Steve Quit. So Can I!

Do it for God?

2009-03-03T13:33:08Z

At a statehouse event today, leaders of Indiana’s major faith denominations will call on Indiana legislators to “see the light” and pass a comprehensive smoke-free law that protects every Hoosiers’ right to breathe clean, smoke-free air.

Following the “Smoke-free Indiana Legislative Luncheon” at Christ Church Cathedral from Noon to 1:30 p.m., participants will march to the statehouse and assemble luminaries into a super-size no-smoking symbol to show support for a comprehensive smoke-free law that protects all Hoosiers from secondhand smoke. The Hoosier Faith and Health Coalition is a broad-based interfaith coalition dedicated to reducing the devastating effects of tobacco.

Do it for your dog!

2009-03-02T14:59:21Z

I’m saying, whatever might spur you on to quit smoking is a good thing. With that in mind, I give you some new information! A study that says that some may quit smoking for their pet. OK, whatever. I quit for money, which came in at number 2 on this list. (Money, as in 1500 dollars a year savings). Anyway, click here for the report!

Wanna get mad?

2009-02-25T14:04:03Z

Look, we can have a true discussion and maybe even disagree about the state’s 44 cent per pack cigarette tax that was passed a couple of years ago. What is undeniable, though, is that the money was earmarked specifically toward helping out low income Hoosiers gain health insurance.

Um, not so much.

Our friend Matt Tully of the Indy Star lays out where some of that money has actually ended up. The governor has gotten away with the idea that this 44 cents a pack tax increase was NOT a tax increase, because it went to help low income Hoosiers gain health benefits. How would that argument have gone if he had to admit that his plan “would also help legislators reinstate THEIR health care perk” ?

I’m thinking not so well.

Genius!

2009-02-23T14:37:57Z

As you read the following tidbit from the Associated Press, remember that cigarette advertisments have been banned…BANNED….from tv for decades.

CHICAGO (AP) — Marlboro, the cigarette favored by adults, is also the runaway favorite of teens who regularly smoke, according to a new federal report released Thursday.

The results led anti-smoking advocates to complain that the same advertising that’s supposed to target adults is also influencing teens, even though smoking rates for that age group have dropped in recent years.

“Cigarettes are still the most heavily advertised drug in America,” said Dr. Victor Strasburger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s sad.”

The report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 81 percent of established teen smokers preferred the same three brands favored by adults: Marlboro was the choice for 52 percent of high school students; Newport by 21 percent and Camel by 13 percent. For middle school students, the percentages were 43 percent, 26 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

Newport was the overwhelming choice for African-American students, with more than three-quarters of black high school smokers choosing that brand.

The results come from a survey of 54,301 regular smokers, part of the 2004 and 2006 National Youth Tobacco Survey of nearly 5 million 12- to 17-year-olds.

The findings mirror the adult population. The 2007 National Study on Drug Use and Health found that the most popular brands smoked by U.S. adults also were Marlboro, Newport and Camel.

Banned from television and still making headway, even given what we know about the hazards of tobacco. That truly is genius!

So, it’s a little better…..

2009-02-19T19:27:24Z

but still, seriously flawed. The Star had it about right. They wrote in this weeks’ editorial….

“It remains far from becoming law, but a proposed statewide ban on smoking in most workplaces is more palatable now that the Indiana House added an amendment that protects strong local ordinances.

House Bill 1213, as originally proposed by state Rep. Charlie Brown, would have cleared the air in almost all workplaces in Indiana, including bars and restaurants.
OAS_AD(’160×600_1′); Brown’s bill was weakened significantly in committee, including exclusion for bars and casinos. Even worse, as altered, the bill would have wiped out stricter laws in cities and counties across the state.

The House fixed that problem Monday, approving an amendment pushed by Rep. Peggy Welch that would allow local governments to enact measures stronger than the state’s proposal.

The ban on workplace smoking is vital for at least three reasons:

» Research indicates that employees exposed to secondhand smoke are placed at higher risk of contracting serious health problems, including cancer and heart disease.

