RICHMOND
Ten years after a historic settlement with cigarette manufacturers, Virginia has invested about $600 million of the damages it received in revitalizing depressed regions that once thrived on tobacco farming.
The cash has been used to retrain tobacco workers, improve industrial sites, attract business and lay cable for high-speed Internet access across Southside and Southwest Virginia.
"I can assure you that without access to the capital that's been invested in our communities, we would be in economic devastation," said former state Sen. Charles Hawkins, R-Pittsylvania, who heads a commission that distributes settlement money to the regions.
Critics, however, worry that many Southside and Southwest politicians view the settlement as a pork fund for popular projects in cities and towns that have no broad effect in uplifting the regions. The panel that disburses the money was criticized earlier this year, in a blue-ribbon review headed by former Gov. Gerald L. Baliles, for not investing enough to improve junior college and college educational opportunities.
There is also debate over whether the state has invested a large enough share of the money in youth anti-smoking programs.
Overall, Virginia has received $1.2 billion in damage payments from the tobacco companies. It was among 46 states in late 1998 that agreed to split $206 billion over 25 years from the nation's largest cigarette manufacturers. In return, the states agreed not to sue the companies to recover future health care costs related to smoking.
Virginia will receive about $136 million this fiscal year. According to a formula approved by the General Assembly, 50 percent will go to Southside and Southwest Virginia, 10 percent to anti-smoking programs and 40 percent to the general state budget.
A coalition of national health groups earlier this week called on Virginia to increase its 10 percent share - $13.6 million this year - earmarked for anti-smoking campaigns. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the state needs to spend $103.2 million annually for a top-flight program that would include steady television advertising.
A report by the health care agency's national health organization ranked Virginia 36th among states in spending to dissuade children from smoking.
"We call on Virginia's leaders to keep the promise of the settlement and increase funding for tobacco prevention," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement. "Tobacco prevention is a smart investment that reduces smoking, saves lives and saves money by reducing tobacco-related health care."
The General Assembly is not likely to expand anti-smoking programs any time soon. Lawmakers this winter will be looking for ways to cut overall state spending to overcome at least a $2.5 billion shortfall in revenue needed to balance Virginia's budget.
Legislators set up the Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation to disburse grants for anti-smoking programs.
Foundation officials say their polls indicate that 15.5 percent of high school students smoke - a decrease of 6.2 percent since 2001.
Despite complaints that Virginia is not spending enough to stop youth smoking, officials say Virginia may be in better shape than most states. Twenty percent of high school students nationwide smoke, according to polls.
"We're very proud of our results," said Richard Foster, a spokesman for the foundation.
In addition to paying for programs that reach children of all ages, the foundation gives grants for anti-smoking research at state universities. Among the studies: how neural processes are altered by adolescent nicotine addiction; what biological and social conditions lead children to smoke; and whether any special factors lead African American youths to use tobacco.
The foundation also funds undercover inspections to see whether retailers are illegally selling cigarettes to minors. The incidence of violations has decreased from 27 percent at the start of the decade to 8.7 percent this year, according to Foster.
Grants to revitalize Southside and Southwest Virginia are controlled by the 31-member Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission. The panel includes 10 legislators from the affected regions, three members of the governor's Cabinet and a variety of local officials and tobacco farmers.
The commission has provided more than 970 grants in 41 localities across the two regions. It has paid for the installation of more than 1,600 miles of fiber-optic cable, water and sewer improvements; expansion of community education centers; and incentives to keep existing businesses in the tobacco regions.
Officials say the investments were central to furniture retailer Ikea's decision in late 2006 to build its first North American plant in Danville.
The 1-million-square-foot factory, which will provide 740 jobs, is slated to open early next year.
The Baliles report said the commission is "unusually large," and its members have been overly focused on local projects for their cities, towns and counties instead of "larger, more regional projects in scope that can truly transform the economy."
The report faulted the commission for an unwieldy process in doling out grants that "increases political considerations" and "causes difficulty in making decisions based on a strategic plan."
The study also lamented that of the $261.5 million in settlement money that was spread in the regions over the past three years, only $63.5 million were grants to improve education. Noting that young people are leaving the area, the report recommended spending more money to expand community colleges, technical schools, satellite learning, programs for high school equivalency diplomas, and "last-dollar" scholarships for needy students.
"Education from preschool to high school to beyond high school is the future of Southside and Southwest Virginia," the report said. "No miles of highway constructed, no tens of thousands of feet of water or sewer lines laid, nor any number of industrial park buildings erected can change this."
