Thanks to a link over at Misha's I've been able to calculate what the price of a pack of cigarettes might be today were it not for the rediculous Taxes (read: "freedom-of-Choice fines").
In 1972 the price of a pack of cigarettes was $.35 (I know that because my cousin Danny used to buy them -- for his dad *ahem* -- when we were kids.
Projecting that price through the inflation idex to 2002, the price of a pack should be $1.52.
I can't get a pack in Connecticut for under $4.45, and most places sell them for a price much closer to $5. (and in tobacco-tax-crazy New York City the cost is closer to $8!!)
It's a travesty that the local and State governments profit many times more from the sale of tobacco than the tobacco producers, yet the States sue the tobacco companies for even MORE millions and billions on top of it.
The rationale behind the lawsuits -- and also behind the taxes -- was that the States needed the money to offset the costs of medical care for smoking related illnesses. Strangely, very little of the billions won in the lawsuits was ever spent on health related services. (I'll provide a link to a report on that topic that came out a few months ago..if I can find it..)
So here's the trick: First the State offers help to pay for any medical costs that you may incur due to smoking related illness. Then the State taxes the bejeezus out of you, specifically, the smoker who's been offered this benefit, to cover these alledged costs to the State.
If I smoke one and a half packs a day, I'm paying about $100 a month in cigarette taxes to the State. I think I could get some pretty good insurance policy for less than that price, even as a smoker.
Some political blatherbots claim that they want to impose high taxes on cigarettes in order to pressure smokers to quit. What a load of rot.
First of all, taxing people for daring to exercize their Right to make a choice about their lives that is perfectly legal -- no matter how "unpopular" -- is tyranny, not Service.
Secondly, the reason they claim we need the taxes (as opposed to public service announcements, etc) to help to stop people from smoking is because nicotine is so highly addictive. "Hit 'em in the pocketbook, that'll learn 'em." But, since it's so addictive, the vast majority of smokers will only end up poorer, spending a greater chunk of their disposable - and not so disposable - income on the taxes. The Ledger-slaters know this. Cigarette tax bills are revenue bills, not healthcare bills.
Bill Clinton's favorite excuse, when calling for federal tobacco taxes, was to claim that it would keep cigarettes out of the mouths of The Children(TM).
Uuh... Excuse me, but, I am not a child. Why would I have to pay this tax?
We already card people who might be under 16, or 18, or whatever it is in your State (or has sovereignty on this issue gone the way of the drinking age, the speed limit, and "controlled substances"?). The purchasing of cigarettes by a 15 year old is already illegal, and is strictly enforced at each point of purchase.
Apply the Clintonian logic to this: It's illegal to vote in a State election without being a legal resident of that State. This is enforced at the polling place. But wait, we can make it more difficult for non-residents to vote illegally if we move all of the polling places to the geographic center of the State!
Live near the border and have to drive hundreds of miles just to vote? Too bad, homie; think of the chillllldren!
Adding another @$&%*(^@$* tax to a pack of smokes in order to enforce a the age/sale law is not only just as outrageous, it's a fraud.
Legislators like money. They don't need reasons to raise taxes, only self-righteous-touchy-feely sounding excuses.
Cigarette smokers are a perfect cash cow. Non-smokers hate smoking. Smokers are easily ridiculed and their Rights are rarely defended.
Legislators will claim to want to reduce and/or end smoking. This is so they can raise taxes, file class-action lawsuits, and maybe get a few votes from anti-smokers (as opposed to mere non-smokers) by banning smoking in "public" places. (Most of these "public" places are, of course, private property... but let's not stop the government from clouding that issue as well...)
But one thing they will not do is ban the sale of tobacco. Legislators don't want you to quit smoking. Why would they? There's no money in it for them.
I agree with you whole-heartedly on most of this, except for one note:
The point of the tobacco lawsuit money not being spent on healthcare is that the states have already had to spend that money on medical bills, so they're getting back the money that would have been able to go to other programs and are thus justified in spending it on whatever. Not that I think the states' getting more money is ever a good thing...
Posted by: Tim the Michigander at August 6, 2003 02:03 AMTim, do you think if your state decided to put a tax on milk to get back all the money it has spent since the Civil War on farm subsidies, that such a reason would make sense? The state CHOSE what to spend its money on at the time; for legislators to say "we spent too much money on fixing the roads in the 1950s, we need to tax concrete to get some of that back" is just "liberal logic". And Spork is right....if I had that extra "sin tax" I COULD afford health insurance.
Posted by: Susie at August 6, 2003 11:00 AMHi, Tim. I understand your point, but I'm with Susie on this.
The State has no rational claim that it needs to recoup any of the tax money it spent. That's the same thinking that calls a tax cut -- or a slowdown in the growth of the GNP -- "lost revenue." By that logic; all of our money is the State's and every dollar that is NOT taken in taxes is also "lost revenue."
If the money from the tobacco settlement was to cover PREVIOUS outlays on medical costs, then the States would have a legal claim to sue again and again and again to cover the ON-GOING costs.
The very idea that a State ought to be able to sue for reimbersement of funds that were spend on exactly what it CHOSE to spend them on is preposterous.
A smoker might get away with claiming that he or she had no clue about the ill effects of smoking when they started, and that their personal medical costs were a surprise, but a State can't make that claim.
A good illustration that addresses the issue is something that seemed curious to me about Bush's policy just after he took office:
One of the first things he did was to cut off funding to foreign health clinics that had abortion facilities.
"But those clinics do a lot more than provide abortions," his critics said. "The money could be used for those other things."
"But any money that we gave them would only offset funding in other areas, thus providing, by proxy even, funding for abortions," his supporters said.
Then he pushed the "faith-based initiative" in drug councelling.
"The money would be used only for drug councelling, not for anything strictly religeous in nature," his supporters said.
"But any money that we gave them would only offset funding in those areas, thus freeing up money to fund, by proxy even, the activities that are religeous in nature," his critics said.
Whew, I'm blathering on again... I'm on vacation this week, so expect this sort of thing from time to time ;)
Bottom line: The money from the tobacco settlement was for healthcare costs. If there was no outlying debt in that area then the funds should have been socked away for future SMOKING RELATED MEDICAL COSTS. Oh, shoot, my lighter's empty...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 6, 2003 12:16 PM