I am disappointed to see North Bay City Council taking such a narrow view to the issue of First Nations tobacco. At this week’s meeting, the once progressive Council has taken a stance aimed at demonizing First Nations rights and worldview. Tobacco was the first gift given to the Anishinaabe as a means of praying to our Creator. We have been trading asaamaa (tobacco) since time immemorial. That’s how tobacco was first introduced to the settlers. Today, Anishinaabe people continue to trade in tobacco as a means of making a living for our families. Our governments assert that First Nations have the right to sell tobacco as we have for millennia.

Let’s be honest, this isn’t about health issues or tax fairness. This is about making money. If this was about health issues, then tobacco would have been banned long ago. Would City Council would ever think about advocating choking off the supply of non-native tobacco? Truth be told, this is about convenience stores, big tobacco companies and the tax man not making as much money as they have in the past. Now that First Nations are making some of that money, that same activity that was so lucrative, is now branded “contraband” or “illegal”.

The so-called taxpayer lobby, tobacco companies and the convenience store association regularly use these demonizing words in their messaging, which is now becoming common vernacular. Today this is all synonymous with the anti-First Nation sentiment, leading to further racism, intolerance and propagation of unfair, contemporary stereotypes.

I’m not saying this tobacco market shouldn’t be regulated. Let’s work with First Nations to legitimize and regulate this market. Let’s include prohibitions against advertising and curbing tobacco-only smoke shops. Let’s equalize the prices of tobacco products by including a First Nation Health Tax to fund poverty-reduction programs, affordable housing and First Nations health care.

I’m not involved in the tobacco business, I am not a smoker, and in fact, I personally oppose the sale and abuse of such a beautiful, spiritual gift that tobacco is. But let’s not continue to demonize all Anishinaabe people and legitimate First Nation businesses. To you, it might be contraband, to me, it’s our right and part of our economy. To you, they may be smugglers, to me, they’re my friends. To you, they may be an illegal retailer, to me, they’re my family. We are not involved in organized crime, nor do we sell tobacco to minors, lace our tobacco with rat pooh, or steal your children in the night. We’re businesspeople, just like Mr. Bain and Mr. Vaillancourt, making a living, raising our families.

Why St. Clair County has the highest percentage of smokers in the U.S. is not for certain, but the statistics do show that 27.4 percent of the county’s population smokes. Statewide 19.06 percent of the population smokes and the national average is at 17.9 percent, according to a report from the St. Clair County Community Health Program.

The St. Clair County Health Department has its work cut out for them, said Health Education and Planning Director Susan Amato.

“We don’t know why,” she said. “We are still scratching our heads at that one.”

Helping people give up a tobacco addiction to improve the quality of their life is one of the county health department’s roles. To play their role, the county recently scouted out six people during a contest called the Great American Smoke-out. The winners received a chance to try another option for quitting by local psychologist, William Miskell, Ph.D. Miskell joined the St. Clair County Smoke-Free Team after he recently moved to the area. He said he has worked with hundreds of patients to help them lose their nicotine habit through a process called “Change Your Mind.” The process is based around hypnosis.

The six participants submitted their top five reasons for wanting to quit smoking and why they believed hypnosis might help. Amato said the reasons for quitting were similar among the entrants, with the most frequent reason to be a better role model for their children and grandchildren. The smell, cost, health benefits and even the challenge were also commonly stated top reasons. Amato said one entrant stated, “because I am tired of quitting!”

“We know that there’s a lot of different ways to quit and one method will work with one and not the other,” she said. “But after they’ve taken the patch, medication, classes and support groups, they may agree to hypnosis. It is not harmful but could be helpful.”

Amato said Miskell places the subject in a relaxed state and then addresses their subconscious mind to look at themselves as a non-smoker.

The free sessions, would have cost the participants $249. After the sessions, they will be contacted to find out how they are doing. They will check back again in three, six and 12-months.

Miskell said most people think of hypnosis as a mystical experience, a time when subjects are put in a hypnotic trance to do embarrassing things in front of an audience. He maintained this is not the case for his work though.

South Australia yesterday called on new Attorney-General Nicola Roxon to lead the charge. But British American Tobacco accused the former health minister of a stunt in bringing to Australia anti-smoking lobbyist Matthew Myers to stir up the states and distract attention from a High Court battle over plain packaging laws. South Australian Health Minister John Hill yesterday met with Mr Myers, a lawyer who advised 50 US state attorneys-general in lawsuits against Big Tobacco for smoking-related healthcare costs in the late 1990s.

Mr Myers, who this week also met the NSW and Victorian governments, impressed Mr Hill, who said South Australia would back the real possibility of individual suits or a class action by states against tobacco companies.
Mr Hill said Ms Roxon, as the new attorney-general, would be expected to take a leadership role in bringing other states on board for any legal action.

“I think legal action is worth exploring,” he told The Australian yesterday.

“The reality for us is we know that one in two people who are long-term smokers are going to die from smoking, and lung cancers for example cost the health system buckets of money, so why shouldn’t those who cause this be responsible for paying for it?

“Australia is not that different from America in common law.

“If you can make the connection between smoking and related diseases, and if tobacco companies are prepared to compensate in another jurisdiction,” legal action should be considered.

South Australia would be prepared to offer resources in any legal fight, he said.

Ms Roxon yesterday refused to answer questions about the cost to taxpayers of bringing Mr Myers to Australia, referring The Australian to the Health Department.

A department spokeswoman said: “Minister Roxon invited Mr Myers to Australia at a time when tobacco companies are bringing litigation against the Australian government, to share his extensive experience in tobacco-related litigation with the Australian government and with interested state and territory governments.”

It is understood that it is too early to know the full costs of Mr Myers’ taxpayer funded trip.

A spokeswoman for Ms Roxon said the minister was “heartened by the support of such an esteemed anti-tobacco expert”.

Lighting up a cigarette at Whitley County’s Health Department facilities will be out of the question come Jan. 1, 2012, when its smoking ban takes effect. The Whitley County Health Department will soon join the bandwagon, like Knox and Laurel County facilities, to extinguish smoking and the use of all tobacco products. Laurel County Health Department became a smoke-free facility under the City of London smoking ban ordinance passed in 2009, and the Knox County Health Department implemented its own smoke-free policy this past January.

“We want to be a good example in the community because we are educating the community about the dangers of second-hand smoke and how exposure to it will affect your health,” said Kathy Lay, health educator for the Whitley County Health Department. “We want to be examples of that in our agency and reflect that we are changing our policies in our health department. We know how important it is to educate about the dangers of second-hand smoke, so we want to protect the health of anyone who comes to our health department.”

In a memo dated Aug. 18 released to the Times-Tribune that was distributed to health department employees, the Whitley County Board of Health approved the smoking and tobacco free policy at its board meeting on Aug. 15. The memo states, “In order to assist any employees adversely affected, we will again provide free Cooper-Clayton or other stop-smoking classes in October. These classes will be provided during work hours in order to assist those who desire to attend.”

Lay said there is currently about seven employees who are participating in the Cooper-Clayton program that is a 13-week cessation program as they wanted to start preparing their employees for the transition.

The policy states employees who violate this policy are subject to health department disciplinary action, including verbal and written warnings. Repeat violations of the policy will be treated as insubordination and will result in termination of employment.

The smoking and tobacco free policy includes both of its Corbin and Williamsburg offices.

The policy states the use of tobacco is prohibited on all property owned, leased or operated by the Whitley County Health Department. This includes all buildings, grounds, exterior open spaces, parking lots, sidewalks, and in all health department owned or leased vehicles.

The definitions of smoking or tobacco use as stated in the policy include the burning of tobacco or any other material in any type of smoking equipment, cigarettes, cigars, pipes and electronic cigarettes. Dip, chew, snuff or pouches are also included.

Visitors or clients who violate the policy may be denied access to the health department campuses and may ultimately be subject to arrest for criminal trespass.

Kicking the nicotine habit can be one of the hardest things a person can do. Tobacco companies have spent billions of dollars researching on the best ways to keep users addicted to their products. Most already know and understand the negative impact tobacco use has on us but few actually understand why. In cigarettes, there are over 4,000 chemicals that have been added to the already highly processed tobacco leaves. Even the paper wrap has a lot of additives and chemicals added to it.

