ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

United Pro Choice ^ | 3-6-05 | David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

[SheLion]

Many studies have been published purporting to prove smoking bans in bars and restaurants are either good or neutral  for business, and conflicting studies have also been published purporting to prove bans are bad for business. Scollo, Lal, Hyland and Glantz recently summarized many of these studies, concluding those which find no economic impact are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and funded by “objective” antitobacco interests, while those that do find bans hurt business are funded almost universally by Big Tobacco or its allies. Tobacco Control, 2003;12:13-20. However, the objectivity of those who publish studies finding smoking bans don’t hurt business is also questioned because they are funded by groups with clear and open objectives of promoting smoking bans.

One common problem with many studies of smoking bans is that the time-span studied before and after a ban goes into effect is too small to accurately measure the ultimate impact of such bans. For example, long before state bans go into effect, many local governments have passed bans that affect business, and long before local governments pass bans many restaurants voluntarily ban smoking. For example, we obtained a copy of California Smoke-Free Cities  Bulletin , October, 1993 which was developed with the support of the California Department of Health Services.  The “Fact Sheet” summarizes that by the publication date, 8,668,235 Californians, or 27% of the population lived in an area whose local government had a 100% ban on smoking in restaurants.  Further, 62 cities and nine counties had ordinances requiring 100% smoke-free restaurants, and 295 cities had ordinances restricting smoking.  In addition, many more restaurants had voluntarily banned smoking in areas not covered by an ordinance.  Long before the state restaurant smoking ban took effect, in 1995, many Californians did not have the option of dining in a smoking environment.  Therefore, in this example, we would expect total California bar and restaurant revenue to decline years before the state ban took effect, and studies which typically only measured data collected one year before that state ban would not have measured the entire economic impact of the loss of smoking accommodations in California’s restaurants.

After a ban goes into effect, some establishments violate bans, others find ways to skirt bans, and some establishments are granted exemptions. Sometimes, bans are not immediately enforced by public officials. Some establishments raise prices to offset lost business which can temporarily mask the revenue effects of bans, and some smokers continue to patronize affected establishments until they adopt other socializing habits that don’t involve patronizing the affected establishments. For these reasons, measurements of the economic impact of smoking bans must also consider that some smoking accommodations can remain available after smoking bans take effect, and data must be collected longer than the one year after a ban takes effect in order to accurately measure the effect of a ban.

We further question why studies on both sides of the issue most often utilize data related to sales tax revenues collected from bars and restaurants, or employment data of those workers who work in bars and restaurants.  We agree such data would be useful if the studies were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and tax revenues collected by various taxing authorities, or if they were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and employment in bars and restaurants. Very few studies actually utilize data of gross sales received by bars and restaurants in business before and after bans take place, which would , naturally, be of most concern to those who own bars and restaurants.

One recent claim even capitalized on the 9-11 disaster in New York City  to “prove”  bans don’t hurt business. It claimed the city’s March 2003 ban was good for business because the city’s “bars and restaurants paid the city 12% more tax revenues in the first six months after the smoke-free law took effect than during the same period in 2002.”  Flyer: SMOKE-FREE LAWS DO NOT HARM BUSINESS AT RESTAURANTS AND BARS , Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids  1400 I St. Suite 1200, Washington DC. The same period they refer to in 2002 was from March 2002 to September 2002, when many Wall Street businesses were operating in New Jersey due to the disruptive clean-up of the World Trade center site, and tourists were avoiding NYC, many fearing another possible attack.  Mayor Guiliani appeared on television and asked nonessential personnel to avoid the area. Estimates were publicized in the media that the  9-11 disaster cost NYC in excess of $50 billion in business, in late 2001 and 2002; much, certainly was lost by bar and restaurant businesses situated near the attack site. In 2003, Wall Street businesses, residents, and tourists returned to NYC and comparing 2002 to 2003, ban or no ban, cannot be valid without controlling for the effects of the attack.

