The politics of Cigarettes, truths & lies & taxes & targets

[Melensdad]

Now I don't smoke. Nor do I advocate people should. But I really wonder about the politics of smoking. I wonder why it is more vilified than alcohol? I wonder why politicians really push the issue (other than it is easy for them to do it)?

And I wonder about the validity of the science used to "prove" and/or "disprove" the health issues related to smoking.

But mostly I wonder why the vast majority of tobacco taxes are diverted to issues that require constant on-going and typically growing funding . . . despite the fact that tobacco sales have been declining for 2 decades.



Press ReleaseSource: New York Coalition of Social Smokers

'Mayor Bloomberg and the Residents of New York City Were Misinformed About the Effects of Second Hand Smoke', Says, the New York Coalition of Social Smokers.
Wednesday November 2, 10:07 am ET

NEW YORK, Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- In the December 2003 issue of Vanity Fair magazine the Mayor was quoted as saying: "Think about all the press attention to 9/11," "That number of people die every year in the city from secondhand smoke."

While the official count records 2,986 deaths in the attacks of 9/11, no official count has been recorded for the number of people who supposedly die from second hand smoke each year.

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, M.D. M.P.H. the Mayor's Commissioner of Health for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene stated in testimony, on October 10, 2002, before the New York City Council Committee on Health that;

"these aren't "theoretical" or minor risks. Approximately 1,000 New Yorkers will die prematurely this year because of involuntary smoking. An additional 40,000 New Yorkers will suffer illnesses brought on or worsened by second-hand smoke."

If the risks cited by Dr. Freiden were truly more than theoretical and minor, the improvement in public health would have been evident in the New York State Health Department's most recent three hundred and sixty, four page report. To date, no evidence has been offered to support the more than twenty five hundred deaths and one hundred thousand diseases that should have been prevented in New York City alone.

Since the predicted effects of eliminating second hand smoke in the workplace, have failed to materialize, the New York Coalition of Social Smokers calls on the Mayor and his administration to admit that the information they used to foist a smoking ban on an unwilling group of smokers and business owners, was not entirely based on fact. The data or lack thereof disputes the health necessity of a smoking ban in venues frequented by the general public. The modification or repeal of the smoking ban is warranted.

It is the Mayor's obligation to ensure that laws are not only applied fairly, but are based on unbiased data. If the residents of New York truly endorse a ban on smoking in all establishments throughout the city and state, its modification reversal or repeal will cause the public to soundly reject venues that choose to allow smoking. Legislation based on flawed data is eventually ignored and diminishes compliance with laws that are necessary, and that have been enacted based on accurate information. Democracy is ultimately enhanced when individuals are able to have their freedom of choice in an open, fairly regulated, and honest marketplace.

References:

Second Annual Independent Evaluation of New York's Tobacco Control Program
August 2005. NYS Health Department.

First Annual Independent Evaluation of New York's Tobacco Control Program
November 2004. NYS Health Department.

The State of Smoke-Free New York City: A One Year Review.
NYC Health Department March 2004
​

 

[Cityboy]

I have no sympathy for "smokers rights" in public places, however if you own a private establishment, it should be your call. It's my right not to patronize smoking establishments.

Marijuana should be legalized. We will save billions on the unwinnable "war on drugs". Plus I might want to smoke a doob once in a while if it was legal.

 

[Dargo]

There is no other legal product sold in the US that kills the user when taken as intended. There is no vice that is more offensive to those around smokers in an enclosed area. Nothing people do is worse than causing, at minimum, everyone in the room to stink and have to wash their body, hair, and clothes because of someone else's addiction. This does not even touch the health aspect of public smoking. I fully feel that if someone wants to smoke anything, they should be allowed to do so; however, I even more strongly feel that I should not be forced to smoke with them, nor pay for their health issues because of their addiction. Since I have been in the insurance industry, all health insurance rates are driven up due to smokers. Fact; no debate. For life insurance, smokers are rated at double and up for their rates. That cost falls on the person who chooses to smoke. Health insurance rates do not yet take tobacco into consideration because most smokers would not be able to afford health insurance. Fact; no debate.

Just because I don't smoke doesn't mean that I am "anti-smoking". That would be a false assumption. Sure, it pisses me off when I have to stink the rest of the day after being a room with a smoker but, more importantly, cigarette smoke is a direct and almost immediate cause for me to have migraine headaches. To put the pain in prospective, I would have to go up to a smoker in an enclosed place (who is forcing me to breathe their smoke), and rip out their fingernails with a pair of pliers. Only then would the smoker enjoy the same effect they force me to endure.

Besides the health costs, smokers cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars annually on fires caused by disgarded cigarettes along the side of the road, and the clean up of the billions of cigarette butts along each and every street in our country. Why in the HELL do smokers not have the consideration to use their damn ash tray for their cigarette ashes and butts??!!!

I do not go out nor take my family to restraunts where smoking is allowed. I know hundreds of people who are the same. When I travel to California, it is such a nice change to be able to patronize restraunts and bars and not stink and be violently ill because of someone else's drug addiction. Yes, drug addiction. It really is nothing less.

My step mother smokes, but she never smokes in their house, she does not smoke in restraunts, and she does not fling her damn cigarette butts in my yard when she steps outside my house to smoke. I have fired 3 building crews on the spot because of the total lack of consideration they have shown when building. I laid out the ground rules before they ever got the job; no cigarette butts are to be thrown in my yard or in my driveway, no exceptions. Still, they act offended when I terminate my contract with them after they consistantly refuse to respect my requests and my property.

Politics aside, there is no addiction that is as large and expensive as our public smoking. One last time; I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to smoke, however, I have a really big issue with having to smoke with them against my will, seeing their trash all over our streets, and for paying for their medical care due to higher medical costs and higher medical insurance costs.

Since the cigarette smoke causes me great physical pain (if you have never had a migraine headache, try one sometime - see how much you'd enjoy someone giving you one just to feed their addiction), I do have a hard time not being pissed when I am stuck in a place and forced to endure the stench and pain.

 

[Doc]

I agree with yous guys. I used to smoke, but haven't since the early 80's. However smoke does not bother me (give me headaches or whatnot).

But have you ever met a really hot girl who smokes and go to kiss her. YUCK! While I was smoking I had no idea the stench. After quiting, wow! It is sooooo gross.

 

[Melensdad]

Brent, as a non-smoker, I can feel for your opinions on smoking. I don't take the offense to it that you take, but the lovely Mrs_B, a former smoker herself, feels very much the same way you do.

But back onto the politics of the issue, while today New York City smokers are blasting their own mayor, Chicago's mayor is going after cigarettes as an income producer again:

Mayor Daley wants to raise the city's cigarette tax by 20 cents a pack in 2006, but shelved all other increases -- including proposed parking and delivery tax hikes -- in response to business opposition, City Hall sources said Tuesday.

One day after locking in Daley's decision to erase a $104 million budget shortfall without raising property taxes, City Hall canceled all but one of the increases on Daley's tax menu.

The mayor's team zeroed in on a cigarette tax that was raised by 32 cents just a year ago. If the mayor has his way, the new levy would be 68 cents a pack.

The sin tax that gun-shy politicians love to raise will be increased this time by 20 cents a pack to raise $9 million. All other possible increases outlined for aldermen in September are now off the table, sources said.

In September, aldermen were told Daley would raise revenues by $37.7 million with tax increases on everything from cigarettes, parking and deliveries to phone bills and real estate transactions.

The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce reacted angrily on the heels of last year's $108.7 million tax wallop. The delivery tax in particular stuck in the chamber's craw. That's because, like the employee head tax, it's a levy no other city has.

When Daley delayed his budget address for a month to give his financial advisers more time to avoid raising taxes, he apparently meant business.

United opposition from business leaders has already prompted Daley to abandon plans for a downtown property tax increase to finance the cost of operating and maintaining Millennium Park. Now it appears everybody but smokers has been spared.

Last year went up 32 cents a pack

This is the second straight year when not a penny of the city's $713.5 million property levy is available for the corporate fund, which is used to pay operating expenses. Property tax revenues are primarily gobbled up by pension obligations, debt service payments and library expenses.

The mayor's decision to raise the cigarette tax again comes at a time when the City Council is considering a landmark ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and virtually all of indoor Chicago.

It's not clear just how the Council will react to the second straight cigarette tax increase. Last year, three powerhouse aldermen proposed a $1-a-pack tax on cigarettes to kill two birds with one stone: Raise $52 million while discouraging smokers who can't afford to kick the habit.

That proposed increase went nowhere.

​

Now let me put something about the tax into perspective. Cigarettes are sold in cartons of 10 packs. The price of cigarettes in Chicago includes a State Excise Tax of $9.80, a County Excise Tax of $10.00 and a City Excise Tax of $4.80 for a total tax bill of $24.60 per carton.

