New York is experiencing budget shortages, but gutting tobacco prevention funding is not the way to solve the state’s problems. Over the last two years, the program has already been cut by 38 percent, resulting in a 7 percent increase in the number of smokers. Smoking in New York already costs us over $8 billion a year in direct health care costs. Anything that would result in more people smoking would place a huge financial burden on us all. Saving a very small amount of money by cutting these programs would cost us billions in the future.

The public health effects of smoking are immense, not to mention the devastation that smoking brings to the lives and health of family members. The program is working well and creating cost savings for us by reducing smoking rates. The program also provides jobs to New Yorkers, jobs that improve the health of the state and its citizens.

Call your state senator and assemblyman today and ask them to not cut tobacco prevention and control funding!

By Betsy Dahlgren, June 9 2010, post-journal.com

Treasury pushed for a“tobacco control strategy” rather than excise tax increases when plans to cut smoking rates were discussed, papers show. The Government went ahead with tobacco tax hikes, starting at 10 percent for factory-rolled cigarettes in April, with two more hikes to come over the next two years. Papers obtained by The New Zealand Herald under the Official Information Act showed Treasury recommended to Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia that the Government use a range of tools to prepare a“tobacco control strategy” rather than ramp up excise tax.

It said excise increases were“not highly effective” despite information from the World Health Organisation suggesting it was the single most effective way to encourage quitting and achieving a drop in smoking prevalence .

Quitline has reported calls increasing 100 percent since the price of tobacco went up.

NZPA |  June 2, 2010

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address will completely ignore a huge and totally unnecessary expense which, if corrected, could fund health care reform without any cuts in Medicare or any additional taxes, with tens of billions left over to reduce the deficit, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Smoking costs the American economy almost $200 billion a year for totally unnecessary medical care costs under Medicare, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits, Indian benefits, and many other welfare programs, as well as in the costs of premature disability, lost productivity, and other factors. Nonsmokers are now forced to bear most of this cost in the form of higher taxes, and in inflated premiums for medical insurance, says Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

But, despite Obama’s zeal to slash health care costs, including legislative proposals to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare for the elderly, Obama will reportedly propose no new approaches to curbing America’s number one cause of unnecessary health care costs — one which by any measure exceeds the costs of frivolous medical malpractice law suits, inefficiencies from a lack of digital medical records, outdated policies for treating diseases, etc.

One simple step, proposed by Action on Smoking and Health, would have been to impose, as part of health care reform, a modest surcharge on health insurance premiums for smokers — just as smokers now pay more for life insurance, and, in an increasing number of situations (including in many states), for health insurance.

ASH showed how such a surcharge would slash health care costs by reducing the incidence of diseases caused or exacerbated by smoking; obviously a much more efficient way than simply improving the care for these diseases once they have already occurred. It would in addition substantially reduce the need to cut life-saving Medicare funding, or to tax comprehensive health plans, and is one of the few funding proposals favored by a majority of Americans.

Obama could also help to reduce this totally unnecessary subsidy nonsmokers are now forced to pay by other steps which likewise could be done at no cost and which could be implemented immediately. One would be to direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use the power Congress just gave it to substantially reduce the level of nicotine in cigarettes to the point where the product could not easily sustain an addiction and prevent millions from quitting smoking.

Another useful step, says Prof. Banzhaf, would be for Obama to ask the U.S. Senate to ratify the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control — a world antismoking and nonsmokers’ rights treaty which the U.S. supported and signed, but has yet to ratify. A third measure might be to require, as a condition of receiving federal grants, that recipient institutions ban all tobacco use on their property, and provide effective smoking cessation assistance to employees.

“Smoking is the 800 pound gorilla in the health care debate which everyone is afraid of and unwilling to confront. Halving smoking — by making it much more expensive as well as very inconvenient — would pay for all health care reform without any need to cut Medicare or increase any taxes. It would go a long way towards insuring that the nonsmokers would not have to continue to subsidize this activity which many so strongly oppose.”

“A surcharge on smokers would, for the first time, force them to accept some personal responsibility for their choice, rather than requiring others to absorb these huge costs,” says Banzhaf, noting that President Obama, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and many conservative as well as liberal groups have argued that personal responsibility must become a major component of health care reform.”

Those who by their own choices impose huge and totally unnecessary expenses on the American public should bear at least some of those costs, argues ASH. For many of them, including the overwhelming majority who already wish to quit, it would be the first time that continuing to smoke would have real, direct, and immediate consequences — thereby providing the additional incentive many need to be successful, says ASH.

PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
America’s First Antismoking Organization
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 ** http://ash.org

While San Diego was Richard Nixon’s favorite city for political reasons, Copenhagen, may be Barack Obama’s worst. For it is the capital of Denmark where Obama’s last-minute pitch for Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics fell on deaf ears earlier this year. Today’s the “sky is falling” plea to 193 nations for a global climate warming pact most likely will suffer a similar fate.

Obama holds a poker hand the other players read. The joker is held by his own Senate which appears unlikely 1) to pass its own climate change bill any where near the one passed in the House, and 2) to ratify a treaty even if one is smoked out in Copenhagen.

In language a fifth grader can understand, poisons coughed into the air by carbon-producing fuels from vehicles and factories can only be reduced by universal cooperation. Doing it alone — or unilaterally in grown-up words — won’t accomplish anything.

The biggest stumbling block in Copenhagen has been resistance by China and some other rapidly-developing nations for reduction standard verification. No one trusts one another, especially the United States based on its record during the Bush administration.

The second hang-up is the cost. One proposal has wealthy nations paying $10 billion dollars annually until 2020 — about 20 to 30% of the total costs absorbed by the U.S. — to third world countries to help them achieve their goals in reducing pollution. From 2020 to 2050 the cost would be $100 billion annually.

The president is trying to take the lead but it is too late and not enough people and nation’s are following. At least the ones that matter: India, China and Brazil.

Obama in his speech to the world leaders today said their collective will to address global warming “hangs in the balance.”

“We are running short on time, and at this point the question is whether we will move forward together or split apart, whether we prefer posturing to action,” Obama said. “We are ready to get this done today, but there has to be movement on all sides.”

Whether it’s health care, rushing troops into Afghanistan when they’re not ready or climate change, Obama always is in a hurry-up crises mode, it seems. He’s right, of course, but in all cases the pushers and shovers outside his control are dragging their feet.

Before his arrival in Copenhagen, The Washington Post says it obtained a draft text of a basic agreement of general goals.

It provides a way for industrialized nations to commit “aggregate reductions of greenhouse gases” by 2020 and allows for this number to be judged based on both a 1990 baseline–which the European Union has insisted is the most meaningful date–and a 2005 baseline, which the United States, Japan and other developed countries have endorsed. The draft text includes all the near-term emission-cut pledges that industrial countries have made and would establish a 2050 target for reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions that would include all countries.

India, along with China the world’s second biggest polluter, is reluctant to even commit to emission reduction, according to French president Nicholas Sarkozy.

While it may make environmental advocates feel good, the Obama administration’s goal of reducing emissions unilaterally through the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bureaucracies.not only will accomplish nothing on the global scope of things but politically dilute their bargaining power with other nations.

In an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, two lawyers who both served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, write:

Unilateral action may well be the right option in cases in which the United States itself, given sufficient commitment and will, can achieve a particular goal. In the case of global climate change, however, the United States can do nothing that is in the least effective without the agreement and participation of all of the other major carbon-emitting economies, including Europe, India and China. Until all are on board, unilateral cuts will simply make the American people poorer, with no benefit to anyone but our foreign competitors.

The next time someone tells you “It’s all or nothing,” think global warming.

Seldom in the history of mankind has there been a proposal so altruistic for the common good and fraught with paranoia and parochial economic interests. It’s a green issue, all right, but in this case the color of money and not saving the rain forests nor taking a deep breath without choking nor watching Manhatten under 10 feet of water.
Posted by JERRY REMMERS, Columnist in At TMV, Breaking News, Economy, Politics, Science & Technology.
Dec 18th, 2009

After reading a story on The Consumerist, consumer protection site owned by Consumers Union, I could not stop thinking. The subject of smoking tobacco is always an interesting one. From one side, there is default “if you smoke, you know it’s probably bad for you” and from another comes the grave error that tobacco industry made when it came to advertising their products. Personally, I was always neutral when it comes to smoking because a part of my family has to smoke tobacco [not the post-processed kind known as cigarettes] to avoid a non-curable cancer. Yes, that’s correct – smoke to avoid cancer. At least that particular type. I came clean in genetic testing and hence, I am not smoking but I am definitely against discrimination of any type.

The reason for this story is a set of isolated incidents where Mac owners who experienced issues with their computers ended shut out by Apple Inc., claiming secondary smoke and OSHA violations are the cause for the warranty termination. Given the description of the issues at hand, we smell a seven-day old fish left out at 50C/120F.

“Dena set up an appointment at the same Apple store. They told me that they would take pictures of the computer – both inside and out before determining whether to proceed and that if the only problem was the optical drive, they’d probably just replace it. Dena called me earlier this week to deliver the “bad news.” She said that the computer is beyond economical repair due to tar from cigarette smoke! She said the hard drive is about to fail, the optical drive has failed and it isn’t feasible to repair the computer under the warranty. This computer is less than 2 years old! Only one person in my household smokes – one 21 year old college student. She said that I can get it repaired elsewhere at my expense. I asked why my warranty didn’t cover the repair and was told it’s an OSHA violation.”

There are two sides of each medal, but after reading a certain Apple-related story on the Consumerist, this definitely takes the cake. It turns out that fruity company from Cupertino decided to void warranty if you’re a smoker without stating that in the purchasing contract or warranty terms. Regardless of being a smoker or not, this is illegal. Secondly, calling “OSHA violation” at the time when Apple still ships products that contain hazardous materials is nothing else but bull.

In all seriousness, this is a dangerous precedence, because if customers don’t end up suing Apple for discrimination we might end up with more invisible warranty limitations which you would be unaware of. This issue goes beyond nicotine as a hazardous material as it opens us a whole set of circumstances where a company that is known for manufacturing fragile hardware maximizes its profits as it unilaterally shuts part of the warranty without prior consent.

We offer you improbable, but not impossible timeline of future warranty limitations by Apple:
2010: Apple voids warranty to all users who leave their computers in dusty rooms
2011: Apple voids warranty to drivers with “DUI” [Driving Under Influence]
2012: After initial shock, Apple cancels warranty to any alcohol consumer, citing “our machines feel threatened”
2013: Apple voids warranty to women during pregnancy “to avoid child trauma”
2014: The company cancels warranty if you eat meat because “you’re damaging the planet”
2015: AppleCare technician has to qualify you to see are you suited for purchasing Apple’s product
2016: Additional controversy: Apple initiates genepool testing to determine product suitability
2020: Apple cancels warranty to all carbon-based life forms – “because you aren’t organic enough”

Fruity company? Then again, with all these restrictions, one might start to ask – instead of telling people how to live and what they can or can’t consume, it might be a good idea to either re-start manufacturing or put more attention to QA department over at Foxconn. People who paid several thousand dollars for their Core i7-based iMacs aren’t amused at the fact a lot of iMac units are arriving dead.

© 2009 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.

Lebanon, Beirut - In Lebanon, you’re never far from the whiff of cigarette smoke.

In restaurants and cafes, on the streets, in the airport and even in elevators, Lebanese delight in lighting up. The World Health Organization (WHO) says Lebanon has one of the highest smoking rates in the world.

“We are a tobacco-friendly society,” says cardiologist Dr. Georges Saade, a former WHO official who now heads the Tobacco Control Project at Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health.

Saade is a committed anti-smoking campaigner and for years he’s fought an uphill battle for funding to increase awareness of the risks of smoking.

The ministry estimates that if attitudes towards smoking don’t change, this small nation of 4 million will experience at least 3,000 tobacco-related deaths each year.

Do you live in Lebanon? Would you welcome a ban on smoking in public places there? Tell us below in the SoundOff box

On a cool autumn night, Saade, his wife and their 5-year-old son walk through the streets Beirut’s renovated downtown; the intermittent odors of cigarette and water-pipe smoke wafting through the air.

Water-pipe — also known as hookah, shisha or nargileh – is a popular form of social smoking.

Saade says they’ve seen a steady increase of hookah smoking among young females — mainly because of a widespread misconception that water-pipes are not as harmful as cigarettes.

Various studies, including research by the American University of Beirut, indicate smoking water-pipe is at least as harmful if not more harmful than cigarette smoke, leading to higher risks of mouth, throat, and stomach cancer.

“If I want go out with my son,” says Saade, “I cannot take him to any cafe here in Lebanon, to any indoor place unfortunately, because somebody is always smoking.”

He says he and his wife spent most of her nine-month pregnancy at home because public places provided no protection from second-hand smoke.

The WHO estimates that about half of Lebanese adults smoke, and the ministry estimates that the figure is higher. There is, however, an even more alarming statistic.

A 2001 Global Youth Survey found that Lebanon had the highest rate of smoking among school children in all of the Middle East.

The ministry estimates that around 65 percent of Lebanese boys aged 13-15 consume tobacco regularly — either by smoking cigarettes or water-pipe.

These statistics marry up with Saade’s experiences in practice. The patients he sees who suffer from tobacco-related heart disease are getting younger and younger — and it inspires his passion for change.

Now he’s getting a chance to try to clear the air.

After years of applying and being turned down, the ministry has finally received a grant from New York-based organization, Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use.

On November 1, a shock media campaign featuring the message “Smoking is eating your loved ones alive,” was put up on 500 billboards countrywide and featured in newspapers, magazines and on TV spots.

A draft law submitted by the Ministry of Public Health and various NGOs to curtail smoking in public places has been decaying in the parliament’s proverbial drawer since 2003.

Saade hopes the national awareness campaign will mobilize Lebanese people to put pressure on their fractious political leadership to re-consider.

He is particularly compelled by the thought that in a decade most of his son’s high school colleagues are likely to be smokers.

“This is why I’m doing something,” he says. “But I think in 10 years few of the colleagues of my son will be smoking.”

Realistic? Or a pipedream?

Cigarettes are cheap in Lebanon and health warnings are not currently required on packs. In addition, the media is heavily bombarded with tobacco advertising.

Even worse, there is not even a minimum age to buy cigarettes. And then there’s a culture that defies regulation — perhaps a lingering side-effect of the lawlessness of the nation’s devastating 15-year civil war that ended in 1990.

Law enforcement officers rarely intervene, even when people blatantly break rules. Which may explain why it’s so common to see people smoking literally underneath a no-smoking sign.

Gemmayzeh, is a Beirut neighborhood famous for its active night life. In the bars and restaurants there, smoking is considered a symbol of freedom.

Tony, a smoker in his early 30s says Lebanese people would not react well if the government banned smoking in bars.

“Rage, anarchy. That’s what will happen.

“It’s not a smoking culture. This is freedom culture. You can do whatever you want,” he told CNN.

Many other Middle Eastern countries have laws restricting tobacco advertising and smoking in public places.

Syria banned smoking in public places in October. Jordan is trying to go smoke-free in the coming months. Israel, Egypt, most Gulf countries — even Iraq — have some restrictions on tobacco use, although degrees of enforcement vary.

Smokers in Lebanon say any attempt to ban smoking won’t work here.

“Most likely people won’t accept it and will continue on smoking,” says Raoul, a shaven-headed Lebanese in his mid-30s, puffing on a cigarette in a popular bar.

Raoul says even if the law passed, it would last a week and be forgotten.

“Unfortunately [the Lebanese] don’t like laws,” he continues. “Because of the history of Lebanon and what happened here, they’re used to it, they’re not into laws, they don’t like to respect laws and most of them think that laws are against them.”

But, for health advocates, there are some signs of promise in the very bars that are usually thick with tobacco smoke.

One Beirut bar called Godot opted to implement “smoke-free Wednesdays” about a year ago. The managers say that although they initially lost a few customers, Wednesday is now one of their busiest nights, catering to a non-smoking clientele.

The entire Gemmayzeh area, with the support of anti-tobacco NGOs, has had two completely smoke-free nights over the last year.

So for Saade and his tireless — some may say Quixotic — campaign, it seems there is hope.

By Schams Elwazer, CNN
November 16, 2009

Couples who smoke, or are overweight, should be denied taxpayer-funded access to fertility treatments until they take steps to improve their health, a visiting expert says.

Professor Nicholas Macklon says Australia should follow the example of New Zealand and other countries, which do not publicly fund assisted reproduction services for couples who are smokers or obese.

“I suggest that Australia should consider this model,” said Prof Macklon, who is head of obstetrics and gynaecology at Southampton University in England.

“… and patients should not expect to undertake infertility treatment unless they are prepared to give themselves the best chance of conceiving and having a healthy baby.

