A green cigarette? New magazine ads touting cigarettes with “additive-free” organic tobacco use the term “eco-friendly,” prompting anti-smoking activists to fume. The ads for Natural American Spirit cigarettes make the claim next to a list of environmental efforts by the manufacturer, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. They began appearing in March in magazines such as Esquire, Field & Stream, Wired,Mother Jones,Elle and Marie Claire.

“It’s an egregious ad. It’s trying to greenwash a deadly and addictive product,” says Vince Willmore of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, adding research shows cigarettes also are the No. 1 source of litter. “When you hear a product is eco-friendly, you think it’s better for you.”
The tobacco company, owned by Reynolds American Inc., says it’s not saying its cigarettes are safer but that its manufacturing is greener. It says its facilities are wind-powered, its farmers use fewer chemicals and 70% of its sales staff drive hybrid vehicles.
“We try to be good stewards of the environment,” says spokesman Seth Moskowitz. Noting concern about littering of cigarette butts, he says a sister company helps fund Keep America Beautiful.
The magazine ads reflect the surging popularity of green marketing as more than 100 eco-related product labels are now used in the USA.
“This is a perfect example of why green marketing is broken,” says Joel Makower, executive editor of GreenBiz.com, which covers business environmental efforts. He says marketers latch on to anything that can be considered green so the term becomes meaningless.
Makower says the company may be accurate in describing its greening initiatives, which he welcomes, but adds, “Products that harm people should not be marketed as green,”
The tobacco company has faced similar complaints before. In 2000, after advertising its cigarettes as free of additives, the Federal Trade Commission negotiated a settlement that required it to include this statement: “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In 2010, after marketing its “organic” tobacco, 33 state attorneys general demanded the company include a statement saying the cigarette was not safer as a result.
The new ads include such disclaimers, but Willmore’s group is again appealing to the attorneys general to take action.
“It is misleading to talk about being eco-friendly in a cigarette ad,” given the problems of littering and secondhand smoke, says Jeanne Finberg, a deputy attorney general in California who focuses on tobacco litigation.
Says Makower: “The average person is going to look at that ad and ask, ‘What are they smoking?’”

Yes buddies! This is true. Cigarettes are extremely harming and even though everyone knows that nicotine addicts can’t refrain from smoking because it is addictive and to quit once you start requires a lot of will power and for your friends and family to bare your fury.

As a solution to this problem a company in Japan “Japan Tobacco Co” announced a new invention in the tobacco world, a new cigarette that the consumers will enjoy and will get the same feeling of a normal tobacco cigarette yet it will not harm them at all because it has no tobacco in it, smokers will enjoy their hight tech cigarettes everywhere even in no-smoking areas. The product name is “Zero Style Mint”!

Thank you, Japanese Tobacco for a great discovery that will help smokers avoid dangerous diseases like cancer or heart attacks!!

From www.waleg.com. July 16, 2010

First, there are significant differences between an e-cigarette and a conventional tobacco one. The electronic cigarette is not lit by fire. There is no smoldering or burning of any substance. Instead, the electronic cigarette contains liquid nicotine encased in a plastic filter combined with a micro-heating element. When you inhale or ‘puff’ on this alternative cigarette, the heating element warms the nicotine in the filter to produce a stream of vapor. This is inhaled and exhaled in the same way as a traditional cigarette. To enhance the experience and sensation of smoking, the vapor is flavoured to replicate the taste of either a tobacco or menthol cigarette. The e-cigarette is designed to simulate smoking a real cigarette and should not be confused with a regular nicotine inhaler.

There is no tar, carbon monoxide, tobacco or secondhand smoke with the e-cigarette. Also, there is no physical smoke or passive smoke. A non-lingering vapor is emitted, similar to steam from a boiling kettle. This vapor or steam is virtually odorless and vanishes within seconds.

The UK smoking ban does not apply to the use of e-cigarettes. The electronic cigarette can ‘legally’ be used inside any public place including leisure and hospitality establishments, places or work, offices and shops.

The e-cigarette is usually purchased as part of a kit. These kits include a rechargeable cigarette battery, the e-cigarette, a charger and nicotine cartridges. You can order an Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit direct from VIP.

