Vote Yes on Cigarette Tax Increase!
Constitutional Amendment No. 3 (Initiative Petition)
This amendment will increase the tax on cigarette’s. While opponents are saying it is a 370% tax increase they are not telling you the connection between our low cig taxes and our rate of teenage smoking. All surrounding states have higher taxes on cigarettes. Those opposing this change are convenience store owners and tobacco companies — that should tell you something about their motivation.
Read for yourself:
Newspaper articles:
Site’s against increase:
Site’s in favor of increase:
Healthy Missouri
RCGA – Regional Commerce & Growth AssociationMissouri’s cigarette tax, at 17 cents a pack, is 80 percent below the national average and was last increased in 1993. In Illinois, the tax is 98 cents per pack; it’s 70 cents in Kansas. For additional perspective, consider Rhode Island, where the tax increased 39 cents in 2003 and an additional 75 cents in 2004—the state today assesses a whopping $2.46 in tax per pack.
To those that say this is a regressive tax, that it punishes the poor: smoking addiction is a far worse punishment. It is in the interest of society to look at costs we must all pay for providing smoking-related health care. Look at the organizations behind the Healthy Missouri campaign — they are at the front lines of providing healthcare and related services. They see the reality of smoking and know other states have successfully worked to reduce smoking, especially among youth. We need to pass this measure.
As a former smoker, I can say that the only thing that would have made me quit sooner would have been raising the price. I knew all about the health problems and didn’t care enough to quit. I finally did stop because I simply got tired of the habit…always having to find a place to smoke, smelling worse in the winter, disapproving stares from co-workers.
Raising the tax will encourage more younger people not to start.
I’m going to reluctantly vote for amendment 3. If the idea is to get people to stop smoking, why not have the guts to just ban the damn things. Money is the main motivation, and just carefully balancing the tax so that the revenue stream stays intact.
It will end up being a regressive tax because not enough people will quit to change that.
And it’s rediculous to think that this money is safe from lawmakers pilfering it. They’ve figured out a way with every other one of these targeted taxes, and they’ll do it here too.
Yes, we disapprove of smoking so we are morally right to discourage it. It is up to us to decide for others whether the health risks outweigh the benefit of the buzz. This measure does not go far enough though, we need to ban smoking entirely. This will not be a hard thing to do. TV cameras are becoming cheaper so we can make sure that no alley goes unwatched for this filthy habit. I’m sure dogs can be trained to smell tobacco smoke so that the DEA can make sure that people aren’t smoking in their aparments as well. Parents who smoke should have their children taken away from them so they can grow up in a smoke-free environment and learn about the evils of tobacco.
Steve this is not intended for you. I realize that you think through all of your votes and I respect that. But I think we should be clear on a few things:
1.)Raising the tax will not make people quit.
2.)It is unclear where the money will go.
3.)It will not only hurt convenience stores, but it will hurt true tobacconists (HSB, Briars and Blends etc.) that do what they do because they love it, and not simply to prey on the American smokers.
4.)More poor people smoke, so as has been said, it is a tax on the poor.
5.)Smoking will go away by itself. People are getting smarter and smarter all the time. I see fewer and fewer smokers everywhere I go. We do not need to tax it to make it go away prematurely. As they say: “Smokers are a dying breed”
6.)The organizations that are in favor of it HAVE to be in favor of it…I mean, the American Lung Association is going to not be in favor of a cigarette tax??? These groups most likely, but still unknown, are the organizations that will get funding from this tax.
Don’t kid yourself that you are doing the right thing by voting for this tax, because fewer kids are going to smoke and everyone is going to quit when Camels are $4.75 a pack. That will not happen because of a tax. Dream on.
For full disclosure: I am a smoker, my American Spirit Organic Lights are already $5.00 a pack. I would vote for a bill that required tobacco companies to clean up their act and their tobacco by not putting ANY additives in the tobacco…that should be a law.
While I am very anti-smoking I am leaning against this tax (I haven’t made up my mind completely on it) but I am generally against sin taxes because they tend to be more of a burden on the poor more than anything else. What I would like to see is a statewide ban on smoking in bars and resaurants. I would also like to see all the casinos in MO shut down as it should be obvious to all by now that they hurt more than they help anything.
Johnpaul put it best when he said that making the tax higher will not make people quit. It will only make people buy the cigarettes they can most afford. Also MAINLY they do not say where the tax will go.
I am not really for nor against this bill, but it is one of the most poorly written bills that I have ever read before.