Warren Fiske, (804) 697-1565, warren.fiske@pilotonline.com







Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo

It's given license
Ever since this nonsense started, the anti-smoking folks have taken it upon themselves to point the same kind of hateful vitriol at smokers that was once reserved only for blacks and other minorities. All you have to do is read a story about the possibility of another smoking ban and they flock here to assert their self-perceived moral authority and ascendancy over people who are using a legal and heavily taxed product. It is as though they have been saving all this venom up and have now found a group that it is now socially acceptable to spew it at-smokers.
What I can't figure out is, if smoking is so addictive and second hand smoke is supposed to be worse than that which is exhaled by a smoker, how come you never hear about people who are addicted to second-hand smoke???
It's all about the money
Tobacco tax increases also do not cause smoking rates to decline.In fact,they often rise after implementation.Just as in this article,they are proposed by somebody that simply wants more money.In actuality,they mainly end up with far less revenue as smuggling increases dramatically.(The usual result with any commodity that is over taxed.) Canada currently has a high tobacco tax policy,initiated by groups that coerce funding from governments.Their smoking rate is about the same as the U.S.,which historically has had low taxation.However,just like the last time this was tried,it is costing them billions of dollars a year.The only ones profiting are the criminals and the anti-smoker groups.(or is there no difference?) Even if this policy did work,it would still cost money as there would be less smokers paying the tax and more people costing health care etc. more money.
Shocking
What!! The governmnet didn't use money as it was intended, I'm Shocked and utterly dissapointed I mean didn't they promise us beforehand how they would invest this money. I can't believe the government didn't keep their word Richmond is usually so trustworthy. In all seriousness this is just politics as usual in the Great Commonwealth. No suprises here.
Tobacco control costs
The ACS,using a CDC study,has stated that exposure to secondhand smoke had declined by 70% before there were many smoking bans.This nonsense had just started in California near the end of the study.These "tobacco control" measures have caused this decline to stop again and so are actually costing lives.There are also the real (not statistical) deaths,rapes,robberies etc.that smoking bans have caused.One recent example occurred in Toronto (Canada).A girl was shot and killed because she was forced outside to smoke.See here;
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/10/25/to-bystander-killed.html
There have been many other examples.Attacking smokers now is akin to declaring war on Germany again because of the existence of a few neo-nazis.Smoking bans also cost everyone huge amounts of money.Even The Federal Reserve Bank has stated that the costs associated with smoking bans are greater than what the anti-smokers and certain politicians state.
All about money
The settlement was never intended for what it was claimed. It was an opportunity for greedy lawyers to get rich and states to have a pork barrel fund for their pet projects.
If it were really about smoking then the product would have been banned outright. We can smoke, smoke, smoke now that the big money is going to the states. Same as with alcohol. Drink all you want equals more money for the state.
Va. tobacco money not spent wisely, some critics say
Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,states "Tobacco prevention is a smart investment that reduces smoking,saves lives and saves money by reducing tobacco-related health care." He is wrong.One small thing first.The quote should be smoking prevention...(A tobacco plant has never attacked anyone.)Smoking prevention costs health care money.This is because it is non-smokers,when compared to smokers,that are the far greater cost.There are several studies that show this.A couple that come to mind are found in The New England Journal of Medicine and The New Zealand Medical Journal.As the latter requires a subscription,I'll provide a link.
http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/personal_pages/eric_crampton/NZMJ.pdf
If by "tobacco prevention" he means "tobacco control" measures,like smoking bans etc.,again he is wrong.Smoking rates had been declining for decades,so that now there are only about a third of the number of smokers that there once was.This should have been regarded as a great success.So much for smoking bans "saving" lives as there were larger declines in the smoking rate before they were enacted.The ACS,using a CDC study,has stated that exposure to se
Is anyone surprised by this?
Is anyone surprised by this?
Fer cryin' out loud
How about a little honesty for a change inregard to the Master Settlement Agreement?
Not a single penny of all those billions is coming out of the coffers of the tobacco companies. Every single penny comes from smokers and smokers only. That was part of the MSA sweetheart deal -- the companies were permitted to pass along 100% to their customers. Of course when smokers switched to brands that didn't charge for it, PM got governors, including M. Warner, to force all companies, even ones not in existence in 1998 to up their prices as well.
Remember the huge hike in cigarette taxes Warner pushed --- PM agreed to it so he would push for the other companies to have to pay.
Clearly, we need more state
Clearly, we need more state ownership of, and lawsuits against, private industry.