If the new tax increase is imposed, the EXCISE TAX on cigarettes in Chicago would be $26.80.

That does not include an 8% (?) sales tax that is imposed on top of the excise taxes. A carton of cigarettes in Chicago sell for roughly $40, of that roughly 2/3 of the total cost is taxes.

As most of you know, I testify against excise taxes on behalf of various groups. I expect I may be busy in Chicago this fall. The reality is that an increase in the city will drive increased sales to Indiana, where the total tax bill is roughly $20 per carton LESS than Chicago. In fact, Indiana sells so many cigarettes to Illinois residents currently that the state reaps a tremendous financial benifit from "foreign sales" of cigarettes and tobacco.

 

[Dargo]

Indiana sells so many cigarettes to Illinois residents currently that the state reaps a tremendous financial benifit from "foreign sales" of cigarettes and tobacco.

Where is Kentucky then?! Every heavy smoker I know drives across the bridge to KY to buy their cigarettes by the truckload because they are much cheaper there. KY must have the lowest cigarette tax in the country then.

Oh yeah, I forgot, I was wondering if you view the price of cigarettes similar to the price of gas? Since I work around the auto industry, about 90% of the people I do business with smoke. (no kidding - I consider it my occupational hazzard to be around them) They have said for years "when a pack of smokes reaches ($x.xx - you fill in the amount), I'll quit". The fact is, I have not seen a single one quit because of the price; or even smoke any less. Gas seems to be the same way, people complain, but make no real changes. Maybe some people do drive less, but I have not talked to any smokers who smoke any less because of price.

 

[kensfarm]

Well guys I'm a smoker.. and I do my best to not include non-smokers in my cloud of smoke.

I agree w/ what's been said.. but maybe we should put a little perspective on this and other sins..

Maybe the taxes on cigs should go pay the extra costs of smokers health insurance.. instead.. it is a pot of gold for the governments.

Over weight?.. diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, the list goes on. There are probably more obese people running up the health care costs these days.. then smokers. (Dargo.. I'm not sure.. but it's in the news a lot.. just seems the health industry.. until recently.. hasn't tracked/known obesity's health issues as clearly as smoking)

To much drinky.. drinky? Alcohol users have there own issues w/ related health problems.. not to mention the deaths causes by drunken driving.. increased costs of police inforcement that deal w/ drunkedness at all levels.. from the road.. to the living room. How often is alcohol involved when the police have to show up? See the show "Cops" on TV.

 

[Dargo]

Dargo.. I'm not sure.. but it's in the news a lot.. just seems the health industry.. until recently.. hasn't tracked/known obesity's health issues as clearly as smoking

Yes sir, you are most certainly correct. However, when quoting health insurance rates, a person's weight now plays a huge role in their price for coverage. However, if health insurance is "rated" for smokers like life insurance, not many can afford coverage. Premiums would be from 2 to 8 times that of a non-smoker. Seriously. It is a big issue that the insurance companies are debating right now.

I hate to sound so dramatic about it, but crushing migraine headaches flat are no fun. As I mentioned, my step mom smokes, but she is considerate and nobody that I am aware of is offended by her smoking. The only reason I am beginning to nag her about smoking is because her father died of lung cancer, her mother died of lung cancer (both in their 50's), her sister has lung cancer and so does her brother. They all smoke(d), and they all have a considerable amount of American Indian blood in their family. Not that being American Indian really plays any role, but since all of her immediate relatives smoke(d) and developed lung cancer, I want her to quit for her own good. She is the sweetest person I've ever known (I knew her 20 years before my dad met her and they married), and she is the most doting grandparent I've seen. I honestly worry that she will not be around to enjoy what she wants to do. She has tried (I honestly don't know how hard) to quit, but never has. She now has this awful hacking cough and wheezes. I'm afraid that it may be too late. She is 49.

 

[Melensdad]

I agree w/ what's been said.. but maybe we should put a little perspective on this and other sins..

Maybe the taxes on cigs should go pay the extra costs of smokers health insurance.. instead.. it is a pot of gold for the governments.

Over weight?.. diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, the list goes on. . . .
Alcohol users have there own issues w/ related health problems.. not to mention the deaths causes by drunken driving.. increased costs of police inforcement that deal w/ drunkedness at all levels.. from the road.. to the living room. How often is alcohol involved when the police have to show up? See the show "Cops" on TV.