Do you drink? People are against drinking, and I am sure that alot of people would like to try to raise the alcohol tax if they thought less people would drink. Do you think that is right?
I used to smoke, I quit a year ago. when i did not have enough money, I owuld have rather skipped a meal from mcdonalds and bought smokes than eat the meal. People will not quit because of the tax.
I do not believe that taxing individuals becuase of poor decisions is a good idea. This seems to be nothing more than a moral judgment on smokers or an easy way for Missouiri to increase revenues because non-smokers won’t really care about it as it wont effect them. IT certainly will not decrease the amount we pay generally for health insurance you can be sure. If it were truly motivated to discourage smoking, I agree with the other posters – just ban smoking alltogether. Or, start taxing other conduct that is unhealthy and costs society billions of dollars. Consider some of these statistics:
— The health dangers and health costs associated with obesity far outweigh those associated with tobacco or alcohol use.*
—
People who are obese have 30% to 50% more chronic medical problems than smokers or problem drinkers.
— Obesity raises a personÂ’s healthcare costs by 36% and medication costs by 77%. By comparison, smoking leads to a 21% rise in healthcare costs and 28% increase in medication costs.
— Obesity is more detrimental to health than alcohol, smoking or even poverty.**
(*Studies conducted on 10,000 US adults by the UCLA Rand; **Published in the British Journal of Public Health)
With healthcare costs skyrocketing, and insurance becoming more and more expensive, you have yet another good reason to lose weight and keep it off.
In terms of dollar amounts, obesity raised healthcare costs by an average of $395 a year, while smoking increased costs by $230 and heavy drinking is associated with a $150 annual increase. Obesity creates increased risks of diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, osteoarthritis and sleep apnea, as well as increased doctorÂ’s bills and visits to walgreens.
Consider this excerpt from a recent report from the U.S. Department of Health an Human Services:
Chronic diseases account for more than 60% of medical care expenditures. The total cost of obesity is up to $117 billion per year. We estimate the number of Americans dying from obesity will surpass the number of deaths due to tobacco this year. Tobacco use causes 440,000 deaths annually and costs $75 billion just in direct medical costs. In 2002, the estimated cost of diabetes in the U.S. was $132 billion and the work disability rate is 26% for those with the disease and 8% for those without diabetes.
So why not include in this bill a tax on obesity:
A person with a BMI between 25 and 26 will be taxed $500
BMI 26-27 $1000, BMI 27-28 $1500,
I do not think this would be very popular. The U.S. governement recommends that we get 60 minutes of aerobic exercise daily to stay healthy, lets start taxing all those who don’t work out per U.S. guidelines. Better yet, lets increase taxes on candy bars, potato chips, fast food, etc.: If you are going to discourage some bad behaviors, lets discourage them all.
While I agree it is good to discourage people from smoking, tzxing it is not the right answer.
While this ammendment may not be perfect, I appreciate the fact that it would put our tax at a level comparable to other states, and I have to believe that it will be effective in reducing the number of underage smokers. I don’t think anyone thinks that adult smokers will quit simply because of a tax increase, but it very well could have a significant impact on the number of people who start smoking.
comments and question for “newsteve”.
I believe you should be taxed for stupid decisions.
How many smokers are obese?
Will smoking help decrease obesity?
Why should non-obese non smokers who have any self respect have to foot the bill for ignorance?
The only concern I have about the bill is that, similiar to the lotto scam, the money collected for healthcare will be matched by reductions for healthcare from the general fund. Regardless I will vote yes.
so that explains why the gas stations and the mini-marts have been lobbying against this – they’d lose all their extra sales to out-of-state buyers taking advantage of Missouri’s current significantly-lower tax rate and lower prices . . .
There are a couple of problems with this measure:
1. Only a small fraction of the money will go to anti-smoking efforts. The rest? They say it will go towards other, non-smoking health programs, but, you know. . . .
2. This will hands-down disadvantage the poor, and they won’t cut back on smoking either. They’ll just pay more.
So what’s the deal here? The majority (non-smokers) are tyrannizing the minority (those who smoke). If the tax was imposed to directly fund programs to prevent and combat smoking, I’d vote for it. As it stands, however, it’s taking money from the poor to give to those better off in society. I’m not sure how one could claim to be a progressive and support this measure.
I’d also like to address two arguments:
1. Missouri has one of the lowest taxes on tobacco. OK, so what? Low taxes are generally a good thing, especially when they’re regressive like this one. If we want more money for health care, why don’t we raise taxes on jewelry and yachts? You know, make the people who can most afford it pay.
