State should do more to prevent teen smoking
In July 1992, Congress enacted the SYNAR Amendment aimed to decrease youth access to tobacco. This requires that each state enact and enforce laws prohibiting sales to minors. If states do not have a compliance check of 20 percent or lower, meaning that fewer than 20 percent of retailers sell tobacco to minors, they could lose up to 40 percent of their federal Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment funding.
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the national weighted average rate of tobacco sales to minors reported by states and the District of Columbia in their 2006 report is now 10.8 percent -- the lowest in SYNAR's 10-year history!
Right now, North Carolina has a 14.8 percent noncompliance rate. Great strides are being made, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Encourage retailers to move all tobacco products behind the counter. Let them know they are doing a great job when they ask for ID. Support local and state efforts concerning tobacco and access to minors. Let's strive for a healthy North Carolina.
Julie Westholder
Greensboro
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"they could lose up to 40 percent of their federal Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment funding."
OMG! Washington might (partially) withdraw the federal teat?
How about this Julie...I raise my kids, you raise yours, and let's keep the almighty state out of it?
Posted on April 1, 2008 6:48 AM
How 'bout this neocon:
You rear your children so they don't cause a drain on our healthcare system and our system of justice. Better yet, use your plethora of negative energy to go after the ones who drive up healthcare costs--then someone out there might take your half baked rants seriously--or at least 'listen' to them.
You are but a cartoon. : )
Posted on April 1, 2008 7:36 AM
Taken more seriously...like you?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Thanks, I needed that.
Posted on April 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Liberal, you mean like going after ambulance chasing lawyers? With all the coverage on cell phones today, reckon mom and dad will be taking cell phones from the kids?
Posted on April 1, 2008 2:57 PM
TLC, by "those who drive up health care costs," I assume you mean NON-smokers? What, you don't believe me?
See the following article from the New England Journal of Medicine (if you're interested in empirical evidence).
Personally, I think kids should be required to smoke Camel unfiltereds until they're old enough to decide for themselves.
https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052
The Health Care Costs of Smoking
Jan J. Barendregt, M.A., Luc Bonneux, M.D., and Paul J. van der Maas, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Background Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.
Methods We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs � one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.
Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
Posted on April 1, 2008 6:44 PM