Prohibition - PBS Video - Ken Burns (a history lessen for tobacco prohibitionism)

[Placebo Effect]

Thad, Bill did not say that tobacco companies -- outside of the instance in Canada 20 years ago -- are complicit in the sales of contraband cigarettes. He is saying that they, like any business looking to institute legislation to prevent copycat products or bootlegs, overexaggerate the effect that such contraband products have on the overall market.

A prime example of this is Hollywood producers who see that a movie has been downloaded 5,000 times, and claim that the piracy caused them to lose 5,000 sales at $20 a piece, despite the fact that many of those downloaders never would have actually paid a dime for the movie.

 

[Stubby]

You certainly are implying Bill that black market tobacco is nothing more then a plot by tobacco companies, and using evidence of something that happened 20 years ago is a bit disingenuous. But at this point that really is besides the point.

What is religiously avoided is the negative side of tobacco taxes even besides the black market. The idea of taxation as a solution, or even part of the solution to issues surrounding tobacco has about run its course. Anything more, and it already is way to much, is simply mean spirited and spiteful. Bill you appear to have zero empathy, or even consciousness, of the issues excessive taxes are causing. This is especially true as many users are in the lower income bracket. When is it enough taxation or is this just a game of endless torture until we all just say I give.

Perhaps for you the end justifies the means, whatever that may be, but I would beg to differ. There are much better ways of approaching this.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Stubby wrote

Bill you appear to have zero empathy, or even consciousness, of the issues excessive taxes are causing.

If that were true (which of course it is not), why have I been the only public health advocate to publicly oppose and denounce policies of CTFK/ACS/ALA/AHA to increase cigarette tax rates to 75% of the retail price in every nation on earth?

I've also been the only public health advocate to criticize proposals by CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA to increase New York's cigarette tax rate by $1/pack (to $5.35/pack) and to oppose CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA proposal to raise New Jersey's cigarette tax by $1/pack (to $3.70/pack).

And I've been the only public health advocate to publicly oppose a proposal by anti tobacco extremists in Australia to raise cigarette taxes high enough so that cigarettes cost $20/pack.

I've also been the only public health advocate to actively advocate for significantly lower tax rates on smokeless tobacco products (than on cigarettes), which is a key reason why Pennsylvania remains the only state that doesn't tax smokeless tobacco products.

And I've also been among a few folks who has actively opposed taxing e-cigarettes.

I suggest that Stubby (and others) find out the facts instead of making false accusations against others, especially since I'm one of the only public health advocates who has aggressively advocated to keep e-cigarettes and their usage legal during the past 3 years.

If Stubby (or anyone else) would like to find out my views and advocacy efforts on dozens of different cigarette/tobacco/nicotine related policy issues, please send me an e-mail to smokefree@compuserve.com and asked to be added to my e-mail list.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Regarding cigarette tax rates in Mexico (which is what this thread was originally about), the latest cigarette pricing data I've seen (about a year ago) indicated that average retail price of cigarettes in Mexico was the equivalent of about $2/pack.

Does anyone (who has ranted in opposition to any/all cigarette taxes) truly believe that $2/pack is an excessive price for cigarettes, and that it has caused lots of cigarette smuggling in Mexico?

Before that article was posted here, the last four of five news stories I read about Mexican cigarette tax rates indicated that they were so low that it was causing lots of cigarettes to be smuggled or reimported from Mexico into the US.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Bill,
Considering the per capita income in Mexico is 1/3 of the US, I'd have to say that it is line with ours. If they raised it to match ours it would be like the US raising it enough for them to be $18 plus a pack.

CIA Fact Book

 

[rothenbj]

In response to proposed 2010 cigarette tax in PA to the PA Senate Finance Committee-

The recently enacted federal SCHIP law (signed by President Obama last week) will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption (and PA cigarette tax revenue) by about 7%. So the governor's proposed $.10/pack cigarette tax increase is needed just to maintain PA cigarette tax revenue at the current level. Although not under consideration by this committee, an additional $1 - $1.50 per pack cigarette excise tax increase is needed for state taxes (along with the tobacco settlement) to recover all cigarette healthcare costs incurred by the Commonwealth.

With all due respect, I have seen this and posts in Dr Siegel's blog pushing for higher cigarette taxes to reduce consumption. I understand your desire to reduce smoking rates and I applaud your support of smokeless products and E cigarettes. However, you have fallen into the same thought process as every other anti organization, tax the smoker into submission.

Why should smokers fund SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a program to fund health care fot uninsured kids or IDEA, a program for funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act on one hand, then claiming the smoker should pay to recover all their healthcare costs? Didn't we go there over a decade ago with the MSA? When is someone other than the tobacco user going to be assessed for all the troubles in this country?

I do see a huge difference between your ideology and the ANTZ. They appear to be just fine collecting from all sides and keeping the status quo to protect their gravy train. You on the other hand wish to minimize smoking and I do say minimize because nothing will ever eliminate smoking everywhere other than Armageddon.

The best hope is for the number of new smokers to be minimized and existing smokers to find healthier alternatives that work when they are ready to quit. I for one accept legislation to deny access to E Cigs to minors only because I hope in the future their rebellion would have them vaping rather than smoking.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I'm at Vapercon right now and Bill and I had a long conversation about taxation. You are incorrect to imply Bill believes in taxing smokers into submission. Bill advocates taxes that actually represent the health care costs from smoking at the federal and state level, which is approximately $3 at the federal level and $2.50 at the state level, including the proceeds from the MSA. If you want to debate him on those numbers, that's another argument.

Bill did not support excessive taxation in NYC, and he didn't support New Jersey's most recent tax increase on cigarettes a few years back.

 

[Stubby]

Smokers unfazed by Pa. tax threat

Smokers can cost the state money in the form of health-care costs from tobacco-related diseases, and taxes on cigarettes should cover these, said Bill Godshall, executive director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania.
Although he suggested raising the cigarette tax even more than is proposed, Mr. Godshall said these taxes need a limit.

I posted the above just to show that you do indeed for the most part support the current rate of taxation on cigarettes. You perhaps even want to push it a bit higher. I just got back from the grocery store and checked out the price on a cartoon of smokes. Its over the top of course. $70 for a cartoon of premiums and about $10 less for others.

Do you have any clue as to what a hugh burden that is on lower income, and these days no income people. Thinking about it, it's that an awfully big burden in medium income folks with the latest reports on income disparity. It's really outrageous. Apparently not to outrageous though as it gets your full blessing.

Not really a problem as folks had the option of switching to RYO which didn't face the heavy taxation. Well... that is until the SCHIP bill which you fully supported and campaigned for.

RYO taxes – over enthusiastic? — TobaccoToday

I can’t think of a more logical and fairer taxation policy than taxing RYO tobacco at the same rate as cigarettes, especially since the key reason why RYO sales have increased sharply in the past decade is because they were taxed at a much lower rate than manufactured cigarettes.
SCHIP simply levels the playing field (as well as for little cigars, although that tax hike will be phased in over 6 years), and is supported by cigarette manufacturers and public health advocates.

Bill Godshall

This bill, besides rising the tax on cigarettes, increased the Fed tax on RYO by about 2100%. Overnight the price of RYO more then doubled. It was especially hard on lower income people as it was the last legal way to get low priced smokes.

I would venture to guess that you actually support S.1403 except for the increase in smokeless tobacco part and potentially e-cigs. This would double the tax on RYO on top of whats already been done and get rid of the loop hole that allows pipe tobacco to be sold as RYO. This done by simply raising the tax on pipe tobacco to the same rate as RYO.

And of course we can't forget the PACT act. I understand you didn't support the part about smokeless tobacco..... but that didn't work out to well. Even besides the smokeless tobacco problem again it has been the lower income folks who got screwed by the PACT act. It's also been a real PITA for Swedish snus users.

So it appears you are only against the most outrageous tax increases but are all to willing to put the squeeze on any and all ways for folks to get smokes at a reasonable price. The poorest people of course suffer the most (many homeless folks smoked RYO). The big squeeze is on with your full support.

The whole idea that we have to slap cigarettes out of peoples hands by force shows lots of problems. The main one being…. People just don’t like it.

I understand the concept of taxing tobacco according to risk and have no problems with that. The problem is people can’t make rational choices on risk factors if they don’t have good information. And we don’t. We are all familiar with the fact that 85% of the population haven’t a clue on the reduced harm of smokeless tobacco. People can’t make good choices for themselves, no matter what the taxes are, without good information.

You are doing this half-... backwards. First comes education. That has to be the number one job of harm reduction advocates. Once people get educated on harm reduction I have plenty of faith that the great majority of people will make good choices for themselves. Rational tax rates will very likely follow.

Until then the idea that we have to punish people for there tobacco habit is nothing less then cruel. You have been pushing this approach for 25 years but it’s time has passed. It’s long past time for a change.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I'm not Bill Godshall. I'm just attempting to explain what I think would be his side because he is here at Vapercon without access to the Internet.

The time to have this argument with Bill was 15 years ago. If he spends more than 10% of his time on encouraging higher cigarette taxes today, I'd be shocked. And even if he does, that's no reason to antagonize the most effective smoke-free advocate that we have.

In the time it took you to write the above message, you probably could have submitted short comments to the DOT docket, New Bedford Board of Health, and Augusta Board of Commissioners.

I love this community, but the bickering here is silly and counter productive.

 

[rothenbj]

PE, first, I've already done as you requested, written to the various municipalities, and I don't really have a horse in this race since smoking is a thing of the past and vaping is more for demonstration than need at this point. I also respect what Bill has done for vaping and smokeless products. That being said, I can't sit silent on the topic of taxation and societal costs.

I realize what Bill supports being a PA resident, but trying to allocate tax to health care costs of smoking using some fictitious number created by those wanting to justify the taxes they assess is unacceptable. Look at the most recent study by van Baal et al in 2008-

With a simulation model, lifetime health-care costs were estimated for a cohort of obese people aged 20 y at baseline. To assess the impact of obesity, comparisons were made with similar cohorts of smokers and “healthy-living” persons (defined as nonsmokers with a body mass index between 18.5 and 25). Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands. In sensitivity analyses the effects of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions were assessed. Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.

emphasis mine

Healthy living people are more expensive health wise due to longevity, obesity is 2nd most expensive due to earlier health issues and the most taxed group is the least expensive. Yet smokers are the only group being assessed a penalty for their lifestyle other than a projected shorter life. Also not even considered is the societal savings from social security payments and elder care costs brought on by an aging, financially at risk population.

At least the Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin had the state the truth

"People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state," Kudrin said, as quoted by the Interfax news agency. "If you smoke a pack of cigarettes, that means you are giving more to help solve social problems such as boosting demographics, developing other social services and upholding birth rates."

Although, I believe he was being a bit tongue in cheek, he recognized the social benefit of bad habits that lead to reducing longevity. Perhaps our government also recognizes it. Why else would you deny the benefit of promoting safer alternatives to smoking and actually promote the thought that those orders of magnitude safer products are, in fact, more dangerous.

I can believe that Bill understands this and I can see many reasons why he still takes the stance that cigarette taxes should represent the medical costs of smoking. However, non of those reasons are that smoking should be singled out do to health costs. If that sounds ambiguous, so is the argument for taxing smokers.

 

[Uma]

How do I feel about cig taxes?
I feel that they started off as a decent idea, to cover the medical costs... back when it first started. But they've since ruined that with greed. They felt assured that the tax money would always be coming in, for forever, because:
1. It's impossible for many to quit smoking.
2. Stress makes even the ex-smoker start back up again.
3. Smokers will give up their OJ on the table, cable tv, vacations, fashion, before they'll give up their smokes. They're ADDICTED to smokes, and only obsessed with other things in life that bring joy.
4. Even those who quit 10 years ago, light up eventually. Repeated, I know. But, it's RELEVANT
5. There are more "closet" smokers than not.
6. ADDICTION has the ADDICTED and they are taxing an ADDICTION, not a product.

 

[rothenbj]

I'll give my take-

I feel that they started off as a decent idea, to cover the medical costs... back when it first started.

I think that's a thought they had, but I feel they were just putting some price pressure on to attempt to get people to quit. "Promising NRT" came along and with the combination of increased prices the health organizations hoped to break the habit (I still have problems with calling itb an addiction) of smoking .

But they've since ruined that with greed.

They ruined it for who? Certainly not themselves. They had to know for decades that NRT was a medical failure, but a very profitable failure. This is where they built nicotine up to be so addictive that you need to quit 7, 8 20 times, just keep buying BP products to do so. I think this is when evil stepped in with the face of many, many Ben Franklins. Plus they were being spread around all over- BT was never really hurt, BP made a ton and shared with their marketing arm, I mean ?non-profit?"health" associations and all levels of government.


They felt assured that the tax money would always be coming in, for forever, because:

1. It's impossible for many to quit smoking.

Certainly pretty true as long as they could sell the smokeless tobacco lie and some man in China didn't create a product that enulated the habit of smoking so well.

2. Stress makes even the ex-smoker start back up again.

They thought as long as effective alternatives didn't come along.

3. Smokers will give up their OJ on the table, cable tv, vacations, fashion, before they'll give up their smokes. They're ADDICTED to smokes, and only obsessed with other things in life that bring joy.

Not sure about this one. Maybe they actually believe it's all about the nicotine and that Americans wouldn't have the ingenuity to figure out how to beat their taxing schemes.

4. Even those who quit 10 years ago, light up eventually. Repeated, I know. But, it's RELEVANT

For some smokers that's true, I'd say they knew the quit rates were so short in almost all cases that the gravy train never really left the tracks.

5. There are more "closet" smokers than not.

I think smoking rates are established on the basis of what they are attempting to get, recognition for their success or funding.

6. ADDICTION has the ADDICTED and they are taxing an ADDICTION, not a product.

They still do. They certainly are trying to expand the taxation to all the non-pharma nicotine products that don't create the diseases smoking causes and aren't contributing to that other overstated danger, SHS

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that quotes of mine cited by Stubby and Rothenbj are from 2009 when I helped convince the PA legislature to increase the $1.35/pack state cigarette tax rate (which they raised to $1.60/pack) instead of taxing all Other Tobacco Products the same rate as cigarettes (which was advocated by CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA and by the Democrat caucus of the PA House of Representatives).