Deseret News | Hiking taxes on cigarettes isn't unfair

Reader comments
Hiking taxes on cigarettes isn't unfair

Page:
1
2
Next >

funnyguy | 1:43 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

make it 10 dollars a pack..we don't care, there are other states that sell them...we will buy them when we get our lotto tickets or our fireworks, or when we go for a weekend to gamble, only keep an eye out for your bishop...he will tell on you...

sinnercal | 2:44 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

You cannot be serious. By the logic of this 'editorial' taxing crucifix's or yarmulka's wouldn't be wrong. ANY tax that directly effects a minority is wrong. ESPECIALLY when that tax is going to directly assist the majority (in this case, removing the food tax which is a direct tax cut to large families [mostly LDS family's in Utah])
If the governor wants to eliminate the food tax, he's more than welcome. Provided its not at the expense of a minority.
If we're going to tax minorites, lets just tax African-Americans. Endometrial and colorectal cancers affect them worse. As does breast cancer, asthma, stroke, and diabetes. They're a drain on the american health care system too. :(

Cancer taxes | 4:33 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Doug Robinson is totally out of line and wrong about what he claims about health issues of smokers. I think there has been enough evidence come out that does not support his and others theories. Smokers health is no worse than any non smoker and taxes on cigarettes are a vindictive tax to punish smokers. It is an unfair tax and discrimination to tax smokers as a cancer tax to blame them for all sickness and health problems encountered by non smokers. A fair health tax would tax everybody the same, smokers and non smokers. Smoking is being blamed for the non smokers health problems when it has noting to do with smoking. Evidence proves that smoking is no more hazardous to your health than your religion, what you eat, drink, live, or your lifestyle. Cigarette tax is popular because every one views it as a cash cow and some one to blame and the easiest tax to raise without responsible representation. It is a vindictive tax for non smokers looking for handouts and tax revenue, and it is the very same kind of tax that sponsored the reveloution. Being blind, greedy, and vindictive is popular in Utah.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 5:34 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

why dont we tax the air that we breath or the rain that falls from the sky too while we are at it?? I am a smoker and I am trying to quit but it is not easy. If they raise taxes on cigarettes then they should give the patch or other stop smoking help away for free. The taxes will be mis-used like every other tax and will most likely end up in someone's pocket. Don't get me wrong, I know smoking is bad, but I dont throw my butts on the ground they go in a trash can, I dont smoke around other non-smokers, and i especially don't smoke around kids. I just feel that you are way off base.

rtc | 6:16 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I am tired of watching children of parents and family members still in the back of cars of smokers. And people on the welfare system without enough money to eat that will not quit smoking for possibly enough money to buy another meal. For the health of everyone I think it's a grest idea.

Daniel | 6:43 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

While you're at it, jack up the taxes on alcohol and and fattening foods too. And how about video games; they rob our kids of time when they should be doing homework.

When a tax | 7:01 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

. . . is used as a punitive measure, and the revenues derived therefrom are used to benefit a special interest unrelated to the people being taxed -- that tax is repressive, confiscatory, socialistic, unfair, and illegal.

Shame on Gov. Huntsman!

Off course the tax on food should be removed! Today!

But not at the expense of a defenseless minority of saps so addicted to their vice that they will endure our punishments, no matter how cynical and vicious they become.

uncannygunman | 7:28 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

So a tax hike is fair because smokers are unpopular? I admire the honesty of the article, but I don't think it makes a tax hike any less unfair.

Leola | 7:31 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

How do you think that raising the taxes on cigarettes is going t solve anything. I am not a smoker but my husband is and is in the process of quitting. So if you raise the taxes then you are going to see a rise in theft. People are going to steal what they can't afford to buy. Leave things as they are. I don't condone smoking as I think it is a terrible habit but what do they think they are going to accomplish by raising the taxes to $3.00?

Anonymous | 7:36 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Taxing tobacco makes sense as long as the revenues are appropriated for prevention and cessation programs and for programs that treat medical problems caused by tobacco.

Using tobacco revenues for general government purposes is immoral.

Lots of wrong to go around | 7:52 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Sinnercal (2:44 am) is simply wrong. Equating taxing cigarettes to oppression of minorities is just stupid. However, it is true that the Utah religious majority (of which I am one) is far too willing to tax those activities in which they don't participate. Somehow, those who would otherwise balk at government attempting to force people to do things they don't want to do somehow find it acceptable for THEIR government to force people to stop doing something that is (legitimately) considered to be a bad thing.

