I’m not sure what to think of this, other than the less kids get hooked on nicotine, the better.
Because of the wild success of vaping (e-cigarettes), the latest trend in e-cigs is moving toward vaping caffeine.
Hey, if it makes vaping nicotine less popular, more power to them. Though I wouldn’t considering myself an expert in talking about caffeine, I have no doubt it is considerably less nasty than nicotine. The New York Times describes this as “Red Bull for the lungs.”
A typical cup of coffee contains between 95 and 200 milligrams of coffee. By comparison, caffeine vaporizers contains 2 milligrams of caffeine per puff, meaning you’d have to puff about 50 times to get the same amount of caffeine as a cup of coffee.
Like nicotine e-cigs, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t set any rules about caffeine vaporizers. In fact, it doesn’t appear the feds have even really studied it. (The FDA is working on final nicotine e-cig regulations … for like two years now.).
According to one writer who tried the caffeine e-cigs, the steam tastes like candy and little happened until the 10th puff. From the New York Times:
In a recent test, I found the Eagle experience a far cry from smoking, or drinking coffee. The first drag on this cigarillo-size plastic tube produced a blue glow from the LED tip, and a mouth filled with a surprising hard-candy sweetness; it felt a bit as if one had been freebasing a Jolly Rancher Cherry Stix.
After the fifth hit, a promising tingle in the fingertips emerged. At 10 hits, it was an official buzz, albeit more the tingly, full-body caffeine glow one associates with Red Bull rather than the brain-focused coffee jolt.
Cigarettes are the most littered item on earth. (PRNewsFoto/DoSomething.org)
Something that gets overlooked a lot about cigarettes — their effect on the environment.
An organization called DoSomething.org, (Seems to be related to Truth.com) is highlighting the truly shocking and amazing impact cigarettes have on the environment — mostly from the filters being tossed away on the ground. The group is starting a campaign to the get the word out about the damage done from cigarettes, using a series of Internet memes to get its point across.
For instance, cigarettes are the No. 1 most littered item in the entire world resulting in 1.7 billion tons per year of trash in the environment.
That may sound like a shocking number, but keep in mind just how many cigarettes get smoked each year. In the United States alone, about 45 million people smoke. Say those 45 million people average roughly one pack a day — that translates into 900 million cigarettes a day and more than 300 billion cigarettes a year. And that’s just the U.S. It’s bad enough that that’s in the waste stream, but a lot of cigarette butts end up in the environment, not just landfills. Say just a measly 10 percent of those cigarette butts end up on beaches, parks and sidewalks — that’s 30 billion cigarette butts a year being dumped into the environment.
1.69 billion pounds of butts end up as waste each year. (PRNewsFoto/DoSomething.org)
Other effects on the enviromment: One tree is chopped down to create just 15 cigarettes. Again, do the math — that’s 20 billion trees a year to feed the U.S.’s smoking habit.
Also keep in mind that the filters in cigarettes are not made of cotton like they appear. They are actually made out of plastic, which takes forever to break down in the environment.
The huge problem of littering is the biggest reason why smoking bans have been expanded to include many public beaches and parks. Smokers’ rights people go nuts over outdoor smoking bans, but my attitude is smokers honestly have no one to blame but themselves for the really massive cigarette butt littering problem on beaches and parks. I can find a million links online showing that cigarette butts are far and away the No. 1 trash problem on beaches. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 32 percent of the trash cleaned up on beaches is strictly cigarette butts.
Ninety-six percent. Man. That’s a lot of crap people were breathing before. In casinos, traditionally the most smoky venues of all, the small particulates level dropped 99 percent. So, all that’s left is like a few dust motes.
From a Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids press release:
“We’ve heard from so many people in our bars, restaurants and casino who say they feel better and can breathe easier now without the stress of knowing they are in an unhealthy environment,” said New Orleans Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell, the ordinance’s chief sponsor. “The air is definitely cleaner in New Orleans – and the city has made a very smooth transition to this improvement. This makes it clear that we did the right thing.”
“The smoke-free law has always been about protecting people’s health by creating healthier air for all to enjoy,” said Tonia Moore, associate director, the Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco-Free Living (TFL). “This study demonstrates conclusively that the law is protecting the health of New Orleans hospitality workers, entertainers and patrons who were previously endangered by the harmful air pollutants in secondhand smoke. They and their families have to be thrilled that they have significantly reduced their exposure to the harmful health effects of secondhand smoke, including increased risks of cancer and heart disease.”