Those who conduct these studies should rely on long term total bar and restaurant revenue data because they are a direct measurement of how much money was spent by customers in bars and restaurants, and such data are readily available from the U.S. Dept of Commerce.   Comparing these revenues to total retail trade data controls for the spending power of the public, as evidenced by the data from the other retail sectors. For example, if a recession occurs at the same time as a ban takes effect, a researcher can adjust retail bar and restaurant revenue data for the effects of the recession using total retail sales numbers.  During the period from 1990 to 1998, The U.S. Dept. of Commerce published such data through the Census Bureau’s annual periodical Statistical Abstracts of the United States.  These editions are available in the reference sections of better libraries, because these references are considered to contain the best data available. These data we will utilize are also available on the web, at www.census.gov. During this period, the Dept. of Commerce reported data using the Standard Industrial Classification code to define bars and restaurants. After 1998, the Dept of Commerce adopted the North American Industry Classification System and cautions comparisons with the SIC system may not be valid. This is why we limit our analysis to the period 1990 to 1998.

States’ Bar and Restaurant Revenue Losses With Smoking Bans

In 2000, the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research published a report classifying states as either smoker-friendly or smoker-unfriendly in terms of bar and restaurant smoking restrictions.  A state was classified as smoker-unfriendly if bans had been imposed at the state level or if many local governments had severely restricted or eliminated smoking in bars and restaurants, even if the state had not.  www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0890.htm  

These states are tabulated below, along with the United States, overall, as reported by the U.S. Dept of Commerce. All data are in billions of dollars and not inflation adjusted. The 1987 data are also included to demonstrate growth was occurring in all these states prior to 1990, before smoking bans were common. After 1990, local smoking bans began to take effect in California, and smoking restrictions began to take effect in the other states, so this is the period we have chosen for study.   

Table I

 

	Bar&Rest retail1987	Bar&Rest retail1990	Bar&Rest retail1998	%growth 1990-98	Total Retail 1990	Total Retail 1998	%growth1990-98
CA	20.7	26.3	28.0	6.5	225	291	29
NY	10.8	13.1	13.8	5.3	124	148	19
MA	4.8	6.1	5.9	-3.3	50.7	62.6	23
VT	0.37	0.46	0.44	-4.3	4.5	6.0	33
UT**	0.78	0.94	2.1	123	10.6	19.3	82
USA	153	182	260	43	1807	2695	49
*USA-	116	135	210	56	1392	2168	56

 

*USA- is the USA data minus the data from CA, NY,MA,VT, and UT; or the total of the 45 smoker friendly states and D.C.  

**Utah had a 14% smoking rate in 1998, so the presence of a ban there would not affect business as much as states with higher smoking rates, which typically range from 22% to 29%.   

The USA experienced bar and restaurant revenue growth of 19% between 1987 and 1990 and USA- experienced growth of 16% in the same period indicating the not-yet smoker-unfriendly states  contributed the extra +3% difference.  Taken as combined data, bar and restaurant revenue growth in California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Utah exceeded the national trend.  

The USA experienced bar and restaurant revenue growth of 43% between 1990 and 1998 and USA- experienced growth of 56% in the same period indicating the now smoker unfriendly states contributed the loss of  -13% difference. Taken as combined data, bar and restaurant revenue growth in California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Utah lagged the national trend from 1990 to 1998.   

Except for Utah, all the smoker unfriendly states’ bar and restaurant  revenue growth was substantially lower than total revenue growth.  Since Utah had a 14% smoking rate in 1998, demand for smoking accommodations was too weak for a ban to have much of an effect. Utah also hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, and by 1996, the economic impact of the preparations was already contributing to the local economy, and the workers would have dined out frequently since they were temporary residents.  (www.olympic.utah.gov) In the other smoker unfriendly states, bar and restaurant revenue growth under-performed total revenue growth on average about 25%, which is close to the average adult smoking rate of 21.7%  in these states in 1998.  

We examined the complete U.S. Dept of Commerce data set referenced in the “background” section of this article and confirmed most of the individual states not considered smoker-unfriendly by the Connecticut research report fit the pattern of business growth similar to the USA- from 1990 to 1998.  