It is estimated that 1 in 10 smokers in the UK will switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes by 2012.

ukpressreleases.co.uk, By: Press Room, June 16, 2010

The typical electronic cigarette looks no different than a traditional smoke at a distance, only it weighs about as much as a heavy pen. The devices have been available for years, but haven’t been noticed much until the beginning of this year, said Rebecca Ryan, director of health promotion for the American Lung Association in Vermont. Currently few, if any, regulations govern the devices, she said. Megan Surdam, 21, of Woodford, who works at the Beverage Den & Smoke Shop on North Street said the den has sold about 100 PureSmoke starter kits. The kits sell for a little over $50 and come with an “atomizing cartridge,” an “atomizing device” and battery components. The cartridge looks like a filter and screws into the battery pack, which is painted white to look like the paper wrapping on a traditional cigarette.

The cartridges deliver a dose of nicotine, the addictive chemical found in tobacco smoke, when the user inhales off it, said Surdam. With the PureSmoke variety, the tip lights up to simulate a lit cigarette. The cartridges sell for $30 and are roughly equal to a carton of normal cigarettes.

Most people who buy them have heard about them someplace else, she said, and are trying to use them as a quitting device.

“They work really good if you are committed to it,” she said.

The e-cigarette’s role as a quitting tool and its status as a tobacco product are the root of the questions. “Our position is we are with the Food and Dug Administration’s (FDA) position that the product is a drug delivery device, not a tobacco product,” said Ryan.
In April, the lung association, the American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network sent a letter to the FDA urging it to ban the sale of e-cigarettes until regulations could be imposed on their safety and restriction their availability to children. The letter accused e-cigarette manufacturers of making false claims as to the product’s safety.

Sheri Lynn, Tobacco Control Program Chief for the Vermont Department of Health, said there are no FDA regulations of e-cigarettes, which raises concerns about consumer safety. She said carcinogenic substances have been found in some of the e-cigarettes, especially the ones manufactured overseas, and while the risk to others from second hand smoke may be negated, there is still concern over the person using the product.

The PureSmokes at the Smoker’s Den don’t contain tobacco, and legally could be sold to those under 18.

“Store policy for us is we wouldn’t sell it to anyone under 18, just like we wouldn’t sell a non-alcoholic beverage to anyone under 21,” said Jim Brown, manager of the Smoker’s Den.

Brown said the e-cigarettes are not designed to be smoking cessation devices, but are cheaper than traditional smoking and because they only produce a light vapor when the user exhales, can be used in places where smoking isn’t allowed.

“They are growing in popularity,” he said.

Brown first heard of them from customers who were interested, then read up them in trade magazines. He said his current supplier deals with PureSmoke, LLC, a California company, which was part of the reason he ordered that brand after doing some research. Brown said he heard of concerns about ones made overseas and wanted an American company that would back the product.

Tina Zuk, of the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Vermont, said her organization has not approached any lawmakers about legislation regarding the e-cigarettes but is keeping a close eye on them. She said the fear is children will use them and move on to cigarettes.

How prevalent their use has become is difficult to determine, said Lynn. They are new enough not to have been added yet to surveys asking youths and adults about their tobacco usage.

Gwen Hannan, who runs the Quit-in-Person branch of the Vermont Quit Network at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, said a few of her clients have mentioned the product to her. “It’s wishful thinking that this is something that will give them all of the joy, but none of the pain,” she said.

She said there have been no studies on the effectiveness of the e-cigarette as a quitting tool, and added that there are multiple methods of getting free products such as patches, gum, and lozenges if a person wants to quit smoking. She said the e-cigarettes feed the addiction but appear to do nothing to treat it.

June 7, 2010, benningtonbanner.com

ALONG with buckets of money — more than $1.6 billion so far, worldwide — and a couple of Golden Globes, James Cameron’s “Avatar” has collected a smattering of controversy. Some of the hue and cry has involved matters of political allegory and theological implication, as pundits have divined that this globally popular blockbuster may represent a veiled ideological attack on America, capitalism, humanity, monotheism or all of the above.

But the fiercest attack on “Avatar” has focused on what may seem, compared to such lofty matters, like a minor detail. Of all the corny lines and ready-made catchphrases in Mr. Cameron’s script, perhaps none has turned out to be so provocative as one uttered by Grace Augustine, the scientist played by Sigourney Weaver: “Where’s my damn cigarette?”

