From restaurant worker Nicholas Olson, a guest columnist in today’s Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
Smokers are being blamed unjustly for problems and health risks in a propaganda campaign that allows the government to pick on someone’s choice rather than dealing with a bigger issue. [….]
Increasing the tax is shifting the blame to smokers unjustly. Recent statistics show that state revenue from tobacco taxation is more than $171 million a year. That is more than the revenue from the Lottery ($46 million) and alcohol taxes ($69 million) combined. … More below:
Smokers know full well the risk of their lifestyle. Knowing that, they have been punished enough by society — both on a social level, by being banned from both civic and public property, and by the insurance company, which weighs the risk and charges smokers more for both health and life insurance.
If Zerby wants to have more effective taxation, than increase taxes on food vendors who serve high-cholesterol, high-fat foods. While only 21.1 percent of Minnesotans smoke, 60 percent are overweight. This has led to the second highest cause of preventable death.
Smokers are an easy target because it is OK to chastise people for an undesirable habit. Put the taxation where it belongs, on the real issues of the day: high gas consumption, debt evasion and corporations that do not pay taxes.
Leave the smokers alone. (Star-Tribune)
Let the tobacco war here begin!
I can eat a box of jelly doughnuts every day….at the office, in the grocery store, in a movie theatre, in a restaurant or bar, at a baseball game etc., and never once put anyone else’s life or health in danger. Unless some of the jelly oozes out of the doughnut, plops onto the floor and a passerby slips in it.
I have the right to breathe clean air and you have the right to smoke….as long as it doesn’t foul up my air.
Second hand smoking is responsible for tens of thousands of cases of lung cancer each year to those people unfortunate enough to share air with a smoker. That means family members, wait staff, etc.
Here in NC tobacco companies rule. The cigarette tax is ridiculously low…about .05 cents a pack. ‘
Know what really targets poor people unfairly?…….food tax.
Can you mail me some?
We found a Native American gas station that sells a carton of Marlboros for $29.95 + tax. At Safeway, etc., it’s about $45+.
Here in New York City, I’ve worked out a special deal with my beloved Pakistani smokeshop proprietor to get my brand (Nat Sherman New York Cuts] for “only” $65 a carton. Regularly, with our outrageous state and local taxes, they’d be a minimum of $80 a carton, and, in most shops, $9.50 a pack.
But I refuse to complain. These prices are a wonderful incentive for me to be more productive and make more money. I doubt that I could enjoy smoking any more than I do already, but I do now think of cigarettes as the most important “luxury” in my life.
I am a smoker, here in Minnie as a matter of fact, and I am sick the attacks. No offense to anyone, but I see a whole lot more overweight people than I see smokers.
Even as a smoker I am in better health than most people. I work out every day, I’m at a correct weight, I eat healthy food and actually LOVE tofu, and am probably the only person I know who actually drinks eight 8 ounce glasses of water a day.
If we are going to talk undesirable habits, I would like to fine sidewalk spitters. Those people disgust me! I’d also like to fine those people that wear a noxious amount of cologne or perfume. I’ve nearly suffocated being on elevators with those people. And how about those hummer drivers and people who refuse to carpool or use our fairly good public transportation system? They are driving up my fuel costs and polluting our air far more than my cigarette does. I can go on.
The hypocrisy is crazy making.
Pollution from vehicles is infinitely more hazardous to one’s health. Or from the chemicals in carpeting, flooring, etc., etc., etc.
Or how about Teflon? My god, if people who have indoor birds can’t cook with Teflon because the fumes will KILL their birds, uh .. maybe we shouldn’t use Teflon-coated products either?
It’s just become fashionable to bash smokers, and I’m sick of it.
Would I ever dream of taking a bite of food out of the mouth of a fat person? Never.
So don’t feel free to give me dirty looks when I’m standing outside to smoke while you climb into your SUV and start the engine.
People are amazed at how fast I can suck down a cigarette. I just tell them “winters in Minnesota.”
Exactly!!! And all those chemicals in processed foods that you can’t even pronounce? A friend’s brother-in-law was just diagnosed with colon cancer. I’m willing to bet a lot of colon cancer is caused by ingested contaminants.
There is so much poisoning us from all directions that the tobacco tax is like trying to kill dragons with a fly swatter. It’s obviously a scapegoat due to political expediency.
Heaven forbid that they actually try to curb any industry from making a buck off our health. Except those that the fundies don’t like.
I do my best not to annoy people. I know people don’t like cigarette smoke. So, I hide in the alleys, I don’t smoke in lines, etc. But, I get really pissed when I am standing on a busy sidewalk and some idiot waves off my smoke with their looks of horror while inhaling bus and car fumes without a wince.
Smoking is a bad habit and as I have said, I really try to be accomodating, but in our world of all kinds of offensive fumes, it takes a bit of gall to single out smokers.
That said, I don’t really mind extra taxes. I would like to see the damn things illegal if I wasn’t such a libertarian. But, on the other hand, people smoke and it is addictive, so you simply have to give us somewhere to go. Cutting smoking out of airports was insane. I can live for the flight, but sheesh, just one dingy room where I can pop in between flights…is that so much to ask? And as for businesses, it is just wrong to ban it from bars and restaurants. We are the minority, so if you make it optional, most places will not allow it, but if a business wants to allow it, they should be able to.
I will concede that point. You say “They are driving up my fuel costs and polluting our air far more than my cigarette does.” I agree with that. However, and I say this in the kindest most loving way I can, your cigarette pollutes YOU more than anything the air outside will ever do.
Yes. I know that. All smokers know that. It is a personal choice.
a personal choice many come to regret. for some it ends up being the greatest regret of their lives. IMHO a very unwise choice too. i seriously hope it doesnt happen to you of course. i wouldnt wish it on anyone. but what im speaking of doesnt always happen to anyone. it happens to people who smoke.
As a smoker, it is exactly that kind of sanctimony that makes me want to light up.
IMHO smokers have a unique psychology. I think we tend to be angry and rebellious personalities.
We hear that and we think about that 300 pound person who may just be regretting eating so much and destroying his heart. Or think about how the alcoholic might just regret his wasted life, liver and the effect he/she had on their children growing up.
I think about the cloud of hairspray I walk into in the restrooms at work in the morning. The exhaust from the truck that just passed me.
I am saying that the current “tactics” to stop smoking are not working and never will because they don’t “resonate” with the smoker personality. We don’t want your “kind thoughts”. We really don’t care if you think we’re stupid. We want an end to the hypocrisy and the tunnel vision. There are other things that are causing the problems. Could it be that cigarettes are just the easiest to see, but not the worst of these?
A recently-made 35-year-old friend of mine just found out she has throat cancer from smoking. She’s not too happy about the choice right now and says so. It’s an addiction that feeds corporate beasts, as such I think it’s a progressive ideal to work toward less people smoking and to quit supporting these death merchants (imo).
From my experience in NYC, people I know have quit or cut down because of the smoking ban in bars and restuarants. I read recently that a study had showed this to be the case as well.
Feel free to be rebellious, but please not in my airspace.
Another point, the sin taxes and other methods being used to stop (or rather, stem) smoking are relatively new. We’re fighting against a corporate beast that ran through American culture uncontrolled for many decades (and who now target children in the third world where they still use Camel Joe). Like someone else said, maybe if cigarettes were so expensive 30 years ago so many people wouldn’t have started and now find it so hard to stop.
The thing I don’t like about draconian anti-smoking legislation is that it leaves smokers nowhere to go. You can’t even run a smokers-only bar if you want to, in my state.
I would like to know why my 65-year-old father, who has been a courteous citizen all his life, extremely concerned about other people being affected by his smoke, has to be treated like a pariah by society now. He’s 65. Listen: He’s not going to quit smoking. Ever. He’s tried many times. He’s 65 and he wants to enjoy the life he has left, the way he wants to.
There is no place he can go, enjoy a meal and have a cigarette, even if the proprietor wants to set up a haven for smokers only. The State will not allow it.
This is probably one of the few opinions I have which diverge with the liberal mainstream.
What’s next — state restrictions on how much food one can eat in a restaurant at one sitting? After all, obesity is such a killer.
Why stop there. The state has a smoking ban, so why not a food ban? If people don’t need to smoke, why do they need to eat?
…what’s that? People do need to eat? … nevermind.
Seriously, I do get your point; obesity is a problem, and it is sometimes due to eating too much. Similarly, smoking too much is also a problem. However, people honesty don’t need to smoke to survive; they do need to eat to survive. If smoking has any net positive health benefits, I am unaware of them. Food, on the other hand, is a necessity for life. That is where the comparison breaks down.
As for having an all-out smoking ban, I think that is extreme. Most of my friends in college were smokers, and they all had to hang out outside to smoke. Now, I rather enjoyed hanging out outside with them, except when it got especially cold. But I see no reason why they couldn’t have had a “smoker’s lounge” somewhere.
Nicotene is a stress reducer…I’m serious, studies have shown……I’m slowly backing out of this diary now….
In your post you state that : he, has to be treated like a pariah by society now. In the strange way life is, even with me being on the opposite side of this issue, I “feel” the “pariah” thing that you’re speaking of in much more than an intellectual way. I don’t know if you read my personal experience up thread (I assume you did) but almost everyone assumes, when they meet me (and my disability is a little noticable and some people do ask) they naturally assume that I smoked. So the same thing you think is unfair I also receive a little of. I haven’t been told ,“Gee, I bet your sorry you ever picked up that first cigarette” yet, but I’ve a friend who was told that, it’s a direct quote, and I’ve talked about this issue with her, and with others too. I want to be clear about what I”m trying to say, especially to those of us who’s lives are touched by smoking.
NO ONE deserves to be treated like a pariah.
people aren’t the sum of a bad habit its two independent things there is no connection and it’s not fair that this connection is made. In this thread I’ve “outed” myself as a non-smoker, but usually when asked that question in relation to my disability I decline to answer. I do so out of respect for people that do smoke, people like your father because in an odd way, due to personal circumstance, I know how he is sometime treated.
I am not rebellious in your airspace. I live alone and am a courteous smoker. I always ask anyone around me if they mind if I smoke and I still move away from the group when I do.
The issue here is the targeting of smokers and the ignoring of other carcinogens that all of us consume. In our food, our water and our air.
If a 1/4 of the energy used to attack smokers were directed toward the pathogens in our food and water we would have a much healthier planet.
I think this is Susanhu’s issue here.
I sincerely mean no offense to anyone but am trying to contribute to a conversation by stating what I, as a smoker, feel.
If I end up with throat, lung, tongue or whatever cancer, sure, I can blame cigarettes and wish I never started. But, right now I enjoy my cigarettes. It is one of the few “luxuries” I have.
We can speculate till the cows come home on whether higher prices for cigarettes in the past would have cut down on the smokers today, but you know what? We will never know.
Someone downthread asks when does it stop? Will we eventually regulate the calories one consumes? The carbs? How little sleep they get?
Life is a dangerous state. There are so many freaking things that can cause illness and death. This extreme focus on smokers causes some of us to feel like we need to retaliate. Maybe that is wrong, but that is how I feel.
I’m sick of government telling me what to do. For some of us, this is what it comes down to.
My husband is also a courteous smoker – he does things the way you do. (He smokes cigars occasionally; he’ll smoke in the car but not in the house; his doctor doesn’t object since the level is so low)
I think this is an out-of-proportion thing. There’s other things that could also be targeted, it doen’t have to be vindictive. But the tone used is having an “unintended” side effect, as well as being unfair. Lets teach people, from childhood on, that it’s OK to stick your nose into other people’s business.
Then, if it’s alright to interfer with other people’s lives because “we know better, so we can tell you what to do: smoking isn’t healthy”, then it’s ok to tell people “we know better, so we can tell you what to do: homosexuality isn’t healthy”
I don’t mind reasonable health concerns and figuring out compromises, and legitimate studies determining data about the effect of 2nd hand smoking, … and education and help for people who are addicted and need help.
Same as, oh, arsinic in our water.
But if someone is being rabid anti-smoking and all the smokers sharing that person’s are are courteous, then it’s nasty, controling and unfair. IMO.
no offense taken either, at least not on this end. we’re having a discussion about a serious issue.
I’ll address one statement it your post above. You state: I am saying that the current “tactics” to stop smoking are not working and never will because they don’t “resonate” with the smoker personality.” According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) the “tactics”, i.e. increasing tobacco taxes, are effective. According to NCI your statement that its “not working”, is false.
The following text is excerpted from Monograph 14: Changing Adolescent Smoking Prevalence and is found within Chapter 12, The Impact of Price on Youth Tobacco Use. PLEASE NOTE: the link to the entire monograph leads to an html page but the Chapter 12 link is Acrobat PDF.
The demands for tobacco products, however, differ from those for most other products because of the addictive drug they contain–i.e., nicotine. For years, the conventional wisdom was that addictive consumption was an irrational behavior that did not follow the basic laws of economics, including that of the downward sloping demand curve. However, a variety of econometric studies conducted over the past several decades clearly indicate that cigarette smoking and other tobacco use are not exceptions to the principles of economics. Several of the most recent studies apply economic models of addiction that explicitly recognize the intertemporal links in the consumption of addictive substances (Becker and Murphy, 1988). That is, economic models of addiction incorporate the acquired tolerance, reinforcement, and withdrawal effects that distinguish the consumption of addictive goods, including tobacco products, from the consumption of nonaddictive substances. The key implication of these models is that changes in addictive behavior in response to changes in price will not occur quickly, as they would for nonaddictive goods, but that the effects of permanent price changes will grow gradually over time.
…
Conclusion: While there is still much to be learned, the existing research clearly indicates that macro-level interventions, including increased tobacco taxation and stronger tobacco control policies, can be very effective in reducing cigarette smoking and other tobacco use, particularly among youths and young adults. Moreover, because of its addictive nature, the long-run reductions in tobacco use resulting from sustained macro-level interventions will be even larger than those realized immediately.
All sixeen monographs, dating from 1991 may be found at: Smoking and Tobacco Control Monographs and their purpose is:
Smoking is the most preventable cause of death in the United States. At least one-third of all cancer deaths and one-fifth of deaths overall are attributed to tobacco use each year.
In 2002, about 170,000 people will die of cancer because of their use of tobacco products. This number represents at least 30% of all estimated cancer deaths in the United States.
Cancer Facts and Figures 2002, American Cancer Society
The Smoking and Tobacco Control Monographs (Reports)
The National Cancer Institute established the Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph series in 1991 to provide ongoing and timely information about emerging public health issues in smoking and tobacco use control.
The series reduces the time between availability of information from research projects and the publication and wide dissemination of this information, and enhances the rapidity with which NCI can use findings from research trials to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality.
Please note, the American Cancer Society (ACS) facts and figures quoted in the introduction to the NCI monograph series are cancer-only deaths.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) examines the issue from a wider perspective:
442,398 U.S. Deaths Attributable Each Year to Cigarette Smoking
As far as the accuracy of the facts and figures? Well who can say? I personally accept the NCI information. I feel that their information is sound science.
Many of the tax increases are also directly linked to the funding of smoking-cessation programs. These programs are aimed at the age demographic when people start, the teen-age years. My question to you would be, how is your state spending it’s money?
OK. Im up. Im a cancer survivor. My cancer was :::knocking on wood here:::: sometimes (not always) a smoking-related cancer. I didn’t smoke (that’s neither here nor there) but I have, due to the people I’ve come to love in my unexpected journey, formed an opinion about the dangers associated with smoking. My opinion is that anything that helps people smoke less, no matter how unfair or blatant it might seem, is a positive benefit IF it causes someone to smoke less. In other words, ten or fifteen years chopped off a life is a bit more serious IMHO than unfair taxation.
In the text above the author mentions “Pregnant women smoke because they want to, not because they are somehow forced to”. I disagree completely. Pregnant women who smoke do so to feed an addiction. Anyone who has been smoking for any period of time is feeding a physical addiction. “Want to” is simply denial of the addiction.
I also want to say is that no one equals their bad habits. By that I mean an individual’s worth has no connection whatsoever to their bad habits. Some of the greatest people in the world die from smoking. I know, I’ve lost some of them.
And thats why I feel strongly about supporting anything that stops the death.
Whos up next?
While I understand where you are coming from, I am still tired of being targeted. Yes, tobacco has caused deaths. So have asbestos, formaldahyde, carbon monoxide, teflon, red dye #whatever, I can go on and on.
