.jpeg?1371057738)
Would you support raising the cigarette tax to curb smoking in Iowa?
Related Stories
American Cancer Society advocates want Iowa lawmakers to consider raising the state’s cigarette tax again to discourage tobacco use, but House Republicans quickly snuffed out that idea Wednesday.
Dr. Richard Deming, a radiation oncologist who is medical director at Mercy Cancer Center in Des Moines and a cancer society volunteer who founded the “Above + Beyond Cancer” program, said Iowa saw positive results in tobacco use among Iowans when the state cigarette tax increased to $1.36 a pack in March 2007 but he expressed concern that those trends are beginning to reverse course as state funding of tobacco cessation and prevention programs have declined.
“Tobacco kills more people than any other substance and one third of all cancers are caused by tobacco,” said Deming, who joined other “Cancer Action Network” advocates to lobby state legislators on cancer-fighting initiatives. “Increasing the cost of a pack of cigarette will decrease smoking. It’s been proven time and time again. If we were to increase the tobacco tax, that would decrease smoking and that would save lives.”
Society spokesman Chuck Reed said Iowa ranked 26th nationally for cigarette taxes after former Gov. Chet Culver signed the dollar-per-pack increase but has slipped since as other states have approved tax hikes on tobacco products. Anti-smoking proponents have not proposed a specific increase, but Reed noted that any tax hike would have to be enough to encourage smokers to quit or not start the habit.
Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht said the governor has not proposed a cigarette tax increase and has not seen any movement in the Legislature to suggest that one is forthcoming.
What do you think? Would you support raising the cigarette tax to curb smoking in Iowa?
To continually persecute/ridicule a segment of the population based upon their legal activities is horrible. If you want to eliminate smoking then make tobacco illegal, that will take care of 80% of it. There problem solved, the brownshirts can take care of the remaining 20% who don’t feel it’s the gov’ts business if they smoke. .
If people haven’t quit by now…another tax increase will not stop them …it’s all about the money…BTW…what ever happened to that big tobacco settlement money…didn’t it go in the general fund…
Raising the cigarette tax has nothing to do with getting people to stop smoking; it’s a big source of revenue for the states. Raising the tax was easy since they had the overwhelming support of non-smokers. Nicotine and alcohol are the two street drugs they’ve kept legal because they’re not about to butcher those cash cows, and if everyone really did stop smoking, you can be certain they’d raise the tax on something else to make up for the loss of revenue on tobacco. If lawmakers were being honest, which they seldom are, they’d stop claiming the tax is an incentive for people to stop smoking, and tell the truth: It’s easy money.
Mr Seavy,
Did you read the article? Here’s the first paragraph..
“American Cancer Society advocates want Iowa lawmakers to consider raising the state’s cigarette tax again to discourage tobacco use, but House Republicans quickly snuffed out that idea Wednesday.”
Of course it’s a big revenue source for the state but can you explain to me why the American Cancer Society wants to raise the price of cigarettes?
Whatever can be done to marginalize smoking and smokers should be done. Every tax and every restrictive law gives a would-be smoker another reason not to start, or provides him with a bit more motivation to kick the habit.
This isn’t the 1950′s, when over 50% of the US population were smokers and the tobacco companies enjoyed tremendous revenues and, thanks to that, political power. The industry is on the decline in terms of domestic consumption of its product and everything needs to be done to ensure that this trend continues.
” provides him with a bit more motivation to kick the habit.”
You do realize you’re promoting behavior modification? Maybe you’d like to build a camp where they can be locked up and go through re-education?
Any tax code is used two purposes: (1) to raise revenue; and (2) for “behavior modification”. Were you not aware of this? Anyway, I doubt that “re-education” for smokers (even if smoking were to be made a felony) would be any more effective than mandated prison programs which attempt to get pedophiles to kick their ilegal paraphilia while incarcerated. So, what would be the point?
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn about the smokers, since they have (at least initially) freedom of choice; it’s the unfortunate non-smokers who are continually exposed to their airborne effluents that deserve (and who should scream for!) protection by the law. I like the trend of private business taking matters into its own hands (by banning all on-job-campus smoking) and expect the health insurance companies to amp up their war on smokers in the coming years, even if the government finds the guts to do what is needed to curtail this plague.
“Any tax code is used two purposes: (1) to raise revenue; and (2) for “behavior modification”.”
Well a LIB who actually states that taxes are for revenue, I am shocked. Secondly, taxes being used as a form of behavior modification goes back to 1930′s Europe or worse yet placing a dhimmitude on non Muslims. Maybe you can get the state to pass a law where they have to wear a band on their arm with a lighter on it?
Nah, that’s the schtick of your tribe.
A couple have suggested that this proposal is for the purpose of raising revenue and implied that it is not for the purpose of curtailing smoking. Can’t it have a dual purpose? Can’t it be for both raising money and curbing smoking?
With respect to raising money – what’s wrong with that? The more money that is raised via a tobacco tax (lottery sales, photo tickets, etc.) the less money needs to be raised via other means.
I would prefer a fat tax, say a small percentage for each pound overweight added to sales tax a food outlets. Necessarily weigh stations would have to be put in every grocery store and resteraunt and woud operate much as th d system works now for alcohol and tobacco purchases, if you look fat you get weighed and charged. The benefits of this tax would be an overall improvement in health and until people started thinning up a huge boon in revenue not to mention the reduction in health-care costs. If we are going to legislate ourselves to a healthy society why not start with the biggest problem in this country now?
I dont smoke but this is just another way to soak more money out of people! If the Gov didnt want people smoking then tobacco wouldnt be available. It’s too massive of a cash cow to ban!
What is the tax on a pack now? About $4.50?