In the view of anti-smoking activists, the correct answer should be: Nowhere, at least not in any real or imaginary world governed by a PG-13 rating. The logic of the Smoke-Free Movies campaign, which seeks an R rating for almost all instances of on-screen puffing, is straightforward enough. If the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings board advises parents about sex, violence, language and drug use, why should it not also shield children from exposure to a lethal (if legal) product that hooks, sickens and kills hundreds of thousands of people a year? Since 2007 the M.P.A.A. has considered smoking when it makes its judgments, and one studio, Disney, has since then made all its family films smoke free.

Should that be true of all movies likely to be seen by children? Does it matter that Grace’s smoking, according to Mr. Cameron, is meant to emphasize the less attractive aspects of her temperament, including that she “doesn’t care about the human body”? And if that mitigation seems like a bit of a stretch (in the future, how likely is it that scientific laboratories on distant moons will allow what their earthbound counterparts forbid today?), what about some of the other recent instances tarred, as it were, by the opprobrium of Smoke-Free Movies? The principal smoker in the animated “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a villain, and if the hero in “Sherlock Holmes” takes a draw or two on a pipe, well, he is Sherlock Holmes.

In the movie-smoking debate, even clear positions — that children must be protected from images that might influence their behavior, or that filmmakers should be immune from censorship and interference — tend quickly to be fogged with questions of context and nuance. That is because underneath the public discussion about smoking (or gun violence, or sexual promiscuity, or whatever social problem has seized the momentary spotlight) is another, much more confused discourse: about movies and about the ways they mirror and occlude reality.

The power of movies is undeniable, but also elusive. Even the children whose fragile psyches grown-ups fret about know that what movies depict is not real, and yet even the most sophisticated or jaded viewers habitually peruse the screen in search of designs for living. The screen is, among other things, a domain of glamour, in which ordinary actions are given a luster, a charisma, far beyond what they possess in the everyday world.

Social scientists doggedly pursue evidence of correlations between on- and off-screen behavior, while some commentators insist that no such connections could possibly exist. The rest of us know perfectly well that we don’t play with anvils and dynamite just because we see Wile E. Coyote do it, though perhaps those Looney Tunes are cautionary tales. But we also can acknowledge that our actions, our fantasies and the pictures we consume are not all that far apart. And it is for precisely this reason — in recognition of the unique and dazzling impact of an art form that is also a mass medium compounded of big pictures and good-looking people — that movies have always attracted the attention of censors. In the United States regulation has been voluntary, a way for private enterprise to forestall the interference of the government. Elsewhere the state weighs in, either with outright prohibitions on certain content or with restrictions on who can see what.

Hollywood’s self-imposed system has tried both approaches. From the mid-1930s to the mid-’60s the Production Code kept a tight rein on what all audiences could see, and promised that “no picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it.” It is easy enough, in retrospect, to laugh at the starchy Victorianism of that language. But at the same time the idea that movies might ennoble their audiences and even improve us as we watch them, affirms a faith in cinema that is almost Utopian.

The code may have withered, but the ideal of movies as a universal and fundamentally benign form of entertainment has hardly gone away, and is indeed what informs many of the efforts to broaden and strengthen the ratings system. That system, devised in 1968 by Jack Valenti, president of the M.P.A.A. for almost 40 years afterward, has undergone some tweaks over the years, replacing X with NC-17 and adding the PG-13 between PG and R. Such changes, and attempts to refine the criteria for any particular rating, represent an earnest attempt to keep abreast of public sensitivities even as they also suggest the quixotic nature of the enterprise. What committee could possibly take account of the often confused and contradictory mores and prejudices of a country of 300 million-plus people? And the M.P.A.A. has become an easy scapegoat for that very confusion. Critics of the association, including many filmmakers interviewed by Kirby Dick in his 2006 documentary, “This Film is Not Yet Rated,” accuse the ratings board of being more tolerant of violence than of sex, less tolerant of homosexuality than heterosexuality, and perversely fixated on shot lengths, camera angles and other technical matters that barely register with ordinary viewers.

Mr. Dick’s film, a critique of the ratings system in the name of artistic freedom, dwells on the commercially fraught boundary between the R and NC-17 ratings, which caused problems for the directors of films like “The Cooler,” “Boys Don’t Cry” and “A Dirty Shame.” But for the public — at least for children and their parents — the more embattled frontier is the one between PG-13 and R.

