Deseret News | Reader comments: 'Robo-calls' are lobbying for a $2 tax on cigarettes

Reader comments
'Robo-calls' are lobbying for a $2 tax on cigarettes

Cancer Tax | 3:08 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

This is the most astounding and repulsive tax to ever be considered. The cancer tax should apply to all citizens because cancer is a problem for all and the lifestyle they live. This tax is discriminatory and the band wagon proponents are disolusioned by personal and emotional feelings that want to blame every body else for their personal grief and losses. Non smokers are more unhealthy and the skewed data to blame smokers for all the ailments has no merit or proof. The people and the state can't keep blaming smokers and targeting them and taxing them on pure disolusionment and emotions. If these grief stricken individuals are concerned about their health then make all Utahn's responsible for their health and create a state health tax that applies to all. This kind of tax is discriminatory, regressive, and an unfair tax, making one group of individuals pay taxes for the health of all. Then if this kind of tax is imposed then the funds should only be available to those that smoke.

Re: Cancer Tax @ 3:08 | 7:26 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Obviously, smoking has damaged your brain. You speak of the tax as being unfair, but what is unfair is expecting nonsmokers to pay for the problems that idiotic smokers cause. And calling this a cancer tax is oversimplification. Smoking leads to a host of health problems besides cancer.

John | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

People in elected positions never seem to think it thru, remember the big settlements against the tobacco industry, they were to fund the CHIPS program. Now the revenues are dropping off because people that smoke are either quitting or going to the underground market to avoid the high price of their tobacco requirements, like Canada the U.S. can't control their peoples bad habits with more taxes on tobacco products, and are even considering going back to their former plan for better control.
We beat up on the smokers, I smoked at one time, but quit when they hit 50 cents a pack too expensive, so as we push for more and more smoking bans and those revenues the government enjoyed are drying up, lets just raise the taxes on tobacco again. Look at the cancers that are out there that are not even cancer related, hard to make the case on tobacco alone, so here's a thought why not get the U.S. Congress to give the states the monies they use to subsidize the tobacco farmers..just a thought..naw makes too much sense, just raise the arbitrary and punitive tax on the smokers it's easier.

Comments continue below

uncannygunman | 7:35 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Hopefully, people will react by calling their legislators to complain about this annoying new tactic.

Dutchman | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

The consequences of such a tax could be dire. Smoking is a hard habit to break. Some smokers will resort to picking up and smoking used cigarette butts rather than buying expensive packs of cigarettes. This is already occuring and the result is people getting sick from other smokers DNA. This kind of oppressive tax needs to be put to rest.

Phoebe | 8:54 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

I got one of these robo-calls last night and although I didn't mind the American Cancer Society lobbying for its cause, I thought the call itself was poorly done. Big blowhard voice rumbling on like a carny barker. I hung up after 4 seconds.

C.W. | 9:14 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Even nonsmokers should be concerned when they see MORE tax proposed against smokers. Its a "rights" issue, or a freedom of choice issue. We live in a supposedly conservative state, but when I see the "health police" coming I have to cringe! One of the principles I've always believed in regarding Republican values is that THEY'LL STAY OUT OF MY LIFE AND POCKETS! When govts. start to need more funds, they should cut back on THEIR OWN SPENDING rather than try to raise taxes like these that only affect a few. The "health police" have been out in full force lately with the ban on smoking in parks, etc. I guess it makes them feel better when they can tell someone else what to do!
Will the Am. Heart Assoc. get behind a "junk food tax" next? Oops! I forgot, too many people do that so its probably politically incorrect!
Bottom Line: Even nonsmokers should be AGAINST any further incursion into peoples lives!
By the way, out of all the lawsuits against the tobacco co's regarding ex-airline workers subjected to second hand smoke, not one dime has been awarded by juries!
THINK ABOUT IT!

T.C. | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

I have a brother and sister-in-law who both smoke and I support the new tax increase...Why? Because I hope that by increasing the tax on cigarettes both of my families members who currently smoke will find it too expensive and quit (like John)...and then I will be enjoy the people I love for even longer.

tax money | 9:57 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

what blows me away is the tax money on smokes doesn't even go against anti smoking stuff!