Smoking is a pretty lousy health habit, and almost every smoker knows that. If we're worried about higher health care costs, then exempt smokers from Medicaid and Medicare. If we're worried about littering by smokers (why don't smokers consider it littering to throw a butt out their car window, anyway?), then enforce littering laws and make them stricter. Using tax policy as a stick to beat smokers with, hoping they'll quit, seems pretty ineffective and vindictive.

Oh, and I just love Doug Robinson's argument that we should try to out-liberal New York State. We can always find a way to be more intrusive than another liberal state, but is that really a good goal?

UCU6 | 8:04 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Don't worry the illustrious governor wants to raise taxes on the rest of you smog breathing, SUV driving reactionaries by raising the gas tax too! Just like the New York.......

Anonymous | 8:04 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Here's a thought: If you were in a crowded bar, filled with cigarette smoke, would you die in a short time? Same scenario only let's switch the cigarettes to running cars. That is a definite death sentence in a short time. It has been proven that smoking is harder to quit than heroin. If they want everyone to quit, then yes, give aids away free. Anyone price Chantix??? Anyone's insurance company pay for it??? If it does, you're lucky! Ninety percent of medical insurance does NOT cover it yet the doctors all want people to quit. People need to stop and think. How about offering some help? You can't? Then shut up. There are many more things to tax and if you want to discriminate against one thing, do it to ALL things.

Child Tax? | 8:06 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Why not? If you are trying to mandate social responsibility by taxing cigarettes to a point that smokers have to make a finanical choice about buying them, then surely you can regulate those who find it necessary to have 6,7,8 kids in an environ with limited resources.

Isn't the desired result the same? A behavorial change through taxation.

Lead Healthy Lives | 8:09 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Taxing tobacco helps adults quit. Taxing tobacco helps kids to never use tobacco. Decreasing tobacco usage rates decreases health care expenses, improves the standard of living, and aids people struggling with addiction.

There is not a down side to a tobacco tax.

Anonymous | 8:17 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

its being racist

Jason | 8:26 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Smokers are minority now? A race as minority makes sense. Smokers are not a minority.

Daniel missinformed | 8:27 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Daniel,

I am sorry to say your comment makes no sense. If you were educated you would know that alcohol is proven to be good against heart disease and many health risks when used in moderation, so taxing it higher goes against the whole article. Also coffee is proven to be good in moderation for your info. I would agree you might as well tax fast food, soda and video games though.

Thanks,
Educated

bonnie | 8:32 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I do think this is unfair. We live in a state of severly obese people and that is just as digusting as a smoker. And what about these people who bathe in perfume and cause a asthma attack. The fact is that we are a facist state and want to control all aspects of everyone lives. Get real and leave people alone. The sales tax will never be removed from food the government will think of another issuse to leave it on. Don't be stupid and think that Jon huntsman is really looking out for Utah.

Current smoker | 8:30 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I smoke, not happy about it, but it's harder than a non-smoker thinks to quit. What's pretty funny about the whole thing . . . this huge tax will FORCE alot of people to quit! Ok, YAY! Better health for us all. Great. So then what? If too many smokers quit, this tax hike isn't going to produce enough tax money (if people stop buying cigarettes like they are now_ - so what will they do? Find something else to tax! This will just be the beginning of adding higher taxes to alot of things! Think it thru people! Just cuz you don't smoke doesn't mean YOU won't be affected by some lame tax in the future! Oh & let's pray the cigarette companies won't be asking for bailout money after this occurs! YIKES! Whatever is chosen to be taxed . . we ALL really pay for it in the end. It's never enough. Never will be.

xscribe | 8:33 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Anyone who takes up smoking now, with all the evidence of its ill-effects on those who smoke and on those around them, are just plain stupid. The laws surrounding smoking are fair; smokers need to stay away from others while doing so. Anyone caught smoking in a car with children should be fined heavily. However, a small tax on cigarettes will not solve the problem. Either ban them outright, or tax them until it hurts.

Just a thought... | 8:51 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Though I don't necessarily disagree with taxing cigarettes, it unfortunately becomes another poor tax. Not trying to be judgemental but a much higher percentage of individuals that live under the poverty line are smokers. Not to say that all smokers are poor but on average as income rises the percentage of smokers shrink dramatically. Believe me, these people will get their cigarettes but at the sacrifice of what?