All tobacco products are dangerous and addictive. Unfortunately the tobacco companies are spending a great deal of time, research and effort to create new tobacco users and to keep the current tobacco users using!

Tobacco companies have focused their attention on teens. Flavoured tobacco products like cigarillos are directly targeted to teens. These are tobacco products that are wrapped in tobacco leaves and can be sold as a single instead of a pack. This makes it very affordable for a teenager to buy. A 2007 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey found that cigarillo use is a major form of tobacco use in Canada. Teens are at a three times higher risk of having smoked a cigarillo in the past month as Canadians over 25. Cigarillos are unfiltered so teens will inhale more toxins from the cigarillo than someone who smokes a cigarette. If you would like to report any business selling tobacco products to minors please call the Health Canada Enforcement Specialist at 780-495-3305.

Smokeless tobacco is thought to be a product that can enhance performance and is harmless because there is no smoke. However, like cigarettes, the body will close off the capillaries as a defense mechanism to ensure that oxygen gets to the brain and other organs when one uses smokeless tobacco products. Also, a person who used 8 – 10 dips per day receives the same amount of nicotine as someone who smokes 30 – 40 cigarettes a day!

Where does one go if they want to kick the nicotine habit? Many will go to their local pharmacist as they have a wealth of information on various tobacco cessation products. The family doctor can also help with prescriptions and other information on tobacco cessation products. Kim Ruptash is an addiction counsellor specializing in tobacco cessation. Her number is 780-842-7619 (available through the Rite line 310-0000). There is also a 24-hr Addictions help line at 1-866-332-2322

The Mental Health Capacity Building in Schools Initiative (MHCB) is an integrated, multidisciplinary team approach providing promotion, prevention and early intervention addiction, health and mental health services to children, families and communities. The VIBE Program is one of the 38 projects involved in this initiative led by Alberta Health Services Addiction and Mental Health in partnership with Alberta Education and funded by Alberta Health and Wellness.For more information on the benefits sleep and other health & wellness related topics please contact your VIBE Coach, or the Program Coordinator Pat Calyniuk at 780-853-3718.

Debate has been rife over whether smokers can receive state-paid healthcare benefits, which I argue they should. In light of Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo’s proposal to exclude smokers from free healthcare in Jakarta, it is timely to review the reasons why this plan can’t be justified. One of the most cited justifications for the governor’s proposal is an economic argument. Smokers, proponents of the plan say, are not poor or can’t be considered poor and therefore do not deserve benefits intended for the poor.

But how do we define and measure poverty? Can smoking be included in the measurement?

One way to look at poverty is by measuring consumption levels. The World Bank defines poverty as the inability to fulfill a certain level of consumption for basic needs, such as food or healthcare. Thus, proponents say, smokers deprive themselves of basic needs by spending money on cigarettes. Spending money on cigarettes is a waste indeed, but this argument only holds true if the counterfactual holds: that they would otherwise spend this money on basic needs. But would they?

Proponents also argue that the proposal serves as a disincentive to smokers so they would give up smoking in pursuing a free healthcare. It is a sort of punishment for smokers, albeit a weak and dishonest one.

The addictive property of nicotine has made efforts to encourage people to quit smoking far from easy. Most smokers fail in their attempts to stop. Many have struggled, sometimes for years, and succeeded, but they often relapse. In addition, successful cessation is often linked to increased access to assistance to quit smoking rather than preventing smokers from seeing doctors.

Not only is this punishment not evidence-based, it is also deceitful. It is like changing the rules of the game when the ball is already rolling. Where were we when these smokers took a puff on their first cigarettes? Did we tell them then they were going to lose their access to free healthcare?

Lastly, there is my favorite fairness argument — that it would be fair to place the burden of smoking-related illnesses on those individuals who smoke and relieve the rest of the society, the non-smokers, from paying for their illnesses. Smokers, indeed, are more susceptible to some diseases and are likely to use more healthcare services compared to non-smokers. This argument is correct, but only superficially.

