By snoadmin
In less than a month, we will vote in the California primary. One of the issues up for debate is whether or not to impose a greater tax on tobacco. Proposition 29 will raise the tobacco tax by $1. If voters approve the tax, the money would be used to fund research for heart disease and emphysema. Those against the tax argue that the new tax will be too high and that there is no way to ensure all the money will go towards research. Increasing the tax by $1 will definitely make a dent in the wallets of regular smokers, but the proposition should still pass.
If voters approve Prop. 29 next month, the tobacco tax will rise from 89 cents to $1.89 for a pack. Pack-a-day smokers will definitely feel the sting from the increase. Gas prices are already astronomical. How many people can afford to shell out an extra dollar every day to satiate their tobacco addiction?
One of the arguments against the proposition is that the increase will cut into tobacco profits because smokers will not be willing to pay the extra cash. Is that really a bad thing? Tobacco companies are hugely profitable.
Maybe the tax will encourage some smokers to quit. admittedly, that is probably a lot easier said than done. Anti-smoking campaigns may not be persuasive enough to make a smoker quit, but taking extra money out of their pockets will certainly make an impression.
You can’t quit an addiction at the drop of a hat, but maybe raising the tax will trigger someone’s decision to quit.
Even with the increase, California’s tobacco tax would still be lower than most states’. New York’s current tobacco tax is $4.35 per pack. If we’re going to complain about paying an extra dollar, we should keep it in perspective. If the proposition passes, we will still be paying a lot less than other states.
Prop 29 supporters say the tax will raise $800 million annually. Of that money, roughly $735 million would go toward cancer research. Tobacco companies insist the number is too high and that not all of the money would go toward cancer research. Raising money for cancer research, no mater how much high or low the amount, is still a good thing.
Tobacco is not a necessary good. Smokers make up a small percentage of the population, so raising the tax would not adversely affect everyone. Taxing smokers may seem like just another case of people giving smokers the shaft. Earlier this semester, UC campuses imposed an on-campus smoking ban that many students thought was unfair. But the ban benefitted non-smokers which made the ban justifiable.
There are some good arguments against the proposition, but some good things will come out of it. The increase may be too much for some people, but the California tax will still be much lower than most states. If having to pay extra money causes some smokers to quit, it will be worth it. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks when it comes to raising the tax, so Californians should not be afraid to approve it.