You and I are in total agreement on all these points. I think tobacco has simply become the easy target for politicians. It is easy to villify. And as seen from Dargo's response, it can generate an aggressive reaction.

Where is Kentucky then?! Every heavy smoker I know drives across the bridge to KY to buy their cigarettes

Of the 4 contiguous states to Indiana, Kentucky is the only state lower than Indiana in cigarette taxes. Indiana is a "moderate" cigarette tax state when considered on a national level. Kentucky is a "low" cigarette tax state when considered on the national level. Illinois, and particularly some areas where county and city excise taxes are added on top of the state tax, is a "high" cigarette tax state. Michigan is also a "high" cigarette tax state. Ohio is a "moderately high" cigarette tax state.

So we have a massive influx of out-of-state tax dollars along 3 borders and we have a moderate outflow of tax dollars along the Kentucky border. In fact, Indiana has such a high "foreign sales" of cigarettes that we have more cigarette stores (higher density) in northern Indiana than exists anywhere else in the US. I measured once a few years ago that 1 million cigarettes EVERY DAY are sold in Hammond, IN within 1 block of the Indiana state line to Illinois residents. I could not even begin to calculate how many are sold daily in Lake County, IN. Anyone who wants to raised cigarette taxes in the state of Indiana is asking for a revenue drop and further taxe increases on other products to make up for the out of state tax money that we will lose.

Yes sir, you are most certainly correct. However, when quoting health insurance rates, a person's weight now plays a huge role in their price for coverage. However, if health insurance is "rated" for smokers like life insurance, not many can afford coverage. Premiums would be from 2 to 8 times that of a non-smoker. Seriously. It is a big issue that the insurance companies are debating right now.

I buy health insurance for our company. I've never been asked to provide a list of smokers. Nor have I been asked to provide employee weights, heights, or hobbies like skydiving or riding a motorcycle. I renew our insurance every year. Every year I have to fill out a questionaire. Never once have I been asked about smokers, etc. Our insurance covers employees, spouses and kids.

 

[Mith]

Hey, its just picking on the weak.
They raise taxes to get more money, cig sales arent gunna stop overnight, its like fuel, its a sellers market, people will pay the price if thats what it is.

 

[Dargo]

I buy health insurance for our company. I've never been asked to provide a list of smokers. Nor have I been asked to provide employee weights, heights, or hobbies like skydiving or riding a motorcycle. I renew our insurance every year. Every year I have to fill out a questionaire. Never once have I been asked about smokers, etc. Our insurance covers employees, spouses and kids.

Most insurance companies are now asking about weight (via a physical) if the employer group is of 20 or less employees. Many, like Met Life and Hartford, are wanting to ask about smokers in all groups and rate your group by the percentage of smokers and the average BMI of your group. As no shock, the insurance companies are in this to make money. I think it will become standard. But, what then? What if they do what they are wanting to do, and you have a high percentage of smokers and your rates effectively triple? There are already laws in place that prevent you from firing fat employees because they are fat, and (if not already in place) will be laws preventing you from firing smokers because they make your group uninsurable. I get to go to all of these conventions since I'm still licensed to sell group health insurance and still have 3 groups on that I signed up 15 years ago.

 

[Melensdad]

Perhaps I don't see those questions because my groups is much larger.


What I am sure about is that tobacco is a political football that politicians toss around because it is an easy target for them to tax. They then take the tax money and spend it on everything EXCEPT tobacco education, tobacco research, tobacco related health care, tobacco safety, or even working to create 'safer' cigarettes (which are certainly possible but government liability laws sort of get into the way of all that and is a huge mess in and of itself.)

 

[frank_f15]

Perhaps I don't see those questions because my groups is much larger.


What I am sure about is that tobacco is a political football that politicians toss around because it is an easy target for them to tax. They then take the tax money and spend it on everything EXCEPT tobacco education, tobacco research, tobacco related health care, tobacco safety, or even working to create 'safer' cigarettes (which are certainly possible but government liability laws sort of get into the way of all that and is a huge mess in and of itself.)

There u hit the nail right on the head, is smoking good for somone? NO but neither is Drinking, but they don't tax that as heavy, wonder why? there are som many things that are not good for a person, but still they do it, and what about the things that are know to be bad for you and still sold, i worked for years with asbestos related materials, before they were know to be bad for you( at least the public did not know)

 

[v8dave]

In California, the law increasing the cigarette tax also mandated some portion of that tax go to an anti-smoking advertising campaign. You occasionally see a billboard about some negative smoking fact and more frequently quite clever TV ads protraying the cigarette makers as ghouls and the negative side of smoking.

