Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court places plan to raise Missouri cigarette taxes on November ballot
The Kansas City Star ^ | Sep. 17, 2002 | TIM HOOVER

Posted on 09/17/2002 8:40:55 AM PDT by kcpopps

JEFFERSON CITY - Missouri voters will decide in November whether the tax on a pack of cigarettes should be increased by 55 cents to pay for health-care programs.

A Cole County judge ruled Monday that the issue should be on the ballot, overturning a decision from Secretary of State Matt Blunt's office.

Blunt's office said earlier Monday that a separate measure to give firefighters collective bargaining rights also would be put on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Blunt had disqualified both of the ballot measures in August, saying supporters had not gathered enough signatures to place the proposals before voters.

The ruling from Circuit Judge Thomas Brown on Monday left supporters of the proposed cigarette tax increase elated.

"This is an important proposal for Missouri. It's going to improve the health and health care for the state," said Brad Ketcher, spokesman for Citizens for a Healthy Missouri.

The coalition of hospitals, health organizations and business groups spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather signatures for the measure.

"We contended all along we had adequate signatures, and now the court has vindicated our position," Ketcher said.

Gov. Bob Holden called the ruling a victory for Missourians.

"Statistics show that increasing the cost of cigarettes is the single most important factor in preventing our young children and teen-agers from taking up this addictive and potentially deadly habit," Holden said. "I will do whatever I can to support this measure that can save the lives of so many."

The proposal calls for the tax on packs of cigarettes to rise by 55 cents, to 72 cents. At 17 cents a pack, Missouri now has one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the country.

The measure, which also would place a 20 percent tax on other forms of tobacco, would raise an estimated $342.6 million a year for health care and other programs.

The proposal would devote 29 percent of the revenue to emergency medical and trauma services, 43 percent to health care and prescription drug coverage for senior citizens, and 14 percent for life sciences research. Seven percent would go for early childhood care and education, and another 7 percent toward anti-smoking initiatives.

When Blunt's office ruled that supporters were 673 signatures short in the 2nd Congressional District, the anti-smoking coalition sued, contending that it had collected more than enough valid signatures from registered voters to put the measure on the ballot. The group blamed Blunt's office for providing inaccurate voter registration data against which supporters verified signatures.

Supporters of the measure also said officials in some counties invalidated signatures they could not read, and there was no process for campaigners to challenge those decisions.

"There have been several problems with the process," Ketcher said.

Blunt's office ultimately agreed with supporters that 601 disqualified signatures were, in fact, from registered voters. However, that still left the campaign 72 names short.

In court Monday, Citizens for a Healthy Missouri put on the witness stand a handwriting expert who testified that 116 signatures that had been invalidated matched the signatures on cards maintained by the voters' respective counties.

Terry Jarrett, general counsel for Blunt's office, said the secretary of state had not decided whether to appeal the ruling.

In response to criticism of the state's voter registration records, Jarrett said Blunt's office must rely on counties to update their information. People die or are convicted of felonies every day, Jarrett said, and voter registration lists are in constant flux.

Jarrett said Blunt, who is a "big believer in the initiative process," is considering legislative proposals to address shortcomings in the system.

Blunt's office on Monday also reached an agreement with the Missouri State Council of Firefighters over a ballot initiative to give firefighters collective bargaining rights.

The secretary of state earlier had ruled that the firefighters group was 223 signatures short of putting the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot. But the group presented evidence that local election officials failed to count 293 signatures, persuading Blunt to place the measure before voters.

In a news release, Blunt commended the firefighters for their diligence.

"The number of signatures incorrectly disallowed at the local level is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the total signatures," Blunt said. "But it made all the difference, because this was such a close case."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: cigarettes; missouri; pufflist; smoking; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
This stinks - but at least MO will let voters decide (for now). In KS, there was no vote, the legislators just decided to raise the taxes and did it.

I'm getting sick of hearing deceitful politicians say they support this because of health concerns "for the children". In reality, they just see a new way to reach into peoples pockets. They want the money - end of story.

Non smokers should be against this attack on tobacco. It will not stop with tobacco - nor fast food. Once precedents can be set, statists will eventually be able to punish those who do anything that they declare unhealthy... including the way you think and what you teach your children.

1 posted on 09/17/2002 8:40:56 AM PDT by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe; SheLion
would you ping the puff list?
2 posted on 09/17/2002 8:43:19 AM PDT by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE!

And our Gov. Holden cant wait to get a holdon the tax revenue!

3 posted on 09/17/2002 8:49:17 AM PDT by BallandPowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
MISSOURI SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2001

Not only do they already contribute to the MO economy, they will be losing their big grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation at the end of this month.

So, in order to make up for THAT loss, they want to raise the taxes. Or, since the RWJ Foundation is all about banning smokers, controlling smokers and restricting smokers, perhaps the higher taxes imposed on the MO smokers will just satisfy the RWJFoundation and keep the blood money flowing:

Projects They Fund

Then click on Tobacco and scroll down almost to the end. You will see how much money MO is facing to lose if they do not raise the cigarette taxes.

