Missouri’s Cigarette Taxes Are Embarrassingly Low, Smoking Rates High
Eight states border Missouri, all with substantially higher cigarette taxes than we do. Kentucky is the lowest of the eight and their tax rate is 353% higher than our rate. On the high end is Illinois, there taxes are 1,165% higher than our $0.17 rate!
Proposition B, if approved tomorrow, will raise our cigarette taxes to $0.96. At that rate four neighbors would have lower taxes and four would have higher taxes — we’d be in the middle.
If Proposition B passes, the best data suggest that we will experience an almost 12 percent reduction in teen smoking and prevent more than 40,000 Missouri youths from starting to smoke. More than 30,000 adult smokers in Missouri will likely quit smoking, and more than 20,000 premature deaths from smoking-caused diseases will be prevented over a very few years. More than 8,000 smoking-exposed pregnancies will be prevented. Furthermore, those of us who do not smoke will have less exposure to passive smoking, further reducing the risk of smoking-related diseases.
Passing Proposition B will result in huge health care cost savings over five years — $4.95 million from fewer cases of lung cancer, $17.69 million from fewer pregnancies exposed to cigarette smoke, and $11.8 million from fewer heart attacks and strokes. Over the long term, Missouri will save about $1.37 billion from health care cost savings from reduced teen and adult smoking. (Guest editorial @ stltoday.com)
Basically Missouri has failed in the past to raise taxes like our neighbors have done.
In Missouri, 25% of the adult population (aged 18+ years)—over 1,120,000 individuals—are current cigarette smokers. Across all states, the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults ranges from 9.3% to 26.5%. Missouri ranks 48th among the states. (CDC)
Forthy-eight out of fifty!
Approximately 30% of the annual revenue generated from state excise taxes and settlement payments would fund Missouri’s tobacco control program at the Best Practices recommended amount. However, in 2007, Missouri’s funding for tobacco control was 1.7% of the recommended level. Missouri ranks 49th among the states. (CDC)
We’d still be below the national average of $1.34 per pack. Please vote yes on Proposition B to get us caught up.
— Steve Patterson
I’d like to see us match IL. The schools could use the money and the addicted could use the incentive to quit.
If having trouble breathing, being exiled while your smoking, and higher prices in past have not served as incentives, this will not either. Mama will have her smokes; while the other family members (children) do without.
Smoking laws are relatively lax around here (unfortunately), 25% of the Missouri population is smoking and 54% of those smokers didn’t even finish high school. Assuming folks hang out in social groups of like minded individuals I’m not thinking much exile is going on.
If you’re daft enough to start smoking in the first place then the extra assistance of substantially higher tax is just what you need. When I left Alberta a pack of stupidity was selling for over $12.00….those kind of taxes alter behaviour.
“54% of those smokers didn’t even finish high school.”
This is interesting. Source?
CDC – http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/state_highlights/2010/states/missouri/index.htm
Agreed! Let’s match IL and encourage our neighboring states to match too.
Short answer – I’m going to “hold my nose” and vote for this on Tuesday, the positives outweigh the negatives.
Long answer – Government using taxes to attempt to modify behavior is flawed “solution”, on several levels. One, a product is either (relatively) safe (when used in moderation) or it’s not / too dangerous for human consumption, and should be outlawed, not just taxed! Two, taxes should be applied equitably, not targeting a minority of any of our citizens (“the tyranny of the majority”). Three, money in government is fungible – it’s all green and it all spends. If a revenue stream is legally directed to a specific activity (that is currently funded from general revenues), odds are great that dedicated funds will rise while general funds will fall, with little, if any, net gain (see paying for trash collection in the city – those formerly general funds are now going to pay pensions). Four, while people like to point out the health impacts of smoking, the real reason most non-smokers dislike smoking is that it’s stinky and directly intrudes on our personal space – it’s hard to “escape”. And five, if tobacco and alcohol are “safe enough” to be taxed, why don’t we have a path for legalizing other recreational drugs, like marijuana? Taxing pot would create another “dedicated” revenue stream, while significantly reducing the current load on the courts and the penal systems – again, that level playing field.
Three states (Colorado, Washington & Oregon) have legalization of marijunana on their ballots tomorrow.
Legalizing and taxing pot would be nice, but let’s focus on the easy battles first.
JZ71, I think you make the economic argument for raising the cigarette tax vs the behavorial solution. The simple fact is that long term smokers who pay the least amount of tax in the land will most likely recieve health care benefits to counter smoker related illnesses via medicare and medicaid that far out what they paid in cigarette tax. In other words, Missouri non-smokers are indirectly subsidizing smoker future health benefits by keeping taxes so low on a pack. I think people are starting to realize the fact.
When you look at the economic case you get several red conservative states as well as tabacco states that have actually raised their cigeratte taxes in recent years. North Carolina comes to mind. Unfortunately, Missouri state politics has been so idealogically driven that they will cut off their nose in spite of themselves. They will continue to cut education, refuse to make capital investment (an outdated chemistry lab at UMSL as an example) and drive the transportation budget off the cliff but argue that it is freedom to have cheap cigs.
The “real solution” is to treat tobacco as the highly addictive, dangerous drug that it is, much like meth and bath salts, and just ban it. Using higher taxes, as a club, is just trying to “have it both ways”, generate more taxes off of addicts and not alienate a large voting block!
Yes on Prop B. Yes Yes Yes. Not only are smoking regulations insanely lax around these parts but those who do smoke greatly increase their chance of poor health. It’s completely facetious reasoning to claim that one’s smoking does not effect others in the community, you sure do; it’s shared air, shared space, and when smokers have to go to the hospital because of complications which smoking brought on their’s a shared burden of cost as well.
You have the right to do what you want to do, but you don’t have the right to prevent others from enjoying that same right.
What study or article are you citing in reference to the 12 percent reduction in teen smoking?
Neve mind – I see it was the PD
So if we go to the middle of the pack, then the next lowest state gets “shamed” into raising its taxes…moving the average up….and then the next lowest.
Of all the arguments for raising the tobacco tax, the “we’re the lowest” is probably the worst.
Prop. B lost. Why? Probably because a compelling argument was not made about why the tax should be increased. The campaign had little to do with negatives of smoking, and had more to do with raising or not raising a specific tax, significantly. Voters aren’t stupid, they realize that politicians will spend every dollar that they get, and then come looking for more. And, tying the tax to education, especially in urban areas, may have been the biggest mistake. Giving SLPS or Normandy more money is no guarantee that they would deliver better results, and would do nothing for the parochial schools many parents (are forced to?) choose in the city. A better scenario would likely have been pairing this tax with something(s) that more voters care more passionately about, like funding parks, trails, highways and/or transit, or creating a statewide voucher system that can be used to pay for students in both public and private schools. We citizens, rightfully, have a significant level of distrust with our legislators, in both Jefferson City and at the local level, and their ability to allocate funds wisely. Just increasing taxes because we’re lower than our neighbors (obviously) doesn’t ring true with a lot of voters!
I don’t disagree that it may have brought more voters, but coupling a sin tax with something warm and fuzzy like saving kittens or planting flowers is probably the most cynical ideas I’ve heard in a long time. I’m all for a “three strikes and you’re out” clause for referendums like this.
Very interesting topic , appreciate it for posting . “Everything in the world may be endured except continued prosperity.
http://www.assisttosellautos.com/