If California’s bar and restaurant retail growth had kept up with the smoker-friendly states ( USA-) between 1990 and 1998, California’s bar and restaurant revenue would have grown from $26.3 billion in 1990 to $41 billion in 1998. (26.3 X 1.56) This is a bar and restaurant revenue loss of $15 billion for 1998 alone.  However, this trend had been going on for eight years, and interpolating  a linear trend on the data, we find total revenue loss for the eight-year period is $60 billion dollars. (1/2 the base X the height)   

Bar and Restaurant Revenue Growth in Smoker-friendly States  

The U.S. Center for Disease Control publishes MMWR, a weekly update of health-related reports throughout the United States.  In the June 25, 1999, edition, they published a report summarizing smoke-free indoor air laws, and as of December 31,1998, 46 states and the District of Columbia restricted smoking to some extent, but Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina had no restrictions on smoking in any category including bars and restaurants.  www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/legal_policy/ss4803.pdf  ; starts on page 24  

In the same manner above, utilizing the same data resources, we have tabulated the most smoker-friendly states:   all data in billions of dollars.  

 

Table II

 

	Bar&Rest retail 1990	Bar&Rest retail 1998	% growth	Total Retail 1990	Total Retail 1998	% growth
AL	2.2	3.3	50	26.4	39.9	51
KY	2.2	3.5	59	23.9	36.8	54
MS	1.1	1.6	45	13.8	20.8	51
NC	4.5	8.0	78	45.7	81.1	77
Ave			58			58
USA	182	260	43	1807	2695	49
USA-	135	210	56	1392	2168	56
USA--	172	244	42	1697	2516	48%

 

USA- is USA minus the smoker-unfriendly states from Table I, for comparison.

USA-- is USA minus the smoker-friendly states.  

The most smoker-friendly states’ average growth in bar and restaurant revenues matched their average total retail revenue growth of 58%.  The USA-, which do not contain data from the smoker-unfriendly states from Table I, also matched their bar and restaurant revenue growth with their total retail growth of 56%.   However, USA, and USA-- in Table II under-perform the smoker-friendly states because they contain the data from the smoker-unfriendly states. Thus far, the only states whose bar and restaurant revenue did not grow as fast as their total retail revenue are the states which were smoker-unfriendly ( except Utah), or total USA data  and USA-- which are terms which both included the smoker-unfriendly states. Most importantly, if claims were true that smoking bans are good for bar and restaurant business, then the lack of smoking bans should be bad for those businesses. However, we have found the lack of any smoking restriction or ban law does not adversely influence bar and restaurant revenue growth when compared to the states with reasonable smoking restrictions.   

Considering the smoker-friendly states’ bar and restaurant revenue growth data, we conclude that nonsmokers do not patronize bars and restaurants less often when state or local governments don’t severely restrict or ban smoking.  More than 70% of adults in these smoker friendly states do not smoke, but seem as willing as nonsmokers in states with moderate smoking restrictions to patronize bars and restaurants. The four most smoker-friendly states do not prohibit any individual bar or restaurant from banning smoking, if it is what the owner determines is best for business.  It is obvious our free-market economic system, without any smoking laws at all, and leaving the smoking policy decisions in control of the owner, works to satisfy all customers.  

Bar and Restaurant Revenue Growth in the Border States  

California is bordered by Arizona, Oregon and Nevada. All U.S. Dept. of Commerce data are in billions of dollars.

 

Table III

 

	Bar and Rest retail 1990	All retail except Bar&Res, 1990	Bar and Rest retail1998	B&R % growth	All Retail except Bar&Res, 1998	% growth
CA	26.3	198.7	28.0	6.5	262.9	32.3
AZ	2.6	23.5	6.1	135	42.9	82.6
OR	2.4	20	3.1	29.2	34.6	73.0
NV	1.0	8.6	2.7	170	19.2	123

 

 

Smoker-friendly Arizona’s bar and restaurant revenue growth exceeded its other retail growth by a margin of 135 : 83, Oregon’s lagged 29 : 73, and Nevada’s exceeded by 170 : 123.  Averaging these margins, the combined three states’ bar and restaurant revenue growth exceeded all other retail by a margin of 111 : 93.  California’s other retail grew 32.3% from 1990 to 1998, and based on the smoker-friendly border states’ average margin, California’s bar and restaurant revenue growth should have been (111 divided by 93 times 32.3  =) 38.6%  Since the actual growth was 6.5%, we attribute the difference of 32.1% to local and state smoking bans.  