In actual ticket-buying practice, the difference between them is that a young-looking adolescent must be accompanied either by a full-fledged adult or by an older-looking adolescent. Otherwise it may take a practiced eye and ear to realize that a popular Anglo-Saxon expletive is acceptable in a PG-13 movie as long as it is only heard once and does not refer to a sexual act. Thus “Billy Elliott,” as wholesome and uplifting a film as you could hope for — its story about a kid who dreams of being a dancer is likely to inspire other kids with similar dreams — has an R rating because its proletarian English characters talk more or less as they would in the real world.

It is easy to scoff at that rating only if you have never received angry letters from parents or grandparents appalled by profanity. But of course the rules about specific rules allow a lot of leeway, and no one would claim that by taking your children only to PG-13 comedies, say, you would spare them sustained exposure to coarse sexual humor. Nor would a PG-13-only diet prevent them from seeing violent deaths and grisly images, including the genocidal warfare in “Avatar” itself.

On the other hand, a trip to see “It’s Complicated,” the midlife romantic-triangle comedy starring Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, will expose viewers to no violence, no nudity (apart from a brief glimpse of Mr. Baldwin’s buttocks) and very little naughty language. That film’s R rating came about because of a sequence in which Ms. Streep and Mr. Martin smoke a joint and suffer no adverse consequences beyond some potentially embarrassing giddiness.

The argument for the rating board’s decision, I suppose, would be that children might conclude that smoking marijuana is an acceptable, risk-free behavior. But what the ratings system, with its quantitative, literal-minded view of movie images, seems unable to imagine is that exposure to the pot in “It’s Complicated” might have the opposite effect. If your grandparents are doing it, how cool can it really be?

And what the supporters of the Smoke-Free Movies position may underestimate is the extent to which a taboo creates temptation. The audience most susceptible to the glamour of the R rating is also the demographic most at risk of starting to smoke. Exiling cigarettes to the ostensibly forbidden but easily accessible land of the R might have the unintended effect of making them seem more alluringly grown up.

More likely, bringing tobacco further into ratings decisions will create new opportunities for ambiguity and confusion, since it seems unlikely that smoking will be any different from any other vice, dubious practice or habit of speech. Smoke-Free Movies has claimed that the R for tobacco is not only right but also inevitable, and such questions, and the quarrels that follow from them, are also inevitable. As are further attempts to expand the purview of the M.P.A.A., to include other products and behaviors. What about guns? What about trans fats? What about beer and Styrofoam and high-fructose corn syrup?

In 2154, when “Avatar” takes place, it is possible that tobacco use will no longer exist. But if movies are still around, there will still be arguments about what they should be showing, and to whom. Such arguments are built into the medium and our complicated bond with it. We want movies to acknowledge what is real, but also to improve on reality, to give us a vision of a perfect world in which everything is permissible — a world that’s sexy, dangerous, scary and smoky and safe for children too.

By A. O. SCOTT, Nytimes
Published: January 22, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, – “Change your ways!” This is the mantra for consumers in 2010.

Without the change in attitude, efforts and campaign undertaken by the government or non-governmental organisations (NGO) to educate consumers serves no purpose.

Moreover, consumers will only end up wasting their money and put their lives in jeopardy.

In changing consumer attitude, it is wise to reflect on some of the campaigns including the “Tak Nak” campaign to eradicate smoking and the move by the government to increase the retail price of sugar.

The campaign on smokers is to remind them constantly that smoking not only wastes money but also endangers their health and the health of those around them.

PRICE HIKE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS

Therefore, smokers in the nation should view positively the government’s decision to set a minimum price of RM6.40 for a 20-stick cigarette pack effective January 1, 2010.

Malaysians may well be aware of the gory images on the effects of smoking flashed on billboards, posters and the cigarette packs.

Since the launch of the campaign in 2009, Malaysians have been exposed to the dangers of smoking and the danger caused by secondhand smoke.

Smokers should also be aware of the dangerous content in the cigarette itself. The cigarette is said to contain about 4,000 elements with at least 200 of them hazardous to human health.

The dangerous components in cigarettes are tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide. The three impair the lungs and blood circulation!

In fact the World Health Organisation (WHO) had clearly stated the dangers of smoking through its bulletin, World Health, and the bulletin is incorporated at the Health Ministry’s website.

The bulletin states that the nicotine found in tobacco unleashes chemical reaction similar to heroin and cocaine.

SMOKING KILLS

The ministry’s website also states that smoking can kill up to 1 billion people in the 21st century.

It is estimated that there are about 1.15 billion smokers all over the world with more than 80 per cent of them living in nations with low and medium income.

