Gov. Paterson wants to snuff out cigarette sales by drastically raising fees for stores that sell them...
NYC Council Bans "All" Flavored Tobacco Products; Well... Not Exactly... Exempt are the Products Which are Actually Used by Thousands of New Yorkers November 06, 2009
By Michael Siegel In a move described as intended to protect youths from the enticement to use tobacco products due to their flavorings, the New York City Council has enacted an ordinance which bans the sale of flavored tobacco products in the City. According to an article in the Staten Island Advance: "The City Council voted overwhelmingly today to ban sales of all flavored tobacco products." Well .... not exactly. The ordinance exempts menthol cigarettes. It also exempts mint- and wintergreen-flavored or clove cigarettes. According to an article in the New York Daily News: "Michele Bonan, regional director of advocacy for the American Cancer Society, one of the groups pushing the ban, said flavored tobacco is "Big Tobacco's version of training wheels" to attract young smokers." The Council Speaker was quoted in the same article as stating that the ban was needed "to protect the children of New York City." The Rest of the Story This is an example of political cowardice, institutional racism, public deception, and what I would call sleazy politicking. Political cowardice This law represents political cowardice because these health groups and policy makers do not have the courage to actually promote or enact a policy that would actually accomplish what they state is the intended purpose. If the intent is to protect kids, then protect kids. Don't say that you're protecting kids from flavored cigarettes but then exempt the single most popular cigarette flavor among kids. The products which are being affected by this ban are almost entirely products that are used by adults. Chocolate, watermelon, lemon, cherry, strawberry, and banana-flavored cigarettes are not popular among kids. In fact, not a single such product produced by Big Tobacco is even on the market. But the leading brands of cigarettes that are smoked by African American kids in New York City are all flavored cigarettes - flavored with menthol, which is exempt from the ban. Institutional Racism Given the large African American population in New York City, this bill actually reeks of institutional racism. How can you get up in front of the African American population in New York and tell them that we have just taken an action to protect the kids of New York City, but fail to take any action on the one cigarette flavoring that is most responsible for the addiction of African American children in the City. Are you saying that we are going to protect white kids from tobacco addiction, but we're not interested in protecting black kids? Public Deception By suggesting that non-menthol, flavored cigars are Big Tobacco's training wheels to attract smokers, the American Cancer Society is making a statement that is unsupported by any evidence. The true "training wheels" to attract smokers are products that go by the names of Marlboro, Camel, and Newport. These brands account for a solid 85 to 90 percent of the "training wheels" that Big Tobacco uses successfully to recruit new smokers. The overwhelming majority of youth smokers begin to smoke not by trying cigars or cigarillos and then eventually switching to cigarettes, but by trying something known as a cigarette. The American Cancer Society is completely off base in suggesting that it is the banned flavored tobacco products that have anything to do with the youth smoking problem. In fact, it is the exempt products that are the ones addicting youths. The American Cancer Society is completely off base and I think it owes an apology to its constituents and the public. Sleazy Politicking This is an example of sleazy politicking because it represents an attempt by politicians to make it look like they are doing something to address the problem of youth smoking when in fact they are doing absolutely nothing of the sort. The so-called ban on tobacco flavorings is going to have no effect whatsoever on youth smoking because practically no youths use the brands that are being taken off the market due to this policy. The policy is pure window-dressing. It allows politicians as well as health groups in New York City to make it look like they are accomplishing something to protect children without actually having to do anything. And they are specifically avoiding the difficult move which would actually make a difference: getting rid of the menthol cigarettes which are addicting more than 75% of African American youth smokers in the City. Read