» Indiana has one of the highest adult smoking rates in the nation, which means many workers are likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke while on the job.

» Recent research underscores the positive effects of workplace smoking bans. Major studies in the United States and Europe have found significant reductions in the number of heart attacks in communities where restrictions have been enacted.

Brown’s bill deserves to move forward in the legislative process, but it isn’t as strong as it should be. That’s because amendments have been added that would exclude casinos, horseracing tracks, racinos and off-track betting parlors from the smoking ban.

Gambling lobbyists fought for those exceptions based on economic concerns. They fear gamblers wouldn’t spend as much time inside casinos if they couldn’t puff on cigarettes and feed slot machines at the same time. Restaurant owners used a similar argument in fighting Marion County’s smoking ban three years ago. But the ban was enacted, consumers adjusted, and new restaurants continue to open and flourish in Marion County.

What changed in Indianapolis after the ban? Many diners report a more enjoyable experience now that the smoke has cleared. More important, workers’ health is better protected.

Employees across the state, regardless of where they earn their paychecks, should be given the same safeguard.”

Look, let’s get this straight. This is not a “rights” issue, and hasn’t been ever since Bush’s Surgeon General proclaimed that there is no doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous. As my libertarian friends tell me all the time, your “right” ends at the end of your nose. When you effect others, (secondhand smoke) you have no right to do it, whatever “it” is.

What’s the point?

2009-02-12T14:14:18Z

I’m looking over the details of the bill that passed out of committee yesterday at the Statehouse that would implement a statewide smoking ban.

So let me get this straight.

Because our state legislators want to be able to say that they’ve done something, they’re looking to pass a law that would ban smoking in all places EXCEPT bars, casinos and other establishments that permit people only over the age of 18.

But what is more ridiculous, is the fact that local communities would be barred from passing tougher rules unless they did it by January of this coming year. Why the hurry? Because big tobacco is in the back pocket of your state legislature. That’s the only thing I can come up with. I mean seriously, why would they put a “deadline” on this unless it was to make sure that most of the state did NOT toughen regulations. (I wonder how many of those who passed this turkey out of committee yesterday are the same ones who argue that the government closest to the people is the best form of government? Just wonderin)
Apparently the casinos aren’t happy either because they don’t want to make 20 percent of their establishment “smoke free,” (ya know, like when there were smoke free sections in airplanes…..breathe deeply…mmmmm)

Apparently, nobody’s happy with this. So how bout if we go back to the drawing board and either do something substantial or drop it. But stop playing games. Thank ya now.

Hearing all sides

2009-02-05T16:07:39Z

As promised, yesterday at the Statehouse both sides (pro and con) lined up to testify about a bill that would ban smoking in all public places statewide. Our friend Bruce Hetrick was one who testified. The casino industry was out in force as well, screaming that they’ll lose all kinds of business. We’ll see how far this smoking ban goes. For more, click here.

390 Million dollars a year

2009-02-03T13:42:25Z

That’s how much it costs Hoosiers every year due to ailments related to secondhand smoke. You saw that right. IU’s School of Medicine released a study yesterday with that conclusion. That, not coincidentally, comes just days before the testimony begins to fly at the statehouse about a bill that would ban smoking in all workplaces in the state. As it stands now, counties are free to pass ordinances as they see fit, but a statewide ban would make it uniform.

Supporters of the bill say this study shows that this is not just a health issue, but a financial one, and they point to higher health care costs for everybody when a state like Indiana ranks 6th in the nation for smoking. Those who are against it (some bars and casinos, predominently) say this will hurt business. (By the way, I’m willing to listen to that argument if you bring to the table some data. No….. anecdotal evidence and hypotheses don’t count.) And the Gov’s stance, as far as I can tell, is “I’m staying out of this one, thank you. But if you pass a law, or a new tax on smokers, I’m in!”

So that’s where we are. Enjoy this.