Now, the law was fought tooth and nail by a coalition of New Orleans restaurants, bars and casinos (including some restaurants that are already smokefree 😕 …. which is really curious to me.) The coalition filed suit against the law passed last year, but the lawsuit was dismissed. The businesses behind the lawsuit were concerned that the smoking ban would cost them customers and revenues.
Next, I would love to see the data on how the smoking ban is affecting tourism and business in New Orleans. It would probably be at least December until we could see some preliminary 6-month data on sales taxes, hotel taxes, etc., in the city.
This month is also the 10-year anniversary of the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. I found a bunch of stories on how tourism in the city is thriving, even if some neighbourhoods have not been rebuilt (and may never be rebuilt).
From a tourism perspective, here are the facts from UNO’s Hospitality Research Center. In 2006, the city hosted 3.72 million visitors (a 74 percent decline) who spent $2.89 billion, a 42 percent decline from pre-disaster numbers. In 2014, visitors numbered 9.52 million and their spending was $6.81 billion.
So, in short, the number of tourists visiting New Orleans and the amount of money they spend has more than doubled since the year after Katrina. I mean, compared to where New Orleans was in 2006, businesses are worried about some kind of perceived hit from a smoking ban? Please. I mean, in 2005, it looked like the city would never recover. Be thrilled with how New Orleans is doing. Don’t be freaked out by a little thing like a smoking ban … that’s a pretty trivial challenge compared to Katrina.
Well, right on the heels of my story about the New York Times writing about San Francisco’s ban on ballpark chewing tobacco, the major of Boston, Martin Walsh, is now proposing a similar ban on chewing tobacco at Boston parks and ballfields, which include Fenway Park.
Walsh said he is proposing an ordinance banning smokeless tobacco beginning April 1, 2016, in time for next season (San Francisco’s ban is taking effect Jan. 1, 2016.)
There’s been a big push to ban chewing tobacco on baseball fields since the death last year of Tony Gwynn. Gwynn, a longtime chewer, died of salivary gland cancer in his early 50s. Boston pitcher Curt Schilling also had a very public battle last year with a serious bout of oral cancer. Schilling, likewise, used to chew tobacco.
From the Boston Globe article:
“A lot of times, young people will copy what their sports heroes do, and clearly there is a connection between chewing tobacco and cancer,” Walsh said in an interview. “This sends a strong message throughout Boston, and hopefully many other towns around Boston, and across the country.”
Chewing tobacco is deeply, deeply ingrained in the culture of baseball for some mystifying reason. According to the Globe, 21 out of 58 Red Sox players surveyed at Spring Training said they use smokeless tobacco. That’s pretty close in line with a survey of professional baseball trainers, who estimate that about one-third of ballplayers chew. Meanwhile, only 6 percent of adult males among the general population chew.
According to the Globe, Red Sox owner John Henry supports Walsh’s idea.
Interestingly, Schilling, an openly conservative Republican, also supports Walsh’s idea. From the Globe:
Schilling, who is expected to attend the mayor’s announcement at Joe Moakley Park, said he supports the prohibition on chewing tobacco.
“I have seen cancer take the lives of people very important to me like my father, a lifelong smoker, and I have endured the insufferable agony of radiation to the head and neck,” Schilling said in a statement. “If this law stops just one child from starting, it’s worth the price.
The Boston Globe also added an opinion piece, written by Dr. Howard K. Koh and Dr. Alan C. Woodward, in favour of the ban. Koh and Woodward point out that not only did Tony Gwynn die likely as a result of his chewing, but Babe Ruth, who chewed and smoked cigars, died in his early 50s from throat cancer.
Despite this progress, the national rate of smokeless tobacco use in high school has stayed disturbingly steady. In the US, nearly 15 percent of high school boys currently use smokeless tobacco. More than half a million youth try smokeless tobacco for the first time. Smokeless tobacco companies annually spend $435 million on marketing. A key message of such advertising is that boys can’t be real men unless they chew. Also, scores of Major League Baseball players who chew or dip in front of fans provide invaluable free advertising for the industry. Impressionable kids stand ready to imitate their every move.
For too long, the tobacco industry has normalized and glamorized products that cause drug dependence, disability, and death. Leveraging the prestige and appeal of baseball has been an essential part of that strategy. It’s time for baseball to start a new chapter that reclaims tobacco-free parks as the new norm — and for Boston, home to so many sports achievements, to lead the way.
