Reader comments
Joseph Cramer: Knee-jerk response of no tobacco tax is gutless

Dan Bradford | 3:54 a.m. Feb. 28, 2009

Study after study show that there are already enough taxes on cigarettes to fund the health care costs they incur.

I remember well in my lifetime the media berating the legislature for trying to "legislate morality" when they tried to pass liquor, sabbath and pornography laws. Where is the outrage here? Increasing taxes on cigarettes to cause people to change their bahavior is just as much "legislating morality" and the laws previously mentioned.

People should read Leonard Read's book "Anything That's Peaceful".

In a free society people are free to do what they choose as long as it's peaceful. Some people use that freedom in irritaing, upsetting and self-destructive ways. Should we have the power to make them behave as we think they should? That is tyranny. Whether exercised by an individual or a group it is still tyranny.

Anonymous | 7:48 a.m. Feb. 28, 2009

Actually taxing tobacco makes government dependent on smokers to fund government programs. Government then has an incentive to keep people smoking. As a result, unfortunately a tobacco tax isn't a good idea. I don't want government relying on people smoking and encouraging black market smuggling of cigarrettes.

uncannygunman | 8:08 a.m. Feb. 28, 2009

There is more than one principle at stake here, and I would say the decision to not additionally overinflate the cigarette tax is quite courageous in light of the predictable and shrill reaction from the anti-tobacco crowd.

Comments continue below

Ed | 10:20 a.m. Feb. 28, 2009

How about minding your own business and not worrying so much about how other people choose to spend their time.
But go ahead, tax the 'heck' out cigarettes. Wendover isn't far away.

Tax cigs and all luxuries | 2:51 p.m. Feb. 28, 2009

And leave necessities alone. The proposal is to make our tobacco taxes equal to the average in the other states.

The other stateas seem to have no problem collecting the tax. I doubt very much that Utah will be any different.

Reason | 3:20 p.m. Feb. 28, 2009

Re: Dr. Cramer: On the contrary, it would have been gutless and knee-jerk to raise the tobacco taxes. The legislature was courageous to vote no. Your suggested approach of no inappropriate taxes is meaningless and silly. Whos to say what is appropriate?

Youre viewing this issue purely from a narrow medical perspective, and not from the broader perspective of our long-cherished American freedoms. Youre trivializing that concept of freedom when you equate it to freedom from addiction. Its not the proper role of government to use tax laws to discourage unhealthy behavior.

I think smoking is foolish, but if I push for the tobacco tax to be raised, then the same argument might be used to discourage unhealthy things that I do like, such as watching TV, or eating junk food, or deciding myself what size portion to order in a restaurant.

If you want to actually outlaw tobacco, then, fine, but as long as tobacco (or any other product or activity) is legal, then it should not be targeted with higher taxes because its deemed unhealthy. Sorry, Doctor, but freedom is too important.

veedub | 6:08 p.m. Feb. 28, 2009

Is there any empirical evidence that taxing tobacco reduces its use? I'd be interested in knowing if there's an effect that is statistically significant. If high taxes can curb unhealthy consumption, I suppose in Utah, next in line would be adding exorbitant taxes to sugary green Jello, ice cream, chocolate, and Chuck-o-rama.

Want free idea for new business | 9:52 a.m. March 1, 2009

Why doesn't someone make a cigarette out there that is good for you, the world has no shortage of herbs that are good for people, why is it that every herb that is desireable to smoke is bad for a person?

Somewhere out there there must be a plant that people would like to smoke that is good for the body.

Great idea for a new business or industry.

@veedub | 10:41 a.m. March 1, 2009

Yes. As Dr. Cramer noted in the article, there is empirical evidence that higher taxes decrease the number of young adults who begin smoking.

buzybee | 10:23 p.m. March 1, 2009

Hey, let's just raise the tobacco tax enough to cover the costs the rest of us are paying for smokers. That would be.........$7 a pack. I'm sick and tired of paying the costs of smokers. Non-smokers have rights too. We choose not to smoke, not to expose our loved ones to noxious, cancer-causing fumes. Hey, do whatever you want, just pay 100% of the costs yourself.

veedub | 10:52 p.m. March 1, 2009

I know what Dr. Cramer noted, but "state after state" is not much of a reference. It would be interesting to see where he gets his statistics (which he alluded to very vaguely) and how they were determined--you might find that the cause and effect of high prices and lower consumption weren't as directly related as he claimed.

My main point is that if indeed there is a relationship between high taxes and reduced consumption, why not tax everything that isn't good for us? No one seems to want to respond to that--why not $2 a Hershey's bar instead of 50 cents? Or $20 for a meal at a all-you-can-gorge buffet instead of $10? Don't those things affect our health in the long run? And all that extra money in taxes can go towards heart disease and diabetes. Or maybe not. Maybe everyone will just stop buying chocolate or eating at buffets. Isn't that really the goal? Or is it?

pro-health | 5:14 a.m. March 2, 2009

Dr. Cramer, a pediatrician, properly defends children. His critics claim raising tobacco taxes, currently far below rates of most states, takes away smokers' freedoms. False. They're still free to smoke, and to do anything else we can all do.

Taxes don't ban smoking. We all suffer second-hand smoke damage. Our costs are merely lessened if long-delayed tobacco tax hikes reduce our deficits and help prevent children from becoming slaves of tobacco. Two-thirds of smokers became habituated before age 19. It doesn't take many cigarettes.

Tobacco foes note that a third of smokers die from smoking, and most teen smokers want to quit, but can't. Tobacco taxes are avoided by not smoking.

Why should we pay extra for what its main victims don't even want? It defies reality to imply that tobacco taxes torpedo all freedoms merely by example.

Hard-won freedoms from enslavement are too essential to be lost to tobacco's profiteers. The total health costs to all of us must be better met by those who've avoidably incurred them, rather than further foisting their avoidable extra costs onto the rest of us to subsidize.

Kate | 1:18 p.m. April 1, 2009

I am tired of people claiming they are tired of paying for smoker's health care. This is fiction. I have smoked for over 30 years. I almost never go to the doctor and have never had access to any medical insurance that came from anyone but myself.

I work out, eat a healthy low fat diet, and am in excellent shape.

The media/politicians nurture hatred in people (who are susceptible) for their fellow citizens. Smokers were a test group, and boy did that work. Now people hate whoever they are told to hate: "The rich", "corporate America", financial institutions, Enron, Haliburton, Rush Limbaugh, even America. They love who/what they are told to love: Diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance (ha!), "affordable housing", "affirmative action (insulting minorities), guns, etc...I hear the same exact phrases just as they are conveyed through the media.

People do not think for themselves anymore or research facts. If they did, nobody would believe that second hand smoke ever hurt anyone. That folks, is a fact.

we all pay for tobacco | 9:34 a.m. Nov. 19, 2009

Each pack of cigarettes smoked in Utah costs society $8. Taxpayers are subsidizing tobacco users' addiction.

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.