Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: Lawmaker unfazed by threat from tobacco company’

Total agreement!

Why do we monitor the sale of cigarettes to minors? Because of the health-threatening substances in them and the addictive nature of those substances. Is it because they have smoke coming out of them? No! Then we would not allow children near campfires. No, we do so because they harm us and our society.

This legistalion is needed to control an industry that demonstrated its indifference to our health for over a hundred years while denying that tobacco was addictive or caused cancer. Shame on them. They lived in a fairyland too long and I applaud this lawmaker for standing up to their threats. I stand next to him

Eric

Without cause, proof, or justification this man is spouting off with personal religious bias rather than any proof. He presumes to think for me and the rest of Utah on our life styles and choices. He is not my mentor or spokes person and Utah has turned tobacco in to excessive hate with discrimination and abuse.

Besides is imagination, who says this candy has been targeted to kids? It's not sold in stores so where is he getting his information and lies? Any one can make up a lie and this is evidence of his hate, discrimination, and lying tongue.

Why is he wasting our tax dollars to promote a lie? If anyone is criminal it is Paul Ray for abusing his position of trust.

"Utah has made a point of protecting our youth from the hazards of tobacco use, and now that they are targeting a new market with lozenges and mints, we think that's going to [sic] far."

Mr. Thalman, here is a case where a spell checker won't help. Specifically, as I would guess you are already aware, the word is "too", not "to".

Just for the record, I agree with Rep. Ray's bill and hope it passes. And, I've made the same spelling error -too- many times to count. That's probably why I noticed it in the first place.

If the tobacco companies would switch to making health products they would be much accepted by society.

Big Tobacco is targeting children in their business of being a legalized drug dealer. But, after reading this bill, I take it that these nicotine laced candies, mints, gums, etc. will need to be behind the "I want to make people gag with my smell while I dimish my ability to taste and smell and build black sludge in my arteries counter" a.k.a. cigarette counter.

I, too, applaud Rep. Paul Ray for standing up to Big Tobacco.

The author of "Arrogance of Paul Ray" must certainly be very young (maybe just stupid).

If not he/she would remember when Utah was one of the few states that advocated no smoking in public places. It was not until California and other large populous states bought into scientific findings of the links of tobacco and first and second hand smoke that this topic was no longer considered a religious topic and now every state and every public place has ordinances and laws regarding smoking. Utah will never be given credit for being on the cutting edge of understanding tobacco is extremely harmful to our bodies and nicotine is addictive.

The writers comment "Without cause, proof, or justification this man is spouting off with personal religious bias rather than any proof." is simply a reflection of their own personal bias and religious bigotry. There is much proof in the scientific community that nicotine is addictive and whether it is candy, cigarettes or anything else, those who promote it for any recreational use are simply selfish, greedy individuals or companies who simply want to make a buck.

Why isn't anyone talking about the adverse effects of the proposed $1 increase in cigarette tax and the effect it will have on the State of Utah becoming dependent on the money it generates?

If the tax does indeed raise the money the law suggests it will then the State of Utah immediately becomes ADDICTED to that revenue. Advocates of the law say that it will reduce the number of teenagers who begin to smoke and the law will cause others to quit or reduce smoking.

If the latter assumption is true then eventually the projected revenue will NOT be produced and the State will have to look for other ways to the millions of dollars they will have become dependent upon.

Each surrounding state except Arizona will have much lower tax rates on cigarettes if this bill passes. Immediately this creates a black market for cigarettes. Wyoming, Idaho and Nevada will be come a Mecca to purchase tobacco. Teenagers don’t buy cigarettes now, it is already illegal. This will just encourage them and others to steal them and give or sell them to one another.

BTW, I am not a smoker!

Umm..isn't NICORETTE GUM minty with teeth whiteners? How about their Cinnamon Burst? There's a study that shows minors able to purchase Nicorette 80 percent of the time without being ID'd. What about Nascar drivers sponsored by Nicorette? Or the AskAPatient website that posts all the horrible addictions and side effects to Nicorette? Or the studies showing the increased risk of cancer from the NRT gum and lozenges? Or the study that shows the patches have a 98.4% FAILURE RATE for quitting one year or longer?

Come on, people. Big pHARMa is the new Big Tobacco. Their products are MORE addicting, do not work AND come in candy flavors. Shouldn't the Utah legislature be worried about the NRT drugs/products PUSHED by anti-tobacco? Think I'm kidding about the studies? I can't post urls but you surely can look them up on the internet. How hypocritical. How much are the campaign contributions from Big pHARMA, the ACS, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Tobacco-Free Kids who ALL profit from anti-tobacco? Follow the money.

Way to go Rep. Ray! It is high time someone pushed back against these profit motivated vultures. The nerve to market tobacco candy that benefits no one but Big Tobacco's pocket book, and then sue when someone stands up for health.

I applaud this legislator's action.

Want to make a dent in cigarrette use and make the state money? Boost the tax by $10!

I'm all for taxing smokes to the max. But it should be viewed as an anti-smoke issue, not as a revenue stream. When it's a revenue stream, the state comes to depend on it, and reduction in smokers then becomes a liability.

Smoke taxes should be more like "found" money.

I applaud the efforts of Paul Ray. I agree with his sign about if Big Tobacco doesn't go after kids they would be out of business in 30 years.

My sister started smoking at 13 and she died from lung cancer when she was 44. My entire family still miss her with all our hearts. My parents also started smoking as teens. They also died from tobacco-related diseases. Don't kid yourselves, Big Tobacco will do everything they can to addict kids so they can stay in business. Adding candy flavoring is to entice children to try their deadly products.

Protect our kids. This is a no brainer. Yay!

standing up to big tobacco. He is picking on smokers who nobody really likes in order to raise funds. This will do absolutly nothing to stop kids from smoking . It may cause a few adults to smoke less or quit . Im all for this tax but please stop with the "Stnding Up " stuff. Big tabacco has basically given up on getting Americans young or old to start . They have enough new customers in Asia and the Middle East that they can addict to the poison

Selling any type of tobacco product to children has been illegal for years. This is just another move to sell NTR'S. Save the children is the same old lie in a different package. The higher tax means less to the State and more profit to Big Pharma. This move for Bans and higher taxes has never been about health. It has always been about profit and control.

Who are the PACs and other donors behind Rep. Ray? Any anti-tobacco concerns? Any pharma? Where's the reporting on this aspect of his representing?

should be applauded. People "my age" may remember candy cigarettes. They were white with a red tip to make them appear to be lit. My siblings and I would beg for them and mimic out parents as they smoked. We went on to smoke real cigarettes. One sibling never really gave in to nicotine, but the other one did and took it up as a serious addiction at the age of 12. I smoked off and on and managed to quit a long time ago. Our mom quit years and years ago, but our dad smoked right up until he could no longer hold a cigarette to his lips. He had had radiation to reduce the cancer in his lung but it couldn't stop the cancer in his lymph system. We lost him to cancer in 1994. Again, thank you, Rep. Paul Ray. I hope your bill passes.

I agree with all of the above comments but do not understand why you people are not concerned with adult and child "obesity"? When are we going to tax fatty fast foods and grocery items laced with fat and sugar? Who's kidding who here, do you think obesity won't kill? You had better put your concerns out there to eliminate this problem also. I have never seen such a general change in people general looks in my life and I'm 70 yrs old. Too,too many fat obese people, just look anywhere around you daily! I also admit to being a smoker.

If Rep. Ray had any actual evidence that smokeless tobacco products are targeted to youth, he would have notified the State Health Dept. and/or State AG for enforcement and/or prosecution, as its long been illegal to sell tobacco to minors and the 1998 MSA prohibed companies from marketing to youth.

Instead, Ray continues making unsubstantiated accusations in order to generate news covernage to satisfy his huge ego. By repeatedly calling smokeless tobacco "candy" and claiming that it is marketed to "youth", Rep. Ray is the one who is actively encouraging youth to use these products, not tobacco companies.

Smokeless tobacco is a 99% less hazardous alternative to cigarettes, and smokers who switch to smokeless reduce their health risks nearly as much as those who quit all tobacco/nicotine.

The ramifications (and perhaps true intent) of Rep. Ray's legislation would be to deny addicted smokers legal access to products that can save their lives.

Perhaps Rep. Ray can explain why he wants to harm and kill smokers.

I agree with you 100% on all relevant points. The research shows that harm reduction strategies are much better for long term mortality outcomes.

Pharmaceutical NRT products have a poor track record and side effects of their own. The Swedish studies have proven how safe smokeless tobacco can be and they should be read and understood by anti-tobacco fanatics. Quitting and starting cigarettes multiple times is much more harmful than switching to a smokeless tobacco product for the rest of your life. Even if you're only 19.

Since this is a public health issue I find it unbelievable that the truth isn't being told so that consumers can make judicious decisions. This type of approach only encourages people to continue to smoke and is medically unethical considering the drastic decrease in risks that could be gained by giving true information on smokeless tobacco.

I don't believe that these products are targeted at youth, but only at smokers 19 years of age or older. If you're 19 you're not a "kid". If no choices are available they will just continue to smoke instead of reducing multiple risks by 95+%.