Ultimately, in order to really drive tobacco out of Major League baseball, it would take the cooperation and agreement of the Players’ Association. Chew is already banned on the field in Minor League and NCAA baseball. However, the Players’ Association has opposed banning it at the Major League level. The issue is expected to be negotiated during the players’ next collective bargaining agreement with Major League Baseball.
I’ve written extensively about this in the past year — about the push to get chew out of baseball. The New York Times just published a story about, joining other major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times in exploring the stubborn tradition of chewing tobacco in baseball.
Chewing tobacco is for whatever reason deeply entrenched in the culture of baseball. Baseball player chew at a much higher rate than the general population. According to the Professional Baseball Trainers Association, one-third of ballplayers chew tobacco, down from about half a few years ago. However, that’s still considerably higher than the general population of adult men, of which only about 6 percent chew. (Virtually no women chew for whatever reason, probably because it’s so gross.).
AP photo
Tony Gwynn’s death last year of salivary gland cancer and Curt Schilling’s battle with oral cancer have sparked the most recent debate about chew in baseball. Chew is already banned on the field and in the dugouts in the NCAA and Minor League Baseball. San Francisco banned all tobacco chewing in AT&T Park (even including players and coaches) beginning next year and a bill has been introduced in the California State Assembly to ban chewing tobacco in all ballparks in California (this would affect the A’s, Dodgers, Padres and Angels, as well as visiting teams). We’re talking chew on the field or in the dugout; they can’t ban players from chewing on their own time.
Though chew has been banned in the Minor Leagues and NCAA for many years now, it’s still allowed in Major League Baseball (Though, get this, players are banned from chewing tobacco while conducting television interviews.). It would take an agreement with the Player’s Association through the collective bargaining process to get chew off the field and the dugouts.
Getty image
The New York Times went to San Francisco to talk to Giants’ players and coaches. Pitcher Jake Peavey said players won’t be able to stop chewing because it’s so addictive and will probably have to pay a lot of fines. Madison Bumgarner, who earlier came out in favour of the law, is a “dipper” and he said he could quit. Yankees’ pitcher CC Sabathia chews and said he would follow the law and not chew while playing in San Francisco (or California if the state passes a law.).
From the article:
Andrew Susac, the Giants’ backup catcher, receives emails from his mother relaying horror stories about people who have had parts of their jaw removed because of the effects of tobacco use. Susac tried gum and sunflower seeds as alternatives, but they did not suffice, he said. He tried a nontobacco imitation, but that did not work, either. He tried using pouches of coffee grinds, but they made him jittery.
Susac guessed that he dipped five times a day during the season, including in the morning, after lunch, on the bench during a game, and on his ride home. At another point during the day, whenever he gets an urge, he dips once more.
“Half the time I do it, I don’t have a real reason to,” Susac said. “It’s part of the game, I feel like. You come to the field, get bored or whatever, and just throw in a dip.”
One of the San Francisco County Supervisors who passed the ordinance, Mark Farrell, said he has actually seen youth coaches chewing tobacco in front of players.
From the article:
Mark Farrell, the member of the Board of Supervisors who sponsored the ordinance, started using tobacco while he played college baseball at Loyola Marymount. In his freshman year, he said, he was one of only two players on the team who did not. He kept the habit through law school and has since quit. But now, raising two boys, he has seen youth coaches using tobacco in front of children.
“This almost becomes a self-enforcing mechanism, just by passing this,” Farrell said. “Coaches don’t want to be out on our park fields proactively breaking the law in front of parents. Players don’t want to be on the field, on television, blatantly breaking the law.”
Finally got around to watching the Merchants of Doubt documentary, based on the book with the same name. The Merchants of Doubt looks at how certain industries used public relations techniques to put doubt in people’s minds about the dangers of their products. This approach began with Big Tobacco fighting the overwhelming evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer through a vigorous PR campaign revolving around “more science needs to be done.” Big Tobacco put enough doubt in people’s minds that smoking rates barely dropped for 20-30 years after the Surgeon General’s 1964 Report unequivocally stating that cigarettes did in fact cause lung cancer. And millions died from smoking during those years.
That technique of creating doubt was picked up by various other industries over the decades and today the oil industry is very much playing by the same playbook and has been frustratingly successful in creating doubt around the science that man is causing global warming. The movie starts with a very clever interview with a professional magician explaining that his job is deflection and explaining how the old “Three Card Monty” con doesn’t work without shills hidden within the public. “The whole con is about convincing the public that the shill is legitimate and independent,” says the magician, Jamey Ian Swiss.
From Stanton Glantz in the film: “The playbook Big Tobacco developed to attack science worked for 50 years. Other businesses looked at this and said, ‘boy, if this works for tobacco, we ought to be able to use that, too.'”
Morton Downey Jr. lights up after telling Stanton Glantz he looks great at 55 and he smokes four packs a day. Downey died of lung cancer 13 years later.
Glantz is interviewed extensively in the film. I realized that though this is a very familiar name in tobacco control circles, it was the first time I knew what he looked like and sounded like in interviews. Glantz was one of the first scientists to promote smoking bans and to talk about the dangers of secondhand smoke. He has been viciously attacked for decades for promoting tobacco control and smoking bans. I’ve personally seen trolls call him an awful, evil person.
“We spent a lot of time banging our heads against the wall (on tobacco control). These guys are rich, politically powerful … and they’re mean.”
Peter Sparber … I dunno why this guy totally creeps me out.
Sure enough the movie shows a segment with Glantz on some talk show with some obnoxious host boasting to him that he smokes four packs a day and looks healthier and younger than Glantz at 42. I sure wondered who that obnoxious talk show host. It took one quick Google search to find out it was Morton Downey Jr. I actually vaguely remember the name, but I would have never figured out that was Morton Downey Jr. without resorting to Google. He was some right-wing talk show host in the 1980s whose show kind of ushered in “hate TV” shows like Jerry Springer.
I did some research. Yup. Mr. “I smoke four packs a day and I look great at 55” died of lung cancer. At the age of 68. Downey actually spoke out against cigarettes toward the end of his life and once filed a lawsuit against Howard Stern for insinuating that he was back smoking after quitting.
Anyway, I digress. There’s one major difference between the film and the book — a 10- to 15-minute segment in the film about tobacco’s role in pushing for fire retardants. This isn’t included at all in the book, but it was a fascinating part of the movie — and something I had never heard before.
In an investigative series done by the Chicago Tribune, reporters with the paper discovered that pounds of fire retardant chemicals being applied to furniture were showing up in household environments — and that studies had shown that these chemicals were both carcinogenic and didn’t really accomplish anything. They asked the question why were the chemicals even being applied if research showed they didn’t work.
The answer: Big Tobacco believe it or not. In the 1970s, thousands of people were being killed in fires caused by cigarettes — by people falling asleep in bed or on chairs while smoking. The tobacco industry was being pressured to develop a self-extinguishing cigarette, something that would have been expensive to develop. “What they (the industry) needed was a scapegoat and their scapegoat was furniture.”
Unbelievably, the vice president of the old Tobacco Institute (a lobbying arm of the tobacco industry, long since disbanded), Peter Sparber, infiltrated a national firefighters’ organization called the National Association of State Fire Marshals and then convinced that group to let him become its legislative representative. In that role, Sparber (a truly weird-looking dude with a porn stache) pushed for laws requiring fire retardant chemicals in furniture. The fire marshals’ group thought Sparber was working for them for free. Instead, the whole time, he was being paid $200 an hour by Big Tobacco.
There’s an infamous quote attributed to Sparber: “If you can ‘do’ tobacco, you can do just about anything in public relations.” Sparber now works for the Heartland Institute, a right-wing anti-global warming think tank. So, he is still in the thick of deflection and creating doubt to this day.
Anyway, it’s a solid documentary that will both entertain you and make you mad. It’s a solid addendum to the book for all the extra tidbits.
BEIJING, CHINA-AUGUST 14 :A Chinese woman smokes a cigarette inside a disco in Beijing’s Sanlitun night club district which are packed with foreigners in town to enjoy the Olympics, on August 14, 2008 in Beijing, China. The well known Sanlitun area has been cleaned up prior to the Olympic games and thrives with young people looking for a party. (Photo Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)
China is notoriously lax about enforcing any sort of environmental or public-health laws (this is why you don’t want to buy dog treats made in China), but according to this article, Beijing is serious about cracking down on smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants. It is a $32 fine for smokers and up to a $1,600 fine for businesses that allow it. After two months, the city has collected $16,000 in fines.
Beijing has actually attempted a smoking ban, but dropped it. And several other cities in China have had unsuccessful smoking bans. From the ForeignPolicy.com story:
The ban’s early success — one month after it began, the Beijing Association on Tobacco Control described the short-term results as “satisfactory” — is noteworthy. Environmental or health-friendly policies are often introduced to great fanfare in China, usually accompanied by amiable mantras like “Healthy City,” only to quietly fade due to lack of political will or commercial incentive.
When it comes to smoking, Chinese cities have mostlyproven willing to stub out only while international audiences are watching. What starts as erratic enforcement soon peters out, and the country light back up as soon as the world turns away. Take Guangzhou, the capital of southern Guangdong, whichexperimented with an ill-fated smoking crackdown in 2010, and has been doing so on-and-off, and without success, since 1995. Then there’s financial capital Shanghai, which made a similarly short-lived effortprior to its World Expo in 2010, themed “Better Life, Better City.” Beijing has also tried, with at least one half-hearted effort targeting large restaurants during the 2008 Olympics. That effectively ended when the foreign press went home.
The writer, based in Beijing, adds that he has personally witnessed a decrease in indoor smoking, including tobacco “fiends” standing outside a 24-hour club notorious for its “anything goes atmosphere.” The author stated that smoking was so ubiquitous in China as recently as 2009 — seeing smoking in hospital rooms, etc. — that he didn’t believe it would be possible for any smoking ban to have an effect.
Beijing may be taking steps to reduce smoking, but the city still struggles with its infamous horrendous smog. The smog may be one reason the capital has finally decided to become serious about a smoking ban, but at the same time, it is a small step in making Beijing a more healthy place.
From the article:
But what may prove more effective than the threat of a financial penalty is the growing realization that Beijing, already fending off notorious pollution, can no longer afford to carry the public-health burden of a citywide smoking habit as well.
… Smoking may eventually come to be viewed as an oddly indulgent habit in a city whose air is already persistently hostile to one’s health. Indeed, an unusual spate of recent thunderstorms, coupled with low winds, has left a spectral gloom over the city this summer, a reminder of greater problems yet to be resolved. In this clammy atmosphere, young commuters, lining up at bus stops, seem to cough, hawk, and grumble like terminal smokers. The capital may be ready to finally give up its favorite bad habit, but it has plenty of others still to kick.
They study, which included a survey of more than 2,000 teens, states that about 40 percent of the kids using e-cigs have never smoked a cigarette. Moreover, it showed how important peer pressure is for affecting how many kids use e-cigs. More than one-third — 34 percent — of teen e-cig users have other e-cig users at home or among their friends.
From the Good Morning America article:
Adolescents who have three or four of their closest friends who used e-cigarettes were 104 times as likely than those with no friends who currently used e-cigarettes, to be a current e-cigarette user themselves,” says Jessica Barrington-Trimis, research associate at the University of Southern California and the study’s lead author. “So that’s a very strong finding.”
One of the biggest drags about e-cigs (No pun intended) is that it took 20-30 years of work to convince kids that smoking was not “cool” or “hip,” or whatever. And now all that work seems to be becoming undone by kids simply choosing a different nicotine delivery system. Granted, e-cigs may not be quite as bad as cigarettes, but they are still pumping kids full of nicotine, an incredibly addictive and not benign substance.
From the article:
E-cigarettes often contain nicotine, so they may induce sort of a psychological dependency on nicotine and then may lead to future cigarette use,” Barrington-Trimis explained. “Or, e-cigarettes may lead to the normalization of smoking behaviors and that’s the normalization that we’re concerned with.”
“We don’t want to see smoking normalized again,” said Delaware State Representative Debra Heffernan, a prime sponsor of a passed bill that bans smoking e-cigarettes indoors. “You used to never see it and now I’ve seen people smoking them while standing in line at Starbucks or in a store. It’s just scary that it has become so popular so quickly.”
The New Jersey Star-Ledger, a major daily newspaper in Newark, N.J., came out this week with a strong editorial bashing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for promoting U.S. tobacco companies abroad. The Star-Ledger accuses the U.S. Chamber of being a “shill” for Big Tobacco around the world.
The Chamber, which has become an increasingly political group, has written dozens of letters to the governments of other nations, some of these small and poor nations, lobbying against a variety of tobacco regulations. CVS Health, which stopped selling tobacco products in its chain of drugstores recently, dropped out of the U.S. Chamber in protest.
Even Mother Jones joined in on the outrage over the U.S. Chamber’s behaviour.