In saying that an individual is held responsible for his/her actions, we are claiming that the action is completely voluntary and based on complete information of what such action would cause. In the case of smoking, is it fair for us to say this behavior is completely voluntary and deliberate?

Most smokers started smoking when they were young; some when they were just toddlers. I would argue that the initiation of smoking, for many, is not a voluntary decision made following a careful deliberation on complete information covering what health hazards smoking causes. In fact, most smokers hardly have complete information. The small warning box neither tells them how likely they are to suffer from those conditions nor warns them how cigarette smoking will affect their household finances.

The lack of information is aggravated by the aggressive cigarette sales promotions. Smoking role models have long been established — from the infamous Marlboro man to a successful architect. At schools, peer pressure plays an important part in smoking initiation. Worse still, our soccer league is named after a famous cigarette brand. So don’t we, society and the state, allow all this to happen and shouldn’t we be held responsible for these individuals’ smoking?

Fairness demands that we treat smokers and non-smokers equally. But we can’t be completely fair on smokers unless we can be certain that “the punishment fits the crime.” Smokers smoke differently and non-smokers suffer from diseases causally linked to smoking, too. How can we correctly quantify the contribution of smoking on the development of those diseases? Is banning smokers, let alone their families, from free healthcare a proportionate and fair punishment?

In sum, excluding smokers from free healthcare has no strong justification. It certainly has no prior evidence, or perhaps even hypothesis, that it would succeed to change smokers’ behavior.

I am a strong believer that smoking is evil, but I also believe that imprudent public health policy, such as this, will only see the most disenfranchised suffer further.

Moreover, by adopting such a policy we risk going too far. If smokers are banned from getting free healthcare services, shouldn’t we move on and ban patients from receiving treatment in severe head injury cases resulting from speeding collisions without a helmet or seat belt? What about diseases related to a lack of exercise or salt consumption?

As a nation, we ought to care about the poor, including those who smoke. Rather than further depriving these people of services they need the most, the state should proactively help them to quit smoking, for example by giving them access to smoking cessation programs.

After all, the state should be held responsible, at least partly, from failing to protect its citizens from being smokers in the first place.

We’re all aware of the risks associated with cigarette smoking. Tobacco intake has been linked to cancer, lung disease, stroke, heart disease, premature wrinkling of the skin, decreased circulation and immune system deficiencies. Cigarette smoke smells bad — it saturates your furniture, hair, car and clothing with a distinct musty smell — which is a major turn off. Tobacco stains everything from teeth to bathroom walls.

Each time you take a drag, the chemicals found in tobacco — tar, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ammonia and cyanide — seep into your body. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), tobacco use is the leading cause of premature and preventable death in the United States and claims almost half a million lives each year.
Smoking is a personal choice. If the possibility of acquiring cancer isn’t enough of a deterrent to keep people from smoking, what will be effective in persuading them not to?
In 2010, the FDA proposed a campaign that would introduce new warning labels on cigarette packages. Exerting new power to regulate tobacco products under The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA proposed that requiring larger, more prominent warnings on cigarette packaging would encourage tobacco users to quit and empower youth to say “no” to tobacco.

The set of cigarette warnings contain nine different text warnings accompanied by graphic labels. The labels, which would be larger and more visible to the consumer, would be required to appear on the upper portion of the front and rear panels of the cigarette pack, taking up at least the top half of box panels.
The colorful, yet controversial, labels include: A man blowing cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole; a baby being held by its mother enveloped by a cloud of cigarette smoke; a set of healthy lungs juxtaposed next to a set of diseased lungs; a man breathing into an oxygen mask; a cadaver on a table with post-autopsy chest staples; a premature baby in an incubator; a diseased mouth distressed with cancerous lesions and missing, yellowing teeth; a woman weeping; and a man wearing a T-shirt labeled “I Quit.”

