Deseret News | Reader comments: Cigarette-tax hike could be boon to state, prevention

Reader comments
Jay Evensen: Cigarette-tax hike could be boon to state, prevention

It's a conundrum | 8:25 a.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Cigarettes are a legal product that is bad for its consumers. So is chocolate, and, for that matter, pizza, cinnamon buns, etc. Should we tax those products sky high, too? I understand the temptation, but we have to be careful not to inject our views of morality when choosing which vices to tax.

RedShirt | 8:32 a.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Hey Jay, if the government really wanted to stop people from smoking they would ban it. They have found their cash cow and are milking it to the end.

With all of the scientific evidence and medical evidence that shows that smoking causes all sorts of health problems, banning it is the only logical thing to do. Since they just tax it hoping it will stop some people, that is just a way of getting more money out of people that are not smart enough to just quit.

Anonymous | 8:32 a.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Here's my prediction: there will be a massive cigarette tax hike with SOME of the money going to prevention and cessation and the rest to balance the budget and with a little for the Huntsman Cancer Institute.

Utah already has the trust fund that Evensen is talking about. Nearly half of the MSA money is going into this trust fund right now. Most of the rest goes to CHIP, presumably because most uninsured middle-low income child have tobacco-related health problems.

Comments continue below

do gooder alert | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 14, 2008

I thought that the one bright spot in electing Barack Obama President is that the endless attacks on smoking might end now that we have a "smoker-in-chief". Alas, no. I agree with redshirt - let's just ban it instead of having this endless Government sponsored shakedown of smokers and tobacco companies. Let's transfer money from smokers to lawyers and ad agencies - wonderful idea. I quit smoking a long time ago but I urge all smokers to quit because you're giving entirely too much money to Government. And I can't wait to see the next big Government shakedown - "fast food"

Anonymous | 11:45 a.m. Dec. 14, 2008

As a recovered smoker, I hate smoking. You see a tread. Conservatives hate being taxed while they don't mind taxing others.

Anonymous | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

@11:45 - I think taxing cigarettes is a liberal thing - the legislature voted against the last proposed tax increase on tobacco. I'm a conservative and I don't mind some taxes although I hate seeing one group singled out

Scott | 12:50 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Government shouldn't ban tobacco, but they need to regulate how it is processed to prevent the massive amounts of nicotine that are added that cause the additction.

Tobacco companies will end up subsidizing the higher tax so that the actual cost to consumers will not increase right away...don't want to lose their users, at least not to price concerns.

Please don't give me the arguement that smokers die earlier and they are therefore a lessor burden on the healthcare system. Their heart disease, their cancer, and their lost wages more than make-up for a shortened life. Check the medical costs of a stroke, heart attack, or cancer. That is not to mention the mental toll on the friends and family of those who smoke.

To argue that fats and sugars are a bigger health risk in Utah than tobacco, should not mean a change in the tobacco tax. Education programs on eating healthy cost money, so supoort a tax on sugared beverages and fatty foods. It is not an either-or proposal.

Just Me | 1:54 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

The tobacco industry kills millions of people every year, ruins families, burdens the economy, and laughs all the way to the bank. Raising taxes is a proven best practice strategy for encouraging tobacco users to quit and decreasing youth initiation. Why would we not want that? There is no controversy. Tobacco kills. Tobacco prevention saves lives and money.

tax all luxuries | 3:17 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

If we have to tax at all, and of course we do to some extent, I would rather that luxuries be taxed rather than necessities.

I would put tobacco in the former category (luxury) as I would restaurant food, luxury cars, movies, novels, gambling, theatre tickets, expensive clothing, luxury hotels, candy, recreational vehicles and alcohol.

On the other hand basic food items, cheaper cars, budget clothing, text books?, modest real estate etc are necessities and should never be taxed.

Earl | 3:43 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

This is social engineering at its finest. So we tax people who are addicted to nicotine, and we become addicted to their tax revenue. What happens when they stop smoking? Will our addiction to the tax revenue stop? Not a chance! We'll have to find another social villian. Taxes should never be used as a means to punish "bad" behavior. That's what fines and incarceration are for. I don't smoke, but I don't believe in punishing those who do. They suffer enough. Now if health insurance companies want to raise smokers' rates, that's another matter, and it makes much more sense.

regressive tax | 3:59 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Taxes on tobacco are like lotteries: a sneaky way to get money from those who can least afford it. Smokers on average tend to be lower on the socioeconomic ladder and can ill afford to pay more tax. What we take away from them in taxes we will have to give back in social services spending because they then can't afford to feed their kids. Besides that, if we place such a heavy tax burden on legal smokes it will drive the business underground.

