While much of the political world was focused on Wisconsin and the recall vote of Gov. Scott Walker, voters in California were faced with the choice to raise the cigarette tax by a dollar a pack. The issue, known as Proposition 29, would have hiked the tax on a pack of cigarettes from 87 cents to $1.87.
In the spring, the measure appeared well on its way to passing, but tobacco companies poured millions of dollars ($46 million by one estimate) into advertising campaigns. By contrast, anti-smoking groups raised $18 million. That difference was thought to be the difference as the proposition was narrowly defeated 50.8 percent to 49.2 percent.
The measure, which was backed by Lance Armstrong, would have raised money for cancer research and anti-smoking initiatives aimed at children.
California’s cigarette tax hasn’t been raised since 2000 and the rate of 87 cents is well below the national average of $1.46.
By contrast, in South Carolina the tax is just 57 cents per pack, ranking it in the bottom 10 nationally at 42nd. Missouri has the lowest rate at 17 cents.
Given that South Carolina is so far below the national average, would you favor an increase? Vote and chime in below.
whatever1
3:27 pm on Friday, June 8, 2012
No matter how much you tax them, we will continue to smoke because we are ADDICTED to the nicotine!!! If my insurance would pay for something beside the patch maybe I could stop, been on the patch several times & it's a JOKE!! Pretty sure the govt. is behind big brother tobacco in getting us addicted just so they could raise the taxes knowing people will keep smoking because they are ADDICTED!!!
JoSCh
4:02 pm on Friday, June 8, 2012
If so it's the worst scheme ever since they're losing money every year to health care almost as fast as they're losing their tax base to cancer and education.
I smoked (or chewed tobacco) from the time I was 11 until I was 35, one day I just decided to quit. I'd used patches, gum, and Welbutrin in the past and none of them worked at all for me. It took a conscious decision to change for me.
I voted maybe but it would depend on how much, mainly because I wanted to see how many "no new taxes no matter what" idiots we have here. 26% at the time of my vote, 78 total votes. Sigh.
stanley seigler
4:16 pm on Saturday, June 9, 2012
@JoSch: "... It took a conscious decision to change for me..."
ditto for my wife , a heavy smoker, one day she quite cold turkey...
yes there should be a significant tax on cigarettes, alcohol and legalize marijuana and tax it...
tho i do hate to stick it to po folks...would much rather see a tax on rich folks and big oil...but the norquist disciples would self destruct before doing the right thing...
stephanie
7:52 am on Saturday, June 9, 2012
Yes!!
Robert Kelly
8:29 pm on Saturday, June 9, 2012
When I was a teenager, cigarettes and gasoline were 35 cents (pack or gallon). They seem to be about the same as each other still. I went from pack/day to 0 when my oldest kid jumped into my lap while I was smoking and nearly burnt him. He did me a great favor and I am now 40 years clean. Tax it! @ Stanley...ditto...legalize and tax marijuana too ... and maybe massage parlors with "happy endings" and any idiot who would pay extra to get "gamecocks.com". Leave my beer alone! Now you're going from preaching to meddling!
ReadIt
9:15 am on Sunday, June 10, 2012
it's amazing the length people will go for "no higher taxes by any means"...even if it means making cancer more affordable for their family and friends.
stanley seigler
11:07 am on Sunday, June 10, 2012
@Robert Kelly: "When I was a teenager, cigarettes and gasoline were 35 cents (pack or gallon)."
i'm much older than you...it was 25 cents (pack or gal) when i was a teenager...inflation counts for a major part of 2012, $3-4/gal gas price...