Adam | 9:06 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I don't smoke, but depending on what the money is used for, it is a little unfair. Like it or not, Tobacco was one of the things this country was founded on. It was and still is a huge export for the U.S., something we're starting to run out of.

Shirley | 9:17 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I think our govenor should be going after alcholic in stead of smoker . People who drink are a danger to our children and to others. They are the ones who threaten our daily lifes because of their decisions.

asmokerwhowishesshedidnt | 9:22 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Raising the cost of cigarettes will not stop most smokers from quitting. If we could just stop, we would. Cigarettes were 45 cents a pack when I started. I said I would quit if they ever got to be $1.00. There were no warnings then. They are now 5 times that much.

Do you think we like being discriminated against as it is. We are given dirty looks when we buy them and are treated like an unwanted pet by most people.

Some people already rob and/or kill over petty change in our pockets. Imagine being robbed because we are seen smoking.

Imagine if everyone did quit,what tax revenue would there be then? People would really be put out if they had to start taxing food again or raising some other tax to make up for the deficit.

There was once a Dear Abby article about not standing up for a certain group of people because it did not pertain to them. Then when they were discriminated against, no one would stand up for them. You cannot discriminate against a certain group without repercussions.

Most smokers wish they didn't smoke. I wish I didn't.

michel | 9:25 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

when will this stop. every time i turn around there is a new tax on something. I thought the church beleived in free agency. if i want to smoke thats my choice. if a mormon family wants to have 6 or 7 kids thats their choice. its not for me to judge.we smokers already feel like outcast as it is.

phillip | 9:36 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Enough is enough since when did it become socially acceptable to tax without benefit of public input or approval of those directly affected to the point of robbery the rights of citizens who choose to smoke I am sad to say that not only is it immoral but it is criminal to expect one group of people to foot the bill so that everyone else can enjoy tax free food you say that it is a health concern for everyone who does not smoke I am sorry if you think that weight is an issue for smokers but the reality is if more of you severly overweight people would get up off the sofa and exercise then you would not have a problem with weight as for those who think that they are the morality police for everyone else I say mind your own damn buisness and stay out of mine I think that the constituition of the united states gaurantees me the right to do as I believe is proper and also protects me from illegal taxation for the benefit of people that have too much time on their hand and not enough common sense

I'm so glad ... | 9:35 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

People posting comments here don't have a clue that politicians can manipulate clueless dolts through the tax code. Morons of all stripes think I'm raising taxes on smokers! When in fact I'm raising taxes on everbody all the time. Today, it just happens to those who choose to smoke. Tomorrow it will be...

Hey! America Idol starts tonight! Heh, Heh! The sheep are ready to fleece!

k | 9:46 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

If they cared about our health they'd just outlaw it. To those of you who think this is a "great" way to help smokers stop, think again. Drugs are illegal, yet many are still addicted to those. This is a money plot, and it is apparent that he went for the area in which he would get the most support...
To the guy who said "what's next... taxing rainwater" They are in the process of doing that now. Ask Mark Miller how he feels about that.
Where's the raise in tax on alcohol? Or fuel.. oh wait, they are in the process of raising the fuel tax by 50% (oops). This isn't about health. Wake up. They need money, and since the FED can't help after useless bailouts, we foot the bill again. This time tobacco... tomorrow the air in Utah, the sunlight, the stars... but alcohol and cigarettes will still be legal despite the number of deaths caused. They don't care about you and me.

Benny | 10:01 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Yeah lets allow cigarettes to be sold for decades, and then when we discover that only a "minority" of the population is smoking lets increase the taxation of it. Hmmm sounds a lot like a coke dealer bullyin around society to me. Get em hooked, take their money, even if its all they have.

What happened to No taxation without representation? Does Jon Huntsman smoke? These are the same people that tell everyone not to get an abortion, when they themselves dont go through the pain of giving birth.

Smoking is no worse than following a blind religion or basis that makes you think you are better than anyone, including whoever wrote this article. You are a very shameful person in discriminating those that need a smoke in the morning. You need love dont you? You need your church right? But you cant allow someone who needs there smoke to have a fair priced product, unless your government can skim the top just like mr. blagojevich. Politicians are all crooks.

Clint | 10:04 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Does anyone think that their health insurance will become cheaper if NO ONE in the state smokes?
Is the goal of the higher tax to make people stop, or just to raise NEW money?
If we persuade ALL SMOKERS to stop, will the Guv. come asking the rest of us for some new tax to replace the "smoking" money?
or:
Do we just dislike smokers and think they should have to pay a greater share of our tax burden because they're bad people?

Raising the cig. tax will only create a new black market, people will buy them from the Internet or go out of state to purchase them, that way we lose even the sales tax involved! That situation already exists in New York, nobody BUYS them there, they drive to New Jersey or New Hampshire to get them, so the revenue has gone DOWN in New York, not up.

k | 10:06 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Oh, I forgot I wanted to ask since when did Deseret News become a blog spot? This isn't reporting, this is blogging. A writer on a soapbox... obviously not a smoker because anyone with experience would not be so narrow minded and opinionated on the subject.
Our government used to tobacco for profit back in the day. They promoted addiction by default, and now they are condemning it.
How about a law that forces insurance companies to cover cessation, or a price cut on patches, lozenges, and gum. A pack of smokes is 5 bucks. A pack of patches is $40. Which do you think a helpless addict is going to choose? To you non-smokers who think it's easy to quit: Say that to the person who cries in the car next to you because they can't make the craving go away and they want to quit so bad. They feel useless and powerless because instead of help and support, they get shunned. No AA for smokers. No rehab for smokers. Just an 800 number with a stranger on the other line. Having an opinion about something you know little about is stupid. Supporting this is stupid.

Steve from Idaho | 10:20 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Another bonus for Idaho, just like the lottery. Keep up the good work we love your money.

Get with the program... | 10:19 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Nonsmokers understand smokers just fine. And because I suspect that smokers do not understand themselves, I want to help them in a spirit of human loving kindness. So here goes: Nicotine is a drug. It is more addictive than marijuana and has been proven to be more harmful as well. Tobacco smokers are drug addicts. As drug addicts they are not ill so much as morally depraved people who deserve as much disdain, ostracism and social inconvenience as can be legally meted out. But of course, as always, I could be wrong.

maddog | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Hey Shirley...get a clue! People who drink are not a danger to you or any of your children. People who drink irreesponsibly and get behind the wheel of a car are. That would be a very small minority of drinkers. That doesnt mean you you tax everybody who purchases alcohol. That's such a typical mentality in this state. Maybe we should "go after" or tax ice cream or all the people who over indulge who eat an abundance of sugar to get their fix. Diabetes, strokes, overweight are just a few of the results of that. Target the problem not a group of people who disagree with.

To Educated | 8:27 | 10:45 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Neither booze nor coffee will ever benefit me, since I don't do either. But booze may well hurt me or kill me someday.

If I die a violent death, a drunk driver is the most likely culprit. More so than all the rest, put together.

So, why do I have to put up with it? Particularly in a state occupied mostly by those who don't drink?

I think a confiscatory, wealth-transferring tax on cigarettes is immoral and regressive. No smoker will violently kill me, unless we're stupid enough to make smokes so expensive, smokers will be reduced to armed robbery to support their habit.

But a drunk driver -- that's a real possibility.

Why isn't this State willing to place the real costs of "hospitality" on the hospitality industry, including brewers, distributors, and distributors?

Follow the money?

cn | 10:57 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Smokers are not a minority, in the political usage of that word. To think so is nonsense.

Smoking has absolutely been proven to be detrimental to not only the smoker's health, but anybody who breathes their second hand smoke. To say that smokers' health is the same as non-smokers' is nonsense.

Show me a study that proves your smoking doesn't affect my 1 year old's asthma and then you can talk. Cause I have studies that show that it *does*.

I don't necessarily agree with the laborious cigarette tax, but the comments on here are just outright ridiculous.

Frank Vs Smokers | 11:04 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Smokers definitly have more enemies than friends.

My only contact with smokers is when I'm on my motorcycle. At least once a year one of the many burning cigarette butts smokers toss out their car windows gets me in the face throwing hot ash in my eyes.

A higher tax would help everyone. Less cigarettes being tossed out windows and less of a desire on my part to pull that smoker out his window.

To Educated (Cont'd) | 11:11 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

That's "brewers, DISTILLERS, and distributors."

peasants | 11:28 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Cluless dolts are easily manipulated by the tax code and through the force of Government. Morons of all stripes think this about people who smoke.

Hey!
American Idol starts tonight!

Heh,heh,heh.
The sheep are ready to fleece!

To Educated | 12:30 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Alcohol has NEVER been proven to be good for anything! Other properties of alcoholic beverages have been proven beneficial, such as the antioxidants found in grapes (used for making wine, but the alcohol doesn't have the antioxidants). So stop trying to make others sound stupid, because it's adversely affecting you...or maybe it's the alcohol!

bandit | 12:39 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Pure and simple, the real reason that the clean air act was even enacted was because people don't like the smell. When you pass someone on the street who is smoking you don't think about the chemicals getting in your system...you think about how you don't like the smell. Well thats tough, I am not that fond of the smell of a dairy but I won't tell you to quit drinking milk, or eating beef. This country was set up on freedom, the right to take into your body what you choose, to live your life how you want...just because you don't like something does not mean you have the right to take it away from someone who does. (i.e. hunting, drinking, and yes even smoking)...go somewhere else if you don't like it. The government has NO right to tax people into submission, thats just not right. Be careful, they win this and they will next come after something you like, who knows...maybe oreos? It could happen.

HelloAll. | 12:40 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

How about this idea for you, if the government didn't send all of our money to "less fortunate countries" and countries that we are at war with then the deficit wouldn't be so high that they have to find more things to add higher taxes to. Smokers or not they will find someone to pay for their mistakes one way or another people.

To cn | 1:05 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

The word minority can mean a number of things. Equating a tax on smoking to a tax on racial or other latent characteristics is simply wrong, of course. However, it is also valid to say that it is a small minority of Utahns who smoke, and that it is always easier to place a tax on a small group of voters (a minority of voters, if you will) than it is to make the tax generally applicable. That is especially true when the small group in question participates in a habit that most people find distasteful.

At the risk of raising a firestorm, I will also point out that you are correct regarding studies showing a link between children's asthma and second-hand smoke, but since you don't smoke, your children are not likely to be exposed to sufficient second-hand smoke to make those studies applicable to them.

At an even greater risk of raising a firestorm, I will also point out that the evidence against second-hand smoke has never been as strong as some would have us believe. John Stossel's most recent book has a section on those studies - very interesting.

John | 2:12 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

People aren't going to stop smoking because it costs more. They will either pay more for their cigarettes, possibly further reducing their standard of living, or they will get them without paying their taxes. Idaho and the internet have already been stated as likely untaxed sources.

Increasing the tax on cigarettes (which I do not smoke), will not help anyone. The government should find the funds it needs (emphasis on NEEDS) elsewhere.

What will the taxes be used for? | 2:46 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

The article brought out several negative effects of smoking, but unless the taxes are used to directly combat those effects, the taxes are just another way to raise money for the general budget.

haha | 2:57 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

The scenario for the future? In five years we make Utah a dry state....Ten? Why not put a border fence around the state. Isn't it just nice that we have a certain institution to turn Utah into its own little utopia? This is pure discrimination. People make the choice to smoke, and if the state does want more people to quit then they should make programs to help them. I know people where I live that when it comes down to either their cigarettes or more food for their family, they will choose the cigarettes. Or they will use their welfare money for them.

In Awe | 2:59 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I am amazed at the level of ignorance so many people commenting on here have. Smoking has absolutely no benefit what so ever - none. It does however have a lot of negatives that have been proven time and time again (unlike one commentor stated). It doesn't matter what religion, gender, race or state you live in - smoking kills. If people aren't smart enough to figure that out then the government will help you. Get a clue and quit. I know it's hard, but it can be done and has been done by many people. Oh and by the way - I would like to propose a tax on idiots. That means 75% of the people who commented on here would have a new tax to pay.

Slippery Slope | 3:01 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I agree with k, phillip, and "Im so glad....." This cigarette tax would be a continuation of obscene taxes. They have taxed our fuel relentlessly for years. There really needs to be a limit of tax based on the price of the good itself. Disclosure: I'm not a smoker just one that is seeing a government using and abusing its powers and wishing to protect people from future problems.

whine whine whine | 3:01 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I think the tax is a great idea. I grow tired of driving down the road to see a lit but fly out someones window. or go to a park and see them scatterd everywere. I grow tired of the smell, and of the pollution they put into the air. Think of the millions of people who smoke, and how much Co2 and other gasses are puffed into the air everyday.

Its a filthy habit that should be gone, and many states are starting to see that and are now having Clean air acts to help the situation, so those of you blameing the Mormans, take off your blinders and look at states around the country who are not "Morman controled". They realize its time for a change, and so should we, and stop blaming a religion for something thats a good idea and is wanted by more then JUST the mormans (me being one of those others)

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.