I am amazed at how high thay can jack up the price of cigarettes as still sell them. The only border you can go over and get significantly cheaper cigs is the Mexican border and most people live to far away to make the trip. Although, if they keep upping the tax and it will eventually pay for Los Angeles area folks to make the trip.

I cringe when I travel and have to endure smoking in restaurants. Although here in Tucson, AZ they don't allow smoking in restaurants. In the Boston area I went into an eatery and one side of a short divider was smoking, the other side was non-smoking. The waiter started to seat me next to the divider, I asked to be seated "over there next to the wall." Last weekend, I went back to Avis and exchanged my rental car for one that hadn't been smoked in. Man, does the sun bake bring out the stink.

I am not and never have been a smoker. I don't drink much either. But, I do enjoy a good micro brew once in a while.

 

[Junkman]

Massachusetts recently banned all smoking in all eating and drinking establishments. The bars have reported a marked decline in booze sales. I don't know how this effects the drunk driving incident rate, but a lot of people have taken to drinking at home where they can smoke. I also know that more than 10 years ago, Massachusetts realized the health consequences and related worker compensation costs and passed a law that forbid police and fire personnel from smoking on or off the job. I don't know how they enforce it, but I have been told that it is very effective.
The fair way to tax all tobacco products would be at the Federal level and to abolish all state, county, & city taxes from the product. That would even the playing field and the tax money could be allocated / distributed to the state and cities by the manufacturers that collected the taxes from the selling dealers. They could keep records of the purchasing locations and then submit that to the government. One tax at the Federal level is a lot easier to administrate than multiple taxes at multiple levels. Raising taxes is just going to make bootlegged tobacco products a more profitable business. I have been told that UPS will no longer accept tobacco products from the Indian tribes that sell discounted cigarettes mail order.
As for the health issue, there is no question in my mind that it is bad for you. I have never smoked, but lived around smokers until I graduated from college. My college roommate died of lung cancer last year. I thought that he gave up smoking 30 years ago, but I don't know for certain. He might have just hid it from us better.
What have the states done with all the money that they received from the last tobacco settlement? I don't believe that they are spending it the way it was spelled out in the settlement. That is the problem with politicians, they feel that they are not accountable for spending prudently.

 

[Dargo]

What have the states done with all the money that they received from the last tobacco settlement? I don't believe that they are spending it the way it was spelled out in the settlement. That is the problem with politicians, they feel that they are not accountable for spending prudently.

That's the litigation lottery. It's what all attorneys dream of! I don't personally know any attorney who made a windfall from a tobbacco settlement, but nearly every attorney I know knows some other attorney who hit it big time from a tobbacco settlement. These big time tobbacco attorneys have made one time fees of tens of millions of dollars. Given the percentages paid to attorneys when a case actually goes to trial, (especially when you consider the fees paid to attorneys defending big tobbacco) I'd say that most of your tobbacco money has gone to make some attorneys filthy rich.

 

[Melensdad]

I'd say that most of your tobbacco money has gone to make some attorneys filthy rich.

Several years ago there was a thing brought about by 46 of the 50 state's Attonrey Generals where they settled with the tobacco companies for something like a couple hundred BILLION dollars ($250-Billion sticks in my mind over a 20 or 25 year span). I forget the exact number but it was so big it was stupid scary. The settlement is referred to as the "Master Settlement Agreement" in by N.A.A.G. (National Association of Attorney Generals). I believe something like 15% of the money is being used for smoking prevention, smoking cessation, and the remaining 85% is being used to build roads, fund government pensions, build parks, fund PBS, and NPR.

Of course there were law firms that got BILLIONS of those dollars too. In fact the lawyers got such a large cut of the action that they got sued to reduce the amount of their claim. It eventually settled, but I think the lawyers cut was something like $10-BILLION and that was AFTER they settled and their award was lowered to that level.

So the states then took the settlement money and were flush with cash and nothing to spend it on that was tobacco related so many just went on spending binges. In fact several states spent so much cash so quickly they ended up in debt and had to sell their future tobacco income from the settlement (again it paid out over 20 or 25 years) because they overspent their income!

Just proves to me that politicians can't be trusted to do the right thing.

By the way, 4 states did not participate in the MSA. I think they are Minnesota, Texas, Florida and Alabama. I know Minn & TX for sure, and I'm pretty sure about Fla & Al. They cut a different deal. I'm not sure of the details.