Thursday, October 8, 2009
With Kansas potentially facing another budget deficit in 2010, Gov. Mark Parkinson has suggested a tobacco tax to generate new revenue. This could be an effective way to close the budget shortfall and encourage many Kansans to live healthier lives.
“Governor Parkinson has said that he supports a meaningful statewide smoking ban,” said Beth Martino, press secretary for Governor Parkinson. “He also has said that if we are facing a bleak budget picture, a cigarette tax is something for the state to carefully evaluate.”
Currently the tobacco tax in Kansas rests at 79 cents — well below the national average of $1.34. Kansas has the 35th lowest tax in the nation. The last time Kansas raised the tobacco tax was in 2002, when the tax increased from 24 cents to 79 cents. According to state budget reports, the tax added $81 million to state revenue.
Cigarette companies and other critics often say that tobacco taxes decrease state revenue by forcing too many smokers to quit. Though it’s true revenue from the 2002 tax hike has dropped by 26 percent during the last eight years, it is still bringing in double the revenue it did before the increase.
Every state that has increased tobacco taxes has seen an increase in revenue, according to the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
However, bringing in revenue would not be the only potential gain from a tobacco tax.
“If it gets too expensive I’d definitely have to quit,” Jacob Holliday, Lawrence freshman, said.
Internal documents from tobacco lawsuits posted on www.tobaccofreekids.org from multiple cigarette companies confirms the simple fact that higher tobacco taxes means fewer people smoking.
“A high cigarette price, more than any other cigarette attribute, has the most dramatic impact on the share of the quitting population.” Philip Morris executive Claude Schwab recorded in an internal business document.
A frequent criticism of tobacco taxes is that the taxes are regressive and hurt low-income smokers more, which is an argument that ignores the obvious.
“There is nothing more regressive than the economically disadvantaged having to bear all of the health problems caused by smoking,” said Mary Jayne Hellebust, executive director of Tobacco Free Kansas.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, low-income smokers are also more likely to quit than higher-income smokers when tobacco taxes are raised.
Critics also say a problem this tax might face comes from Missouri, which has the second lowest tobacco tax in the nation at only 17 cents a pack.
Though it’s true some smokers already cross the border for cheaper cigarettes and more almost certainly will if the tax is raised, it is still a fact that no state has ever seen revenue drop when increasing tobacco taxes, even when accounting for cross border smuggling.
Missouri’s tax may also be partly to blame for the state having the fourth highest percentage of smokers, which isn’t a model Kansas should be trying to follow.
Raising the tobacco tax in Kansas would be a win-win situation: a smaller deficit and healthier citizens. Students and the community should contact the governor’s office to show support for this new proposal.
How would Obama reflect on the past year?
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, two of the larger ...
1 comment
Lawrence Settles Lawrence graduate student “I like T-Pain ...
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, already two of the ...
1 comment
It was the symmetry of this sidewalk that ...
1 comment
Texting while driving is the cause of many ...
1 comment
Comments
radioone (anonymous) says...
Regardless of your opinion on smoking, the fact is that increasing taxes on Tobacco, is actually a tax directly on Nicotine Addiction. Until now the only options for those addicted to nicotine were either 1. to continue to smoke harmful, additive and chemical laden Tobacco Cigarettes, or 2. To attempt the endless struggle of quitting....... now there is a better alternative that continues to give you the nicotine you need/want, without all of the harmful tars and carcinogens of tobacco and tobacco cigarettes. Tobacco taxes keep increasing everywhere. I smoke, but I don't pay any taxes because I have found a better way than Tobacco Cigarettes. If you are a smoker, and don't want to pay higher taxes, while at the same time are concerned for your health, see the important information here:
http://www.NoTobacco.net
SAVE 10% use code "disc10-6135"
Now you can give up your habit and keep it all at the same time! It could change your life! ;-)
October 8, 2009 at 5:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/3...
concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....
meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:
October 8, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.
The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)
The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.ph... As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978
October 8, 2009 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
handy (anonymous) says...
Either way, it still smells. :)
October 8, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
em1 (anonymous) says...
Thinking that raising tobacco taxes will generate more revenue for the state while at the same time lowering rates of tobacco use is about as naive as you can get. New York tried something similar and now in Manhattan a pack of smokes will set you back about 8 to 10 bucks. People smoke the same as they always did, and the state actually sees less revenue from tobacco taxes. It doesn't take a genius to realize, especially in a state boarder area like NYC that if you cross a bridge you can get your smokes for half the price, or better yet take an hour or two drive to one of several Indian outlets and buy the stuff tax free. Too far to drive? No problem, just go online and have this tax free product shipped to your door from one of several tax free outlets. Last time I checked Missouri was less than an hour away from here, and there are two reservations peddling packs for less than three dollars each just about 90 minutes from here.
"Every state that has increased tobacco taxes has seen an increase in revenue, according to the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau."
Might want to check with New Jersey about that one. Thier numbers don't support that claim, and I'd bet they aren't the only ones.
October 8, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...
em1 makes an interesting point. Consider that a strong majority of the state lives within an hour's drive of the state line (I'm assuming Sedgwick County is within an hour's drive of the Oklahoma border). Cigarette smuggling has become an illegal, albeit profitable, business. Did you know that it's technically illegal to buy alcohol across the Missouri state line and bring it here? How many people do you see enforcing that law?
October 9, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
connerm (anonymous) says...
Couldn't you have just posted a list of states by rank instead of this confusing Google map thing? Technology is nice, but sometimes it can be used for evil.
October 9, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gene (anonymous) says...
Just more harleyrider boilerplate hogwash from the internet's most notorious spammer, who for some reason loves to regurgitate tobacco-industry-generated garbage.
Google him, if your browser's strong enough.
If you get your health info from anonymous spammers, I'm sorry for you.
If you want health info from actual human beings who have names, reputations, educations and the plain GUTS to stand up and testify in front of legislatures, try:
The comprehensive 2006 Surgeon General's report is at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library...
National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Research:
http://dccps.nci.nih.gov/tcrb/index.html
PubMed Central:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/
October 25, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )