Posted on 10/06/2016 5:19:48 PM PDT by Drango
Each time over the past decade or so that New York state increased its tobacco tax — now at $4.35 per pack of cigarettes — calls to the state’s Quitline spiked. And as high as the state tobacco tax went, in New York City, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg hiked the tax even more.
“I was so angry with him, I could hardly afford it,” says Elizabeth Lane, a Harlem resident who paid $12 a pack. “I had to beg, borrow and steal to get money to buy cigarettes.”
At first, Lane cut down to four packs a week from seven. But even so, she sometimes didn’t have money to buy laundry detergent or toilet paper. Then in 2013, after smoking for 40 years, the price tag, her doctor’s warnings and her daughter’s guilt trips all came together.
She quit.
“I said, ‘Lord, I’ve been waiting a long time for this. When will you answer my prayer?'” she says. “And he answered this time.”
Four states will vote on whether to raise their tobacco tax in November: California (by $2), Colorado ($1.75), North Dakota ($1.76) and Missouri (15 cents). California currently has one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the country: 87 cents per pack. If voters pass Proposition 56 in November, the tax would go up to $2.87 a pack. Backers of the measure, including the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, hope to hit people hard enough in the wallet that they quit smoking, or never start.
Studies support the goal. For every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, smoking goes down 4 percent, according to a 2014 report on smoking by the U.S. surgeon general.
“Part of that is people quitting. Part of that is people cutting down,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.
In New York City, smoking rates declined from 22 percent of adults to 13 percent in the 12 years after the tax, and a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, was implemented.
California’s smoking rate is about 12 percent, the second lowest in the country after Utah. Most people in California who do smoke, Glantz said, don’t smoke that much.
“It may be that a price increase that will follow Prop. 56 will be enough to just get these light, intermittent smokers to just say, ‘Forget it,'” he said.
Behavioral economist Justin White, a colleague of Glantz’s, said the vast majority of smokers wish they could quit. They know it’s bad for them. But addiction is a powerful force.
“There’s this universal tendency toward immediate gratification,” White said.
The craving for a cigarette right now easily overwhelms fears of heart disease or lung cancer in the future. But, White said, a cigarette tax that is high enough can flip that. A tax evident at the time of purchase has the power to compete with the desire for a cigarette.
“Increasing taxes is a way to really bring that back to equilibrium, the cost in the future versus the benefits now,” White said.
The question is, how much. He said a $1 or $2 tax is enough to sway smokers with a mild self-control problem. But for smokers with a strong addiction, the tax needs to be between $5 and $10 to work.
Either way, White said, a tax is most effective when paired with support from a cessation program.
And this is where opponents have been digging into Proposition 56. The “No on 56” campaign, backed by tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, has raised $56 million to defeat the measure. Supporters have raised $17.5 million.
Opponents are investing in radio ads that say proponents “are telling us Proposition 56 is all about helping people stop smoking. But follow the money, and you’ll find out that only 13 percent of the new taxes would actually help people quit.”
This is true. Of the $1.4 billion that Proposition 56 is expected to raise from the tax, 13 percent would go to the state’s cessation programs. The rest of the tax money would go to Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health care program, which covers care for one in three Californians.
But UCSF professor Glantz said that $100 million for smoking-cessation programs is enough money to fully serve all would-be quitters who need help.
Opponents ultimately reject the tax, no matter how the revenues would be spent.
“I’m opposed to every manner of taxing,” said Steven Greenhut, Western Region director for the R Street Institute, a free market think tank that promotes limited government. “Let people make their own choices.”
He doesn’t like that Proposition 56 would tax e-cigarettes, too.
“Vaping is not entirely safe,” he said. “But it’s pretty clear that vaping is far less harmful than smoking.”
Early studies suggest that e-cigarettes may have fewer health effects than cigarettes. Still, in a proposal to regulate e-cigarettes that became effective in August, the Food and Drug Administration said that some studies have found toxic material in e-cigarette liquid and the exhaled vapor. But, the agency said, “we do not have sufficient data to determine what effects e-cigarettes have on public health at the population level.”
In any event, Greenhut said it’s premature to tax e-cigarettes.
For Elizabeth Lane in New York, the nicotine patch was her ticket to quitting. Now, she no longer huffs and puffs when she walks.
“I can walk up stairs. I don’t cough,” she says. “And the circulation in my legs has improved.”
She says now she saves the money that she used to spend on cigarettes so she can buy birthday and Christmas presents for her daughter and granddaughter.
“Instead of being on the receiving end all the time, you know, give me, give me, give me,” she says, “I can give now.”
Nothing EVAH is the truth when libs describe the uses for a tax.
Hello Black Market
Nope. People who are hooked on nicotine will continue to smoke no matter how much the tax is increased. OTOH - when people do quite the tax revenue will go down and the powers that be will raise taxes on other things.
It should increase the black market of smokes coming in from Mehico. The braindead commie ‘RATS ALWAYS utilize static scoring and it always bites them in the ass.
Indian reservation cigarettes ?
““I had to beg, borrow and steal to get money to buy cigarettes.””
When the government is involved, addiction can be very expensive.
Easier to bring them in from a neighboring state. Liberals are just freaking stupid.
It will increase smuggling.
So cheap pot and expensive tobacco?
Reduce smoking?
I don’t know, I never looked.
Yes, that’s where they come from now.
Even the Indians aren’t allowed to sell cigarettes through the mail. They had to repackage them as cigars, brown paper wrappings, etc.
No, but it would enrich the G-Club ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLKGDnCVjCY&list=RDzEZ3pMmxi5U&index=26
No but it would line the pockets of the taxing bureaucrats which is the point. They dont want people to stop smoking. It generates far too much revenue. Are they that concerned about people's health in California to increase the tax to stop them from smoking? Of course not.
That’s going to wipe out the domestic ecig juice makers. People will but unregulated juice from China and they’ll die when the Chinese poison the supply to save a few bucks.
Higher taxes plus fewer smokers = government does not lose it's cash flow (or increases it) and can claim to be doing good.
If you care about people's health, make inhaled tobacco products illegal from production & through to individual use.
Prohibition isn't perfect but it neither is it overtly hypocritical.
It also increases buying from the black market.
I think the actual setup for that is, “Do you smoke after sex?”
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.