After six months of maternity leave I’m back

and ready to blog. Please hold the applause…

Like everyone says, having a kid changes your perspective. One thing that happens is that everything to do with babies—all that stuff that once bored you to tears —is now fascinating.

So I provide fair warning: you can expect future blog material on issues such as finding bisphenol A-free baby products (laborious), the medical structure set up around childbirth (peculiar), and parental leave policies for scientists (abysmal).

But I’d like to start off by proving that I’m not going to inflict you only with baby-centric jabber. I’m back on my soapbox about tobacco.

People here at the journal think I’m pretty shrill when it comes to

cigarettes. But the events of the last month or so should make anyone

concerned about public health emit at least a groan.

President Bush, in one of the first vetoes of his presidency, nixed a bill this fall to expand healthcare to low-income children by increasing the cigarette tax. The veto came on the heels of a CDC report that smoking rates have stopped leveling off in the US and are rising again among teenagers.

One reason for the veto, said Bush, is that the bill would increase taxes on “working people.”

And that is exactly why the bill should be passed: A report from the Institute of Medicine this year concluded that one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking—especially among the poor and teenagers—is to increase taxes on cigarettes. Raising tobacco taxes to fund children’s health seems like a win-win situation: a way to both reduce smoking and to promote public health.

Apparently, the bill is being renegotiated now and may be resurrected again closer to election season. Let’s hope some politicians put the tobacco issue at the center of the debate.