By snoadmin
College students smoke. In fact, almost 30 percent of us puff regularly and most of us had our first cigarette by age 14, according to a University of Rhode Island survey.
We can all assess now that smoking is bad for us. It is known that smoking is the most preventable cause of premature death and kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide or illegal drugs.
In an attempt to reduce teen smoking, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) announced a package of four tobacco bills aimed at reducing California’s smoking rates. Padilla and President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) are joint authors of Senate Bill 600, the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 2009.
If passed, the bill will raise the tax on each pack by $1.50. This comes amidst a federal cigarette tax increase from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack that went into effect Wednesday, April 1.
Reducing teen smoking is a good thing, but what about us starving students who will no longer be able to support the habits that help us get through this stressful part of our partying lives?
According to Padilla, “Three out of four smokers start before they are 18 — and one of three youth smokers will eventually die prematurely from smoking-related illness.” We know this already, yet people still choose to smoke.
SB 601 would restrict the tobacco sales by “non-traditional” retailers, like donut shops. SB 602 would give the ability to deny licenses due to an over concentration of tobacco retailers in a particular area and SB 603 would cap the number of licenses given per year.
The increase in California’s tobacco tax will create funds to aid lung cancer research, tobacco programs and the general fund. A recent analysis by the Tax Foundation, however, estimates local governments will lose nearly $2.5 billion in revenue during fiscal year 2010 — a direct effect of the recommended tax increase.
This seems a little too intense over cigarettes. Yes, they are horribly damaging to all who inhale, but is the best response severely limiting business and gouging the American smoker for more money? Or is it all that bad to charge a fortune for something that is bad for you and will ultimately kill you?
These are tough questions, but consider this: What if the topic of this discussion was alcohol, fast food joints and deserts, major causes of health problems like heart disease, liver failure, obesity and diabetes? Would it make a difference if the government went after a different vice? Perhaps they should more heavily tax commuters at the gas pumps in order to fight air pollution — the second leading cause of lung cancer.
Part of Padilla’s package would limit tobacco sales permits and allow the Board of Equalization to charge new fees to licensed tobacco retailers to cover enforcement. Shouldn’t that be part of his tax increase in the first place? SB 603 should be considered double dipping, or double taxation.
Shouldn’t the American people be the ones to ultimately decide if they want to smoke or not? It is up to parents and educators to teach young people the negative effects of smoking. It is also the responsibility of retailers to not sell tobacco to minors.
Here’s an idea; severely punish law-violating retailers and all those others who put cigarettes into the hands of minors.
According to the University of Rhode Island study, 28 percent of college smokers began smoking regularly around age 19 and half of the current college-age smokers have tried unsuccessfully to quit. It’s likely that a morals tax won’t help most of them drop the habit.
In all honesty, shouldn’t the decision whether to be healthy or not be ours to make?
Increasing taxes on tobacco helps decrease smoking in underage smokers.
Suck it up.
I live in Mississippi and there is quite an uproar in the legislature over raising taxes on tobacco and lowering them on groceries. This uproar has been going on for about three years. The Governor was against raising any tax and he had to run for re-election on that stance, among others. He was overwhelmingly re-elected and lead a statewide increase in Republican office holders. Personally, I don’t smoke. I don’t like to be around those who are smoking. I’m glad that we have a local ordinance in Gulfport, MS that does not allow smoking in public areas. We have one of the lowest taxes on tobacco products in the nation. However, we are not a geographically large state like California and most people can easily slip across the state line into another state that has a lower tobacco tax after ours is raised. We don’t pay other than our state sales tax on groceries, so we really don’t have a seperate food tax to be in favor of. Even though I am basically against smoking, as long as it is legal to do so, people who choose to do so are free in my opinion to make that decision to smoke.
More weird college smoker hysteria.
The time-honored rationale for most sin taxes is that they are non-essentials, ie, food, housing, etc. Most people consider taxing such non-essentials is a fairer system than depriving the poor and children of essentials.
Unless, of course, you live in a state like Mississippi which has an ex-tobacco lobbyist as governor. THEN you favor a food tax over a cigarette tax.
“Shouldn’t the American people be the ones to ultimately decide if they want to smoke or not?”
They still are, but they probably will just think twice about whether or not they actually will smoke in the face of higher taxes. In New York, cigarettes are $11 right now, so I don’t know if $5 for a pack of a Marlboros is really reached “gouging” levels just quite yet. And as for that loss of revenue point, won’t the money that would usually go to cigarettes go to other products/services or into people’s bank accounts?