Aiming Wide in City War on Smoking June 30, 2009 By CLYDE HABERMAN Before too long, you may be forced to stare at a photo of blackened lungs, oozing decay, every time you go to the bodega for a quart of milk. We’re trying to figure out where under the heading of quality of life to file this bit of news. The photo is the latest idea from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, part of its nonstop campaign to acquaint the citizenry with the wickedness of smoking. Show smokers right there at the checkout counter how much gunk coats their lungs and maybe they will reconsider plunking down that Hamilton for a pack of cigarettes. That’s the theory. You might have thought that by now, even the most benighted smoker must know that the habit is destructive, no matter how satisfying in the short term. We’ve only had decades of government warnings on cigarette packs, not to mention recent television commercials showing two New Yorkers whose addiction led to the removal of a larynx and the amputation of fingers. Well before the government first ordered those warnings, in 1964, cigarettes were routinely referred to as cancer sticks and coffin nails. Those were not intended as phrases of affection. Most people understood that, even those of us who smoked back then in a misguided belief that an unfiltered Gitane dangling from the lips in imitation of Jean-Paul Belmondo in “Breathless” was a way to counteract hard-wired nerdiness. But the health department, led by its new commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, believes that more in-your-face tactics are required. Dr. Farley wants to require shops that sell cigarettes to post health warning signs prominently. After all, he said, the tobacco industry spends millions for advertisements at the “point of sale,” something perhaps better known to you as a cash register. “They clearly work, or the industry wouldn’t do it,” he said. “It’s an addictive drug that’s killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. It seems to me that just providing a warning sign there is actually a reasonable and modest approach to try to counteract that.” He added, “What we know is that counteradvertising in general works.” The thing is, though, that despite his department’s estimate that a million New Yorkers continue to smoke, most of us don’t. Yet under the proposed new regulations, anyone who goes to the corner store will have to look at blackened lungs and possibly more. An assistant health commissioner, Sarah B. Perl, was quoted in The Daily News as saying that people are going to see what cancer of the mouth and the throat look like. Really now, is it necessary to be subjected to such photos when all you want is a carton of orange juice? It’s for the collective good, Dr. Farley replied. “The issue is that when people go to the store, they get advertisements encouraging them to smoke, encouraging them to pick up what is an addictive drug and is killing people,” he said. “So we need to balance that with some information that protects people.” The Board of Health must approve any change. It plans a public hearing on July 30. Count on testimony being emotional — and predictable. Antitobacco forces will insist, not without notes of piety, that the city must do whatever it takes to wipe out smoking. Libertarians will demand with equal fervor that the calorie-posting, trans-fat-banning mayor and his crew stop meddling in people’s lives. The tobacco industry will protest. Store owners will weep that City Hall is taking bread out of their children’s mouths. You may count as well on the board’s endorsing the proposal. Its chairman happens to be Dr. Farley. Approval, he said, “is likely.” IN that case, how about taking this approach even further? Why stop with cigarettes? Why not require pictures of morbidly obese people at candy counters, to show what too many Snickers bars can do? Or photos of clogged arteries at fast-food restaurants, to discourage orders of double cheeseburgers? To promote safe sex, graphic examples of Kaposi’s sarcoma could be placed by condom racks. Displays of horribly diseased livers in liquor stores ought to deter people from drinking to excess. “I’m not prepared to think about things like that now,” Dr. Farley said. First things first. “Tobacco,” he said, “is far and away the No. 1 underlying killer in America.” Then we’d best conquer it ASAP. Maybe it’s just us, but we can’t wait to move on to those fatty livers and blocked arteries. Read
Premium Cigar Retailers Oppose New York City Anti-Tobacco Moves New York City, New York July 29, 2009 – Despite millions of tax dollars coming to the cash strapped state of New York from the sale of tobacco products annually, New York City is taking actions that will ban the sale of some of those products throughout the city’s five boroughs. In addition, the city is moving toward posting gruesomely graphic anti-smoking signs at the cash registers of the city’s 12,000 cigarette retailers. “I’m going to assume that these are well-meaning people, but they are moving down a very slippery slope and do not realize the errors of their ways,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association. The IPCPR is joining the National Association of Tobacco Outlets and the Cigar Association of America to campaign against these actions. The New York City Council is reviewing Proposed Introduction No. 433A that seeks to ban the sale of flavored