Tobacco Tax: Whadda You Smokers Say

[Deborah]

Dec. 25, 2006, 1:18AM
$1-a-pack hike in cigarette tax a few days away
Advocates hope increase will keep more from lighting up; store owners fear dip in profits

By GARY SCHARRER
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN ? Texas smokers will pay significantly more for cigarettes starting Jan. 1 when the excise tax increases by $1 a pack in a move that health experts hope will discourage folks, especially teens, from lighting up.

The state tax increase ? from 41 cents to $1.41 per pack ? also will help pay for school property tax cuts.

What bullshit. I'll believe it when I see it.

Some smokers say legislators went too far, while the convenience store industry worries that the steep price increase will lead to more black market sales and cut into legitimate sales of tobacco products.

But others argue that health issues should trump all else.  :rofl:

"The cigarette tax, more than anything, will have the most significant impact in stopping kids from ever starting smoking, because they are so price-sensitive," said James Gray, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society, Texas chapter.

The Texas tax increase will push the price of a single pack of cigarettes to around $4.50.

An estimated 143,000 Texas adults will quit smoking, and a projected 284,000 teens never will start smoking as a result of the tax increase, Gray said, citing various studies. About 3.3 million Texans currently smoke, based on a 20 percent adult smoking rate in the state, he said.

Texas taxpayers spend about $1.5 billion a year, Gray said, for treating tobacco-related illness in the Medicaid program for low-income people.

What are we paying for McDonald's-related illness???

'A terrible shock'
Most smokers don't realize they soon will be paying considerably more for their habit, said longtime smoker Gertrude Lizakowski, of San Antonio.

"They are going to get a terrible shock when Jan. 1 comes around," she said.

A one-pack-a-day smoker will pay nearly $50 a month in tobacco excise and sales taxes, Lizakowski said.

"That's pretty heavy for smokers in Texas," she said. "I think it's unfair, because it targets one class of people."

Yep, I say we need to increase the tax on burgers and fries... if health of citizens is the issue. Can you imagine the outrage when customers had to pay a dollar more per burger meal, or a dollar more a six-pack???

Lizakowski has been smoking for 66 years and does not plan to stop now.

"Am I going to quit just because cigarettes go up $10 a carton? No. Why should I? It's an addiction. It's a withdrawal thing just like drugs. And it's hard on your nerves," she said about quitting.

She recently stocked up with seven cartons to save herself $70 in new taxes.

Teenagers and smoking
Lawmakers declined to increase cigarette taxes during a tight budget year in 2003 when they cut spending on the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Because they are soooo concerned about children's health.

But they could not resist raising cigarette taxes in the spring when searching for more revenue to cut property taxes. The $1-per-pack increase should generate roughly $700 million a year more in taxes, according to projections by the comptroller's office: $682.6 million in fiscal 2008 and $722.8 million for fiscal 2009.

hmm... doesn't that indicate that more people will be smoking in 2009, than in 2008? So health risks/expense really isn't the reason, it's about generating more tax dollars by gouging smokers.

All of that new tax revenue will go to reduce property taxes. But Senate Health and Human Services Chairwoman Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said she will renew efforts in the upcoming legislative session to allocate a modest portion for smoking prevention programs aimed at teenagers.

"As a mother and a grandmother, it's very important for me that we stop a whole other generation of kids from being hooked on tobacco," she said. "The cost is just too great."

Yeh, but let's not mess with their junk food addictions.

She said she wants lawmakers to set aside 5 percent of the new tobacco tax revenue for anti-smoking programs.

"Every month you can keep a person past 14 from smoking, chances are they won't become a smoker," Nelson said.

Texas' cigarette tax rate will leave 15 other states with higher taxes on cigarettes. New Jersey has the highest state tax at $2.58 per pack. But some communities also impose local taxes, creating a combined state-local tax rate of $3.66 per pack in Chicago, for example. Anchorage has a tax of $3.10 per pack, and New York City taxes $3 per pack.

Tobacco sellers
Convenience stores are bracing for a financial setback, as cigarettes represent 34 percent of in-store sales, said Chris Newton, president of the Texas Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association.

About 14,000 convenience stores in Texas will face fewer sales as shoppers forgo stops for cigarettes, Newton said.

"Consumers who choose not to stop by a convenience store to purchase cigarettes means that those same consumers will also not be making other purchases they traditionally make when purchasing cigarettes, such as soft drinks or food products," he said. "The economic impact of these consumers' decisions will be especially felt in Texas' border cities like El Paso and Texarkana."

El Pasoans will save $5 in excise taxes on every carton by shopping in neighboring New Mexico, while Texarkana shoppers could save more than $8 per carton in Arkansas.

"The impact will be disproportionate along those areas of Texas that border other states, because the consumer will readily cross the border to save that much on cigarette taxes," Newton said.

He said he fears that more smokers will turn to the Internet for tax-free cigarettes, Indian tribal retailers or black market cigarettes.

The convenience store industry will urge Texas lawmakers and the comptroller's office to beef up enforcement efforts.

And HOW much will THAT cost taxpayers?

"Our association has encouraged its members to promptly report any signs of illicit activities or other tax-evasion schemes to the comptroller's office or their local law enforcement authorities," Newton said.

gscharrer@express-news.net[/b]

[Anonymous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[Carmel]

I think youre right...its total bullshit.  Wasnt the state lottery supposed to lower property taxes too?  Here our public schools are in the worst shape ever...and taxes have done nothing but climb.

And as far as kids NEVER smoking, well thats about as senseless as tits on a snake.  I am only a social smoker, but my first cigarettes didnt come from the pack I picked up at the local quickie shop.  They came from my dads nightstand.  And what the frig kind of sense does it make if teenagers arent even supposed to be able to BUY cigarrettes....that raising the price is going to be a deterrent?

Utter jackassery, I say.

I say de-criminalize and regulate street drugs and watch the profits roll in....every one in the state could have a gold plated refrigerator for how much THAT would rake in.  We could also be eligible for a child-care discount for kids not yet of school age, what for all the property taxes we pay to the schools without actually having kids IN them.  Sure, we get an income tax deducation......but its pennies on the dollar, and not hardly worth the trouble.

[Oz girl]

I am actually not opposed to relatively high taxes on drugs like tobacco. In fact I think this is prolly the way to go with other illicit drugs.

I think they should be legal and freely available and affordable enough to get rid of a sinister black market, but expensive and highly taxed enough that  there is an element of deterrent. I would argue that a large portion of this tax should go into publically funded health facilities and programmes which are staffed by adequately qualified professionals so that in the event that people want help to quit or moderate their habits there is a viable option. Afterall how common is the complaint that 12 step programmes are sometimes seen as the only available option. A portion of the relatively high taxes should also go into proper education campaigns aimed at all ages and stages of life.

i take no issue with a high tax on a product like tobacco, just feel the money should be better channelled.

[Anonymous]

More socialist agendas, no thanks.

[try another castle]

Deterrent, my ass. Do they really believe that shit? They know people won't quit just because of a tax increase. In fact, I'm sure they are counting on the fact that people won't quit.

No matter what the cost, people are going to buy shit that makes them feel good, whether it's healthy for them or not. Like Deborah said, when's the double whopper tax going to come into effect? What about the unsafe sex tax? Yeah, let's overtax all vices, because that's where the fucking money is.

There was a measure here to increase the tobacco tax, too, and it was soundly defeated.

I just started smoking again after quitting five years ago. Gotta die of somethin'.  :smokin:

[Oz girl]

i appreicate i am going to be a lone voice here but i so love these fights.
The difference between taxing tobacco & taxing sex is that protected sex is not a health issue. Give condoms out on the street, tell kids about it from birth. whatever. Tobacco and many drugs can have geniune health implications. tobacco is one of the few drugs that actually is physically addictive. People need to be informed of the health risks and given an avenue for help should they want it. it is not a "vice" or moral issue it is an issue of public safety and health. If you then still want to partake you can excercise your free choice and do so.
Anyway must run am off for a ciggie

[69]

End socialized health care and govt. involvment and poof the problem is suddenly gone. The reason why people give a shit about other people smoking and getting fat is because they think they have to pay for it. Theyve been banned in almost all public areas now.. people accepted and you helped out the waitresses, but now its time to stop. But it wont, they want them completely illegal.. until the very tobacco plant is illegal, and they engineer a genetic virus to destroy all tobacco crops worldwide, think Im kidding?

 Stock up on cigs boys, there's a fortune to be made soon! If you outlaw cigarettes only outlaws with have ciggarettes.  

[Deborah]

I think they should be legal and freely available and affordable enough to get rid of a sinister black market, but expensive and highly taxed enough that  there is an element of deterrent.

Well, let's look at this from a Class perspective.   :lol: Are the folks who can afford this increase the middle class who likely have health insurance? This won't be the last increase. Nothing is taxed like tobacco. Working class who tend not to have health insurance will continue to smoke, they'll just pay more from their already stretched budgets.
"Provided you can afford to purchase tobacco, you may smoke (in the privacy of your home) if you can also afford the medical care you 'may' need in the future."

I would argue that a large portion of this tax should go into publically funded health facilities and programmes which are staffed by adequately qualified professionals so that in the event that people want help to quit or moderate their habits there is a viable option.

No, we don't need anymore government funded education programs. They do a lousy job and would never approve anything that was actually useful. And think of all those alcoholics in AA. They might have to go back to drinking if they had to give up their tobacco.

The difference between taxing tobacco & taxing sex is that protected sex is not a health issue.

Not necessarily, as we discussed this evening.  :lol: Although, I would support passing out condoms and disseminating 'accurate' information. Just can't expect that from the government.

People need to be informed of the health risks and given an avenue for help should they want it. it is not a "vice" or moral issue it is an issue of public safety and health.

True, there are health risks. But, living in modern society is a health risk. I have to wonder if breathing second-hand smoke ocassionally in public is really more dangerous than the daily inhallation of car exhaust sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic for hours twice a day. Not to mention the miriade of other pollutants in our air. I often joke about a time in the future when we'll (those who can afford it) will zip down to the Quickie Mart to purchase our individual oxygen canisters, like we buy bottled water now because the water is too foul to drink.

Tobacco is not as risky as they make it out to be. It's a scapegoat. The mayor of Dallas is not a smoker, so she pushed through her agenda. No smoking in any pubic building. Not good for bars. I was wondering if one could legally open a "for smokers only" bar, in areas where it's been outlawed, provided they put a big warning sign on the door, "Smokers Only". They'd rake in the dough. Or would that be non-smoker discrimination?
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/16036475.htm

Hell, the courts frown on parents who smoke in family law matters. Forget that the other parent may be feeding the kid shit that would be far more harmful than the ocassional whiff of tobacco she might inhale.

What will they blame lung cancer and respiratory illnesses on when tobacco is completely outlawed in public places?  Might they put a few of those dollars toward a study to examine whether it's natural tobacco that is so risky or the hundreds of approved chemicals and salt peter they spray on it. How bout Indoor Air Pollution? Might that be a factor in lung related illnesses? All the f'in plastic and crap emitting formaldehyde, xylene, benzene, etc?

The frustration for me, is the amount of effort going into making tobacco the scapegoat of lung-related illness while completely ignoring the sickening air pollution we live with daily. And here's my pet peeve... I want the fuckers who use dryer sheets to be fined for polluting the public air. I go out for a walk to breathe 'fresh'  :roll: air and have to breath perfumed air. Sickening. Do you have any idea what toxins that shit puts into the air? Bad, bad stuff.  If I had to choose between the two I would pick tobacco.
Or god forbid, pick up a public phone or gas pump after pimp daddy's been there and have to smell his musk cologne on your hand for two days. The shit doesn't wash off.  Sorry, that shit's toxic too. And, get this, they're manufacturing it so that the molecules attach inside people's nostrils. Can't wash it out, takes hours to dissipate.  :rofl:

[try another castle]

And think of all those alcoholics in AA. They might have to go back to drinking if they had to give up their tobacco.

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

OMG: re: the cologne. Seriously, if they are going to outlaw smoking in closed areas, then they really need to outlaw cologne and perfume.

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TEACH THESE STUPID FUCKERS HOW TO PUT ON COLOGNE?

Going on the subway during rush hour is the WORST. Everyone is wearing a scent, and wearing TOO MUCH OF IT. And all of their nasty stinky fucking perfumes and colognes are blending together into a huge toxic chemical miasma, which invades my lungs and make my eyes burn. And hey, there are people allergic to this shit!  I'd much rather sit next to a smelly old bum than some stupid bitch with too much Georgio on. I think it's totally unfair for those of us with a sense of smell that we should have to deal with this crap.

I had a friend who died of lung cancer, and she was not a smoker. You know what she was? A hairdresser. It is common for hairdressers to die of lung cancer, because of the chemicals used for things like perms and straighteners.

[Anonymous]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smell-o-meter

[AtomicAnt]

I am actually not opposed to relatively high taxes on drugs like tobacco. In fact I think this is prolly the way to go with other illicit drugs.

I think they should be legal and freely available and affordable enough to get rid of a sinister black market, but expensive and highly taxed enough that  there is an element of deterrent. I would argue that a large portion of this tax should go into publically funded health facilities and programmes which are staffed by adequately qualified professionals so that in the event that people want help to quit or moderate their habits there is a viable option. Afterall how common is the complaint that 12 step programmes are sometimes seen as the only available option. A portion of the relatively high taxes should also go into proper education campaigns aimed at all ages and stages of life.

i take no issue with a high tax on a product like tobacco, just feel the money should be better channelled.

You end up with a two-stage cycle of exploitation. First, we hook you with an addictive product and make money off of you. Then we will save you with a program to quit and make money off you. Money, money, money, makes the world go ?round. You, the taxpayer, pay for all of this. No doubt to private contractors that will promote smoking in back office deals to keep the business model going. No thanks.

Freedom comes with risks. In a free society, people might just make decisions that are harmful to them. So the nanny state steps in and regulates everything. This is a bad trend that I?ve watched for over 30 years now. I keep hoping people will wake up and say enough is enough already. I suspect that won?t happen because as the population becomes larger and denser, we have less space to share. More people then complain about the habits of their fellow citizens? intrusions.

When I was in high school, I came across an old book entitled simply Hot Rod. It was written in the 1940s. I forget the author?s name. The basic story was about a teenager that liked to race his hot rod car around on public roads. He had a close call (accident) and got into trouble. He befriended a man who organized races on closed roads with permits, etc and of course the boy was reformed and became a safety oriented racer.

The funny part of the book was the first encounter between boy and man. The boy insists he isn?t hurting anyone and the man agrees that ?you have a right to drive as fast as you want.? I?m not kidding.

The book just illustrates the change in attitude over time. The man was advocating safety through driver education and organized driving events that anyone could participate in, while rejecting the idea that rules should be imposed and laws passed.

[Antigen]

Here's a speech from 1995 from a professor of law predicting the eventual prohibition of tobacco in America.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/whiteb1.htm

Time for another revolution, I say. This time against the cloistered lunatics inside the Beltway instead of the ones across the Atlantic.

[Oz girl]

I think they should be legal and freely available and affordable enough to get rid of a sinister black market, but expensive and highly taxed enough that  there is an element of deterrent.

Well, let's look at this from a Class perspective.   :lol: Are the folks who can afford this increase the middle class who likely have health insurance? This won't be the last increase. Nothing is taxed like tobacco. Working class who tend not to have health insurance will continue to smoke, they'll just pay more from their already stretched budgets.
"Provided you can afford to purchase tobacco, you may smoke (in the privacy of your home) if you can also afford the medical care you 'may' need in the future."

What will they blame lung cancer and respiratory illnesses on when tobacco is completely outlawed in public places?  Might they put a few of those dollars toward a study to examine whether it's natural tobacco that is so risky or the hundreds of approved chemicals and salt peter they spray on it. How bout Indoor Air Pollution? Might that be a factor in lung related illnesses? All the f'in plastic and crap emitting formaldehyde, xylene, benzene, etc?

The frustration for me, is the amount of effort going into making tobacco the scapegoat of lung-related illness while completely ignoring the sickening air pollution we live with daily.

Oh Deborah- you know how I feel about the c word! but ok lets. What about struggling battler who works behind the bar at the local tavern. There is no occupational health and safety risk for her in serving beer all day, but there is in having to breathe the tobacco of others. So she will have the same respitory issues as the guy who has been puffing away. She should have the right to some kind of medical treatment for this as should Mr puffalot her patron (which i know they do not on the public purse but this is a separate tho related debate) So there is an ethical obligation for him to pay a higher rate of tax if he wants to partake in something that can cause others harm. Obviously making him a criminal is going too far as is creating a balck market. After all we all see how well that is working with dope!  If it is a little harder for him to make ends meet with a smoking habit than his better off neighbour then this is unfortunate but cest la vie. All rights come with responsibities.
     