This is something that has been covered by John Oliver and others. The world tobacco industry is fighting a number of small governments, some of which simply don’t have the resources to duke it out with Big Tobacco, over tobacco regulations regarding marketing, packaging and even smokefree workplace laws. The industry has filed a bunch of lawsuits, butting heads with small countries such as Ireland, Togo, Uruguay and others. The industry got into a full-on legal war with Australia over that country’s cigarette plain-packaging laws. The industry sued and it went all the way to the Australian Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the government. Not satisfied, Big Tobacco enlisted the help of both Hong Kong and Ukraine to get those entities to claim that Australia was somehow violated trade treaties and laws with its plain packaging law.
Anyway, the Chamber decided to write dozens of letters to these little countries, attempting to pressure them to drop their rules and regulations regarding packaging or tobacco marketing. The Star-Ledger brings up the Ukraine-Australia spat (which Ukraine eventually dropped) and also included a video of the great John Oliver takedown of the tobacco industry on his show.
From the Star-Ledger:
It would be heartening for the Obama Administration to condemn the U.S. Chamber for supporting Big Tobacco, and let the world know that these entities do not speak for the United States. But so far the only righteous stand has come from CVS, which resigned its membership from the USCOC for trafficking in death. Until more corporations send that message, little will change.
Its domestic political influence has waned in recent years. Even when Donohue argues for the right things – such as immigration reform – House Republicans ignore him.
It remains very effective, however, in making money for its corporate partners, even when as wanders into ethical-dead zones under the pretense of “protecting intellectual property.”
But it is time the U.S. Chamber got out of the tobacco business and stopped prioritizing death over profit. And its 100 affiliates worldwide – including the one in New Jersey – should decry its policy of peddling poison.
CVS Health, which gained notoriety in recent months for removing all tobacco products from its chain of drug stores, has now left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because that organization is embroiled in a lobbying campaign worldwide against anti-smoking laws.
This is a growing issue in the battle against the spread of tobacco worldwide. Something that I didn’t pay that much attention to until John Oliver did an epic 18-minute rant about it on his show earlier this year.
Big Tobacco has in many ways given up fighting anti-smoking laws in the U.S. and much of the West. However, it is taking the fight to the Third World, where smaller countries don’t have the financial resources to hold their own against Big Tobacco. The tobacco is fighting laws against tobacco marketing and packaging in countries ranging from Australia to Uruguay. While Australia kicked Big Tobacco’s butt (pun intended) over the issue of plain packaging of tobacco products, little countries like Uruguay and Togo which are trying to restrict tobacco marketing in their countries simply can’t go up against the tobacco industry’s wealth.
Enter the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become an increasingly right-wing entity over the past several years. The Chamber and its president Thomas Donohue are also fighting these small countries on behalf of Big Tobacco. Here is a list of some of the letters they have written supporting the tobacco industry to countries such as Ireland, Uruguay and New Zealand.
We were surprised to read recent press reports concerning the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s position on tobacco products outside the United States,” David R. Palombi, a senior vice president at the company, said in a statement. “CVS Health’s purpose is to help people on their path to better health, and we fundamentally believe tobacco use is in direct conflict with this purpose.”
In its defence, the Chamber responded:
“It’s unfortunate that a concerted misinformation campaign about the U.S. Chamber’s position on smoking has resulted in a company leaving our organization.
“To be clear, the chamber does not support smoking and wants people to quit. At the same time, we support protecting the intellectual property and trademarks of all legal products in all industries and oppose singling out certain industries for discriminatory treatment.”
However, if the Chamber is just trying to protect trademarks of tobacco companies, then why is it fighting smoking bans? That’s got nothing to do with trademarks.
According to the New York Times:
The chamber has not said why it has opposed public health steps like restricting smoking in public places, which it called an “extreme” measure when it was proposed in Moldova.
CVS is not the only entity taking the Chamber to task. Others include Sens. Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren, billionaire Richard Branson and the World Health Organization.
From the Times:
Last week, seven Senate Democrats, including Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren, called the chamber’s tobacco lobbying “craven and unconscionable,” adding that “member companies should be concerned that their good name is sullied in efforts to strike down public health protections worldwide.”
Richard Branson, the billionaire British entrepreneur, said on Twitter that the chamber was on “the wrong side of history.” And on Tuesday, the head of the W.H.O. weighed in, assailing the chamber over its lobbying practices.
“By lobbying against well-established, widely accepted and evidence-based tobacco control public health policies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce undermines its own credibility on other issues,” Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the W.H.O., said in a statement on Tuesday. “So long as tobacco companies continue to be influential members of the chamber, legitimate businesses will be tarred with the same brush.”
Good on you, CVS, for highlighting what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is doing and putting the spotlight on its sleazy lobbying on behalf of the tobacco industry.