cigarettes, flavored cigars, flavored chewing tobacco and other flavored tobacco products. At the same time, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene wants to put graphic anti-smoking signs at cash registers where cigarettes are displayed, the first such action in the United States. “They claim that banning the sale of flavored tobaccos is supposed to protect youth from purchasing these products. Age laws are already in place forbidding the sale of tobacco purchases by youths. Anyway, most flavored tobacco products have been included in recent federal legislation giving the Federal Drug Administration regulatory power over cigarettes. There is no reason for New York City to waste time debating whether to assume that authority,” said McCalla The IPCPR, an association of some 2,000 premium cigar store owners and manufacturers and distributors of premium tobacco products and accoutrements, also argues against the proposed anti-tobacco signage at cash registers because, among other reasons, it is discriminatory against a minority. “About 20 percent of New York adults smoke, so that makes them a minority and that makes such signage discriminatory. Maybe they should consider putting signs in the candy sections of stores warning of the dangers of obesity and in the beer and wine sections proclaiming the dangers of alcoholism and drinking and driving. It is a slippery slope, indeed, and smokers and non-smokers alike should be against having the government tell them what to do,” he said. ### Contact: Tony Tortorici 678/493-0313 tony@tortoricipr.com
HERE'S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO:
Gov seeks fee hikes to stunt butt sales
March 23rd 2009
BY Kenneth Lovett, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
ALBANY - Gov. Paterson wants to snuff out cigarette sales by drastically raising fees for stores that sell them, the Daily News has learned.
Paterson's budget office projects cigarettes and other tobacco products would be sold at 40% fewer stores if his proposal is adopted.
The plan was quickly panned by business groups - even as the anti-smoking lobby cheered.
"It really is outrageous," said James Calvin of the New York Association of Convenience Stores.
Store owners now pay the state tax department a $100 annual registration fee to sell tobacco products. Under the new proposal Paterson is quietly pushing, a store with annual gross sales of less than $1 million would instead pay $1,000 a year.
Stores with gross sales of $1million to $10 million would pay $2,500 a year and sales in excess of $10 million would mean an annual fee of $5,000.
The fees are based on overall product sales - not just tobacco.
Calvin said the fees would only push more smokers to buy their butts on the black market.
"It makes no sense," Calvin said, adding the state hasn't done enough to go after taxes owed from the sale of cigarettes on Indian reservations.
A report due out today shows the state is now losing $1 billion a year in taxes from those sales, up from $600 million.
If passed, the fees would begin in January and should bring in $18.5 million in the coming fiscal year and $13.6 million the following year, state officials said.
"You're selling a product that kills people. You should pay a significant license fee," said Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York.
Paterson's budget spokesman Matt Anderson called the proposed change a "health care initiative" and said it would "help provide critical funding for health care programs, including anti-tobacco programs at a time when the state faces a record $14billion budget deficit."
He projected the fees could lead to a 40% drop in the number of New York stores that sell smokes - an estimated 10,000 fewer tobacco-selling shops.
Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, warned the proposal wouldn't stop people from smoking but would boost sales on the Internet and black market.
Raj Aryan, manager of Village Magazine, Cigar and Gourmet Food in the East Village, said increased fees could kill his store.
"If it goes up any more, we will have to close," he said. "This whole business is linked to cigarettes. Read
--------------
AND HERE'S WHO HE IS:
Gov. David Paterson's Senate minority leader tenure marked by chaos, dysfunction
March 23rd 2009
A bombshell secret report sizing up David Paterson's leadership when he was Senate minority leader found his office mired in chaos, lacking clear lines of communication and hobbled by dysfunction and indecisiveness.
The 2005 report, based on interviews with key aides, is a devastating early look at the bumbling management style that would come to define Paterson's first year as governor.
"Leader Paterson has a restaurant maitre d' style of management - whatever the members want," Jonathan Rosen, then a top staffer for Senate Democrats, told a Paterson aide who was tapped to interview staffers and compile their opinions.
"Paterson is afraid of the conference; leads by consensus," the report says Rosen believed at the time. "This is a huge liability."
