IBJOpinion

Smoking should be part of health reform

January 9, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

As Congress debates health care reform, it’s easy to lose sight of what we agree on—and what we know works to prevent disease and lower costs. Helping people quit smoking and keeping young people from starting are proven ways to reduce the awful toll of cancer, heart attacks and other serious illnesses caused by tobacco use, which remains the nation’s leading cause of preventable death and adds $96 billion to our health care costs every year.

I’m proud to live in Indiana, a state that has taken tobacco prevention seriously, and gotten some serious results. Through hard work and constant effort, our Indiana tobacco-prevention program has cut our high school student smoking rates dramatically. Unfortunately, we still have the second-highest rate of adult smoking in the country. And now, after years of progress against tobacco, the nation has stalled.

According to the latest government data, there’s been no reduction in the rate of adult smoking since 2004. To keep from falling backward, Congress must make funding for prevention programs a priority in health care reform. The Senate in particular must protect these funds as it debates reform in the coming weeks.

I work in VOICE, Indiana’s youth-led movement to curb smoking by teen-agers and combat the tobacco industry’s marketing messages that bombard us every day. Our work gives young people the tools to resist. For example, we tell kids as young as fourth and fifth grade that for what they might spend on cigarettes in a year, they could take a trip to Disney World. I’ve personally seen several of my classmates throw their chewing tobacco in the trash after a guest speaker explained its dangers.

Our youth smoking rates have dropped dramatically since Indiana started vigorously funding prevention. In 2000, almost a third of high school students smoked, but that’s dropped to about 18 percent. Calls to Indiana’s quit line have gone up by 600 percent over the past two years. Still, the tobacco industry spends $1 million every day in Indiana to market its products. Big Tobacco never takes a break, so neither should we.

Tobacco use kills more than 400,000 Americans annually and costs billions in excess health costs and lost productivity. Across the nation, community-based prevention programs are educating young people about tobacco’s dangers and helping current smokers to quit. They deserve help from Congress and the health reform legislation is the proper place to provide it.

__________

Emily Kile
Senior, Greenfield Central High School
National Youth Advocate of the Year
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids



ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT