Arkansas Blog

>>In a "call to action" letter e-mailed to 500,000 subscribes last week, Washington, D.C.-based FreedomWorks, led by former Republican Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, said cigarette taxes are regressive, unfairly burden the poor and often do not generate the revenue promised.<<

There is one lone smoker in my family and we could be classified as "poor". I think we all hope that they tax those things out of existence. If there ever was a product that should not be subsidized or aided in any way, it is tobacco....... Be gone!

Tobacco, like guns, abortions, alcohol, drugs and payday loans, can't be taxed or regulated away. When the price of a pack of cigarettes gets too high they'll just be bootlegged from another state. Same old same old.

Keep in mind that is not the nicotine product that is being subsidized but the nicotine industry. To suggest that tobacco taxes unfairly target the poor without recognizing the predatory nature of nicotine addiction and tobacco marketing is ludicrous. 90% of smokers are addicted before they are 18 and in Arkansas 60% of smokers make less than $25k a year. No one ever heard of smokers rights until the tobacco industry hired Burson Marsteller (CJRW's new affiliation) to create the National Smokers Alliance.
The trouble here is that 50cents is too low. The industry has made it clear they can accommodate minimal tax increases. To accomplish real health care savings we'd need to see a dollar or more added to the cost of tobacco.

The national data was just reported recently in the NYT. For the past 25 years, as tobacco taxes increase the number of smokers decrease. There is not an equity issue here, it's the old Republican market mechanism - price goes up, demand goes down. Love those conservatives don't you! Betchya!

As an ex-smoker I feel equally qualified to comment.

While there are those that will insist that smoking is BAD (and it is), these same folks will feel vindicated in knowing that an increase in tax will 1) help deter smokers from continueing that habit, and 2) the tax will be spent on somthing that is 'for the greater good'.

Wow.

Business as usual...at some point though, as pointed out - there will be bootleg smokes coming into the state that are not taxed. A criminal activity no doubt.

Prohibition anyone?

If the trauma centers are to benefit the general population why should only cigarette smokers pick up the tab? Why not place the tax on a product universally used by everyone? How about a 25 cent per roll excise tax on toilet tissue...look at all the jobs it will create as folks set up another underground economy to smuggle untaxed Charmin in from surrounding states, filch paper from hotels, office buildings & public restrooms, etc. Tobacco consumption is already in decline & raising the price of cigarettes is only going to speed it up, eventually eliminating it as a reliable source of revenue. Prepare now to start toting your own roll along with you wherever you go, just like your cell phone.

I would think that additional taxes on big alcohol should also be considered to fund the trauma system.

Alcohol fueled car accidents do their share and more in filling up our emergency rooms and hospitals.

Color me more afraid of the effects of second-hand liquor than second-hand smoke.

Hey, tax the pot and cocaine used in Arkansas and every road in the state will soon be a 4-lane super highway, every kid would get free college and health care providers would give you money to visit their clinics.

But if smoking was stopped today, Beebe's big cash reserve would be gone by next year. Click my name to see how much I'm helping out the state I love. Tax away.....we passed reality several years ago, what's another 50 cents?

If anyone knows where the bootlegger is... tell her she is missing out on a cash customer right here. I know a fellow who grew a tobacco plant last year just for the heck of it.. He doesn't smoke. Anyway it burned and tasted just like the packaged stuff.

Maybe we should tax Iraqis, Palestinians and Afghani's too.. After all killing them is hard on the environment in a burning oil gunpowder and smoking flesh way.

I probably wouldn't fuss, but there needs to be far better use and accounting of tobacco tax and settlement money now.. And the same poor folks who pay these taxes certainly ought to be guaranteed the health care they are paying for through these high regressive taxes already in place.

Why do we always wait til someone is in the trauma room.. and why is it set up where folks in need of heath care are so afraid of the cost of medical services.. that they are practically or literally dying before they will consider medical help?

In large part because of piecemeal taxes such as these.. and their shoddy use.

You want to lower smoking and "save money"... then take the current revenue.... invite smokers into their local clinic for free nicorette. patches, hypnosis (whatever it takes) and a free xray of their lungs... until they quit! Trust me, smokers have paid in advance for such a program many times over.

Addiction is a sickness... and so is the willingness of our society to tax sickness instead of treating or ending it.

I have no quibbles about the need for trauma centers, none at all.
A NW Arkansas med school? Eh. Show me the instructors and all the other itsy bitsy requirements to set one up and I'll think about it.
But taxing cigarets, knowing it will lessen smoking -- don't get me wrong; that's a good thing, as Martha says -- doesn't seem to be a fiscally responsible way to fund a long term expense. How long before we have a dry well?
Let's not forget those among us who are addicted to donuts, honey buns and twinkies. And a well-marbled steak. Might as well throw in hot dogs afficionadoes -- do you know how much salt is in those things? Potato chips. A Hershey bar with almonds. Real Coke -- none of that sugarfree crap.
Hmmm, I do believe it's lunch time.

Dr. Stanton Glantz, winner of the 2009 Luther Terry award for a lifetime of challenging the tobacco cartel, spoke in NLR a few weeks back. He noted that it's a mistake to think of tobacco tax as a revenue stream without focusing on prevention. The point is that a 50 cent tax may bring in $71 million but the real saving is in effective tobacco prevention. Significant taxes, tobacco free space, and marketing reform are the tools we can use to de-normalize tobacco use and diminish a pandemic that costs Arkansas $813 million annually and upwards of $1.3 billion in productivity. It is not clear that everybody in the STEP coalition is savvy to this. It is really dubious whether the governor is hip at all.

Revenue raised is a drop in the bucket for the actual savings we can realize by reducing and preventing tobacco use. Tobacco taxes are most effective in preventing youth initiation and that is sooo much more cost effective than trying to get smokers to quit.

Arkansas needs a trauma system. But Arkansas is probably spending more to treat tobacco related disease. When dealing w the pool of monies spent on the public health taxing tobacco is as good as any device for funding services. But effective tobacco prevention can actually free up more funding to be spent on any number of needs: trauma system, dental school, etc. There are lots of things that can accomplish this end that cost virtually nothing: rectify the Clean Indoor Air flaws, post the Quit line at tobacco retailers, enforce Act 13, or significant excise taxes the tobacco industry cannot effectively pass on to addicts.

Again, Inchman, if we were to break even on the cost of subsidizing the tobacco industry your smokes would cost about $10 a pack. Maybe we could do a Hucklbee thing and you could voluntarily pay higher excise taxes?
And Eureka, I challenge you to find more heavily evaluated and monitored monies than the tobacco prevention funds. ( Though I really have problems w current administration and commitment of the tobacco program) NO tobacco taxes go toward prevention.

Someone who is better at this than I am should check my conclusion, but given the numbers I picked out of the article -- $71 million expected income and a 7% reduction in the number of smokers per year -- in about twelve years or so, there won't be enough income from this source to continue funding the trauma centers. And that's assuming that trauma center costs don't rise. (In your dreams!).
Sure, this is a pretty simplistic calculation/conclusion. However, it seems that some folks are looking only at short term benefits -- and ways to spread around the moola -- with little contemplation of future needs. (Kinda like the looming Social Security and Medicare mess.)

Eureka, I challenge you to find more heavily evaluated and monitored monies than the tobacco prevention funds. ( Though I really have problems w current administration and commitment of the tobacco program) NO tobacco taxes go toward prevention.

Perhaps, as is often the case, you just made my point better than I could have.

I am a addict. I agree I need to quit. On these things we agree. .50 cents won't stop many at all.. and there is still no semi comprehensive plan to do anything but treat folks in a dire phase.. if they are otherwise insured.

We need to tax and fund universal health care for all.. not piecemeal wealthfare funded by regressive taxes on low income addicts that does nothing to treat the initial problem.

However the only dead smokers in my family smoked for for 70 or more years. They almost never needed medical attention in their adult lives (certainly not smoking related). Not til the very end. And the only dead non smokers died of other medical causes (like Viet Nam DDT) before the age of forty.

"I would think that additional taxes on big alcohol should also be considered to fund the trauma system.

Alcohol fueled car accidents do their share and more in filling up our emergency rooms and hospitals.

Color me more afraid of the effects of second-hand liquor than second-hand smoke.

JayFrame"

Come on now, with this kind of thinking we can stay in the 19th Century.

Facts are facts - and no one single indicator of substabce use is clearly a winner across all age groups for causes of severe trauma.

The taxation rate on Alcoholic Beverages is already HIGH.

I can't wait for the Fat Police to arrive and start taxing all of those that are severely overweight. How about a special tax on Fast Food? Just a few cents won't hurt anyone, right? Or how about we double the Soft Drink Tax?

Oh, wait - I've got it! Since nearly all trauma accidents involve motor vehicles, why not just add a tax onto the Registration and License Plate fees? Surely noone would mind paying a mere $1 more to license their 1965 Mustang, or 1957 Chebby. You know those vehicles are absurdly dangerous what with no air bags or anti-lock brakes, etc.

Doigotta, Eureka, You are both right for a great part. Tobacco taxes are only a part of a comprehensive effective plan to de-normalize tobacco. First the 10% increase is only supposed to reduce youth 7% and overall 4%. And were this a guarantee you'd run out of money. But it's not. In fact the states that have really seen high taxes reduce use, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, et al, are finding that those most likely to smoke, the poor and uneducated, are still smoking despite overall numbers going down. And it is this data that really throws a spanner into calling tobacco taxes regressive without noting that the tobacco industry makes most of its profit off of the poor and uneducated. But it also demonstrates that tobacco use affects those most likely to use public services related to their health.

Clearly, novel tactics challenging the tobacco industry are in order and why CDC best practices for prevention include ongoing assessment.

Significant tobacco taxes are evidence based to reduce tobacco use. AR has the 38th lowest tax in the country, (and smuggling has not been shown to negatively affect smoking rates or revenue) But both your well taken points are that tobacco taxes as a revenue stream are kind of suspicious. But effective tobacco prevention is a fantastic way to reduce health care costs both publicly and individually. That is why you always emphasize that 'significant' tobacco tax increases are effective prevention.

One bright point going on w tobacco in AR is the new Quit Line vendor: 1-800 QUIT NOW. Trained counselors will evaluate your dependency and help set up individual quit plans. There is FREE nicotine replacement therapy available. (I'm not a fan of NRT but that's another thread) If you want to quit there are only so many things anyone else can do to make it so. It took angioplasty to get me to quit. Here's the best of luck to anyone that they can quit before their health pretty much demands it.

And while I'm on my soap box let me put in a word for posting the quitline at the point of purchase for tobacco. It would cost next to nothing and be excellent target marketing. And it would counter the industry sponsored anti-tobacco programs that the CDC has shown to not only be ineffective but actually increase youth initiation. Put a bug in your legislator's ear!

"Among the goals of pursuing justice are to hold those who have done wrong accountable, and if necessary, to force wrongdoers to change their bad behavior. It would be difficult to find a corporate wrongdoer more deserving of justice than the tobacco industry."
Dr. Cheryl Healton, CEO American Legacy Foundation

Why not just outlaw cigarettes and all tobacco products by the end of the next year?
Prohibition works, eh?
Seriously, half of the people I see on any given day are terribly overweight. Let's outlaw fast food and c-store fare like candy, honey buns, and cokes. No twinkies or Hostess cupcakes from Kroger either.

An affective challenge to tobacco is not prohibition.