The website also quoted WHO as saying that tobacco is among the leading cause of deaths worldwide.

WHO estimated that approximately 100 million people will die due to complications caused by tobacco in the 20th century.

THE MALAYSIAN SCENE

Back in Malaysia, smokers represent almost half of the male population and each day about 45 to 50 teenagers under 18 pick up the habit.

About 30 per cent of the boys between 12 and 18 years smoke and the number of teenage girls picking up the habit has increased.

According to the ministry, health problems related to smoking including lung cancer has increased by 17 percent.

The same destructive habit has contributed to one million coronary cases.

Speak to any cardiologist, among the healthy lifestyle that they would suggest is to keep away from cigarettes.

Apart from high cholesterol, diabetes and high blood pressure, smoking too contributes to heart problem.

AVOID SWEET TOOTH

Like cigarettes, sugar too has negative implications to health but again many Malaysian consumers remain indifferent in their consumption.

Each time sugar shortage happens, often because traders hoard the commodity to push up the prices on the pretext of a shortage, consumers rush to retail outlets and supermarkets to buy sugar more than they need.

This in reality benefits the traders but consumers remain oblivious to the dangers of excessive sugar consumption to their health especially in their golden years.

When the government announced a 20 sen increase in the price of sugar, the same consumer attitude was seen at business premises.

Consumers were seen filling the shopping carts with sugar with some newspapers flashing pictures of empty sugar racks. There were instances where unscrupulous traders took advantage of the run for sugar by hiking the price to RM1.70 per kilogram.

As usual most consumers lamented that the rise in price will make life difficult for them but fail to realise that it is better to be more prudent in using sugar.

This state of mind prevailing among consumers has defeated the campaigns by the governments and NGOs to push consumers to reduce sugar intake.

The Consumer’s Association of Penang (CAP) that has been advocating the well-being of consumers came up with a handbook ‘Sugar Dangerous for Health’.

Those who have taken the trouble to read the handbook will think twice in consuming sweet delicacies or in adding sugar to their drinks.

SICK BECAUSE OF SUGAR

According to CAP, chemically sugar is equivalent to alcohol and the chemical reaction is similar to the one caused by heroin. It is addictive as well.

Malaysians are reported to consume 26 teaspoons of sugar daily compared with recommended intake of seven teaspoon! The record held by Malaysians even surpasses world daily average sugar intake of 11 teaspoons daily.

As for those hooked to canned sweet or carbonated drinks, think again as each can contains between seven and eight teaspoons of sugar.

According to CAP, the white substance that we call as sugar is actually “man made poison” and other than its sweetness there is no nutritional value.

As for those who could not do away with sugar, now think again as sugar is linked with 60 types of diseases including cancer, asthma, allergy, diabetes, coronary disease, biliary stone, problems relating to the immune system, kidney disease and poor mental health.

Also do note that the 2009 statistics revealed 17 per cent of Malaysia’s population of 27 million suffer from diabetes. Diabetes can lead to other complications like lost of sight, coronary disease, renal failure and stroke!

The 2006 data pointed out that 21 per cent of Malaysians are overweight and 6.2 per cent suffer from obesity.

Thus, change into a discerning consumer and choose wisely what is the best for you and your family.

– BERNAMA

Even among Republican faithful, there appears to be support for raising the tobacco tax, according to a poll commissioned by the measure’s proponents.

Six in 10 state Republican delegates support an increase in the tobacco tax, according to the survey commissioned by the Utah Alliance for Tobacco-Free Living.

TTO Research conducted the survey of 648 delegates Dec. 2.

The backing of GOP delegates could send a signal to Republican legislators and Gov. Gary Herbert that they could support the tobacco tax increase without facing repercussions at the state convention.

Herbert has said that he will not propose any tax increases when he releases his budget Friday and Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, says he has commitments from 14 of the state’s 29 senators to oppose any net tax hikes in the upcoming session.

Sen. Allen Christensen, R-Ogden, has proposed raising Utah’s 69.5 cent-per-pack sales tax to $2 per pack. Other proposals would raise it to an average of non-tobacco producing states or to an average of surrounding states and could index the tax so it grows as other states raise their taxes.

“Tobacco use is very price sensitive and the higher the cost, the more who use tobacco will either quit or cut back, and many, particularly children, will never take up the use of tobacco,” said Scott Brown of the American Heart Association.