The FDA is taking this too far. On Monday, Nov. 5, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked the federal requirement, which was to go into effect in October 2011. He claimed it’s likely tobacco companies will succeed in winning a lawsuit to stop the labels from being circulated. He found the labels go beyond simply warning against the health risks of smoking.
Tobacco is legal to anyone 18 and older. Sure, smokers know the dangers of smoking, but they have the right to smoke if they choose to. Reinforcing the idea that bad health comes with prolonged smoking isn’t breaking news. Adding graphic pictures to the packs is only going to anger those exposed to them. If increased cigarette prices haven’t discouraged people from smoking, how are grotesquely displayed images going to persuade society?

If the FDA wants to warn the public of major health risks linked to commonly used items, why not add a picture of a diseased liver or a graphic image of someone lying in a casket at the hands of a drunk driver to a 12-pack of beer? Affixing an image of a paraplegic to a football helmet, indicating possible injuries linked to playing the sport, would certainly restrain people from joining the team, right? Wrong. People are going to do what they want to do when they want to do it, and this is certainly an individual right granted to society through the ability to express ourselves freely.
What about non-smoking consumers and store clerks who are forced to look at the graphic images? Exposing people to the graphic images is pandering. The FDA is commercially exploiting cigarette packaging. If the regulation were to take effect, tobacco companies would be forced to meet the demands of the FDA even though they’re not reasonable. Cigarette packs would be distributed in a manner that’s invasive and offensive.

With a wall full of cigarettes in every convenience store, it’s nearly impossible for unwilling people not to be exposed to the graphic images. Certainly smokers would be disturbed by the images as well. People shouldn’t be pressured to view the images for choosing to pursue smoking, regardless of the health effects.
Our generation is far more conscious of the dangers of smoking than past age groups. Propagating graphic images isn’t going to cause a cessation of the habit, it’s only going to rile the public. Let people make decisions for themselves. If they don’t want to live healthy lives, they have the right to choose.

If we put things into perspective, enacting Brockport’s smoke-free campus initiative didn’t force people to quit smoking simply because there are now designated spots to smoke. Students have merely relocated, and some don’t even abide by the rules. The policy did create a more pleasant and healthier campus atmosphere for those who choose not to smoke.
The best way to deter people from smoking is to offer them solutions to quitting. Providing a quit line number on the proposed packages is a helpful and a less encroaching method to assist those who want a healthier lifestyle. Investigating other avenues such as counseling, nicotine patches and e-cigarettes would grant the FDA a free pass out of lawsuits. These options are much more effective and encouraging than slapping a smoker’s cadaver on a cigarette box.

This week we celebrate the second anniversary of UK’s tobacco-free campus initiative prohibiting the use of all tobacco products — cigarettes, chew, pipes, cigars, snuff, hookah — anyplace on campus. I love being able to walk around campus in the brisk fall air. But the thing I love the most about our tobacco-free campus is how it is helping students quit smoking and using other tobacco products.

Without the exposure between classes to the trigger of tobacco smoke, students who have struggled to quit are more successful.
Two out of three smokers want to quit and there are resources available on campus to help.
Our culture is changing and more undergraduates are coming to University Health Service for tobacco treatment. Even social or occasional smokers are impacted.
Every cigarette matters.
The U.S. surgeon general’s 2010 report on “How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease” has some important findings for college students.
Even if you don’t smoke every day, smoking damages your DNA. The report describes in detail how tobacco smoke damages the human body through specific pathways.
The take home points are:
1. There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Any exposure — even an occasional cigarette or exposure to secondhand smoke — is harmful.
2. Damage from tobacco smoke is immediate.
3. Smoking longer means more damage.
4. Cigarettes are designed for addiction.
5. There is no safe cigarette or tobacco product.
6. The only proven strategy for reducing the risk of tobacco-related disease and death is to never smoke, and if you do smoke to quit.

On November 11, 2011, the Rockford Police Department Community Services Unit and M3 Street Teams Unit combined efforts with the Winnebago County Health Department to conduct city wide tobacco compliance checks at businesses that sell tobacco products in the City of Rockford. During these checks, official funds from the Winnebago County Health Department and minors employed by the Health Department were utilized to make controlled purchases of cigarettes from these businesses.

Over 125 stores were checked in the City of Rockford. The following stores sold Viceroy cigarettes to minors and the clerks at the following businesses were issued citations for “Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors”