Tobacco Company will Halt Advertising in Newspapers, Magazines; Why is This?

Source from:  greeleytrib.com December 4, 2007 12/06/2007

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company recently announced it will stop advertising its tobacco in newspapers and magazines next year. The decision was explained by a company spokesperson as "an effort by the company to enhance and sharpen the effectiveness and efficiency of its marketing." What do you suppose the tobacco company finds to be a better method of marketing? Could it be that passing out free tobacco is a more effective and efficient way to gain new addicts? The Greeley City Council is considering allowing distribution of free tobacco at the Greeley Stampede. The Stampede wants this, so it will receive a free scoreboard for the Stampede. It seems likely that the scoreboard would have a tobacco company's name on it. The council should think long and hard about endorsing distribution of free tobacco. Prohibiting free samples of tobacco does not alter peoples' right to choose to use tobacco. They can continue to buy and use tobacco any time of day and night. But tobacco kills. Its use has damaged millions of lives through cancer, heart and lung disease, and caused thousands of house fires and forest fires. It is linked to low birth weight in children and causes emphysema and asthma. Tobacco use raises rates for fire insurance, as well as the prices for health care insurance for everyone. If someone were to suggest the legalization of a product that is shown to hurt the users and those who live with them, the way tobacco does, a product would cost the states and the nation the billions of dollars that tobacco has. Such a product would not be approved today. But, in spite of all this, the use of tobacco is legal. Is the Stampede committee so desperate to have a scoreboard that the only way it can think of to get it is to allow free tobacco to be distributed? I hope it decides against incorporating free tobacco and a tobacco billboard in the Stampede. And just in case the committee does want a scoreboard badly enough to allow distribution of free tobacco, I ask members of the city council to prohibit that distribution. Andra Schmidt, Greeley Musgrave's stance on uranium mining disregards concerns about public lands Having attended various meetings on the proposed uranium mine and doing hours of personal research, it's clear to me that our community's health, land and water assume all the risks associated with uranium mining while only the big mining companies truly benefit. At an October meeting in Nunn, I was pleased to hear Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave announce that she too opposes the Powertech mine. She told us that she didn't believe the company had a track record for in-situ mining, and that she was concerned taxpayers would get stuck paying for clean-up. Weeks later, I was confused to hear that Musgrave voted against a law that would modernize uranium mining on our publicly owned lands. I was hugely disappointed that she didn't show the same concern for our public land as she has for private land. If she's concerned about water pollution caused by mining in Weld County, shouldn't she should be concerned about mining pollution in all counties of Colorado? The bill that Musgrave voted against was passed in the House and will add standards to protect water and require miners to fully reclaim and clean up their mines. The legislation will also set up an abandoned mine clean-up fund. These seem like reasonable and necessary requirements to me. I'm very discouraged that Musgrave didn't support this bill, but I hope our senators will vote "yes" for the much needed mining reform. Enditem