Deseret News | Reader comments: Tobacco tax hike would fund health programs

Reader comments
Tobacco tax hike would fund health programs

no new taxes | 3:10 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Smoking is a horrible addiction and habit but I really resent legislators who want to raise taxes on a legal product. I wish every smoker would quit just to spite the government thieves- let me guess- once the tobacco settlement runs out they'll find another industry to shake down.

Bob G | 4:15 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

This is a discriminatory tax and should be abandoned. It's the same as taxing someone because they are Black or because they are a Mormon. This kind of program should be funded by all taxpayers and not just a minority of the pooulation of Utah. The program is a wasted effort anyway and will not help anyone in Utah, except insurance companies. Tax discrimination to fund every person and illegal in Utah should not be allowed to get a foothold. Hopefully our representatives are wise enough to abandon this type of taxation that can be esclated and targeted to any specific group of citizen based on discrimination. Why not tax the obese for being obese? Tax the elderly because they are too old and costly to maintain? Why not tax the illegals and make them pay their fair share of the cost to support and maintain them as illegal aliens? Lets tax the homosexuals because they are homo's? Tax discrimination is bad for the state for any group based on a lifestyle and all taxpayers should carry the cost of their own health.

russ | 6:25 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Tax tobacco until they are run out of business. It kills over a 1000 Americans a day, and if that isn't terrorism I don't know what is. Over a 1000 deaths a day are due to tobacco.

Tax it until they quit. Tax it until they run out of business. Or, we could ask what they put in the cigarettes, etc., and put them in jail for putting poison in the market place. Remember when they told Congress that they couldn't tell us?

Horsepuckey! We are better than that: welcome to jail. Don't let the clang sound worry you: you will get out in 2050.

Comments continue below

feh | 6:58 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Either ban it or not, don't play the "sin tax" game.

Anonymous | 7:28 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

It's doable.
Smoking isn't a 'lifestyle'. It's an addiction. It has serious, quantifiable and proven consequences.
Nothing else comes close. Car crashes, gun deaths, you name it. Smoking outkills 'em all. It's a product you could not possibly bring to market today, one which, if used as directed, is fatal in up to 1 in 3 users.
THe problem is smokers die one at a time, all over the place, and never as the lead news item.
I've often wondered why Utah doesn't sell cigarettes in only a few nondescript brick buildings in industrial parks with stupid hours, poor locations, surly, condescending staff. Away from the impressionable children. And at that only sell a few weakened brands? Smokes somehow always escape the wrath of religious sensibilities, and it really is hypocritical.

Hey Russ | 8:30 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Why don't they tax Green Jello? They'd make tons of money. I think it is funny how in Utah they always tax alcohol & cigs first.

Zacko | 8:55 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Bob G this isn't a discriminatory tax since you can choose to buy the smokes or not. It is much different than being old, young, black, white or even mormon or catholic.

However, it sets a dangerous precedent. And we know that lazy legislators and judges look for precedents since blazing new ground is scary.

What if the legislature at some future point had a beef with beef. And decided that beef should have a special tax of 70 cents a pound to make sure the pork farmers stayed in business. Or even a 20 cent tax on a coke to keep the dairy farmers in business.

Special taxes are always a slippery slope in my opinion.

sanevoice | 9:48 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

You are correct Zacko it is not a discriminatory tax. That is like saying toll roads are discriminatory. You only pay the toll if you use the road. This tax makes sense to me. Tobacco users cost the state huge dollars in health care costs. Give me a good reason whey they should not be paying the bill. Smoking is 100% voluntary, it is not like an unforseen or genetic health issue.

Discriminatory? | 10:05 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

This tax is not and more discriminatory than property tax or gas tax. You could choose to rent and not pay property tax or you could choose to ride the bus and avoid gas tax. Same as you can stop smoking if you don't like the tobacco tax.

