Deseret News | Reader comments: Put politics aside when considering tobacco tax

Reader comments
Majorie Cortez: Politics aside, consider tobacco tax

Anonymous | 6:55 a.m. June 9, 2009

Anti-tobacco folks want the money. They could care less whether folks smoke. In fact some want more people to smoke to keep the money flowing. Just another case of feeding at the government trough.

uncannygunman | 7:37 a.m. June 9, 2009

I'm all for putting politics aside in setting smoking policies, but the whole anti-smoking movement is the politics of unpopularity. Cigarettes are taxed outrageously, but not junk food; you can light up a smoky barbecue in (the ironically named) Liberty Park, but not a cigarette; adults are no longer allowed to gather together indoors for a smoke and a beer, even if they all choose to be there. It's all politics, to pretend it can be otherwise is naive.

some other anonymous | 8:54 a.m. June 9, 2009

Doesn't Obama smoke? Poor Marjorie, you must really resent paying taxes so he can buy cigarettes.

Comments continue below

Brian King | 11:01 a.m. June 9, 2009

Thanks Marjorie, you're right on.

No one knows what goes through the minds of every legislator. But I can speak for myself as a member of the House of Representatives and I support increasing the cigarette tax. It will raise much needed revenue at a time of significant budget problems for our state. At the same time raising the tobacco tax will cause some who currently use tobacco to stop. Given tobacco's highly addictive nature, the number of people who are prodded to quit as a result of increasing taxes may not be huge as a percentage of curent users. But even if 5% of tobacco users quit as a result of greater expense, it would be a good thing.

More important, it is well documented that increasing the cost of tobacco acts as a significant deterrent to people, especially young people, taking up the habit. Given the fact that tobacco causes significant unnecessary and premature medical expenses (not to mention killing people left and right), it's not a close call. The tobacco tax should be raised significantly.

Sandy Republican | 11:04 a.m. June 9, 2009

I support this issue to raise the tax on cigarettes and feel that this past legislative session my representatives caved in on this issue because of fear created by lobbyist against the tax. Cigarettes do not bring in a lot of business to the State but they sure do cost us all a lot in increased medical expenses.

I say to Marjorie Cortez, keep up the good efforts on to explain what is happening in our state on this issue.

To Brian King | 11:30 a.m. June 9, 2009

you have successfully made it so a person can barely smoke outside. And that's fine - we wouldn't want to harm you (even though smog is worse than smoke). We no longer smoke indoors even in our own homes, and that's fine. No problem stepping out for a cigarette.

but to make it so expensive that we can't even afford one of life's few pleasures, which affect only us and no one else, is just wrong. Stop trying to make us quit by making it too expensive. It's wrong. We are not hurting anyone but ourselves, and it's our choice as adults. The gov't needs to stop trying to save people from themselves. it's intrusive, and it's wrong.

Who are you to try to "save me" from myself? You are a shining example of big brother.

You ARE big intrusive government at its finest. I wouldn't vote for you if you were the last person on the planet, simply because I cannot fathom why gov't would feel the need to dictate in such an intrusive manner. Don't you have real issues to address?

re - brian king | 12:47 p.m. June 9, 2009

["But even if 5% of tobacco users quit as a result of greater expense, it would be a good thing."]

people drive too fast. why don't you raise the gas tax? people eat unhealthy fast foods - why don't you raise taxes on Big Macs? women wear shoes that are bad for their feet and legs - why don't you make a special tax on that?

why can't you let people do what they want instead of trying to control their lives with taxes? You're not raising revenue, you're attempting to control what people do through taxation. Has it occurred to you that what you are doing is extremely biased and you shouldn't be trying to control peoples lives by putting special taxes on things that YOU think they shouldn't do?

not a smoker, but... | 1:09 p.m. June 9, 2009

Sin taxes are a slippery slope. Everything enjoyable is a sin or health risk as far as someone is concerned- allow this sin tax and others will surely follow.

Reason | 3:02 p.m. June 9, 2009

Rep. Brad King is wrong in his view. I dont smoke and I think its an unwise habit, but its wrong for government to single out for taxation a product that is politically unpopular. It goes against the principles of freedom and limited government upon which our country is founded.

If I support government selectively targeting something I dont like (smoking), then my same argument could be used against something that I DO like (barbecues, for example). Marjories tongue-in-cheek tag line reveals this same double standard: Shes willing to target those who enjoy smoking, but would be up-in-arms if someone targeted chewing gum.

Yes, smoking may lead to greater health care expenses, but that still doesnt resolve the critical freedom aspect. There are other ways to deal with the cost issue (higher insurance premiums for smokers, realizing that government is under no obligation to use public funds to pay for private health care, etc.), and it should be a separate matter. We are usually too quick to call for bans and restrictions, and too slow to appreciate and stand up for freedom, especially for the other guy.

Re: Brian King | 3:24 p.m. June 9, 2009

"I support increasing the cigarette tax. It will raise much needed revenue at a time of significant budget problems for our state. At the same time raising the tobacco tax will cause some who currently use tobacco to stop."

Rasie revenue and reduce smoking? You can't have it both ways, choose one. If less people are smoking and thus less tobacco is sold then less revenue will be raised from the tax.

where's Brian King? | 4:05 p.m. June 9, 2009

we're waiting for you to respond to our issues with taxation on something you disapprove of. What if we wanted to double or triple the tax on the sale of mormon books? I think they promote a bad lifestyle. how would you feel about that?

waiting for your response.....

Reason | 4:06 p.m. June 9, 2009

Sorry - I meant "Brian" King.

Voice of Reason | 9:30 a.m. June 10, 2009

The tobacco tax has historically been an easy one to raise, afterall, WHY NOT have smokers pay our bills, we don't like them anyway! Rep. King, (and others) in the legislature knows what happened to all the money from the big tobacco settlement - it was spent on all kinds of projects, NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO TOBACCO. If taxpayers COULD be assured that every nickel collected from smokers would go to pay for their supposed "increased medical costs" (which is farcical on its face)then, I doubt that even smokers would be opposed to the increase. The problem is, they just keep blanketing the airwaves with the "stop smoking" ads, ANYONE who doesn't know that smoking is a bad health practice, has probably been living under a rock for the last 40 yrs. All they are doing with the ads are making ad agencies wealthy, and succeeding in being obnoxious.
Also - now that the feds have raised their tax, if the state now raises its tax, will their be a NEGATIVE flow of tax $$$?
MANY people are quitting, and/or cutting back since the product is now more expensive!

smoker | 10:24 a.m. June 10, 2009

I'm a smoker, so I follow this issue closely. To me, the increased tax got shot down at last legislative session, because not just smokers are tired of watching EVERY POSSIBLE tax go up! Even non-smokers see a legislature that won't stay within a budget, NO MATTER WHAT! I'm sure that the Reps. that proposed the increased tax figured it was an "easy one" but what they saw were constituents that were opposed to ANY TAX increases, not just the smokers! When we vote in the Republican dominated legislature, we expect to see SOME FISCAL RESTRAINT! What Utahns are starting to see is "smokers this week, MY bad habits next week" in the ever increasing state budget.
It wouldn't matter if all taxpayers "donated" 100k per year to the state coffers, the legislature would spend EVERY NICKEL of it!
A state legislature that won't live within its budget is the issue - NOT THE SMOKERS. (Or vehicles reg. fees for that matter)

Laura | 10:44 a.m. June 10, 2009

Tobacco users cost the state millions of dollars in health care costs, including several hundred dollars PER FAMILY to subsidize medical treatment. The effects of second-hand smoke also causes cancer, heart disease, lung disease, and breathing problems. The Centers for Disease Control called the discovery of the link between tobacco and cancer one of the ten greatest public health discoveries of the 20th century. This is a public health crisis, not an individual right. Yes, people can choose to endanger their health, but it is unfair to harm those around them and require the state to subsidize their habit. There is virtually no safe use of this product.

Urban myths | 1:50 p.m. June 10, 2009

Yes, we all know that smoking is bad for your health BUT - I'm a smoker and if my health care costs are so much more than other peoples' why doesn't my insurance co. raise my rates, or refuse to insure me altogether under "pre-existing conditions"? I've NEVER heard of someone being denied medical coverage due to smoking, however I have heard of MANY other conditions that, arguably, could be controlled through better dietary habits. Don't smokers die younger anyway?
My point is: the "health police" throw around all sorts of phrases to get people on board with their efforts to control the behavior of others!
Remember all the airline attendants, bar workers, etc., that filed all the lawsuits related to "second hand smoke"? There's never been one dime awarded due to those lawsuits, so wherever the evidence is related to second-hand smoke effects' its VERY WELL hidden! Ever wonder where all the funding comes from to put all the ads on tv to quit smoking? Hint: who stands to gain the most from selling the gum, patches, chantix, etc? Pharmaceuticals!! The idea is to keep the smokers hooked on the quitting part!

T-Bone | 4:13 p.m. June 22, 2009

well brian king is a perfect example of democrat polices.dont cut spending, raise taxes.thats always the answer for them.and dont just raise any old taxes,raise the taxes on the evil things in this world like big oil and coal plants and smokers.what eco friendly person would argue with taxing these people.im not really sure why they would pick smoking over alcohol though.maybe they dont get as many kickbacks from the cigarette companys.certanly more none drinkers are killed every year by drinkers then non-smokers are killed by smokers.i guess it dosent matter because if its not one tax it will be another.

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.