
That's just one of the reasons Levy, a nonsmoker, argues that tobacco taxes are ill-advised. He contends the tax is both regressive — since smokers tend to represent a lower-income demographic — and punitive. "The social costs of smoking are already covered by existing taxes," he says, a calculation that includes treatment of cancer, lung disease and the vast array of other health problems directly linked to cigarettes.
New York City's health commissioner disagrees. "Tobacco remains the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., and tobacco taxes are the most effective way to reduce tobacco use," says Dr. Thomas Frieden. For health officials, setting an outlandish price for cigarettes was precisely the point. Frieden says the price elasticity of tobacco is "rigorously defined": as costs rise, people stop smoking. New York officials calculate the newly minted tax will spur 65,000 city smokers — including 7,000 youths — to kick the habit, preventing more than 20,000 premature deaths. The initiative, Frieden says, is the logical coda to a highly successful anti-smoking program that he says has already reduced adult smoking levels 21% since 2002 and halved youth smoking since 2001, preventing 100,000 premature deaths. New York's figures are extrapolated from existing reports, including one by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which notes cigarette sales have plunged in every state that has adopted more onerous tobacco taxes.
Frieden denies taxes exceed social costs, noting the state spends roughly $8.2 billion annually on treating sickened smokers. Tobacco taxes are widely popular, he argues: "[They] may be the only tax that most members of the general public are in favor of." Count politicians among its champions as well. Even in state legislatures stifled by partisan gridlock, lawmakers agree tobacco taxes are a vital way to replenish their coffers. Since 2002, 43 states have hiked smoking surcharges, which last year hauled in $14.5 billion nationwide. New York state expects to accrue $265 million from the tax.
Silk and Levy suggest finding a fresh revenue stream is the main point. "This is a money grab on the part of the state of New York," Levy told TIME. "[It's] really about budgetary concerns. They camouflage it in health lingo because it sells better."
"Tobacco taxation is a way of promoting both public health and increasing government revenues," Frieden says, noting it's just one aspect of the city's multi-pronged effort to curb smoking — which also encompasses cessation planning, nicotine patch giveaways and advertising campaigns touting better ways to spend $3,000 (roughly, the annual cost of a pack-a-day habit). "Fundamentally, tobacco taxation is good because it saves lives," Frieden says. But that logic isn't persuading those who think government should refrain from legislating personal choice. The debate will keep on smoldering
1 comment:
It's one thing to raise taxes hoping taht smokers will quit but it is equally important that the state use soem of this money to offer cessation workshops and other services devoted to helping those smokers quit. It is more difficult than just putting down the cigarette and walking away. For free quit tips visit: www.StopSmokingStayQuit.blogspot.com
Post a Comment