Many states – including Arizona – have proposed further raising tobacco taxes, with the proceeds earmarked for prevention efforts
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice. . .
---
Posted on 09/05/2002 4:10:26 PM PDT by Just another Joe
TUCSON, ARIZ. - Until recently, Arizonans could hardly turn on a television or radio without hearing a slightly self-righteous teen voice singling out smoking as a notably unattractive habit – smelly and teeth-staining – as well as an unhealthy one.
The riff was catchy, slightly disgusting, and highly effective: The American Lung Association credits the ads with helping to reduce teen tobacco use in Arizona by nearly 7 percent between 1997 and 2000. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even touted the hard-hitting media spots as a national model.
But in the end, even widespread acclaim couldn't protect Arizona's Tobacco Education and Prevention Program from hard times. In these times of fiscal austerity, Arizona lawmakers who once touted the TEPP campaign found themselves raiding the program to fill a statewide $1 billion gap.
Across the country, states such as Arizona are tapping their antitobacco funds to make up budgetary shortfalls. Some of those funds come from the $246 billion settlement reached with tobacco companies in 1998. Others, such as in Arizona, are drawing from taxes on tobacco sales.
Either way, the controversial budget measures may muffle antitobacco programs, just as some of them are showing signs of success.
"In difficult times, lawmakers have to make difficult decisions about what and what not to fund," says Corina Eckl, fiscal program director of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "From the outset, there's been debate about how much of [the tobacco-settlement funds] should go towards antitobacco programs, and you won't find one single answer to that question."
Indeed, the choices aren't easy for lawmakers. In Arizona, state Rep. Robert Cannell (D), a pediatrician, says the tobacco funds were diverted to a struggling indigent healthcare program. It came down to tapping the antitobacco funds or denying certain crucial treatments to patients, he says. "I don't think it was an irresponsible decision."
The resulting antitobacco cuts soon rippled across Arizona, with local antismoking campaigns seeing their own share of state funding dwindle. In the northern Arizona city of Flagstaff, for example, schools will no longer receive popular "tobacco-free zone" signs, or the flashy "strong, fast, smart" antismoking posters that feature famous ballplayers.
Coconino County, which includes Flagstaff, will receive $100,000 less in antitobacco funds from the state. While officials tried to prepare for the expected shortfall by leaving staff vacancies unfilled, the reductions "mean that we've lost our ability to provide these necessary services to the community," says Barbara Worgess, director of the Coconino County Board of Health.
A similar controversy is swirling in Massachusetts, whose vigorous tobacco program is funded in part from voter-approved sales taxes on cigarettes. Hard-hitting ads that include testimonials from dying smokers are credited with helping reduce tobacco use by 5 percent in the 1990s. But now, Gov. Jane Swift is advocating large cuts in the program in order to address a $400 million budget gap. The American Cancer Society and other groups are suing, saying Ms. Swift has defied voters' intent.
And in California, Gov. Gray Davis has supported taking up to $60 million from the state's antismoking program to meet a $24 billion budget shortfall. The California program is credited with reducing youth smoking by more than 40 percent since 1996.
In some cases, these difficult budget decisions are at least partly determined by preexisting requirements. "We're seeing a lot more earmarked taxes: Money is being spent for specific purposes as a condition of raising the tax," says David Berman, professor of political science at Arizona State University in Tempe.
"The more we do that," he adds, "the more legislatures lose their discretion over funds. They don't have the revenue sources that they need."
That's led some states to tap funds awarded them under the tobacco industry settlements, despite pledges that the money would be dedicated to antismoking campaigns. A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures revealed that only 5 percent of settlement funds going to the states are being used to fight tobacco use.
Lyndon Haviland of the American Legacy Foundation, which was created out of the 1998 tobacco settlement, worries that the gutted programs may never recover. "There is a risk," she says. "It's hard to build an institution, a network of services. But it's even harder to rebuild it."
Whether experiments such as those in Arizona, California, and Massachusetts survive remains to be seen. While Arizona Gov. Jane Hull urged using antitobacco funds for other needs, "The governor's point is that when you're in tough economic times, core services – health, safety, and education – have to be maintained," says Hull spokeswoman Francie Noyes.
Still, the state's antitobacco funds "have been cut, but not eliminated," Ms. Noyes says.
Other measures may safeguard the programs, or at least save them from complete elimination. Many states – including Arizona – have proposed further raising tobacco taxes, with the proceeds earmarked for prevention efforts. In the Arizona Legislature, Representative Cannell is spearheading a ballot referendum to boost the state's tobacco tax by 60 percent. That measure goes before voters in November.
There is of course another way to keep the campaign going, all the Glantz's out there, could work on a volunteer basis, talk the media into airing their stuff free of charge...... ooops, I forgot, they are all in it for the money.
Many states – including Arizona – have proposed further raising tobacco taxes, with the proceeds earmarked for prevention efforts
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice. . .
---
You got that right!
But then where's he gonna get enough money to buy FOOD with.
It takes quite some little bit to keep that frame in such a condition.
Joe....I'm forty seven. Smoke two packs a day sans the taxes....drink a bit or more of scotch...eat red meat....love french fries and baked potatoes, with butter and sour cream.
I also have section hiked the Appalachain, Jockey Hollow, and Deer Path trails....and can still outpace a twenty something, health ridden vegeterian on the trail with fifty pounds on my back....usually patiently waiting for them to catch up while I relax with a butt in my mouth.It drives them up the wall.
I also religously bicycle 40+ miles a week (not a typo)
I for one don't need the government taking my money to teach me how to care for myself....nor do I appreciate that same money being spent on the assumption that the lowest common denominator of our citizenry needs a nanny.
Somebody build me a new soapbox....because the one I'm on is about to fracture from me jumping up and down screaming:
The Government Doesn't know Best...
The Government has never known Best....
and...
The Government Will never know Best....
what is Best for me!!!!>
August 3, 2002
MaryBeth T. Welton, CHES Program Manager, Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine Bureau of Health, Department of Human Services Key Bank Plaza, 4th Floor State House Station 11
Augusta, Maine 04333-0011
Dear Ms. Welton :
My legislative aide, Cheryl Parkman, made enquiry for me regarding the fund expenditures of the PTM program at auto racing tracks. You were kind enough to forward clarification of how the money was spent.
The data I have shows the following :
1. At five race tracks the amount expended for advertising in various forms totaled $ 70,100 for 14 races.
2. The six drivers sponsored cost an additional $23,000 for five appearances at races with their commitment to be tobacco-free and to promote tobacco-free messages at their speaking engagements.
3. The events were selected by the 31 Healthy Maine Partnerships.
I would like to know if there were any measurable results from this effort. Has this been successful elsewhere ? How long were the messages on the billboards ? Were the program ads only for those 14 particular races, or, were the ads in all programs for all races for the season ? What did you learn from this project ?
I look forward to your response to my questions and your comments on whether this way of using the tobacco funds should be repeated or not.
Sincerely yours,
Name
What with the lousy Maine budget, I think ole MaryBeth is afraid that she is losing her big honey pot of wasted funding!
Oh boy, what is he going to do, when the fat police springs into action.
By the way, I hear there is good money in begging on the street.
Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Mercuria!
6pm pdt/9pm edt
THE CULTURE WAR: WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO WIN IT?
with special guest, reluctant culture warrior,
Master Sergeant Giddens, USAF
Plus...
BONEHEADED LIE-BERAL QUOTES
COMMIE RAT BA$TARD OF THE WEEK
Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!
Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!
Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!
It's a start.
The problem(s) began after the first year when revenues from tobacco taxes exceeded forecasts by so many millions of dollars that lawmakers saw a chance to fund their pet projects with the windfall excesses.
The only thing wrong with that course of action is it violates the law enacted to impose the tax in the first place. I have always felt AZ smokers should initiate a class-action lawsuit against the state for confiscating money by virtue of legislation and then not safeguarding it for it's intended purpose, or reducing the tax/reimbursing smokers when revenues exceed healthcare/anti-smoking education costs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.