Tobacco Free Spaces

I posted this on Globalink, so why not here, right?

I respectfully take issue with the perspective that tobacco free advocates are being “absolutist” about smoke free public space. Strict adherence to tobacco free space is simply consistent with what we know to be evidence based to effectively reduce tobacco use and nicotine adduction. Saying that outdoor tobacco policies need be “reasonable and fair” is little more than the accommodation argument the industry uses to delay clean indoor air in bars and restaurants. We are accommodating the tobacco industry not nicotine addicts. One reason that so many have quit using tobacco is because there have been regulations in place that make smoking less convenient; quitting easier. Enabling smokers is doing no one but those that profit from the sale and prevalence of nicotine a favor.

Are there limits to which we should regulate public nicotine addiction? Perhaps. But given the present almost unbelievable mortality and disease associated with the products the industry purveys that time is not yet here. We have evidence based incremental approaches to de-normalizing the tobacco pandemic: market reform, significant increases in the price, tobacco free space, and inclusive of the first three, support for cessation. Saying that regulating tobacco out of doors is unreasonable neglects the tragic subsidy we allow Big Tobacco when they foul our air, litter our public spaces, and prey on our youth.

Advocates should challenge the tobacco industry not collaborate. I see little reason to accommodate the tobacco industry. Communities have a justifiable and compelling interest in regulating rogue capitalists right out of town.

CTFA state conference

Not a bad way to spend a day listening to the likes of former Justice Department attorney Sharon Eubanks talk about how the Bush administration thwarted efforts at a RICO conviction for big tobacco.

Another note; if you ever get a chance to hear Ms. LaTanisha Wright speak, run, do not walk, to see her presentation. She is a former Brown and Williamson employee and now a member of the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network. She is a sharp, effective speaker.

Handsel Art

19 September 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

contact J.R. Few

handselart@marioncounty.com

or 870-427-1365

Advocates Hold State Conference

Advocates from across Arkansas gathered to challenge the tobacco industry at the 7th annual Coalition for a Tobacco Free Arkansas’ Striking Out Tobacco in Arkansas Conference at the Wyndham-Riverfront Hotel in North Little Rock September 17th.

After a welcome from CTFA Executive Director Katherine Donald And CTFA Board Chair Carla Sparks, the audience enjoyed a panel discussion: The Past Present and Future of Tobacco Control in Arkansas. Panelists ranged from attorney Tim Gauger, who worked with then Attorney General Winston Bryant to secure Arkansas’ Master Settlement funds in the late 90s, to the current Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Branch Chief for the Arkansas’ Department of Health, Dr Carolyn Dresler. Speaking for the American Heart Association, Barbara Kumpe reminded that Arkansas’s distinctive use of MSA dollars for health related issues was the result of a 64% voter mandate in 2000.

Former Department of Justice attorney Sharon Eubanks gave the Luncheon Plenary as an overview of her successful prosecution of the tobacco industry as lead attorney for racketeering and fraud charges in 2006. A career government lawyer, Eubanks recounted how Bush Administration appointees, when it became apparent the case would succeed, directed her to drop a $130 billion remedy that included a national tobacco cessation program and even attempted to get witnesses to change their testimony just days before the final hearing. She resigned from the Justice Department as the result of this politically motivated interference. An appellate court upheld the racketeering decision earlier this year.

Briefing the audience on the recent law giving the FDA limited authority over tobacco, she noted that this bill was written 10 years ago. “And we have learned much more about the industry and tobacco since then.” She went on to suggest that certain commercial speech restrictions may not stand the scrutiny of litigation.

Mr. Joe Arnold was recognized with the Trail Blazer Award for his persistent and successful efforts to enact a tobacco free policy for all Little Rock city parks, including Riverfront Park.

Conference participants were given a wide choice of workshop topics including tobacco in the gay and lesbian community, tobacco in the Coordinated School Health programs, recent laws in Arkansas involving tobacco, and a media and counter-marketing workshop by local activist J.R. Few.

Perhaps the highpoint of the day was the closing presentation by La Tanisha Wright with the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network. A former Brown and Williamson employee, Ms. Wright gave an eloquent, informative, and emotional insider’s overview of the history of tobacco and slavery and how marketing tactics continue to target and enslave African Americans today.

Local advocates Harry Meyer and his daughter Ida attended the CTFA event. “Ida talked about the last speaker all the way home and is still talking about it,” says Meyer. “That woman made a huge impression on her, me too for that matter. The conference was a tremendous learning opportunity for anyone.”

###

FDA Litigation Begins

The first lawsuit challenging the limited authority of the FDA to regulate tobacco advertising was filed in U.S. District Court in Kentucky today. Their complaint is that restrictions on advertising are an infringement of First Amendment rights.

This intriguing distinction in the U.S. that places advertisements under speech doctrines rather than trade is fairly recent. In 1980 the court established the Central Hudson test for “commercial speech” that disallows First Amendment protection only if the advertisement is false or misleading or the government has a substantial, reasonable, interest in regulation. But it wasn’t until 2001 that Lorrilard vs. Reilly struck down Massachusetts restrictions on tobacco advertising saying the state did not prove that these restrictions would reduce underage smoking.

Today’s suit claims,that marketing aspects of the law, "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers."

My concern is not that tobacco companies will be allowed to communicate with adult tobacco consumers but that reinforcing the “adults only” cachet will enhance longstanding marketing strategies for attracting youth. The tobacco companies can’t lose.

The success or failure of this litigation will no doubt take years. In fact, this aspect of the new law is not scheduled to take effect for three years anyway. But already we are learning of the troubling nature of institutionalizing contemporary tobacco use under the auspices of the Food and Drug Administration. Note that Philip Morris, a leading collaborator on the bill, is letting the competitors initiate this litigation.