Anonymous | 5:05 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Building state budgets on "sin" taxes is a dangerous practice. It encourages the state to promote the practice (smoking, drinking, etc.) while supposedly trying to curb it. If revenues decline then there is a desire for more money to protect the subsidized program. The state likes people to drink because it funds school lunches. The state likes people to smoke because it funds children health programs. Talk about reducing/banning these behaviors and you will hear concerns expressed about how "we" will fund these programs.

Anonymous | 6:13 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Being a liberal, I think, government has taxes smokers enough. It's too easy to tax one group of people.

KM | 7:47 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

Dear Government,

Please stop taxing the citzens of the USA. Why don't you try an novel idea, that being, live within a budget!

Anonymous | 8:26 p.m. Dec. 14, 2008

If we want to restrict smoking then be open and honest about it -- just regulate it or restrict it to death. Taxing it into extinction is intellectually dishonest.

Happy Holidays | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 15, 2008

Earl, the problem here is that the government ends up paying for the huge health care cost of smokers who do not have health insurance. As you may know, a big chunk of smokers are of low socio-economic background. No money saved, no health insurance, no assests to sell to pay for their health care... Medicaid is their only alternative. Taxing the source of this cost makes sense! Insurance companies try, and succeed more often than not, to get out of their responsibility (see the movie "Sicko", very interenting).Those "uninsurable" people end up in Medicaid as well.

Zadruga Guy | 10:56 a.m. Dec. 15, 2008

Since no one has to purchase cigarettes, no has HAS to pay the tax. So there is nothing at all wrong with raising it. If you want to pay the tax, you can do so, and if you do not, no one is forcing you to. If only all taxation could be like this.

Laura | 12:16 p.m. Dec. 15, 2008

The money raised from the tobacco tax would fund cessation and other health-related programs, it would not go into the general fund. It would help eliminate a leading cause of cancer, heart, and lung problems, drastically reduce health-related costs, and build funds for health programs. What's the problem here? There is no safe use of this product, so don't drag out the tired hamburgers and doughnuts argument.

concerned parent | 9:10 a.m. Dec. 17, 2008

The tax is to protect kids. If an adult chooses to smoke, that is their right, but kids may not have valid information or the maturity level to make an informed and intelligent choice. And we all know how the tobacco industry has been misleading the American public for decades.

Children and teens are easy targets for the tobacco industry. They are heavily influenced by TV, movies, advertising and peers. And tobacco companies know the younger a person is when they begin to smoke, the more addicted they are to develop a long-term addiction (lifelong customers for the tobacco company.) Nicotine is known to be as addictive as heroine or cocaine. Like Mark Twain say, ï¿½Quitting smoking is easy, Iï¿½ve done it a thousand times.ï¿½ If raising the tax keeps our kids from starting smoking, it will be money will spent.

MIKE G | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 30, 2008

GET RID OF TOBACCO.... BUT HAND OUT CLEAN NEEDLES TO DRUG USERS ... PASS OUT CONDOMS TO KIDS....LEGALIZE ABORTION...LEAGALIZE GRASS....GET A GUN PERMIT...GIVE CREDIT CARDS TO ANYONE...LOWER THE DRINKING AGE...AND FLOOD THE INTERNET WITH PORN

DO YOU MORONS THINK THE PRIOROTIES ARE A LITTLE MIXED UP ???? TOBACCO IS LEGAL WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT AND TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS UPON IT IS DISCRIMINATION

Karen | 9:37 a.m. Jan. 31, 2009

The UT legislature is committing a fraud. The tobacco settlement money was to be used for the damages caused by tobacco and for future cessation. UT used the money for CHIP and other things. If I filed a workers comp claim and then was working under the table it wouldn't be any less fraudulent but it is criminal! I hate smoking but this legislature only passes bills with the US vs THEM menatlity. Schools and children are UT's biggest expense. Let's put a $2 a pack tax on diapers and put that money into the schools and let's see how our underfunding goes away without utilizing tobacco as a crutch for taxes!!!

PV | 12:05 p.m. Jan. 31, 2009

How the money is used is another debate. The real issue is about tobaco and the health, social and financial consequences of it's use. Only a fool will deny it's deadly effects on the user or it's cost to society and the individual. When we calculate that cost it is quite easy to justify the increased tax. A tax that still won't cover the the loss to the state and it's citizens. It certainly won't cover the loss to families of those who suffer long and lingering illness and/or early death. If raising the cost of cigerets and all tobaco products saves the health and life of 10% of the individuals now smoking in Utah I'm for it.

moters | 12:00 p.m. March 13, 2009

All it does is make poor people poorer. It wont stop kids from smoking wish it would but it wont.

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.