news-record.com

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Editorial: Time to clear the air

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

(Updated 3:00 am)

Along the mythical route known as Tobacco Road, what is happening today -- and may happen beyond -- would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

Effective today, the federal tobacco excise tax will rise 62 cents per pack to fund children's health care.

At the same time, state lawmakers are seriously considering a smoking ban in all public buildings, bars and restaurants. They could vote on such legislation as soon as today.

Meanwhile, Gov. Bev Perdue wants to increase the cigarette tax in North Carolina by $1 per pack to help fill revenue gaps.

Given tobacco's deep roots and strong traditions in this state, any one of these developments would have been considered heresy not that long ago. But that was then.

For years, the effects of secondhand smoke had been fiercely debated, but a 2006 Surgeon General's report put the issue to rest: Secondhand smoke in any amount posed a health hazard to others, it said.

State lawmakers didn't banish smoking in their own chambers until that very year. Yet when they finally did pass the ban, they did so overwhelmingly, in the Senate by a 45-1 margin, the House, 95-14.

Now they logically should extend that policy.

Understandably, this hasn't been easy. As Mark Binker reported in Sunday's News & Record, the tobacco industry still employs 15,500 North Carolinians and accounts for another 50,000-plus tobacco-related jobs.

Greensboro-based Lorillard made $887 million in profits in 2008 and has provided jobs with good pay and strong benefits for decades.

That's undeniable.

But the arguments for a public smoking ban are compelling. The smoker makes a choice to engage in a habit that can cause cancer and heart disease and can affect health care costs for all North Carolinians.

But his or her choice also can threaten the well-being of others. Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, 50 of which can cause cancer. More than 35,000 nonsmokers die each year from heart disease triggered by someone else's tobacco smoke.

Despite all of that evidence, the vote for a state public smoking ban probably will be closer than it ought to be. Rarely has something so bad for us (the habit) been so good to us (the industry).

The bill, whose primary author is Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat, is not perfect. It trumps cities' rights to pass their own smoking ordinances, unless they are even tougher. It provides few exceptions where smokers only may gather, by choice (tobacco shops, tobacco plants, designated guest rooms in hotels and motels).

It may reach a little further than it should to protect smokers from themselves.

But in the interest of the broader public's well-being, it is the right thing to do.

What do you think?

4 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

tonymo

April 1, 2009 - 10:48 am EDT

"More than 35,000 nonsmokers die each year from heart disease triggered by someone else's tobacco smoke."

And you know that exactly how? To make that far reaching statement even remotely plausible, those 35,000 must do everything else right. They obviously exercise 3-5 times a week, are not significantly overweight leading to diabetes, as with so many in our society, eat no foods with high fat content, staying away from Hardees' thickburgers with fries, and breakfasts with sausage gravy and biscuits. What is the probability of that in today's society?

"It may reach a little further than it should to protect smokers from themselves."

Spoken like a committed "Nanny State" liberal. We're far too stupid to know what's good for us, we need the government to tell us!

If one listens to the "experts," there is almost nothing in our society than CAN cause cancer or heart disease, at least for a while until another "expert" repudiates that finding! Even then some may choose, (you know how liberals love "choice") to do what they are free to do, or at least were once free to do.

Though not a smoker myself, I was exposed to second hand smoke most of my life. All of my uncles smoked. While on flight status with the USAF I was seated elbow to elbow with someone who smoked 2-3 packs on 8-10 hour training mission, and when we were overseas the first thing that happened was the lights in our room going on then the next was the click of the cigarette lighter. After getting out I spent almost every night of my life in small, crowded smoke filled clubs for 3-5 hours a night. The reason I finally sopped going was that the smoke was hurting my eyes. That was more than 30 years ago. I've literally never been sick a day in my life. Anecdotal? Of course, but I'm certain there are many others with a similar story, and as you'll read below, there are many with much sadder stories.

Today 15-20% of all new lung cancer cases are found in non-smokers, and never smokers. There is a from of lung cancer that strikes mostly women, and non-smokers. That was the type my wife was diagnosed with nearly four
years ago. She had not smoke for nearly 30 years prior to her diagnosis. These is a young 20 year old woman who was on a soccer scholarship at East Carolina. She had never smoked, and was a finely tuned athlete. She was diagnosed with lung cancer. She and my wife have become close, and together they try to spread the word about lung cancer (my wife has done a great film) as volunteers with theDurham branch National Lung Partnership

We've both learned much more than we ever wanted to know about lung cancer, but we learned enough to be skeptical of these never ending "definitive" statements concerning the cause of cancer (and heart disease). The hysteria increases as the politics of the issue takes over. When there were some questioning of the Surgeon General when he made the definitive connection between second hand smoke and cancer, he gave the exact same answer as the man made global warming zealots make today when the said "the debate is over." In real science the debate is not over until there is unrefutable EVIDENCE of one's THEORY. Consensus is not science!

Beachwalk

April 1, 2009 - 7:37 pm EDT

Great Post, tonymo.
Gov. Bev Perdue wants to increase the cigarette tax in North Carolina by $1 per pack to help fill revenue gaps. Why not $2 per pack or why not $5 per pack? Oh heck, let's just make it $50 per pack.
It makes NO sense to pay for any program (much less healthcare for children) with a tax on a product you want to tax out of exsistance.
By the way, I am NOT a smoker, never have been.

Panacea

April 1, 2009 - 7:51 pm EDT

Beachwalk, you'd get no argument from me by increasing the tax to $50/pack.

Taxing the product out of existence is part of the point.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to care for children whose asthma is triggered by their parents refusal to stop smoking. When smoking vanishes, and the last smoker dies of smoking related illnesses, we will see a drop in health care costs, and won't need to tax a product to pay for it.

Works for me.

Panacea

April 1, 2009 - 7:48 pm EDT

tonymo, Health care providers are well aware that not all cancers are tobacco related. But the vast majority are, in one way or another.

Your argument is to attack the statistics. They speak for themselves: 49,000 deaths from second hand smoke reports the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index....

The costs for caring for illnesses related to smoking is astronomical. If smokers want me to pay their health care costs, then they can damn well pay me back in taxes for the costs of their nasty habit.

My father died of liver cancer in November. He was a 3 pack a day man for 50 years. He started smoking when he was 9 years old. He had quit about 10 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that his lifelong smoking caused his cancer.

I've spent my career caring for smoking related illnesses: cancer, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Slow, nasty deaths, all of them. These people die by inches every day. I've seen patients break into heavy sweats, just trying to transfer from a bed to a commode, because the least exhertion takes their breath away.

tonymo, everyone who works in health care knows, or should know, that smoking causes all of these diseases.

Defenders of smoking have no defense. They attack the facts, hoping that if they yell loud enough, reformers will go away. You are right that the debate is over. You lose. The facts are what they are.

You obviously don't understand what the word theory means in science. It doesn't mean that the idea is unproven by evidence or testing. That would be a hypothesis. A scientific theory is an idea that has undergone significant study, testing, and experimentation, and that whose conclusions cannot be better explained by another hypothesis, and that the scientific community accepts as true. Scientists look at the evidence, and agree there is no better explanation, and thus a hypothesis is accepted as a Theory. Theories can be disproven, but rarely, and must be supplanted by a better testable explanation. An example would be where the Theory of Relativity conflicts with quantum mechanics. Both are well accepted by the scientific community in spite of the fact they are incompatible with each other in some areas because they are testable ideas, well supported by evidence, and routinely used in all sorts of real world applications.

Theories so well tested that they are known to be completely true are called Laws (ie, Newton's Laws of Motion).

People seem to want Theories to meet the same standard science sets for Laws before they will accept it, and treat Theories as if they were hypothesis. It is convenient for those who don't want to deal with reality.