@ReadIt: "...even if it means making cancer more affordable for their family and friends."
utterly, utterly amazing...the focus should be on making our government more efficient, effective...not wasting time on cut spending or increase tax straw men...you'd think our legislators would get it...but;
instead, supported by us (we vote them in), they spend time on ridiculous issues like unnecessary voterID laws...
stanley seigler
9:07 am on Monday, June 11, 2012
REA; "...tobacco companies poured millions of dollars ($46 million by one estimate) into advertising campaigns. By contrast, anti-smoking groups raised $18 million. That difference was thought to be the difference as the proposition was narrowly defeated 50.8 percent to 49.2 percent.
comment from LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-prop29-20120607,0,2766119.column
[CLIP]
"If the ballot initiative won, the sponsoring American Cancer Society estimated, 220,000 kids would never start smoking and 100,000 adults would quit rather than pay the extra $1 per pack to fund research on tobacco-related diseases. That would cut deeply into tobacco's profits.
The most likely scenario is that the conveyors of cancer will triumph in this fight.
Then Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature would command the high ground to attack and win the next battle. They'd have the tobacco lobby right where they wanted it: vulnerable to a hefty tax increase anyway."
Allison
10:44 am on Monday, June 11, 2012
When you look at what cigarettes cost our state in medical costs, clean-up of all those damn butts, lost productivity, it's a no-brainer. However, big tobacco will continue to target kids with candy-flavored cigarettes, minorities with their marketing (you don't see cigarette billboards in a white suburban area) and manipulating the nicotene levels to get you addicted & then lowering it to make you smoke more. If you are contributing to the problems by smoking, then you should foot more of the bill for it. General public & teens should know better already than to even light the first one.
Robert Kelly
10:24 pm on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Can't argue with your points that contributors to the problem should foot the bill, but to be a little bit the contrarian, a study conducted in Europe demonstrated that smoking does not increase the cost of health care. Sure, smokers get sick, but on the other hand, they die sooner. If they did not smoke, they would have eventually gotten some other illness and died anyway (at least the way it has worked so far) and required medical care. In the meantime, the taxes they pay for their tobacco contribute a great deal to the public coffers, and their early demise reduces the costs of Social Security (or whatever Europeans call it) and retirement plans.
So overall, smokers do not cost the rest of us; they contribute more in their "sin taxes" than they cost when you compare them to what everyone else costs in the long run. And to be honest, smokers are usually more sociable and fun to hang out with.
Pat
4:13 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
Ok - I get that we don't want our children taking up the habit of smoking. I also get that there are smokers who want to quit. But for the people who do not want to quit, we have to remember that smoking cigarettes is legal and some of the statistics that everyone should be looking at is how much those taxes contribute not just to cessation campaigns but to the regular tax base both federal and state (its in the billions). Where do you think ALL of that money will come from if the the cigarette tax base dries up? What will be the next thing they will come up with to heavily tax? Your fast food?, your beer or booze (also addicting), groceries, perhaps just soda. These taxes are really not about the campaigns to get people not to start or to quit. Its about keeping the budgets afloat. Just food for thought.
JoSCh
4:33 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
If you're right about the amount and where the tax goes (and I'm not sure you are) good, spread the tax burden around. The only reason they'd be taxed more than other Americans is because they don't have a lobby anymore. Being rich sure would be awesome!
stanley seigler
4:50 pm on Monday, June 11, 2012
@Pat: "...for the people who do not want to quit..."
weel Allison has the answer: "...If you are contributing to the problems by smoking, then you should foot more of the bill for it..."
ditto for drunks, pig outers...and need some kinda tax on all sinners who abuse their bodies and mind...:)
re: These taxes are really not about the campaigns to get people not to start or to quit. Its about keeping the budgets afloat. Just food for thought
point taken but even if it's only to balance budget...the serendipity is it does, "the American Cancer Society estimates, 220,000 kids would never start smoking and 100,000 adults would quit rather than pay the extra $1 per pack to fund research on tobacco-related diseases." [this just in CA]
JoSCh
8:58 am on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Why should there be a tax on "sinners" who abuse THEIR bodies and minds?
Re an extra $1 a pack, how'd that work out for your wife? The cost of cigarettes was something to complain about but never a deterrent for me and I doubt it is for many. And it's effectively a regressive tax, something you're usually against...