If California’s bar and restaurant margin-adjusted revenue growth had kept pace with its border states, its bar and restaurant revenue for 1998 would have been $36.5 billion, or $8.5 billion more than it actually took in. Over the time span of 1990 to 1998, California lost $34 billion based on (1/2 base X the height) calculations. This disagrees with our earlier estimate of $60 billion because these calculations take into account a slightly weaker overall economy in California than its border states.  While directly comparable government tabulated figures do not exist for the years of 1999 to 2004, it would not be unreasonable to assume that these trends have continued and that California’s smoking ban has cost the state’s economy on the order of  $75 to $100 billion since 1990.  

However, this calculation may underestimate California’s bar and restaurant losses because they are calculated by comparing to California’s all retail except bar and restaurant growth which also would have been higher without smoking bans. This would happen if California’s  bar and restaurant employees and owners also lost wage growth corresponding to the 25.8% difference between all retail except bar and restaurant revenue growth and bar and restaurant revenue growth. Therefore, those owners and employees would be 25.8 % less able to contribute to all retail except bar and restaurant revenue growth than they otherwise would have been, and may have adversely affected total retail growth in addition to the $8.5 billion loss in 1998 directly attributable to the ban. In summary, California’s smoking ban probably contributed to its overall economic problems since the late 1990s beyond the direct impact of the contribution of lower bar and restaurant total revenues.  

One should note earlier we found California and other smoker unfriendly states lagged the national trend of bar and restaurant revenue growth between 1990 and 1998.  As the combined data from Arizona, Oregon and Nevada clearly show, the aggregate of these other western states did not lag the national trend. Most of California’s population lives too far from the borders for California smokers to commute easily for the purposes of patronizing smoker-friendly establishments in those states.  Therefore we do not believe these states benefited from California’s smoking ban. Lastly, the combination of lack of opportunity for California smokers to commute and the finding of California’s under- performance in bar and restaurant revenue growth prove that when a “level playing field” environment is imposed, all bars and restaurants still lose business even in a state as large as California.   It is not possible to “trap” smokers in a ban environment and expect them to patronize establishments subject to bans as much as they did before the bans were imposed. The “playing field” of a large scale smoking ban may be level but it is far more of a level basin than a level plateau.  

Conclusions:

 Total bar and restaurant revenue growth in California and other smoker-unfriendly states did not keep pace with those states’ other retail businesses or our nation’s overall bar and restaurant retail growth 80% of the time.  The overall order of magnitude of the bar and restaurant retail growth losses in all smoker unfriendly states, except Utah, was about 25%.  

Bar and restaurant revenue growth in states with no smoking restrictions did as well as states with reasonable smoking restrictions.  Claims the public demands smoking restrictions or eliminations, if true, would have caused states with no restrictions to lose bar and restaurant revenue growth relative to other retail revenue growth.    

There were no regional business conditions that could have explained the bar and restaurant revenue losses California experienced from 1990 to 1998. Although California’s border states had overall retail revenue growth in excess of California’s even after adjusting for the overall retail growth data, California’s bar and restaurant businesses still lost growth than cannot be explained without considering the smoking bans.  

Claims studies can only find smoking bans are bad for business when funded by Big Tobacco or its affiliates, or use anecdotal data are not true. We have shown smoking bans hurt bar and restaurant businesses 80% of the time using data from the U.S. Dept of Commerce. Further, most studies which find bans don’t hurt business are at odds with our conclusions because they use tax revenue and employment data to determine ban effects; and fail to measure for a sufficient length of time before bans take effect and a sufficient length of time after bans take effect.   