One top aide who should have been imposing discipline instead boozed with subordinates and came to work hung over, one employee griped.
A politically connected hire had only one job: to make sure drawers were stocked with copier paper, another revealed.
Aides were promised the report would be kept confidential.
But it was hardly well-guarded. It was discovered tucked in a filing cabinet at the Legislative Office Building in Albany and obtained by the Daily News.
Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield called the report "outdated."
"Since the governor took office a year ago, he has displayed strong leadership by raising early alarms about the economic crisis and continually making the tough fiscal choices that will improve the state's long-term health and the lives of everyday New Yorkers," Cockfield said.
Chronicle of shortcomings
Paterson's inability to lead and his difficulty with saying no have been an open secret in Albany since his days as the Senate minority leader, a post he held from January 2003 to January 2007, when he was sworn in as former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's lieutenant.
But this was the first time his shortcomings were chronicled in crushing detail - and by the very people he was supposed to be rallying to oust the Republican Senate majority.
And he brought it on himself.
Paterson ordered up the top-to-bottom review of the Democratic conference and its staff in the summer of 2005. He asked Queens Sen. Malcolm Smith, a close ally, to head it up.
At the time, Democratic lawmakers were trying to capture the Senate majority from Republicans, and Paterson wanted an honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, sources said.
Smith had Meredith Henderson, then Paterson's director of human resources, conduct the interviews and compile the report.
Henderson interviewed everyone from top staffers such as Charles O'Byrne, then Paterson's director of press operations, to lower-level research assistants.
The report reveals an operation beset by infighting, larded with patronage hires and lacking any clear direction or vision from the top.
The complaints are nearly four years old - but the criticism is similar to that Paterson faces today.
"Each department functions separately; there is a lack of communication; no real message; no real platform and no agenda," regional coordinator Jaclyn Kessel told Henderson.
You "feel like you are fighting the people that you are working with," Kessel is quoted as saying.
Esther Greenbaum, a research assistant, said there was "no cohesive message from the top"and complained about "patronage hires."
"There are titles with no meaning to the titles. ... There is staff whose duty it is to put paper in the computer draw [sic]," Greenbaum said.
Dysfunctional operation
Alexandra Stanton, senior policy adviser to the minority leader, told Henderson she considered the Senate Democrats' overarching mission was to "take the majority," but worried "at least half of the members do not want to work that hard and therefore do not want to be in the majority."
Stanton cited "dysfunction" in the Senate Democrats' operation, the report states.
She said there needed to be an implementation of "structure and discipline" and "a willingness on Leader Paterson's part to abide by the structure."
Shawn Thompson, who served as O'Byrne's special assistant, told Henderson: "The leader plays staff against each other." He said the Democrats had an "inconsistent message" and were "disorganized."
None of the staffers interviewed still work for the Senate Democrats.
A source familiar with Paterson's time as minority leader claimed he inherited a staff from Sen. Martin Connor that was "dysfunctional at best" and noted the minority's lack of resources.
Following the report, Paterson shook up his staff, replacing his old chief of staff, Michael Jones Bey, with O'Byrne, and the situation improved somewhat.
Democrats took control of the Senate in 2008, and Smith is now the majority leader.
Paterson has been besieged with complaints about his leadership since abruptly becoming governor in March 2008 after Spitzer resigned in disgrace.
The chaos became more evident after O'Byrne - a powerful and controlling chief of staff - left in October in the wake of a tax scandal. Paterson bungled the appointment of a successor to Sen. Hillary Clinton - trashing beloved icon Caroline Kennedy in the process - and his approval ratings fell to record lows.
Paterson has since shaken up his staff, bringing in former Westchester Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz to replace his interim chief of staff, Bill Cunningham, and tapping Peter Kauffmann, a one-time aide to Clinton, as communications director.
Smith spokesman Austin Shafran confirmed Paterson commissioned the report. He said Smith handed off the completed report to Paterson and "never asked about it again."
"It was handled with all due care that something of this magnitude would certainly deserve," Shafran said. Read
|