The Alliance says raising the tax to $2 would make more than 13,000 youth quit smoking and deter 19,000 others from smoking in the first place.

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune, 12.08.2009

A smoking ban resolution passed by West Virginia University’s Student Government Association will move to a task force designed to discuss all aspects of a smoking policy at WVU.

Originally, SGA thought the resolution would move on to the WVU Board of Governors, but BOG Chair Carolyn Long said it would be “inappropriate” for the BOG to discuss the resolution before it goes through the task force.

University President James P. Clements said he’s listened to the opinion of many students on the smoking ban. Now it’s time to move forward, he said.

“We just need to bring the people together at the table and start talking about it,” Clements said.

SGA President Jason Zuccari, however, will bring up the resolution at Friday’s BOG meeting as an informational item.

Zuccari will tell the BOG of SGA’s support for a smoking ban on campus and the resolution is in the task force’s hands.

“There’s really no information,” Zuccari said. “I don’t have a policy because the committee’s not formed.”

SGA Vice President Whitney Rae Peters and Zuccari appointed three students last week to sit on the task force – SGA Gov. Abby Sobonya, SGA Student Health Chair Jon Bond and graduate student, Dave Slusarick.

Slusarick was chosen because he was not involved with SGA and Sobonya for her concern for policy issues, Peters said.

“We need to make sure that all the proper entities are represented – students have input, staff have input, faculty have input. It’s a big discussion,” Clements said.

Recommendations for people to sit on the task force are still coming in from faculty, staff and students and should be in place by semester’s end, said Assistant Vice President for University Relations Becky Lofstead, in an e-mail.

“This isn’t one of those ones where you make a decision in a week or a day or a month,” Clements said.

At Towson University, Clements said it took about two years for the task force to develop a smoking policy. It eventually banned smoking on campus.

“Two years seems like along time, but allows for a lot more stakeholders opinions, forums and stuff like that,” said SGA Gov. Taylor Richmond.

Peters agreed and wants feedback from every constituency.

“Any type of change in policy making takes time,” she said.

A task force style will allow for more discussion and student input, Richmond said.

“It’s better to formulate a more effective policy that the BOG can’t put together themselves,” he said.

SGA also passed a campus-wide smoking ban last spring.

Clements said many important discussions about implementation, regulation and enforcement need to take place amongst members of the task force.

“So for example, if you were driving your car right out here on University Avenue, it’s your car, you own the car, but you’re on our campus property, can you smoke in your car or can you not smoke in your car?” Clements said.

“And the way this campus is, it’s such a big campus, you could literally walk down the street, one minute you’re on the campus and one minute you’re off the campus, the next minute you’re on the campus again. How do you enforce it?”

In addition, promoting smoking cessation methods and research on other schools with similar bans is a goal for Soboyna during her time on the task force.

“I’ll definitely get in touch with (University of Pittsburgh),” she said. “We need to start out small, and go for the big and we can’t do that right away.”

The state of Pennsylvania created a state-wide smoking ban in 2008 including most universities, such as the University of Pittsburgh.

Clements echoed Soboyna’s point of studying other schools.

“We need to talk about what might work here, what might not work, who’s for it, who’s against it and why, how it affects recruiting of students and faculty and staff,” Clements said.

“There’s a lot of pieces to it, but we’re definitely ready for the discussion.”

By Samantha Cossick & Travis Crum, November 1, 2009

The New York State Senate hearing on the state’s non-collection of taxes on cigarettes sold to non-Native Americans on Indian Reservations brought representatives from Indian nations from all over New York State into a highly charged arena at the Borough of Manhattan Community College on Tuesday.

The hearing was chaired by state Sen. Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington) and had several other senators on the committee in attendance throughout the day. Though the hearing was scheduled to end at 2:30 p.m., the full slate of witnesses and complexity of the testimony being given extended to just after 4:30 p.m., with only two brief breaks in between.

Johnson had to call for order on a couple of occasions during heated exchanges between Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) and JC Seneca of the Seneca Nation of Indians that prompted mocking rebukes from Indians in the auditorium. Golden implored the Seneca nation to help New York State given the $4 billion budget deficit the state is facing claiming that New York State will soon be in the same position as California and issuing IOU’s to contractors, vendors and employees. This was met with calls from the crowd, many of whom were yelling out “That’s not our problem” and taunting the senator as he walked out midway through the proceedings.