DISCLOSURES:  

The authors, used their own time and funds to research and prepare this article. Neither has any competing financial interest in this research or the outcome of this research.  

Dave Kuneman, who smokes, worked for 6 years in the 1980s as a research chemist for Seven-Up and still draws a small pension from that work.   At the time of his employment Seven-Up was owned by Philip Morris.  His current work and concern in this area has no connection to that employment.  

Michael J. McFadden does not have any financial connections or obligations to Big Tobacco, Big Hospitality, Big Pharma, or other major players in this fight.  He is a smoker, a member of several Free-Choice groups, and the author of  Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains  and Stopping A Smoking Ban.

March 2005

© Copyright 2005 The Smoker's Club, Inc. Please repost with link back to this original article.

 

 

[Gabz]

I care if you subject me or my loved ones to your second-hand smoke. I care if you make me pay through my taxes that support medicare for indigent smokers who have spent all their money on thier habit and its results. I care if you are responsible for taking up medical research money that could be going to cure some disease that the sufferer can not prevent through a simple act of will.

You have not only drank it, but have completely inhaled the koolaid. Good Grief.

Stay out of smoker-friendly establishments and you will not be subjected to SHS. Smokers pay FAR more in taxes than you will ever, and the billions from the MSA were to go for indigent smokers, paid 100% by smokers - smokers can't help it that your elected representatives have chosen not to use that money for what it was for - take it up with them and not smokers.

As to medical research - the anti-smoker body-parts cartel spends more money on anti smoker koolaid that sheeple like you inhale than they spend on any kind of research - and the more they get smoker bans passed the more money they get to do more harm to small business.

Look in the mirror if you've got a problem - you antis are the CAUSE of the problems, not the smokers.

[EGPWS]

Open your own smoke-free place if it means so much to you an leave small business people alone.

Surely he can find a place somewhere with his self professed "worldly knowledge"!

[Gabz]

I live in a very smoker friendly area - and yet I can find a non-smoking establishment wihtout even trying. It's not a difficult thing to do.

In fact it is far easier to find a non-smoking establishment around here than it is for me to remain online any longer this evening.

Have a good one - FReep with you soon.

[Lucky Dog]

in other words, your selfishness has hurt a small business man.......I hope you are proud of yourself.

I am, thank you.

Open your own smoke-free place if it means so much to you an leave small business people alone.

In deed, I, now, do have my own small business. It is smoke free and that hurts it, so be it.

...typical liberal selfish socialists...

Exactly how is it that you can call someone a selfish socialist who merely wishes to breathe unpolluted air? How is it that it is not the smoker that is not being selfish?

[EGPWS]

I live in a very smoker friendly area - and yet I can find a non-smoking establishment wihtout even trying. It's not a difficult thing to do.

As do I.

I also have friends, one which has just left my home, who despises smoking.

He, however, puts common sense ahead of his personal dislikes, and disavows his feelings of "smoking disdain" and shows a friendship that is worthy of the definition of friendship and accepts my smoking in my home and his.

True friends in the finding are much more important than agenda's IMHO.

[Lucky Dog]

you antis are the CAUSE of the problems, not the smokers.

What problems? I don't have a problem with smoking bans.

[EGPWS]

Exactly how is it that you can call someone a selfish socialist who merely wishes to breathe unpolluted air?

Because only a socialist would have the mindset of breathing unpolluted and perfectly clean air could tote such a Utopian mindset.

[Lucky Dog]

Let's give Lucky Dog a commendation!

Thanks, but I already have enough.

[EGPWS]

Thanks, but I already have enough.

Your professions of such have proved to be enough to maintain your status.

However alfalfa sprouts don't produce "beefy sh!t".

[Lucky Dog]

However alfalfa sprouts don't produce "beefy sh!t".

Sorry, your comment is beyond my limited ability to comprehend. Perhaps, you could try ordinary English?

[EGPWS]

Sorry, your comment is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.

Case closed.