You have every right to be angry about smoking and wishing for this habit to become extinct because of the people you’ve lost. But I do not think higher taxes is the way to stop smoking. It hasn’t happened yet, has it? Cigarette prices have been going up for 20 years (at least). If we are going to tax this we need to tax a whole host of other things as well.
There is another issue involved here. People feel a “right” to come up to a pregnant woman who is smoking and berate her publicly for that. Have you ever seen anyone do that to a pregnant woman who is eating cheetos or a big mac?
I think this hypocrisy is one thing that is preventing the higher taxing to have the effect you want.
When we stop the “morality taxing” only and start taxing corporations as well for destroying our health, I for one, will feel more inclined to stop smoking. Right now, to be honest, I’m too angry to stop smoking. I don’t even want to.
If you were going to berate a pregnant woman for something food-related, you’d have a better case to berate her for not eating. In the meantime, feel free to sponsor a scientific study on the harmful effects of cheetos on the fetus during the course of pregnancy–because smoking has been done.
i’m not angry about smoking. im put into the world where people die from it. im sad because of self-inflicted corp assisted bad habit death. and i’ll support just about anything that will stop it. i have to go now and can’t comment anymore. whats kind of interesting/bizarre though is i’m off to see a speech pathologist who makes her living helping people to speak again after the surgery to cure their cancers. so, back into my world, eh? hope you never have to visit it.
oh one last thought.. i didnt mention the percentage. im guessing (dont have footnote for that but can get one if needed) that 70% or 80% of her patients smoked more than 20 pack years (1 pack per day per year).
i understand your point about using taxes to further social policy. using taxes in that way is never consistent. whatever happens to be the issue of the day gets preferential, or detrimental, tax treatment.
however, smoking is not alone in this category. we give preferential tax treatment to home owners over renters. talk about a tax that favors the rich! in maine, we have liquor taxes, snack taxes and 5 cent bottle deposits (which amount to a tax if you don’t return the bottle). there are tax breaks for business owners who buy SUVs and high taxes on gasoline.
so its not just about smokers. the question is, what is the purpose of taxation, and to what extent do we want to use taxes to influence people’s behavior?
that said, i feel strongly that cigarette taxes should go to help defray the costs of uninsured folks smoking related illnesses. because, unlike cheesy puffs and candy bars, there is a plethora of studies proving that cigarette smoking is a direct cause of cancer and emphysema.
asbestos caused these conditions, and we outlawed its use. if there were this much evidence of the harm of any single product other than tobacco, it too would be outlawed.
as for pregnant women who smoke? smoking by the mother is proven to cause low birth weight in newborns. so i don’t have a problem with the tax there either. again, the tax revenue should go to defray uninsured smoking illness treatment.
as for whether people have a “right” to go up and berate a pregnant woman for smoking…well, we all have a right to free speech, though i wish we wouldn’t use it to publicly berate random strangers. nonetheless, pregnant women are “berated” for all sorts of behaviors: smoking, drinking alcohol, using crack, trying to do too much, not doing enough, gaining too much weight, not gaining enough weight, working too long into their pregnancies…
where alcoholism kills far more — and affects far more families and others around alcoholics — no one dares raise the ridiculously low liquor tax, while the smoking tax soars ever higher (among the highest in the country). So the argument that the taxes are for health reasons just doesn’t make it on evidence, or we would tax proportionate to the cost of the problems. Plus, forcing people out into the cold of Wisconsin winters for a smoke — I work on state lands which refuse to put up “butt huts” — is hardly good for our health.
And . . . if anything, put our tax money into Social Security funds, since economists’ studies show that as more smokers quit and live longer, that could REALLY cause a crisis in Social Security!
According to the Wisconsin Women’s Health Foundation (among others), smoking is the #1 preventable cause of death in Wisconsin.
The first link is to national data, not state data.
And I have personally witnessed many deaths from alcoholism not attributed to it here — and so has my brother on the Madison medical school faculty. So the latter link is, I gather (its sources are unstated), basing their conclusions on flawed evidence (and possibly dated evidence, as the drop in smoking has been reported more recently).
I can only report what I’ve seen in Milwaukee for half a century and see currently — and the data we have on continuingly increasing rates of drinking, and drunking driving, compared to declines nationally.
More to the point of this diary is the societal and legal disapproval of smoking vs. the social sanction of drinking — and the recent acts of our legislature in continually raising taxes on smoking (to be specific, cigarette smoking) while refusing even as recently as a few weeks ago to look at one of the lowest liquor taxes in the country . . . while I watch my children’s and my students’ generation continue down the road of alcoholism that killed so many members of my family and friends(none of whose death certificates stated that).
But you’ve got a point, regardless of the actual rates. Society only disapproves of drinking in extreme, while smoking is disapproved of even in moderation. And the taxes reflect that, rather than the actual relative damage caused by each activity.
Personally, while I think smoking — particularly around children — is a lot more harmful that you and many others here are acknowledging, I agree with Susan that the tax is unconscionably regressive, and not an effective deterrent.
Looking for more concrete and discrete data, fyi, I found http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/deaths/ with the most current state-specific data. It shows that neither tobacco nor alcohol are cited as underlying causes, so statements that state tobacco as a leading underlying cause are extrapolating from the data to claim that smoking is the leading cause. . . .
And it shows another frightening stat for women in the state:
More deaths of Wisconsin women are due to cancer of the breast, uterus, and cervix (none widely accepted — yet, agreed — as caused by tobacco) than to cancer of the lungs, throat, etc.
but you’re right, there’s nothing there that would let you determine which deaths were attributable to smoking. They’d at least have to break out causes of death for smokers and non-smokers … I guess the state doesn’t track that data?
as i said up thread…these social policy taxes are never consistent. but it’s not surprising to hear that liquor taxes are low in the state that houses milwaukee and tobacco taxes are low in states that grow tobacco.
Exactly. So it’s politically based, not morally or ethically or logically based.
my point is that all (or at least many) taxes are politically based, rather than morally, ethically, or logically based. smokers are not being singled out for politically based taxes any more than liquor drinkers, gasoline users, renters, snack buyers, adults without children, people who don’t recycle bottles, poor people, etc.
then throw into the political pot the lobbying efforts of industries and corporations and you get lower gasoline taxes in texas and oklahoma, lower beer taxes in milwaukee, lower tobacco taxes in north carolina etc.
tobacco is not being singled out for unfair treatment any more than a dozen other unfair taxes. taxes are levied by legislatures. and you are looking for logic? ethics? consistency?
Yes, all are singled out — but the point of this diary and my post is which are being singled out for HIGHER taxes. That’s (cigarette) smoking.
lots of things, in addition to cigarettes, are singled out for HIGHER taxes.
My sister and I between us have had a whole host of immunological conditions resulting from childhood expose to secondhand smoke, including asthma, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, endometriosis, heart disease, and chronic allergies and mouth sores. It’s estimated that secondhand smoke affects over 300,000 children and kills 3,000 nonsmoking Americans every year. I have no problem with anything that might reduce its incidence.
That said, my parents pay a small fortune in cigarette taxes, and it hasn’t convinced them to stop. Although I wonder if they’d have picked up the habit in the first place if cigarettes had been as expensive as they are now….
We grew up on a small, isolated farm near the Pacific coast of Northern California. We mostly ate food we grew ourselves. There were NO other sources of environmental pollution.
who smoked upwards of 3 packs a day. My sister has severe asthma, mouth sores, and a myraid of other health problems. My brother has high blood pressure and early onset heart disease(he’s 36 now began in his 20’s). I’m the only one who has seemed to escape, however I too smoked for years before quitting so I may not have escaped anything.
Taxes on cigarettes are too low as far as I’m concerned. The health costs are far too high and frankly we all pay for it.
You know, the cigarette tax revenue should really be earmarked for studying and treating the health effects of second-hand cigarette smoke…
First, let me mention that I don’t mind optional sin taxes at all, although in the case of cigarettes there are a few exemptions that make it easier to evade than most. (And as someone else mentioned, since I also live in North Carolina, it’s not a big deal around here. Then again, I don’t smoke either) If you don’t want to pay the tax, then don’t commit the ‘sin’–that’s the basic principle involved here. Also, gasoline is taxed, last I checked it averaged about 40 cents per gallon, half to the state and half to the feds.
However. One problem the author does not explicitly mention is that of the obvious conflict of interest here. If the state truly does want to stop smoking, then why do they rely on it for so much of its revenue? This seems counterproductive; the government would then have the incentive to fix the price of the sin tax so as to maximize revenue, and not to minimize smoking.
As for taxing high-cholesterol, high-fat foods: although I’m sure many would be against this in principle, I think it would have some positive effects (although we’d need some better standards here than just ‘high-cholesterol, high-fat’–low cholesterol and low fat does not necessarily equal ‘healthy’). What I’d imagine you would see is that healthier foods would get cheaper, tastier, and marketed more widely. That’s because the price disparity would cause more demand for them.
Recently, I bought some ‘Healthy Choice’ frozen dinners from the store. I don’t know how ‘healthy’ this actually is, but let’s assume it’s better than some of the other well-known cheap store brand dinners. Why did I buy them? Well, I did it because they were on sale. Then, I ate them, and found that they were tasty. The next week, the sale was gone (likely, they were on sale because it was a new product within the Healthy Choice line of dinners). And although they were good, it wasn’t a good enough deal for me to buy them again.
Finally, I’d like to talk about a few (morbid) good economic things that smokers in general do for us. I don’t know that it outweighs the negative effects of smoking, but it’d be interesting to see a study done. Generally speaking, smokers die earlier. Sure, they’re more at risk for a wide variety of nasty diseases, which doesn’t necessarily help out our health care situation (and indeed, that’s why they pay more). However, when they die earlier, they end up collecting less social security, and they stop needing health care altogether. It’d be interesting to see a comprehensive analysis of the positive and negative effects of smoking on the economy of the US as a whole.
This decade,the tide is turning, and there’s an ever-increasing stream of studies and reports showing that obesity is the biggest shortener of life. (There was a story in the NYTimes a couple months ago that claimed that today’s kids will have life expectancies FIVE YEARS shorter than adults now have, all because so many of them morbidly obese.
Of course smoking is not good for you and many people end up being disabled because of it. But the older I get, the more friends and family members I see who are too fat and out of shape to take part in the most basic life activities. I know a lot more people who are “disabled” because of their weight than because of smoking. And I happen to live in the zip code (10024) that, according to the U.S. census bureau, has the third lowest percentage of overweight people in the U.S.
Smoking can act as an appetite suppressant. If only they had smoked more, they might have been skinnier!
But seriously, smoking and obesity do have some things in common, re:health risks. And as smoking has gotten less common, obesity has gotten more common. Of course we should work towards eliminating both of these. Smoking has gotten more attention because it used to be a bigger problem; obviously now obesity should be getting more attention because it is becoming a bigger problem. Perhaps you missed the part where I talked about how taxing unhealthy food could have positive effects? 🙂
Was simply being polite, but now that you’ve said it again I’ll respond.
I think it’s clear that “sin” taxes have little effect on human behavior. Have you ever been in a Scandinavian country? They have the world’s most outrageously high taxes on alcohol … and also more public drunkenness than I’ve ever seen in any non-Scandinavian country (with the possible exception of Japan — although in Japan public drunkenness is pretty much limited to evening crowds in “entertainment districts” — in Scandinavia it seems to be everywhere).
If human beings want nicotine, alcohol or massive amounts of fatty foods, they’ll find a way to get them and pay for them, no matter how hard to obtain or expensive society makes them.
I agree that sin taxes don’t dissuade the people who really want something from getting it (that is not their purpose, otherwise we’d have bans instead), and in that respect they don’t solve anything. I would argue, however, that they do help dissuade others, especially when there are less expensive alternatives to be had.
less and less, as cigarette (NOT cigar or pipe tobacco . . . think on that) taxes soar, to good causes — charities, candidates, etc.
So I sure hope all the nonsmokers are giving more.
do you think a similar tax would be fair if placed on legal cannibis, cocain, heroin, meth, and so on. I smoked for 20 years. Cigs are a need, not a pleasure, just like any other addictive drug. What tax rate do you think would be fair for addicting drugs?
As far as the other complaints, no sympathy here. Smokers have no special right to pollute my air, period. What we’re seeing is a reversal of customary attitudes, which always causes passionate resentment among those who came along at the wrong end of the curve. Used to be that smokers pretty much ruled the roost — anybody who objected to smoking, even by guests in one’s own home, was derided as a prude, obsessive, hostile. Now the tide has turned. So it goes, ho hum.
I don’t care if people smoke or not. It’s their decision, their business. I’ve known lots of good folks who died of it. But quit the whining about “attitudes”, OK? I see somebody smoking, it disposes me to lowered expectations toward them. Just like a puking drunk, a Hummer owner, an asshole with a muflerless motorcycle. Deal with it.
blame cigarette smoke or smoking primarily, or exclusively, for diseases.
If I get lung cancer, and keel over, everyone will cluck their tongues and say, “If only she hadn’t smoked.”
No one will mention:
and on and on
It’s just easy to blame smoking when, in fact, there are vastly more grave risks surrounding us all the time.
for 20% of all US deaths. Presumably they do that by comparing the incidence of smoking-related diseases in smokers and non-smokers. But even if that figure’s off by a factor of two — hell, even if it’s off by a factor of ten — it’s still astronomically high.
i’m not suggesting those other things aren’t harmful. but studies have been done that consider those other factors and still conclude smoking causes cancer.
Other people in your area are subject to those same risk factors and others, so that ends up being part of a general ‘background’ risk that the general population faces. Of course we should do what we can to reduce that, because it makes us all healthier.
However, smoking is different, to the extent that you can not smoke. Of course, if everyone smoked, it’d also be a part of that ‘background’ risk (as second-hand smoke is for some people). Also, smoking does have a documented and notably bad effect on people, so I’d like to hear about some of those “vastly more grave risks”.
The main reason that smoking is so bad is that people keep doing it, consistently, over a long period of time. For example–mercury in tuna is bad for you, and I bet if I had an intense craving for tuna fish twenty times a day, it could end up seriously impacting my health. Fortunately for me, I don’t–I’m not addicted to tuna, so I don’t have to worry about it.
However. I would like to see some more honest research into why exactly smoking is so bad for people. I’m of the opinion that it may have to do with radiation–but I don’t hear people saying that too often…
None of the risks you show have anywhere near the morbidity/mortality rate that cigarette smoking has. In addition, the health care costs of cigarette smoking are a huge monetary cost to society in general and to the government in particular. High taxes are justified on that basis alone.
I worship you for your other work here and would rather that you stayed healthy. I’m chewing nicorette right at this moment. I’ll send you a free box if you want. It gives me quite a buzz but doesn’t screw me up the way cigarettes did.
Nicorette and other replacements (so far) have their own health risks for some of us. My doctor had me stop owing to the side effects, so I’m waiting for something safer — and proven safer before I risk those again.
That sounds ok to me, in principle–I’m in favor of progressive taxation!
Incidentally, it probably wouldn’t hurt to see who pays the most for these sin taxes. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’re all crushingly regressive (that is the typical argument against having lotteries, but I bet it goes double for alcohol and tobacco). This is just another instance where we need to be doing more prevention, and more work to establish and fund organizations like TROSA instead of punishing the victim for short-term financial gain.
I can understand how smokers feel they have been unfairly targeted. Unfortunately, being around cigarette smoke literally makes me sick, and iwithin minutes, not years later after the exposure. So I avoid places where there is usually a lot of cigarette smoke.
They keep talking about outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants in Philly. I have to confess that I wish they would, because there are some places I’d like to be able to go without wheezing for a day or 2 afterward. So I guess my feelings are the polar opposite of the smokers here. I don’t mind if people decide to smoke (it’s their business), just please don’t do it around me, ’cause it affects my health. Sorry!
Never mind people who are actually allergic to cigarette smoke. Their right to live is less important than a smoker’s right to light up wherever they like!
I have no problem with smokers smoking… As long as their second-hand stench never comes anywhere near my mouth, nose, or lungs. But then again, I’m also in favour of environmental pollution restrictions and clean air in general, so this stance should be no surprise. How a progressive can be in favour of pollution is beyond me. Or dispute the science behind smoking-triggered diseases… Aren’t we supposed to be on the side of science? Evolution, global warming, all that? I guess we must be only until science tells us something we don’t want to hear…
What if, instead of a cigarette tax, there was a ‘smoking license’ with an annual fee of around $100 — enough to discourage first-time smokers, but not enough to put a severe financial burden on those who do smoke. And you wouldn’t be eligible to get a license if you live in the same household as children under 12 years old.
For those who think smoking is harmless, this will no doubt seem pointless — but would it be preferable to a tax?
I don’t like rabid anti-smokers. This is a pet peeve of mine.
I don’t smoke. I’ve had a total of 1/3 of 1 cigarette for 3 tries at “what’s that like?” as a teenage. Currently 51, have shared a few mild cigars with my husband (probably total is 1/3 or 1/2 medium cigar). My husband is a non-addicted smoker. He’ll buy 1 or 2 cigars or mini-cigar packs in a week, then won’t get any for a few weeks or so. He’ll smoke in the car, but not the house.
My parents and brothers are/were all heavy smokers. Mom died from bone cancer, but I think that was the several years of megadoses of estrogen.
What peeves me is the social precident it sets, and invasive govt/legislations. It’s an enambler for selfrightteous nannying. Let’s teach everyone it’s OK to rag on the nasty smokers. And once that’s in place, that’s a green light for the in-it-for-the-$ “preachers” and politicians to tell you what you can read/watch etc etc
I work at a university library and there are probably 300 employees in the building. There is no place in the building where smokers can smoke (even if it’s winter or raining). And there are some faculty that selfishly pushed really hard to get there. The two staff lounges used to be 1 smoking & 1 non — now it’s 1 talking & 1 quiet. The designated place to smoke was the far end of the loading dock (it had a roof), and that had been announced as the “OK” place on staff email list, but one staffmember came out and was lecturing then making complaints … and there were 3 closed doors between the smokers and her desk. So I think it was someone else she wanted to yet all, but the smokers were handy.
What health concerns there are, I think they could be handled in a much less nannying and exploitive fashion.
Agreed — I’m a smoker at a campus that has gone rabid on this, talking about not even allowing smoking anywhere outside away from doorways . . . so, as a nearby neighbor, I pointed out that would mean (I have seen this on other campuses) people going across the street to stand on sidewalks, drop butts on lawns, etc. (my personal peeve; I wish other smokers would not litter!). That ended that . . . for now.
But with loooong winters here, there is no place to smoke with a roof, away from the elements — so we end up risking pneumonia for, allegedly, lower health care rates.:-)
And I remember when smoking was allowed in personal offices, even classrooms. The latter is well gone — but the rest is a change in working conditions, and I haven’t seen it stop any smokers. Not from smoking entirely. . . . I have seen some switch to cigars or pipes, which can be so much smellier — and can cause mouth cancers, jaw cancers, etc.
And amid all this, liquor is sold on campus, alcoholism is rampant, and that’s . . . just fine.
I grew up with a 3-pack a day smoking mother…hate the damned things myself. Resented it like hell when I was a teenager and was ordered to drive to the store to buy her more (she was fat – emotional crap…same for the snacks). Have no problem with the taxes, I don’t have to pay them…and you know what? They seem to work pretty darned well in California.
And Susan…I’m with you on the people pouring on perfume and cologne too…but you know what? Smokers stink just as bad. Trust me, just because “you” smoked outside, “you” reek when “you” walk back into the office, or even funnier, in the restroom to brush “your” teeth and wash “your” hands after the cigarettes…stinking up the place for the rest of us…so to speak.
Oh, and the oh so lovely mucus filled hacking fits of my grandmother, my mother and others in my office who smoke are oh so lovely to listen to or wait until the hacker is done before continuing our meeting or conversation…thinking they may just pass out right there.
Yeah…people are fat and eat shit. I’ve belonged more in that category more often than not myself, unfortunately. The idea of taxing fast food or crap food high and reducing the price of organic food is intriguing, actually. But food is a pretty damned big morass to start picking and choosing and legislating what’s good and what’s bad. Cigarettes and tobacco are pretty easy and singular. So, I’m kind of thinking “one thing at a time”…who knows.
I think some context is in order, for those non-MN folks out there.
Our govt, like many state govts, has a balanced budget requirement. Since Gov Ventura (yes, that one) saw the last of the bubble economy fade after we passed some “tax relief”, we’ve had problems.
First, the Republicans and the Democrats conspired to deny the truth/extent of the budget problems. They played accounting games and fake “shifts” and drained reserves to cover the gap, because neither side wanted to own up to the seriousness of the financial crisis before their own re-elections.
Well, in that case, Ventura tried to do the right thing. He called on them to play straight with the numbers, but both sides froze him out. After that experience, he decided to not run again, and then House Majority Leader Pawlenty became our brand new “no tax increases” Governor.
This left him in a bind when his financial woes came home to roost. I guess he figured the economy would grow, voodoo-economics style, and solve his problems. It did not.
Fast-forward to 2005. We’re out of accounting tricks. We’re lucky our bond status wasn’t downgraded because of the last stunts we pulled to “balance” the budget. And after years of pinching pennies and starving education growth and road maintenance, voters are discontent.
Pawlenty searches for a silver bullet that lets him keep his promise of “no tax increases” to the Minnesota Taxpayers League (aka — rip off the poor, give to the rich league).
Currently, Indian casinos pay voluntary tribute/bribes (er, unrequested “donations”) to the state, and the state doesn’t expand gambling. But now Pawlenty wanted a 20% official cut, er “tax”. They rejected that.