Mr.Bixby | 10:14 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

How much money has the tobacco companies given to Utah allready? Keep on lobbying tobacco co's. It's also ironic that Huntsman makes a fortune from carcenagenic chemicle companies then uses some of the profits to try to cure what he contributes to causing cancer and he's seen as a great philantropist.
Anyone see the inversions lately, breathing that in is like smoking cigerettes, why not add taxes to the people who drive cars ala Britain. I don't drive and I don't like breathing it in, tax those people more who drive to pay for some of the costs for the contributions to pollution.
Why not shut down the most polluting industrial companies on red days.
Why not legalize marijuana, charge 15-20 a pack and use those funds for healthcare for people, even the poor? Or at the very least legalize hemp and medicinal marijuana,even if in this state that might seem outlandish though the Pharm companies are revered.
I'm tired of the moral hypocracy of this state.

flawed | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

A couple of things in this article they didn't tell you.
The Cancer society laments about all the money the tobacco co's. spread around, BUT THEY have got to be putting a lot of money into all those "stop smoking ads" on TV. It seems to me that that money could go a long ways in providing health or cancer care for deserving folks. Besides, its hard to find ANY smoker who doesn't know its bad for you, SO WHY SPEND ALL THAT MONEY ON THOSE INCESSANT ADS!
Secondly, if one state raises the tax, then most smokers will just buy them from a surrounding state where the tax is less AND the health police don't have their foot in the door with legislators. Some states back east have kept their cig. taxes low just so people from surrounding states will come and pickup a few cartons and maybe spend other money while they're there! Raising the tax MAY make the health police happier but probably WON'T raise much more revenue!
By the way: as far as their "80%" number, the survey co's. will basically come back with whatever numbers YOU WANT THEM TO!

Jason | 10:21 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

I can't believe people would even think of arguing against a tax hike if it would decrease the number of people who smoke (which according to first-hand accounts and several studies it would do). I read all the comments arguing against a tobacco tax and I didn't find a word of it compelling. I'm just wondering if most of those comments were put up there by people working for the tobacco industry. I couldn't believe that someone actually argued that smoking isn't a big health cost! Are you living in the 1800s? Have you seen the studies? This stuff about the "evil health police" is rediculous as well. The basic truth is this: If society subsidizes people's health (and we do) then society has an interest in lowering health care costs. Why should I have to pay for the fact that you abused your body for years upon years? The biggest blessing for these smokers would be to have a tax increase. It will cause some to quit. Others it will cuase to cut down.

Jason2 | 10:23 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

It's your right to ruin your body inasmuch as I don't have to pay for it.

Vigilant | 10:26 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

I got one of the calls- at my unlisted number, and hung up after about 10 seconds.

I also get regular appeals from the American Cancer Society begging for money.

Never again will I contribute to the ACS.

I did not realize my contributions would be funding annoying robo-calls, aimed at influencing legislation, and wanting to raise taxes (albeit on a totally worthless product).

Bad call, ACS!

dave | 10:54 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

I wonder if there's any kind of a tax that will make it so I don't have to pay for the health effects of "supersize meals"? Maybe just a little tax at first, but keep going until (hopefully) people give them up entirely and instead run up health care costs by doing something REALLY dangerous like talking on a cell phone or texting while driving! I don't think there should be any barriers to those activities, because EVERYONE likes to do it.

tax this | 10:57 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

If you're going to be a bear then be a grizzly. Why don't you just try to ban cigarettes instead of forcing smokers (the minority) to pay unfair taxes. I'm sick of the do-gooders wrecking the Country.

A Point | 11:11 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

So you raise the tax and more people quit, but the state needs that tax money! After they have gotten used to that revenue, they will find other thing to tax and then it might be something that we all use. Instead of finding ways to cut spending, legislators just find other things to tax. Utah still taxes food, a basic survival need. So do you really think that this is just about smoking?

Dear Cancer Society | 11:16 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Due to your offensive phone call last evening, on a phone that receives NO sales calls, I will NOT support any cause you are associated with.

You see, that phone number is a line used ONLY for family communications and emergencies -- and your evening call was intrusive and annoying.

IF you follow this up with a "live" call from a volunteer, I can assure you that they will hear language from this lady that they may not have heard before.

I've already heard from three other people who feel the same as I do.

Your efforts, "Cancer Society", will backfire.

Cncrsux | 11:43 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Before you all stop supporting ACS, please know that these calls are paid for by the LOBBYING arm of the Amer. Cancer Society, which is the Cancer Action Network. It's NOT the side that provides the 2nd most cancer research dollars in the US, all of the education efforts to prevent cancer, assists with screening programs or services for people and families with cancer. Oh yeah, and they also helped discover "Gleevec" an amazing cancer treatment drug. If you contribute to ACS, don't worry about your $ going to robo-calls. Only $ raised by the ACS-CAN is used for these calls. However, once you "do business" with a non profit (or any business) they have the right to call you if you've given them your phone number because they "have a relationship" with you. Don't complain, just read the laws and work to change them if you don't like them. Thank you.