[ran15]

"Well, I don't consider it an addiction. I smoke because I enjoy it. I am not fat and I can't drink anymore. I have to have ONE bad habit! heh!"

Cigarretes are an appetite supressant. What happens to many women who stop smoking is they gain a huge amount of weight, and die at 45 of a heart attack.

[Garnet Dawn]

Way to go! You already posted the responses I was going to use. Great minds think alike! Also, great editorial in the most recent article of Smokers Club.

Garnet

[BADROTOFINGER]

My counter is just as simple: if you don't like living in a state that restricts smoking in any business open to the public then stop whining and move to a different state. The states where the people's representatives have passed a law for the safety, and enjoyment of the public of that business have acted for the majority of the public.

At the expense of the property rights of the owner of the resturant. You seem to delight in trampling on their rights. Care to tell us why?...JFK

[Lucky Dog]

Case closed

In deed...

[Lucky Dog]

At the expense of the property rights of the owner of the resturant. You seem to delight in trampling on their rights. Care to tell us why?...

Any business owner (and I am one) who does business with the public surrenders certain "property rights" for the privilege of "public" business. Among these "surrendered rights" are the right keep unsanitary food storage and preparation areas, to keep fire hazards, to refuse service to patrons because of race, to refuse keep accurate books, etc.

The government of the people, by the people and for the people has the the right through their freely elected representatives to set reasonable restrictions upon property rights of anyone who holds himself or herself out as doing business with the public. The Bill of Rights clearly delienates those protections of individual and property rights which are inviolate. All others are subject to legal restriction.

If this is "trampling rights" in your opinion, your concept needs some modification. Until, and unless, you get an admendment to the Constitution passed, you will have to live with the current system.

[Ditter]

Gabz, I must step in here and make a comment. I hate to, because I have been getting along with my smoking freeper friends pretty well lately, but I must. You said "in other words, YOUR (meaning non smoker) selfishness has hurt a small business man". How can you say that, it is the smoker who has abandoned his friends in the bars and restaurants in affected areas. I have heard all of you say "I'm not spending my money if I can't smoke there, I am going to eat/drink/socialize at home". The bans weren't your idea to be sure, but it is you who have stopped spending money and the small business men are going broke in your states. You could still eat out, even if you can't smoke there to keep these business open. You can't do without a cigarette long enough to eat? Don't blame the non smokers for the downturn, we are eating out all the time.

[Just A Nobody]

I thought Gov. Arnold was a big time cigar smoker. Did he not create a smoking area in Sacramento? Are cigars the only smoking allowed?

[Garnet Dawn]

You seem to be under the false impression that smokers are a financial drain to Medicaid (it's not Medicare). As one example of how false this assumption is, I took time to do the math on a proposed tobacco tax increase in Wisconsin (to supposedly dig Medicaid out of bankruptcy) and composed this letter for the Wisconsin newspapers and government representatives.

If you dare to take the time to read it, you will see the real economic purposes for tobacco tax dollars. This is only one example of many states' proposed new extortion taxes, now being called "user taxes".

-------------------------------------------------------

Sent January 28, 2005:

"Thank you for your informative story on the proposed dollar per cigarette pack tax increase in Wisconsin. I have read two other news stories on this subject and would like to know how anyone with a conscience can possibly attempt to justify this new attempt at taxation without representation.

It has already been printed that State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, Republican-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee, is planning to introduce the proposal next month. Also, Governor Jim Doyle has indicated in the past that he opposes a cigarette tax increase, and Assembly Speaker John Gard opposes this plan.

Quoting your story, "The statewide group (Smoke Free Wisconsin) says increasing the tax to $1.77 a pack from 77 cents a pack will keep 72,000 children from starting to smoke..."

If tax increases stopped "children" from smoking, there would be no smoking "children" left in the United States and Canada today. This exploitation of the word "children" is meant to draw a mental picture of curly headed tots smoking cigarettes and represents social engineering tactics in their most disgusting form. The "kids" being referenced are almost adults..and many are old enough to fight for their country. Also, legislation and tax increases have never helped anyone to stop smoking.