“We know, for example, that both male and female obesity is a factor in infertility and that smoking reduces IVF success rates by half.”

Prof Macklon spoke at the Fertility Society of Australia’s annual meeting, a three-day event which got under way in Perth on Monday.

He is considered a leader in the specialty of periconceptional medicine – an emerging field focused on the health factors that impact on fertility.

Prof Macklon said there was overwhelming evidence of the effects of poor diet, smoking and lack of exercise on reproductive health.

And that infertile couples seeking assisted reproduction should prepare for pregnancy by making lifestyle changes that give them the best chance to conceive.

“Leading a healthy lifestyle to achieve fertility fitness should be considered as much a part of assisted reproduction as high technology interventions such as IVF (in vitro fertilisation),” he said.

Prof Macklon also said the objective of infertility treatment should not solely be to help a couple have a healthy baby “but to ensure that the child becomes a healthy adult”.

“If a couple is fit and healthy, the chances of pregnancy are increased and the life-time health of the child will be greater,” he said.

One in six Australian couples experience infertility – defined as the failure to conceive after a year of unprotected intercourse or the inability to carry pregnancies to a live birth.

An estimated 10,000 children will be born as a result of assisted reproductive technology in Australia this year.

Dr Andrea Braverman, a renowned US specialist on the psychosocial aspects of fertility treatment, is also attending the conference.

She said for some people, the news they were unable to conceive was equal to being “diagnosed with cancer”.

The potential fall-out was not only personal, says Dr Andrea Braverman, as it often had a corrosive effect on relationships.

“For men it can cause feelings of sexual inadequacy, loss of potency and power (while) women can feel incompetent, useless and defective,” Dr Braverman said.

“Sex as an expression of love can become an expression of failure month after month.”

Dr Braverman said the medical or lifestyle factors contributing to fertility problems were shared equally by men and women.

Making the decision to seek help could also feel like their problem was being “taken from the bedroom and into a cast of thousands”.

“For some there are happy endings, but not all,” Dr Braverman also said.

By DANNY ROSE
October 26, 2009

In 2008, after 33 years of ownership, Richard and Sue Coakley handed the keys to their long-running Coakley’s Restaurant & Irish Pub to new owners Tim Hogg and Greg Bowers. Without losing sight of favorable existing qualities, the year has brought menu upgrades and staff changes and a new addition, a cigar bar, which is set to open this week.

“I’m a great believer in moving up within,” Hogg says.

In response to the state smoking ban, the area’s oldest Irish pub will have the newest cigar bar, J. Thomas O’Malley Tobacconist. This closed-off addition to the pub and restaurant celebrates cigars and cigarettes along with high-end drinks and spirits. Complying with the smoking ban requirement, no food will be served here. State-of-the-air cleaning units will have the ability to change the air quality in three minutes.

When not pursing lips around streamlined stogies, peruse velvety ports and whiff aged Irish whiskeys and scotches off the long drink menu. Sit in armchairs or stand around the long strip of bar and when you’re hungry, step in to Coakley’s for a bite.

I call Coakley’s a hodgepodge of mini dining and drinking areas. Hogg says it is one restaurant with eight atmospheres.

Hearty pub appetizers (the pub has its own menu) have been favorites for a long time. These include the cheesy crab pretzel ($11.75) and meaty, jumbo wings ($7.75 for 12).

Coakley’s Nibbler ($11.95) was a disappointing deep-fried assortment of tasteless mozzarella sticks, mealy potato skins, overly deep-fried chicken fingers and delicious beer batter onion rings.

Happy hour is from 5 to 7 p.m. daily and features specials on drinks and drafts. Wings are discounted and at least one sandwich is showcased at this time.

We walked through the restaurant entrance and found a row of booths tucked along one side of a tight but cozy hallway. We started with the potato soup ($3.25). It didn’t quite taste like the spud soup and was gloppy. Occasional chunks were woven through the murky base.

Shepherd’s pie ($9.99) was a tasty relief from the potage. Seasoned ground beef, mixed vegetables and gravy sat under a browned red-skinned mashed potato lid. This dish was nothing fancy, but wholesome and homey.

Cajun french fries were way too salty and demanded to be washed down with a draft from one of more than a dozen on tap.

Coakley’s mixed grill ($14.99) was an unusual conglomeration of grilled chicken strips, banger sausage (which looked and tasted like a fat hot dog), succulent mussels, tender and mouthwatering clams and well-seasoned and cooked shrimp. This assortment of ingredients rested high atop a bed of sumptuous garlic mashed potatoes. The seafood was superb, but I could have done without the meats.

You need to know what to order here. Some dishes are clearly better than others.

Hoggs said his favorite dish off the pub specialties was the Salmon Boxty ($15.99), which I will definitely have to try next time. It is grilled salmon on potato cakes with a Jameson cream sauce.

Our waitress recommended the steak or prime-rib selections, so we tried the Open Face Delmonico Steak Sandwich ($10.25). I’ll recommend it, too. The delmonico was grill-marked to medium-rare perfection and set over Texas toast. Homemade and peppery potato chips were a lip-smacking accompaniment to the steak sandwich. The sandwich needed the swipe of horseradish, but not the watery “au jus.”

Reubens ($8.99) were another delicious sandwich choice. Ribbons of corned beef, thousand island dressing, Swiss cheese and sauerkraut were piled on marbled rye bread slices.

For a sweet ending, I tried the Chocolate Lava Cake ($8.99), which was warm and tasted good and chocolaty but the chocolate did not meltingly flow out from the center. Rather, it was firm throughout.

After dessert, head to J. Thomas O’Malley Tobacconist for an after-meal drink. You will have the option of smoking, too, a rarity in this town now.

October 15, 2009

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira wants tobacco company executives to front up at an inquiry into the industry, despite his threats to lynch them.

Mr Harawira announced today the Maori Affairs parliamentary select committee would hold an inquiry into the impact of tobacco use on Maori.

The committee would talk to “everybody, before we get to the tobacco companies”, Mr Harawira said.

There was a “very clear public record” of the serious negative effects of tobacco and the companies selling it must front up to the public, he said.

The inquiry would require the New Zealand-based chairpeople and chief executives, not spin doctors, to be involved.

Select committees are able to ask the Speaker of the House to summons people to appear. It is very rare for a Speaker to do so.

The Speaker must be convinced that all other avenues have been pursued first.

If someone is summonsed and does not appear they can be charged with Contempt of the House, punishment ranging from imprisonment to the requirement of an apology.

Mr Harawira said he wanted to put the tobacco companies under the spotlight “finally”.

“To be brutally frank I’d like to lynch these bastards.

“This is a war against people who kill New Zealanders … I don’t particularly give a shit about what they say (in their defence).”

The inquiry wanted to increase public pressure for a ban on the sale of tobacco.

Eighty percent of smokers wanted to quit, Mr Harawira said.

“And 80 percent of the other 20 percent want to quit too … they just don’t want to admit it.”

Banning tobacco sales was different to prohibition because people wanted it and there was unlikely to be a massive increase in black market operations, he said.

There would also need to be a system to help people overcome their addiction.

Maori Party co-leader and Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia told reporters a ban would be difficult but displays should be outlawed and tax on tobacco raised.

“I’m already talking to the Government about those matters … I think we’re progressing.”

The announcement of the inquiry follows figures released to the committee early today by the Ministry of Health showing Maori women have the highest smoking prevalence (49.3 percent) followed by Maori men (41.5 percent).

Young Maori were more likely to smoke and second-hand smoke exposure was higher among Maori than non-Maori.

Shane Bradbrook, Te Reo Marama director, said it was time for the tobacco industry to be accountable.

There was no other industry operating in New Zealand or internationally that killed so many people and Maori were suffering out of proportion, he said.

Labour leader Phil Goff said society needed to do everything it could to discourage the promotion of a product that takes “lives in thousands” every year.

A ban would not work but stopping advertising would help, he said.

The Smokefree Coalition welcomed the review and said tobacco companies had “no qualms” about profiting while its customers died.

“The tobacco industry markets the cigarette as a symbol of freedom and personal choice, knowing that addiction robs people of the freedom to choose.”

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) spokesman Michael Colhoun said it was time for the tobacco industry to be held account.

The inquiry will look at the historical promotion of tobacco to Maori, the impact on Maori health, economic, social and cultural wellbeing, development aspirations, any benefits Maori received from tobacco use and what policy and legislative measures were needed.

The inquiry will start in February. Submissions will close on January 29.