And the mormon tax argument is silly. Yes you can choose whether to be a mormon or not, but mormonism does not create a huge financial drain on society. HOw many millions of american have caught cancer and require public assistance and healthcare because of mormonism?

the(whole)truth | 10:32 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

"HOw many millions of american have caught cancer and require public assistance and healthcare because of mormonism?"

A: 65,000 Americans die every year from second-hand Mormonism (48,000 in Utah alone!). I would provide the evidence for this fact, but the anti-smokers have removed the need to provide actual evidence to assert harm in any public health debate. Now that I've established the harmful effects of the dreaded LDS2 molecule, who will step up and prove me wrong?

(I don't really believe that second-hand Mormonism is terribly harmful. I just don't like the icky smell of cookies.)

Oh yeah, and cigarettes are already overtaxed. Leave the poor smokers alone, already!

To Discriminatory | 11:47 a.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Utah taxes alcohol & tobacco higher than any other state in the nation, Why is this the case?

wrz | 12:48 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

"Tax tobacco until they are run out of business. It kills over a 1000 Americans a day, and if that isn't terrorism I don't know what is. Over a 1000 deaths a day are due to tobacco."

And possibly that many deaths per day or more from fatty foods.

Former Smoker | 1:00 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Smoking isn't the only substance that causes serious health issues. Let's tax them all. Why just pick on smokers. I can tell you as a former smoker that the sin tax didn't encourage me to quit. I was finally able to end my 30 year addiction with hypnosis which I paid for out of my own pocket. If I thought that all of the revenue collected would actually go to helping people quit smoking I might be agree with this tax hike. I am afraid a good portion may go towards subsidizing the coke machines up on the hill.

Taxes, taxes, taxes... | 1:32 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Taxes are by their very nature discriminatory. The tax system favors those who have the money and power, while burdening the working middle class, and through it all using the poor as the whipping post to justify each sides view.

What's being done with alcohol and tobacco taxes, and is now proposed for tobacco, are called SIN taxes. The discriminatory manner in which they treated is based solely on moral issues... not fair and equitable issues. Let me explain.

Vehicles kill hundreds of people in Utah every year, why not increase sales taxes on them? Hospital/Iatrogenic caused deaths cause hundreds of deaths in Utah every year, why not TAX hospitals/doctors for these deaths? Guns and knives cause numerous deaths in Utah every year, why not increase sales taxes on them? Sugar causes thousands of diabetic related deaths in Utah every year, why not increases sales taxes on all sugared products? Fats and fatty foods cause thousands of cardiovascular related deaths in Utah every year, why not increases sales taxes on all fatty containing foods?

Getting my drift?

These other taxable things cause more deaths combined than tobacco and alcohol together, and should have an increased tax that's earmarked for healthcare.

D. Larson | 1:57 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Some of these comments really are quite funny I must say. I still can't get over how nearly every issue is somehow the Mormons fault in this state. Did some of you read the article? It said Utah has one of the LOWEST tax rates for tobacco!!!! How is that a "sin tax?" I spend my days dealing with the negative effects of smoking, and we are all paying for it. To put more of the burden on the user is perfectly fair. Anything that discourages smoking is a good thing, short of banning. And I say that only because we tried prohibition once and it did not work. Also, in reference to another comment about taxing obesity. Yes, obesity is the second greatest preventable cause of disease in America. If it were possible to tax over eating and under exercise we should do that too!!

Wes | 4:18 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

To be fair, if tobacco taxes are raised, then so should any other item that causes ill health or obesity. 70% tax on hamburgers, soda, potato chips, corn dogs, fried chicken, et al? Obesity and its related ills kill more people than cigarettes (high blood pressure, diabetes, circulatory issues, cholesterol), yet I don't hear legislators talking about doubling the cost of the dollar menu at McDonald's. My sense is that this legislator is looking to make a name for him/herself and doesn't have enough on his/her agenda for this session.