The Wisconsin state revenues from this proposed tax have already been estimated at $251 million annually, according to Smoke Free Wisconsin, with fifteen million dollars going towards tobacco use prevention efforts and the rest to offset a $121 million deficit in the state's Medicaid program. Using simple mathematics, that means that about 6 percent of the anticipated annual revenues would be "used to prevent the children from starting to smoke."

The remaining additional funds of $235 million would be applied to the Medicaid state deficit. State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, R-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee was quoted as saying that the tax makes sense because 15 percent of Medicaid costs are caused by smoking. That means smoking has been "guestimated" as being responsible for $18,150,000 of the Medicaid deficit, leaving the other 85 percent of the $102,850,000 balance to also be paid out of smokers' pockets with the $1 dollar per pack additional tax.

The state would still have a projected $114,000,000 balance remaining for various "other" places. Not bad profit for a supposedly "for your own good" sin, er...excuse me, user tax. I wonder how much of that amount will be applied to additional funding for Smoke Free Wisconsin and the American Cancer Society?

Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/wdhlocal/334268386035837.shtml

Groups support idea of cigarette tax raise
Many smokers see proposal as forcing a change in behavior

By Kyle Gearhart
Wausau Daily Herald

SmokeFree Wisconsin launched an effort Thursday to more than double the state's cigarette tax.

The statewide group says increasing the tax to $1.77 a pack from 77 cents a pack will keep 72,000 children from starting to smoke and offset smoking-related Medicaid health care costs by raising $251 million.

"Studies have shown that any price increase deters kids from smoking," said Judy Omernik, the group's president and organizer of the group's central Wisconsin anti-smoking efforts. "Kids are sensitive to price, so if the price increase is enough, it will keep kids from smoking." State Rep. J.A. Hines, R-Oxford, proposed the legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, spoke in support of it Thursday at a Madison news conference. Gov. Jim Doyle has not said whether he would support such an effort.

Public reaction to the proposed $1 a pack tax increase is mixed. Nonsmokers generally support the proposal, but smokers are passionate in their opposition.

"I know people who smoke, who say they started when they were younger," said Manee Yang-Vongphakdy, 26, of Wausau, a nonsmoker. "So it could be helpful to stop more kids from smoking sooner."

Some of the money from the increased tax would go toward teen tobacco prevention programs, a purpose Yang-Vongphakdy said is a "good cause."

But not everyone agrees. Some see smoking as a personal choice and question using tax policy as a means to change people's behavior.

"I don't think that's right," said Yvonne Brandt, 70, of Wausau. "Why don't they do that to drinking? If they did, there would be an uproar. They are just taking our choices away."

Brandt said smoking already is "getting too expensive." As a smoker, she said, she can work eight hours without wanting to smoke but enjoys smoking outside of work. If prices go up, she is afraid, smoking will become a luxury she can't afford.

Wisconsin now has the 25th-highest cigarette tax in the country. In 2003, the average state cigarette tax was 84 cents. An increase to $1.77 a pack would move Wisconsin into the top five.

Advocates of the proposed tax increase, including the state's chapter of the American Cancer Society, say the benefits far outweigh any harm to individual pocketbooks.

"It's a statewide problem, and we have a statewide solution," Omernik said. "I'm hopeful that the proposal will start a discussion. If you look at the evidence, this is a good option and will benefit everyone."

______________________________________________________
I really don't care if you smoke. I care if you subject me or my loved ones to your second-hand smoke. I care if you make me pay through my taxes that support medicare for indigent smokers who have spent all their money on thier habit and its results. I care if you are responsible for taking up medical research money that could be going to cure some disease that the sufferer can not prevent through a simple act of will. 50 posted on 03/06/2005 6:00:53 PM PST by Lucky Dog

[Just A Nobody]

"A statement no longer worth contemplation to the wise."

I understand, however, I felt it was a fitting retort to the Bloomingidiot comment. I am sorry I had to step out. Things got exciting later in the thread. I am truly in awe of your comments. Great job!!! ;-)