Early on in the testimony, the senators attempted to establish the amount of tax money that New York was theoretically missing by not collecting tax on tobacco sales on Indian territories when sold to non-natives from off reservation land. This proved more difficult than the panel probably hoped as the first three witnesses gave figures that ranged between $95 million annually to $1.6 billion annually. The latter figure being given during spirited testimony given by Steve Rosenthal, a former tobacco distributor turned industry consultant.

The $95 million estimate was proffered by Peter Kiernan, representing Governor Paterson’s office, which represented a portion of the more than $200 million missing tax revenue as reported by William Comiskey, the deputy commission or Taxation and Finance. Kiernan said the reduced figure assumed a high level of “non-compliance in collection” of the tax even if a mechanism was adopted to collect taxes on cigarettes and it was agreed to by the tribes.
The committee pursued Kiernan more aggressively than other witnesses, clearly indicating a fracture between the governor’s office and the state legislature. Kiernan made it clear that the governor’s office is less than hopeful that this money will be collected and cited discussion with the New York State police that efforts to collect taxes from merchants on reservation territory would likely be met with violence. Key to this assumption were the incidents in 1992 and 1997 where New York State troopers attempting to enter Seneca territory upstate New York were met with angry mobs resulting in a standoff on both occasions.

Kiernan represented that the governor was determined to come to a resolution with the tribes but as of now has followed the practice of “forbearance,” which was begun during the Cuomo administration and continued through the Pataki and Spitzer administrations as well. Kiernan noted that the lack of clarity in the law and precedent to collect taxes from Indian nations as well as the likelihood of violent confrontation made the situation more difficult even though the Paterson administration believed it had a right to collect taxes from the tribes.

He went on to explain that the state troopers indicated during their discussions that the cost to close down activity on reservation lands in New York in an attempt to enforce taxation would cost nearly $2 million per day with no clear idea of how long a standoff between the state and the nations would take. Senators Golden and George Winner (R-Elmira) took the greatest exception to Kiernan’s testimony prompting Winner to ask “Doesn’t that send a message that there are rewards for not following the law?”

Other senators, most notably Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) attempted to lay a foundation that Native Americans enjoy public resources from transportation to healthcare. But there was a noticeable shift in the room when JC Seneca of the Seneca Nation and Seneca counsel Rob Porter were sworn in and took their seats in the witness chairs in the front of the packed room. Johnson took an amicable and cautious approach with Seneca and Porter as the discussion turned toward the key issue of sovereignty. Seneca in turn spoke in measured tones about the definition of sovereignty and cited case law and a Federal treaty between the United States and the Seneca Nation establishing that all commerce conducted on reservation territory is exempt from all local, state and federal taxes.

The senate committee ran into a brick wall with the Seneca and Porter testimony. As counsel to the Seneca Nation, Porter quoted state and federal decisions with efficiency and closed down every angle the committee pursued to further its goal of taxing Indian nations. When Winner remarked that Mr. Seneca appeared to be a non-violent and peaceful person and suggested that conflict could be avoided, Seneca replied to the delight of the Native Americans in the room that “you obviously don’t know me very well.”

He went on to say that neither side wanted conflict but reminded the committee that it was New York State that “invaded Seneca land with a thousand state troopers” and asked what the committee would do if that happened on their land. At the end of the question and answer period, Seneca struck a conciliatory note that the Seneca Nation would continue to pursue all matters in a court of law and try to avoid violent confrontation.

In a brief interview after his testimony, Seneca was upbeat about the hearing saying that “dialogue is beneficial to both sides of our issues” and that he was very concerned for the “success of western New York.” He is one of the largest employers in its region, which has turned the economic tables in the past two decades.

Much of their success has been due to the revenues generated from three gaming operations controlled by the nation and the increased revenues from the sale of tobacco. Seneca Nation and Chief James Ransom, Chief of the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, provided economic reports as part of their testimonies to illustrate the economic benefit that the tribes activities have on the regions they border.

Left unclear is what role the committee will play and whether or not any recommendations they make can be enacted or enforced. As a result of the taxes on cigarettes in New York—and Manhattan in particular—all Indian tribes have seen an explosion in sales on reservation territory.

Part this economic boon to the tribes is a war chest of funds to fight any legal battles that they deem to be en encroachment on their sovereign rights to engage in commerce on their lands. What does seem clear is that New York will have to look elsewhere to close its ever increasing budget gap.

By Jed Morey, Oct 28th, 2009