of 20 cigarettes cost around $8 and a carton around $70.

The machine presses the tobacco into a round log. A rod pushes that log of tobacco into a paper tube. The smokes are the same length as cigarettes but a little wider.

Hedin said his average customer is a 42-year-old male. Baba said his customers are usually 40 or older and blue-collar workers.

“This service that is provided by this machine and the stores that own them is catering to current smokers,” Baba said. “I don’t know of any customers in my store after a full year that started smoking because of the machines.”

Health concerns

The state health department doesn’t see it that way. Tim Church, the department’s spokesman, says offering cigarettes at a cheaper price lets more people buy them. He said people with lower incomes and less education smoke nearly twice as much as the rest of the population in Washington.

“I’d always be concerned if anyone is seeing roll-your-own cigarettes as some sort of a good alternative,” Church said. “You might save a tiny bit of money along the line, but the cost to your health could be tremendous.”

And just because rolling cigarettes allows consumers to avoid the additives placed in pre-manufactured cigarettes, Church said, it doesn’t make them healthier.

“It’s like claiming this is a healthier kind of poison,” he said.

RYO shops aren’t just fighting health officials. They’re also locked in a federal-court case with the Department of Treasury. The department says the stores are manufacturers, making a profit by producing cigarettes. It’s arguing that the stores should be responsible for all cigarette taxes and for holding a manufacturing permit. That’s why store owners call their products “smokes,” not cigarettes, and publicize that the process is done completely by the customer.

Accordino sued the department to block its ability to enforce manufacturing laws on RYO businesses. A federal judge in Ohio issued an injunction. The Treasury filed for an appeal. For now, it’s a waiting game.

“An actual cigarette-manufacturing machine will make 20,000 cigarettes a minute,” he said. “Ours make 20 to 25 a minute. There’s no confusing the two.”

Baba agreed. “There is a business structure for brewing on premise,” Baba said. “Customers can make their own beer on premises just like they can make their own smokes on premises. You can’t punish smokers and reward drinkers.”

Cheaper tax rate

Mike Gowrylow, spokesman for the state Department of Revenue, said federal tax collection is affected by the stores, which may be a reason the government is challenging their existence.

Gowrylow said RYO retailers buy pipe tobacco because the federal tax is about a tenth as much as it is for cigarette tobacco.

But state tax collection isn’t affected because the tax rate is the same on pipe tobacco and cigarette tobacco.

Washington’s smoking rate increased this year from 14.9 percent to 15.2 percent, which is approximately 780,000 adults. Before 2010, the rate consistently had been decreasing for seven years, according to the state health department’s website. The average legal smoker pays about $1,170 in state and local taxes annually, Gowrylow said.

“There’s nothing illegal going on,” Gowrylow said. “If people want to go to the trouble to roll their own cigarettes because it’ll be cheaper because of the lower federal tax, it’s not an issue for us.”

Baba just hopes the lower prices give smokers a break.

“With a product that’s addictive, people are forced to use the product even with increased taxes,” he said. “This allows smokers in Washington to spend the money on food, gas, tuition. The money still goes back in the economy.”

Read more »

Smoking ban a limit on freedom but a big step forward for Springfield

As members of civilized society, we all accept limits on our freedom.
We know we can’t drive 60 mph in a school zone.
We understand we shouldn’t dump raw sewage into a lake.
We know it’s wrong to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

On April 5, we strongly urge city voters — smokers and nonsmokers alike — to accept another limit on freedom: Vote “yes” on the proposed ordinance to ban smoking in all indoor places accessible to workers or the public.

It is the right thing to do for public health: Despite the protestations of opponents, it is clear that secondhand smoke, as much as smoking, is hazardous to your health, not just a nuisance to be tolerated.

The ban recognizes the danger being imposed on workers, including many with little choice about their place of employment, and it’s especially important to those working in food service or bars where literally every breath they take exposes them to risk of harm.

Finally, the ban is an important step forward for the image of Springfield, putting our city on even footing with hundreds of smaller and larger cities in protecting the public’s right to clean air.

Reasonable smokers understand that when they light up, they are imposing on their nonsmoking friends, associates and the perfect strangers at the restaurant table next to them. Many smokers are courteous enough to ask if others mind — or voluntarily step outside to avoid stinking up a house or blowing smoke in someone else’s face.

This recognizes the basic limits of freedom. You are free to put yourself at risk, or do whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights of others — or put others at risk of harm — without their consent.

What opponents of the ban seem to ignore is how the freedom of one person to smoke infringes on the personal liberty of others who would like to be able to enjoy being out in public, or do their jobs, without the annoyance and danger posed by secondhand smoke.

Opponents argue that the ban interferes with the rights of businesses to choose — and that if an individual does not want to patronize a smoking establishment, they can find a nonsmoking alternative. We argue that all businesses are regulated for the common good. Restaurants and bars, in particular, face myriad regulations to ensure public safety. In that regard, banning smoking is no different.

The ban will level the playing field for restaurants and bars, which is important to fostering competition. And the evidence suggests that businesses in other cities with such bans do just fine, if not better, after the law is enacted.

The proposed ordinance would replace the city’s existing smoking regulations, which are riddled with exemptions and result in unequal playing rules. The proposal also would ban smoking in some outside areas such as playgrounds and within five feet of building entrances and windows.

Opponents have attempted to downplay the health risks of secondhand smoke, although even Dr. John Lilly, a spokesman for Live Free Springfield, acknowledged in an interview he was “not going to say it doesn’t cause cancer.” He just says they haven’t proven it.

Surgeons general for 25 years have been saying just the opposite. For instance, Vice Adm. Richard H. Carmona, surgeon general under President George W. Bush, reported in 2006 that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk of inhaling more than 50 carcinogens and at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

Read more »