4 posted on 09/17/2002 8:49:56 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
Or puff the ping list (or piff the pung list)...

Repeat until spanked.
5 posted on 09/17/2002 8:50:28 AM PDT by paulklenk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
"Non smokers should be against this attack on tobacco."

The majority will be for it, because it is one more chance for them to take money out of other people's pockets, and feel self-righteous while doing it. That's a hard combination to beat. The whole thing is very muddled from a moral perspective; it is kind of like selling Playboy magazine to subsidize a sexual abstinence program.
6 posted on 09/17/2002 8:50:58 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
The majority will be for it, because it is one more chance for them to take money out of other people's pockets, and feel self-righteous while doing it. That's a hard combination to beat. The whole thing is very muddled from a moral perspective; it is kind of like selling Playboy magazine to subsidize a sexual abstinence program.

When you figure that 1 out of 4 smoke, or 25-30% of the state smokes, then you can bet that with that kind of odds, the smokers are outnumbered every time.

7 posted on 09/17/2002 8:56:32 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
The majority will be for it, because it is one more chance for them to take money out of other people's pockets, and feel self-righteous while doing it. That's a hard combination to beat....kind of like selling Playboy magazine to subsidize a sexual abstinence program.

You're right - and there's no shortage of cheerleaders to convince them it's good to punish the evil smokers - for their own good.

The Playboy analogy is a good one too. I contend that the gov't is the biggest shareholder in the tobacco industry and that they have zero interest in reducing smoking. They do not want to cut their profits.

8 posted on 09/17/2002 9:06:21 AM PDT by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
You know the are not going to spend it on health care, but, lets assume every penny of the new tax goes toward health care.

That would free up the money from the state budget that was supposed to go toward health care for other things in the budget.

The ONLY way these funds would go to health care is if the legislators PROMISED to RAISE health care funds by the amount of what the new taxes collected. You know that isn't what they will do.
9 posted on 09/17/2002 9:08:34 AM PDT by Lokibob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
They do not want to cut their profits.

Save Lives, Not Big Tobacco

Without Big Tobacco, millions of antis lives wouldn't be worth a plug nickle; Big Tobacco is where their money comes from.

10 posted on 09/17/2002 9:12:21 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lokibob
Missouri just had a tax increase on the last ballot - for highway improvements. It was defeated. I think that was because a few years back, they had an increase passed for highway improvements... and once the state got the money in the bank, they spent large portions of it on things other than the roads, and the roads detiorated further. I think the voters remembered that.
11 posted on 09/17/2002 9:16:30 AM PDT by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
But...but it's for the kiddies. Surely you can't object to THAT, you evil ogre!!! Isn't that what they said?

Follow the money!
12 posted on 09/17/2002 9:20:24 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
I follow Mo tax problems because I have a son living there.

He works for the State Dept. of Corrections, and they owe him thousands in overtime. They promise every year to get cought up, but never do. He can take time off, however the department is understaffed.

Besides, when I talk about Mo. politics and issues, it amazes him. lol
13 posted on 09/17/2002 9:29:23 AM PDT by Lokibob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Follow the money!

Since this is Missouri, perhaps the legislator's line is "Show Me the money!"

14 posted on 09/17/2002 9:31:31 AM PDT by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
The coalition of hospitals, health organizations and business groups spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather signatures for the measure.

There's the following of the money - that's who is going to be getting the vast majority of it.

15 posted on 09/17/2002 9:39:28 AM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Exactly. Plus I noticed that my city is getting well over a million bux from RWJohnson foundation to interfere in folks' lives... it's shameful how these "civic" groups will roll over and spread their legs for someone like RWJF... "gimmee money and watch how fast I'm ready for you." Even whores won't do SOME things!
16 posted on 09/17/2002 9:48:32 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Exactly. Plus I noticed that my city is getting well over a million bux from RWJohnson foundation to interfere in folks' lives... it's shameful how these "civic" groups will roll over and spread their legs for someone like RWJF... "gimmee money and watch how fast I'm ready for you." Even whores won't do SOME things!

ahhhhhhhh and the TRUTH shall set you FREE!!!!

I forgot to mention that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is hooked up with the American Medical Association. Nice, eh?

17 posted on 09/17/2002 9:54:03 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
California did the same thing and all the monies went into the general fund and for pet projects, same holds with most of the other states as well, the states also put the monies collected from the law suits in the general fund. I had a web site that told which states did what but I lost it!
18 posted on 09/17/2002 9:55:13 AM PDT by Burlem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
"...once the state got the money in the bank, they spent large portions of it on things other than the roads, and the roads detiorated further."

Isn't that the truth. The lottery money was supposed to go to the schools - WRONG!

19 posted on 09/17/2002 9:59:27 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
Since this is Missouri, perhaps the legislator's line is "Show Me the money!"

More like, "GIVE ME THE MONEY."

20 posted on 09/17/2002 10:13:30 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson