AUSTIN — Texas smokers will pay significantly more for cigarettes starting Jan. 1 when the excise tax increases by $1 a pack in a move that health experts hope will discourage folks, especially teens, from lighting up. The state tax increase — from 41 cents to $1.41 per pack — also will help pay for school property tax cuts.
Way back during the Dark Ages of the Vietnam War, there was an anti-war poster that said something like, “It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” I’m beginning to feel the same way about the latest tax increase that will hit Texas smokers on January 1st. Perhaps some day the cost of a pack of cigarettes will be so onerous and prohibitively expensive that smokers will simply give up.
I’m fully aware that my argument is a primarily emotional and not logically-supportable one. I’m also fully aware that I just don’t give a damn about that. I’m happy to see that Texas is taking a positive step to disincentivize smoking. I suppose that smokers and civil libertarians will see the heavy hand of the “nanny state” at work here, but I firmly believe that public health concerns should trump any other considerations when it comes to cigarette smoking.
“The cigarette tax, more than anything, will have the most significant impact in stopping kids from ever starting smoking, because they are so price-sensitive,” said James Gray, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society, Texas chapter.
The Texas tax increase will push the price of a single pack of cigarettes to around $4.50.
It’s still not nearly enough, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. Personally, I’d like to see the cost of a single pack at about $20.00, but I’ll take what I can get for now.
An estimated 143,000 Texas adults will quit smoking, and a projected 284,000 teens never will start smoking as a result of the tax increase, Gray said, citing various studies. About 3.3 million Texans currently smoke, based on a 20 percent adult smoking rate in the state, he said.
I’m not at all certain about Gray’s random number generator, but I would agree that ANYTHING that reduces the likelihood of a child taking up smoking, and anything that convinces adults to quit smoking is a good thing. A very good thing.
When you consider that Texans pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 BILLION to treat smoking-related illnesses every year, I don’t know how any reasonable person could argue against this tax increase. If an increase in the cigarette tax will disincentivize smoking for more adults and children, and if it decreases public spending on tobacco-related illnesses, how can it be seen as anything BUT a good thing?
Yes, it will be a great day when a pack of smokes costs $20, and cartons of Marlboros languish on convenience store shelves because no one can any longer afford to slowly commit suicide….
A little perspective is needed here. Smoking is dangerous, no doubt. So are a Big Mac, too many french fries, ice cream sundaes, driving a small car in traffic composed largely of SUV's and 18-wheelers, or carrying around fifty pounds of extra body weight like I do. Too much exposure to the sun causes skin cancers. And then there are the thousands of concealed handguns we Texans are so proudly packing.
Cigarettes are still a perfectly legal product. It's very hard to argue against a paternalistic or authoritarian government when we willingly turn over such personal decisions, like whether or not to smoke, to our government. This is a very slippery slope.
Biology precedents suggest that we need not worry about the government(s) taxing tobacco out of existence. Their tax receipts would go to zero, whereas the most successful parasites seem careful not to entirely kill their hosts.
Dennis- as I've stated clearly numerous times, I'm very aware of what a slippery slope this is. I've also said that for me this is a purely emotional and not logical argument based on my experiences...particularly in the former Yugoslavia, where smoking is the national sport.
Having said that, I will only be happy when cigarette taxes become so onerous that smokers will be forced to quit and no one will be able to afford to begin smoking.
Unfortunately a $1-per-pack increase will probably not be enough to convince anyone to quit smoking. Sure, the smokers will gripe about it, but they won't quit. They'd have to raise the price by, say, $5 a pack before people will quit. After all, plenty of people pay $3 for a cup of Starbucks coffee and $2-something a gallon for gas!
At risk of repeating myself - if we start to tax things that are dangerous so as to discourage their use, it would be good to start with handguns. I'd suggest a tax of about ten thousand per weapon. I've been a liberal all of my adult life, but I find it hard to imagine that my government knows better than I do about how I should live my life and what sorts of personal choices I should make about using legal products. And yes, I'm aware of all the secondary smoke arguments. Handguns and automobiles still kill far more innocent people than smoking, I suspect. Anyway, I smoke stogies (major carcinogenic loading) - and at about $3 apiece as is (for a cheap one), it's likely that a higher tax won't stop me if the Lege ever gets around to that.
"Perfectly legal" they may be, but that alone begs the question, why? Can you imagine a new consumer product being introduced in this day and age, grown with government subsidy, and available in countless stores and markets across the country, being approved for sale in this country that has all of the health hazards known to be associated with tobacco?
Hell no, you can't imagine it. Tobacco is and was tolerated because of the old money that grows it, period. The only products I can fathom that have a closer correlation with deadly consequences are bullets, and that may actually be a draw, as a lot of those hit targets or animals, and not people.
Well of course you are right about its history and the financial subsidies. I have no problem at all with the product being sold at its legitimate market price, absent price supports. But the why isn't a question non-users have to answer. Nor is it particularly relevant to the present reality, in my view.
Anyone want to compare the morbidity rate from Type 2 diabetes as compared to smoking? Type 2 can virtually be cured by diet and exercise, so my doc tells me anyway (but who listens to him), probably saving thousands of lives annually and reducing our health care costs probably by millions. But I don't hear about taxes being imposed on foods that are bad for me or mandating community fitness programs. I'm having a little trouble following the logic here of regulating and taxing one cause, but not others that are equally as serious.
Well said Dennis. I would add that tobacco and other "sin taxes" are typically very regressive because the sins they tax tend to be more prevalent in the socioeconomically disadvantaged portions of the population. Essentially, it's robbing from the poor to give to the government.
Here's some food for thought (in case you have the munchies.) If cigarettes were taxed up to a cost of five bucks a pack, a pack-a-day smoker would be spending about $150 a month on cigarettes. Which (I'm told) is about what daily pot smokers spend on their habit each month.
If "taxing tobacco out of existance" is a good idea, then the legalization and taxation of marijuana is twice as good!