Tobacco Tax Is a Win-Win for Rhode Island

[kristin]

Not e-cig related directly, but since we are now a tobacco product, some may be interested in the comments I made on tobacco taxes, anti-smoking groups losing focus and smokeless alternatives.

http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/Tobacco-Tax-Is-a-Win-Win-for-Rhode-Island/

My comments:

“As cigarette taxes climbed in the early 2000s from $.71 to $3.46, consumption declined markedly. Rhode Island’s youth smoking rate decreased 62 percent between 1997 and 2008. According to an economic analysis conducted by the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids, every ten percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by approximately seven percent and total cigarette consumption by four percent.”

If I’m figuring this correctly, your numbers don’t even support your argument. 71¢ to $3.46 taxes is a 500% increase. So, divide that into 10% increments = 50. According to CFTFK, for every 10%, youth smoking rates reduce by 7%. So 50 tax increases X 7% = 350% reduction in youth smoking rates. So, why was youth smoking only reduced 62% in that same general time frame?

“we’ve seen significant reductions in smoking initiation, cigarette consumption, and exposure to secondhand smoke. What’s more, these taxes have become a vital financial resource for our state and, unlike some taxes, enjoy overwhelming public support.”

So, where will funding come from for programs dependent upon this “vital financial resource” once all of the smokers quit or die? Where is the incentive to get smokers to quit when their taxes are balancing budgets and keeping taxes low for non-smokers?

Tobacco taxes aren’t going to help smokers quit. RI has the second highest tax rate and ranks 38th in smoking prevention programs! Only 4.8% of the $184 million generated goes to smoking prevention programs. The state also sold it’s tobacco settelment rights to balance the budget. (Spending on Tobacco Prevention: Rhode Island - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids) Does anyone really believe that RI really wants to lose smokers contributing these taxes?? Or is it closer to the truth that they’d rather keep smokers paying into the coffers (all the while vilifying them and reducing the places they can smoke) and pretending its “for the children and public health?”

Relying more and more on tobacco taxes, while claiming to be trying to get smokers to quit, is completely nonsensical and based on the lie that they really care about the health of smokers and want smokers to quit. It makes as much sense as a Civil War-era plantation owner freeing his slaves to fight for the Confederate army.

Don’t kid yourself. Tobacco taxes have nothing to do with public health and EVERYTHING to do with being free to target an unpopular, vulnerable group with excessive taxes - it’s all about the MONEY.
How about we get back to the most important issue - saving lives? Instead of punishing smokers, give them more options. Make reduced harm products easier to get and more affordable than cigarettes. Educate smokers who won’t quit that switching to smokeless options, such as snus and e-cigarettes, will reduce their health risks and costs to the state by up to 99%. It also eliminates second-hand smoke.

End the “quit or die” abstinence approach - which is obviously not working - and using smokers’ addiction as a personal income source. By insisting that smokers quit ALL tobacco and nicotine use and trying to ban innovative smokeless alternatives to cigarettes, regardless of the much lower health risks, anti-tobacco groups (which USED to be anti-SMOKING groups) are actually keeping smokers from switching to reduced harm options or even quitting.

Tobacco taxes aren’t the answer (at least, if you really care about health and not just revenue.) The answer is low-risk, smoke-free alternatives. See CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

 

[BCB]

That was just wonderful, Kristin!

 

[TomCatt]

Kristin. (Although in your quote they state 10% increase in cigarette prices, not increase in taxes )

 

[pianoguy]

Bravo, Kristin!!

 

[kristin]

(Although in your quote they state 10% increase in cigarette prices, not increase in taxes )

Oops!

Well, I did find an anti-tobacco report that shows the price of cigarettes was around $3.25 in 2000 and the article says they are around $8.12 in RI, which means that they have still increased approx. 250% out of pocket in the past 11 years. 25 X 7% = 175%

Of course, if you calculate it on 10% increase on the previous price every time, there are only about 11, 10% increments between $3.25 - $8.12, which x 7 is approx 77% predicted reduction in youth smoking - which is much closer to their numbers.

Then again, we also know that other studies are showing a significant INCREASE (one report I found by CFTFK said 30% from 2002-2007 and another said 36% since 2003) in smokeless (which is also cheaper) use among youth. Since they want to ban the smokeless products or significantly increase the taxes on them to match cigarette taxes, I suspect that 62% would be greatly diminished should they succeed in doing so.

So, they may have reduced youth smoking 62%, but they have transferred a large percentage (30-36%) to cheaper smokeless tobacco use, which makes their success at reducing tobacco use by youth only 26-32%. This should be seen as a good thing, but in their zeal to end ALL tobacco use, they will likely reverse their previous success against smoking! Also, they claim smokeless leads to smoking, so have they really reduced smoking by 62% if all those smokeless users are going to go back to smoking eventually?? Man, their arguments just keep running in circles!!

 

[TomCatt]

Thanks for the 'update' Kristin. Keep the info flowin'. The antis just have their eyes on their goal and don't seem too concerned about facts, just factoids that support their views; no matter how flawed or skewed they may be.