Taxes, taxes, taxes... | 4:32 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Dear D. Larson,

No where did I disagree that being around cigarette smoke is bad. That is a different issue, just as sugar causes cavaties and fats clog arteries up.

Your hyper-focusing on cigarette smoke as a health hazard at the exclusion of other things that actually cause more deaths (i.e. sugar/fats and diabetes/cardiovascular related deaths). That's the point I was making, and there's nothing funny or silly about it.

Yes we all pay for the negative effects of smoking, but we pay even more for the negative effects of sugarization and fatization of our foods and lifestyle. More employee downtime is recorded from the latter than the former, and they are more costly on the health care system as well.

Face it... smoking is a convenient whipping post because its easier to go after and that's what it comes down to. Try doing the same to all the soda pops, candies and fatty snacks and see just how far you'd get, especially since these commodities contribute more to sickness, downtime and death than smoking (either first or second hand) does... and those are statistical facts!

I hate smoke too, but c'mon, let's not resort to double standards here!

Mahonri | 4:34 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

How about an accounting of all the money from the tobacco lawsuit settlement? It was supposed to go for this.
But, why not deny public funds of any sort for tobacco related illnesses? Quit or get stuck with the bill or die by yourself coughing to death.

Anonymous | 5:04 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Tax sugar in all its forms.
All Utah's problems will be solved.

The Truth | 6:24 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

There are no safe levels of tobacco smoke. There are safe levels of hamburgers and all the other "not good" but unregulated items mentioned. For me this is simple. A smoker chooses to place a financial burden on society by smoking. We (all tax payers) will end up paying for the smokers decision through increased insurance premiums if they are grouped into our insurance risk pool or we pay through taxes as these smokers age and begin recieving medicare.

The fact is that smoking demand is price sensitive (it's called economics) the numbers I have found show that an increase in the tobacco tax could reduce smoking rates by up to 2% for every 10 cents the price increases. That is significant and means that in the future the cost to all of us will be less.

Finally, I don't beleive in outlawing smoking. I believe we should have the choice, but every choice has a consequence and smokers should realize that thier choice to smoke means they will bear thier fair share of the cost of that decision.

Good for Paul Ray. I hope this bill passes and the money is spent wisely on health programs.

Phil | 5:19 p.m. Feb. 1, 2008

I hope that this bill passes. Smoking is still the number one preventable cause of death in the USA. And the costs to the health care system and the economy in general are huge. There needs to be more done to encourage smokers to quit, and to discourage kids from every starting. This bill would do both by increasing the cost and increasing funding for programs to counter smoking.

kurt | 9:42 p.m. Feb. 1, 2008

I think the government should use the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. The tobacco companies load up every chemical from nicotine to arsenic and claim its a trade secret. Tobacco causes far more deaths than alcohol. I have never heard of 2nd hand liver disease from non-drinkers. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher say, tobacco is every bit the gate way drug to heroin and coke that alcohol is. .........Kentucky, worlds largest tobacco producer, is thinking of raising the tobaxcco tax to a dollar. Yet non-smoking states like Utah and Calif. are way below that. What irony.

Anonymous | 8:12 p.m. Feb. 14, 2008

Smokers already are taxed more than any other group in our society. Why should smokers always be taxed for something that all Utahns benefit from. Why don't we tax soda pop or greasy hamburgers?? Why do you think so many people (children included) are obese or overweight. Obesity is a greater risk to our society than smoking is. Let's tax unhealthy foods and drinks so that fewer people will buy them!! More money would be raised and fewer Utahns would be overweight!
Why should we raise taxes when we have a surplus? Utah already receives 30 to 35 millon dollars a year from the cigarette manufacturers(Master Settlement Agreement). What's happened to this money? Shouldn't this money be used to treat sick smokers and provide health care to smokers in need?

Thank You,

Bj | 6:15 p.m. March 2, 2009

Smoking is a filthy, stinky habit and contributes to our overall medical costs.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.