2. It will discourage kids from smoking. Unlikely. Kids already find ways to pay for ridiculous, unnecessary things if they think it will make them look “cool” (I’m looking right at you, Abercrombie and Nike). Also keep in mind that when one first starts smoking, the quickest you’d go through a pack is two weeks, maybe one. So an increase of one to two dollars a month is not going to keep any kids from smoking.
Anyway, I hope everyone goes out and votes their mind tomorrow!
I’m conflicted on this one . . . I’m not a smoker and would like to see smoking disappear. I’d also like to see someone else pay higher taxes. But, I also realize that, much like prohibition, if you try to make it illegal (either outright or through exhorbitant taxes) you’re just going to drive it underground, prices will still go up (only the bootleggers will get the money, not the government), and a certain segment of the population will continue to be users (see marijuana). Plus there’s that “forbidden fruit” allure that doomed prohibition a century ago. I’m good with a higher, but reasonable tax rate, especially if it’s comparable to that in adjacent states, but my gut is telling me that this increase may be too high . . .
The idea that raising taxes does not effect cigarette consumption is a myth.
From Wikipedia (you may check sources if you like)
n 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation more than $7 in medical care and lost productivity. Another study by a team of health economists finds the combined price paid by their families and society is about $41 per pack of cigarettes.
Substantial scientific evidence shows that higher cigarette prices result in lower overall cigarette consumption. Most studies indicate that a 10% increase in price will reduce overall cigarette consumption by 3% to 5%. Youth, minorities, and low-income smokers are two to three times more likely to quit or smoke less than other smokers in response to price increases.
Read the full info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Taxation
If you follow the footnote links, you’d discover that instead of curbing tobacco consumption “price-senstive” users of tobacco resorted to buying cheap/generic cigarettes, using more coupons, or buying cigarettes from tax-free or lower-tax jurisdictions.
“Conclusion: Data from this study indicate that most smokers are price sensitive and seek out measures to purchase less expensive cigarettes, which may decrease future cessation efforts.”
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/86
^That by the way was footnote 71 from Brent’s wiki article.
It is in the interest of society to look at the cost….this is a VERY slippery road down which one travels. Where does society stop looking at the cost? What about the cost of raising drug addicted kids? What about AIDS? What about obesity? What about…What about…what about? There are many costs which we, as a democratic and just society (in theory), must share the burden of. What I do not want is someone arbitraily determining which cost are deemed wrong and therefore, tax the hell out of it. Do we charge $5 for a cream filled t>>>>kie next? $5 more for a bottle of wine?
I too was iffy on this tax. Higher taxes might just make a few stop smoking, but it won’t make them stop. After reading the posting about taxing the yachts and other rich toys to pay for better health care, I’m deciding not to vote in favor of this. This will just make the poor people, who already have enough problems, even poorer. I don’t smoke, but I know many people who do. It is a disgusting habit, but it is also one of the hardest habits to break. Raising the price isn’t going to break the habit, they will just use monies for other goods.
“Increased price of cigarettes will not decrease usage.”
Wrong. Numerous studies show otherwise. A simple search on Pubmed will yield many articles including this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16704940&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
“This tax isn’t fair for the poor”
This tax is very fair because it makes smokers accountable for their cost to society, encourages healthier behaviors from current smokers, and only effects people who choose to smoke. The fact is that smoking is an extraordinarily heavy financial burden on our society and our government’s coffers. Smoking has been linked to lung cancer (especially the horrendous small cell carcinoma), bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, emphysema, COPD, asthma, coronary artery disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, mesenteric ischemia, abdominal aortic aneurism, and many other medical conditions. Medicare/Medicaid pays for a huge percentage of the care for these conditions. Negative health effects occur in smokers, nonsmokers (2nd hand smoke), and embryos alike. And even here, I’m only talking about direct effects of smoking. There are many more indirect costs of smoking to society and our government.
“Obesity is a bigger problem”
Wrong. Obesity is not as strong an independent risk factor for development of major disease as smoking is. Health behaviors that lead to obesity are important; however, these are multifactorial and include, among others, smoking. In other words “obesity” is not a health habit, but a physical condition with a variety of contributing causes.
“Not all of the money will be used for healthcare/smoking cessation”
Increased costs to Medicare/Medicaid from the health consequences of smoking has eaten into other state programs. Even if all the money doesnÂ’t directly go towards health care, the money will be used to fill in gaps in other programs left by increasing health costs (among other causes).
Conflict of interest disclosure: I am a physician, and the health of my patients and the public at large is very important to me and my career goals.
I was going to vote yes until I read the full text of the proposed amendment. Yes, at 3,350 words, this took a while but when I was done I could swear I just read a new jobs bill for Jeff City, not a tax amendment. The first alarm bell was the specific notation that the “net proceeds” of the tax would be used for funding tobacco prevention (17.5%) while the remaining 82.5% would be used for healthcare.
The next alarm bell was long list of involved departments impacted by the bill – and with impacts comes the need for funding new jobs. The 3rd bell was the realization that only one department had a specified limit on how much of the gross proceeds could be used for administrative purposes. Specifically, the Dept of Revenue can take a maximum of 2% for the collection of revenue. No other departments face a cap of any kind.
Then came another blow when I read about the new Governor appointed oversight board. Yes, we are always desperate for those in Jeff City.
Of course, it didn’t help when I read section 7.1 which specifically calls out what percentage of moneys would be spend on various objectives such as:
at least 15% on mass media,
at least 15% for community programs,
at least 5% surveilance,
and then, the funniest part:
at least 15% but no more than 30% for cessation programs.
Of course, my favorite part was the irony of limiting the amount of money to be spend on cessation programs for an amendment that is intended to discourage smoking.
In other words, up to a maximum of 30% of the 17.5% can be used for smoking cessation – and that my friends, amounts to 5.25% of the “net proceeds”.
Sounds like we’re interested in more jobs, more Governor appointed boards, more taxes with little interest in genuinely trying to help folks stop smoking.
And that’s what I call “a crock”.
To Dave D – I think you miss my point – my point is that we should not tax one commodity any different than another, that includes tobacco, alcohol, candy bars, potato chips, etc – you ask why should nonsmokers and nonobese people foot the bill for ignorance – I ask you – why should smokers have to foot the bill for any program that this money will go to that doesnt directly relate to health care costs involving smokers or programs designed to educate about the dangers of smoking, etc – why should smokers have to fund medicaid programs – all I am saying is that to tax a behavior that is legal – like being obese, drinking alcohol, not exercising to name just a few – more than you would tax a consumer for any other product – is unfair.
“For full disclosure: I am a smoker, my American Spirit Organic Lights are already $5.00 a pack. I would vote for a bill that required tobacco companies to clean up their act and their tobacco by not putting ANY additives in the tobacco…that should be a law.”
I realize this whole “organic” food thing is idiotic, but has it really gotten this stupid? “Organic” cigarettes? WTF?
I didn’t vote either way on this one – I skipped it. I hate smoking, but I also hate giving more money to piece of crap politicians so they can waste it.
And as for it harming poor people? I really don’t care.
Organic cigarettes do not contain any of the approximately 400 additives which are put into cigarettes.
Since they are USDA certified organic, this means the tobacco leaf is not grown with organophosphate pesticides, or chemical fertilizers.
The manufacture cannot prove that they are any healthier, yet not having those 400 additives, many which have been proven to directly cause cancer, does indicate a somewhat safer product.
I smoke American Spirit and I can say they definitely taste better. Other cigarettes have a metallic taste, and/or actually make me sick. This brand cost me 4 dollars a pack, therefore if the tax passes, I probably will be quitting my luxurious vice.
Double D,
We will be looking forward to hearing how things work out for you in your effort to quit smoking.
In the meantime…why did you start in the first place?
My parents all smoked, but I never did. If I had friends who smoked, they never tried to get me to start.
Did you start out of curiousity?
How did you overcome that horrible taste of your first smoke?
You can’t say that you actually *liked* it the first time, can you?
Smoking for the first few weeks gives you a huge head rush.
If you stop smoking for a while and start again this creates a big buzz as well.
I started in high school and never really stopped. I do not enjoy it as much presently because it is expensive and not very healthy. I wouldn’t mind restricting my smoking to only when I enjoy a drink at the bar, except the addiction tends to prevent such self-control. Recreational smoking does not create as big of a health problem, but again, most people don’t stop smoking once they start.
I am against this cigarette tax for several reasons, however if it is passed, I will probably quit.
I really can’t understand why this failed. I understand it would probably be better to have an actual plan for the money before creating the tax, but anything to make the smokers suffer financially I am in favor of. I already suffer from their second hand smoke and the burden they place on the health case system (my higher premiums).
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.