Fair? | 11:58 a.m. Nov. 26, 2008

As much as I dislike smoking, 2 bucks per pack seems a bit much. A bit unfair.

Would they support a 2 buck tax per...gallon of ice cream?...fast food meal?...12 pack of soda?

Obesity is behind much of our health care costs as well. If you're going to tax cigarettes so highly using the health care costs argument, food that leads to obesity should be included as well. Same thing.

Unless, of course, you just don't like smokers, and this is really a tax to punish them for doing something you don't agree with. Kind of like the high taxes on my liquor!!

Frank | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

I'd be all for raising "cancer stick" tax up to $2 but I'm not convinced it will go to help compensate for throat and mouth cancer costs. A chunk will probably go to lobbyists, politicians, and organizations to cover work expenses, not to mention the legislation costs, the phone calls, and awareness costs. After everyones taken their handfull I bet less than 10% makes it to lowering insurance costs for your average joe.

RedShirt | 12:02 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

If, as the robo message says that "Utahns have been paying for smoking costs for years now and that has to end," why don't we do something about it. Since the government recognizes that smoking costs more to society in the way of illness, why don't they ban it all together.

If smoking is so bad, making it illegal is actually the better plan.

Don't be fooled by the government, they like the tax revenus more than they care about eliminating the costs related to smoking.

Nourse's own cancer | 12:11 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

If I recall correctly, Dick Nourse had cancer twice and his brother died of it.

Were ANY of those cancers caused by smoking?

If not, why is Nourse singling out smokers?

Profit | 2:33 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

These people are just looking to profit form other peoples addictions plain and simple!

Jeff | 2:59 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

If telemarketers were not enough to be invasive, then this tactic should certainly push the limit. I stopped answering my phone when I knew it wasn't a friend, a family member, or work calling me. If they want to waste their money on this facility, go ahead. Just don't waste our time with these calls.

I quit Chuck | 3:10 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Let's all quit smoking and then there will be no new tax money for the lawmakers to spend.

A good way to get even. I quit-you quit-everyone wins!!!

Smoke screen | 3:18 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

They should raise the tax to $10 per pack. Smoking is a foolish, disgusting, unhealthy habit. If smokers can't afford the cigarettes, they will be forced to stop smoking. Everyone will benefit: cleaner air, better health, and eventually lower insurance premiums and health-related medical costs. Smokers will defend their right to get cancer to the bitter end.

CiCi | 4:09 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Although I don't really agree on a increase of ANY tax, I am for anything that gets people to please stop smoking around ME. It is a disgusting smelly habit. I can smell a smoker within 10 ft. of me.
I roll up my windows of my car when I have to be behind or next to a smoker hanging his cigarette or blowing smoke outside the car.
I have dear friends that we have to limit our time and places we can go as they can't go 30 minutes without a cigarette. We can't even go to a restaurant and finsih dinner without them having to outside for a smoke break! Sad, sad, sad.
Please stop!
And those robocalls. I just don't answer the phone anymore. I let the message center pick up and unless it is family or friends, they get deleted.
Sorry!

Adam | 4:34 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Lets raise the tax on junk food and soda. These cause just as many (if not more) problems than smoking.

Dave | 5:20 p.m. Nov. 26, 2008

Remember all the lawsuits from airline attendants, bar workers, etc., related to lung cancer from second hand smoke? There has never been one cent paid out as a result of those lawsuits. If its been "proven" that second hand smoke causes lung disease you'd think all those high priced attorneys could find that proof!
Another point: when the states' attorney generals got the tobacco settlement money they forgot to read the fine print that said the less tobacco sold in the state the less the tobacco co's. had to pay to each state! As a result, the state legislatures in the various states decided it WASN'T such a great idea to get more people to quit. THEY COULDN'T AFFORD THE DROP IN REVENUE FROM THE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT.

Mark | 9:09 a.m. March 5, 2009

I think it is immoral that cigarette taxes be increased to fund CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) or any program other than programs to aid smoking cessation programs. Every penny should go to help people quit smoking.

My son smokes even though he can't afford it. Raising taxes won't help him quit. If you really care about him, and others like him, you will earmark all additional cigarette taxes towards smoking cessation programs in order to help smokers kick the habit.

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.