Our View-California tobacco tax plan would turn cash to ash
Staff

Published: Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Updated: Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Julio Salgado
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?

slearwig See Profile I'm a Fan of slearwig permalink

First of all, I would like to thank huffingtonpost for allowing me to comment in spite of my status by many as 'a nicotine freak', 'a tobacco junkie', a Martian, not even in the same room, and of course you understand, 'it's not me, it's my addiction'.

So to Hell with this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am9

"Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Please note that the above Amendment does not discriminate. It prohibits Everyone from imposing their values against our unenumerated Rights, while the 14th Amendment promises equality of Rights, Privileges and Immunities with regards to Our Differences as Individuals.

As for taxing us smokers to whom you promise will die prematurely by our habit so that non-smoking children to whom you have promised will live longer than even we can receive health care paid for exclusively by nobody but the smokers, thank you for 'your obvious sense of Liberty, Justice, Equality, Humanity and Generosity'! Is this because they might not live longer than us smokers without the care?
And in the next election I, as well as 20% of the voters, will be looking elsewhere for Our next President, as will anyone concerned about Ending the War so we can use that war money to pay for health care as Obama promised 'us'.

Thank you for writing me about Senate Bill 600. I appreciate your suggestions on proposed legislation affecting our state.

I generally do not take a position on legislation until a bill has reached my desk because it can change significantly from the time it is introduced until the time it is finalized. For the current session, the California Legislature has until September 11, 2009 to pass legislation, and I have until October 11, 2009 to sign or veto proposed bills.

You may continue to follow this and any other bill under consideration by lawmakers at the Official California Legislative website: www.leginfo.ca.gov. You may also read my legislative messages at www.gov.ca.gov.

Again, I appreciate your interest in California's future. An informed and engaged public is important for effective government in our state.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

This is just one more reason why I dearly HATE California. I am proud to say that I refused to go on a trip with my husband to California because it would have added $$$ to their economy. I would rather save and go to Europe anyway. Phfffft.

Least there are states out there that still have some semblance of smoking freedom, such as Michigan, Texas, South Carolina, and of course Missouri(for Midwesterners)! Sad Wisconsin is trending away from being a state like this, with a statewide ban going into effect next year, and an upcoming 75 cent cigarette hike(on top of a $1 hike 11/2 years ago).

The way you describe your location is really funny: "Health Fascism Capital of the Midwest, Illinois." I would have thought Illinois would be more like Indiana and Kentucky since there are a lot of small towns scattered across long, boring stretches of farmland. You do have "Oprah" in Chicago, though, so maybe that explains it.