Pawlenty zeroes in on a scheme to create state sponsored Las Vegas style casino gambling. Tax that instead. Even offered to let MN indian tribes get involved, to silence criticism that we’re breaking an unofficial pact we’ve had with them (no gambling, except indian). Voters reject that, its unpopular to say the least. Minnesotans don’t want more gambling, certainly not big Las Vegas style.
Dems counter with a reasonable approach — raise the upper income tax bracket (5% of taxpayers) to a level that, considering recent state/federal tax cuts, still leaves them playing less taxes than they were just a few years ago. Enter the typical “highest taxes in the nation” rhetoric. That idea won’t get past Pawlenty’s pledge on taxes.
But he needs revenue, badly. Without revenue, he’s doomed in 2006. Aha. “Fees” are not taxes, he quavers. Lets put an additional “fee” on …. Cigarettes!
Bottom line, the state needs the money. The only fair way to do it has been ruled out by party politics. The Dems did a great job of priming the issue for 2006. But we need money now. The Cigarette tax is the only politically popular way to do it.
Bright side for smokers and Dems? I think this opens the path to a Dem campaign to reduce cigarette taxes in 2006, substituting fair income taxes.
So, hopefully the pain is shortlived for you MN smokers, and it helps the Dems in 2006. Little consolation, I know. Already its working tho, Pawlenty is getting sneered at every time he denies this is a “tax increase”. He’s clearly broken his “no new taxes” pledge, and everyone knows it.
Who knows, after accepting a tax they don’t agree with, but that doesn’t affect them, maybe voters will remember this lesson next time we propose raising the highest income bracket, eh?
Smokers and Tobacco Corps pay for ALL the additional costs that the rest of society pays for as a result of smoking… AND those who don’t care to smoke don’t have to "share" the smoke that smokers have fouled, I’ll be more sympathetic to the complaint.
I have to say, as a former musician who played in more than my share of smoky bars…when they passed that “no smoking in bars” ordinance here in LA, I stood up and cheered. I used to reek so badly after a night of playing that I’d have to take a shower before I could go to sleep, the smoke in my clothes and hair was so bad. I’d wake up feeling hung over, just awful. When the ordinance passed, what a difference! My throat didn’t hurt and I didn’t feel like I could barely drag myself out of bed. I have a hard time understanding how people who smoke function, really. It seems like such a stress on one’s body.
I’m prejudiced myself because my dad smokes, and I grew up with it, and really hated it (I still feel sick if I’m around it for any length of time). I guess this was one of the advantages to having him gone on business as much as he was.
People make all kinds of unhealthy choices and I’ve made my share, but the thing with smoking is that it affects around the smoker way more than eating a packet of greasy potato chips does. Smoking does not belong in any kind of public buildings, I believe, and I’d like to see it banned from a lot of outdoor venues as well. If you don’t smoke or are an ex-smoker, it’s a really hard thing to be around.
which kills far more, including the “secondhand” deaths by drunken driving (we just don’t seem to have smoken driving deaths). Me, I’d make it a lot more expensive to drink . . . even if it means fewer musicians living “secondhand” off those sinners.
…and they’re banned in conjunction, but not individually. Similarly, smoking is banned in public when it harms others, but not at home or outside. That doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.
Of course, cigarette and alcohol taxes affect those who don’t drive drunk or smoke around others, which is less than ideal.
I don’t see the first point. Smoking and dining out are distinct activities but banned when linked. . . .
As for how taxes that affect those who don’t have to pay them is less than ideal, that logic entirely escapes me.
the alcohol tax affects drinkers who don’t drive drunk, and the cigarette tax affects smokers who don’t smoke in public. But I think Lisa was referring to the outright ban on smoking in public, not the use of the tax as a sanction.
Yes. You can’t assume that someone who drinks is going to drive drunk. While smoke will get in the air no matter what.
We have pretty high liquor taxes in California too, as far as that goes…
In the first place, you have to buy the goddam cigarettes,
Unless you just bum ’em off other guys all the time
and then don’t even say thanks
Like that sonuvabitch Ernie Morrow.
Anyway, like I said, you have to buy them,
And who do you buy them from?–
these stinking-rich gigantic corporations with about as much
social conscience as your average mass-murderer,
That’s who.
I mean, they probably hire all these poor people
To grow the damn tobacco,
Pay ’em peanuts,
Then turn around and sell cigarettes to the poor bastards
Who can’t afford decent clothes,
Let alone cigarettes,
But they probably can’t stop smoking
On account of they’re so depressed about their lousy lives.
And in the second place,
Once you give your money to these fat corporations,
What do you get?
You get to start stinking up everything in your life.
Your breath stinks, your clothes stink,
Your house stinks, your car stinks,
Your whole life stinks, if you want to know the truth.
Gorgeous.
The only good thing about smoking is,
If you’re lucky, with the right genes and all,
You’ll get lung cancer or emphysema or something
And die an early death.
The problem is, you might not die an early death.
You might live until you’re about seventy-five
With yellow teeth and dried-up, papery skin
And ashtrays all over your goddam house,
And drapes that stink enough to kill a damn moose
And then you get cancer
And you spend about three years in the hospital with tubes
Sticking out of you all over the place
And your grown-up kids come visit you
And stand around your bed talking
When they think you can’t hear them
About all the birth defects they got from you
And the asthma they got from you
smoking around their cribs and playpens
When they were little and all
And then you wish to hell you’d given all that money
To the Red Cross or something
Instead of buying all those damn cigarettes.
It just goes to show how stupid a guy can be
Who’s actually pretty smart,
If you know what I mean.