It’s not just the smoke…….part 2

2009-01-30T15:07:48Z

Most of the time, this blog focuses on the “smoke” part of tobacco, just because that’s what I did. But I came across a great first person account about “smokeless tobacco” from a writer at the Wall Street Journal which pretty much says it all.

By KEVIN HELLIKER

In the course of researching the science behind smokeless tobacco in 2006, I purchased some of the product. I wanted to read its labels and see what these tobacco “pouches” and “pellets” looked like.

Some time later I popped a tobacco pellet into my mouth. I’m not sure why. I hadn’t smoked in two decades and had only negative memories and opinions about cigarettes. I was a fanatical exerciser and careful eater. Maybe I was curious. In any case, the pellet tasted like a mint but delivered a buzz.

Months passed before I did it again. But you can see where this is headed. Within a year, I was flat-out addicted to the nicotine in the smokeless tobacco. But I was in denial: I did it only at the office. Except that eventually I did it everywhere, careful to hide my stash from my wife and nearly everyone else. In social and professional gatherings I nurtured an invisible addiction.

I knew I needed to quit. But the science behind the risks of low-carcinogen smokeless tobacco failed to worry me. No increased incidence of mouth cancer had been found in Swedish men who used it, and other research on them had found only small increases in risks for other cancers and cardiovascular disease. More personally, smokeless tobacco raised neither my heart rate nor my blood pressure (though compared to most users, I consumed tiny amounts). Even so, I now embodied the concerns of public-health officials: Touting smokeless tobacco as less harmful than cigarettes would make it alluring to non-smokers.

Public-health officials as high ranking as the surgeon general continued calling smokeless just as dangerous as cigarettes long after published research showed otherwise. Even if it is less dangerous, many public-health officials said, no evidence exists that smokers would switch to smokeless. Yet among Swedish men the smoking rate had plummeted with a concurrent rise in smokeless use. And I knew two smokers who had quit via use of smokeless tobacco. I also had a friend whose father had made the switch, only to revert to cigarettes upon being told that smokeless was no less dangerous. He died of lung cancer.

All this made me think that the increased use of smokeless tobacco must be hard to swallow for public-health officials, who have crusaded against the tobacco industry.

What finally did it for me was a statement I heard from an academic researcher with no ties to the tobacco industry: “Using smokeless is dumb. Smoking is dumber.”

“Dumb” was hard to argue. For even if the risk associated with smokeless tobacco is no greater than the risk of driving, using it takes you nowhere. Unless you’re switching from cigarettes, there’s no upside.

But besides the word “dumb,” what prompted me to quit was my wife’s reaction when she finally found my stash.

Write to Kevin Helliker at kevin.helliker@wsj.com

Hiliarious that he was “researching” the product and ended up getting hooked. Um, it’s kind of the way the tobacco companies roll.

There’s this…

2009-01-22T13:41:42Z

…..today from the Associated Press.

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Even though smoking is a risk factor for multiple types of cancer, more than half of smokers diagnosed with the disease keep using tobacco, and doctors aren’t doing enough to help them quit.

A West Virginia University survey published in the Journal of Oncology Practice found that 44 percent of smokers quit after being diagnosed with cancer.

Less than two thirds, 62 percent, say they received advice from doctors or nurses about quitting the habit.

Dr. Jame Abraham, the study’s lead author, says the survey shows there’s a need for intervention programs to help cancer patients quit tobacco.

In addition to being a risk factor for cancer, smoking can complicate common cancer treatments like surgery and radiation therapy.

I’ve always said that smokers are not stupid. Having been a former smoker, I consider myself a relatively reasonable and somewhat intelligent guy. But I also knew, for 25 years, that smoking WAS bad for me, WOULD kill me, but I continued to smoke anyway. My first thought was to look at the study and say “HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE!!!” But then I looked in the mirror. Thank God I didn’t get cancer while I was smoking, but I can’t honestly say I would have quit if I did.

I guess I’m just glad I quit now.