While tobacco certainly is not the only pollutant it is a significant one. if other pollutants are more highly taxed eg diesel petrol under the same principal then so shoulkd tobacco be. I cant seem to scare up much pit for those poor decent fellows just trying to make an honest buck at phillip Morris.

[Deborah]

Could be a wrong assumption, but sounds like you may have fallen for the bad rap tobacco has gotten in the press. If an honest evaluation was done, I think we?d see that petroleum based products- auto emissions, synthetic fabrics in cars/homes/clothing, chemical fertilizers/pesticides, home furnishings, carpet/draperies, home cleaning products and deodorizers, those infamous dryer sheets, etc.etc.etc are the bigger culprit in lung related illness. But that industry is heavily protected, whereas the tobacco industry isn?t. I don?t understand all the politics involved, but that is most definitely the case. Many non smokers, who don?t breathe second-hand smoke on a regular basis develop lung illnesses and cancer, as the other poster noted. You'd be hard pressed to find a kid who doesn't have 'allergies' and chronic respiratory problems, and resultant chronic ear infections, and all the time while fewer and fewer are exposed to tobacco. Hugely profitable!!! There?s a bigger evil (Dow Chemical, etal), and they?ve set tobacco up as the scapegoat. And all this, difficult to impossible to prove. How would you isolate large populations and expose them to only one substance to ferret out the real culprits? http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/482/62

We have experienced an increase in SIDS- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome- over the years- again inspite of the decrease in exposure to tobacco. Smoking in the home has been suggested as a ?primary? cause.  http://www.ash.org/kids/sids.html
In this country, ?it remains a mystery?. Another precaution? sleep baby on his/her back at all times. Result, many kids with mis-shapen heads who have to wear helmets to correct it. Many kids who will not sleep on their back, therefore must sleep in reclining gadgets that vibrate, to keep them asleep. Low and behold, some wise man in New Zealand, Dr. Jim Sprott, OBE, a scientist and chemist, discovered the cause? toxic nerve gases emitted from the friggin petrochemicals sprayed on the infant mattresses to make them flame retardant. He created a safe mattress, but they can?t be sold in the US. He also has a mattress wrap which can be. No infant has died on one of his mattresses or one that was wrapped. Will the US look at this information? NO.
~~?This explanation is backed by a significant amount of evidence, but has been and continues to be completely ignored by SIDS organizations, the medical community, and the government - for a variety of reasons, including politics, financial liability, and vested interests. Publication of these findings continues to be denied and suppressed. The result is that babies continue to be at risk from deaths that may easily be prevented.?
http://www.healthychild.com/cribdeathcause.htm

Okay, that?s one example where there are thousands.

As for Ms Bartender? well I was a bartender for a while and all bartenders know it goes with the territory, BUT, they also have the option to work in a non-smoking environment if they choose or not bartend at all. She should have access to health insurance and treatment for whatever ails her, just as her fellow citizens who are working in jobs that subject them to environmental toxins. Think of the millions who are exposed to various substances while manufacturing all the ?necessities? and ?gadgets? Amurikans/The World want.  

And, why should the smoker pay a higher rate of tax, highway robbery in this country, when none of the other polluters are?
Every year more vehicles on the road pumpin out emissions, companies manufacturing products that pollute the air and cause illness, they aren't taxed higher for their contribution to illness. Bush won't demand that large polluters correct or clean up their pollution. Nah, tobacco smoke pales in comparison to the big hitters that 'fuel' the economy.. pun intended.

But, the bigger issue, is that those extra dollars won't benefit anyone who becomes sick and needs medical care. We've had public education on tobacco for decades, we don't need more, everyone's aware of the ills of smoking. They AREN'T aware of, or educated on the myriad of other environmental risks. The extra dollars won't even go to the stated cause- decrease taxes. Once taxes are set, they never go down. They will go toward more government waste and salary increases for government officials.

The government is not paternalistic and never will be. It's primary function now is to protect the interests of select industry. Insurance companies charge increasingly higher rates for coverage while simultaneously decreasing benefits = equals higher profits. It's all about posturing and manuvering to ensure profits for certain industries... with large lobbies and dollars to spread around.