Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Tobacco Taxes Expected to Cut Smoking, Hurt State Finances
February 20, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Sharply rising tobacco taxes may accomplish what state lawmakers largely failed to do when handed a pile of money from the nationwide tobacco settlement a decade ago: cut smoking rates.

Bloomberg News reported Feb. 19 that the new 62-cent increase in the federal tobacco tax, combined with rising state tobacco taxes, could cut U.S. tobacco consumption by up to 10 percent.

States, however, may not be celebrating. Many took the money from the 1998 tobacco settlement and used it for everything but tobacco prevention. But declining tobacco consumption could reduce the industry's annual payout to the states by up to $500 million, and also poses a threat to the $37 billion in bonds that states issued based on expected future receipts of tobacco money. The bonds were issued so that states could get an upfront, lump-sum payout of the settlement money rather than waiting for each year's payments, which are based on sales.

"While settlement revenues may be shrinking, most tobacco bond structures have debt service requirements with built-in increases for future years," said Richard Larkin, an analyst at municipal-bonds firm Herbert J. Sims and Co. Some state bond issues might have to use their reserves to pay the interest on the bonds, he added.

"States that earmarked revenues from cigarette excise taxes for specific programs may be forced to make cuts to those programs or increase the cigarette excise taxes, to make up for the revenue shortfall caused by the volume decline resulting from the federal excise tax increase," noted a recent report from Fitch Ratings.

"The striking irony of the [tobacco settlement] was that it made states dependent on the sale of a deadly product that dramatically increases their health-care costs," said Allan M. Brandt, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University.  

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Kate on 23 Feb 09 11:21 AM EST
The article fails to mention how much money states spend on tobacco related health care costs.

Posted by brubin on 23 Feb 09 12:01 PM EST
if you raised the cost of heroin,meth and cocaine 10% doe's anyone beleive this would bring down the use? i really doubt it!when addicted the money will be found somehow.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 23 Feb 09 12:03 PM EST
And Kate failed to mention how the New England Journal of Medicine admitted in 1997 that health costs would INCREASE if everyone stopped smoking because of increased geriatric care costs that would have to be borne by ALL taxpayers. If someone wants to argue this on a purely economic basis they can't play "let's pretend" and ignore the fact that smoking's costs are predicted to cut both ways. The 10% expected drop is the standard argument used by Antismokers to push for these taxes, and it's false. Today's 62cent increase is far less proportionately than the 45cent unlegislated tax of 1998's Master Settlement Agreement. It also assumes figures that would have predicted a near extinction of smoking in NY City after roughly $4 of price increases between 1999 and 2002. Increased taxes = increased crime and black market sales to children, and the 2,100% increase on perhaps the poorest clearly defined minority in the country, those who roll their own cigarettes, is a crime in and of itself. Extortionate tobacco taxes are destroying the legal and moral basis of the American tax system. MIchael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by bbb on 23 Feb 09 04:15 PM EST
McFadden does not mention that the New England Journal article studied few diseases and self-reported smoking only. It thereby ignored smoking's many secondhand effects including birth defects, fires, car crashes, tooth loss, nursing home costs, survivors insurance, etc.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 23 Feb 09 05:37 PM EST
Heh... and bbb did not mention that smoking while driving ranks just about at the very bottom of the list of "driver distractions" that cause crashes or that nursing home costs are *reduced* if smokers die earlier. - = - The overall argument showing that smokers are overtaxed to begin with is in one of the appendices of "Brains" and is reproduced for free reading online in the "Taxes, Social Costs, and the MSA" article at http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com I believe that anyone giving that a fair reading will agree that its conclusions are both fair and accurate. - = - Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by Michael Hardiman on 23 Feb 09 05:39 PM EST
This is truly the signs of the times. We can't find money for treatment or prevention and yet we raise the cost of the drug in hopes the consumer stop buying the product. Make $cents... to me.

Posted by Sandman on 25 Feb 09 11:21 AM EST
So basically Michael you're saying that smoking saves the country money because it "reduces geriatric care costs", which is a nice way of saying "kills people early". Great arguement. I'm sure a "Logan's Run" type society where we just killed everyone at 40 would save even MORE money.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 25 Feb 09 07:15 PM EST
Sandman, if people want to argue economics, they can't play "let's pretend" like little kids. If you're going to use official figures estimating costs of illnesses then you ALSO are obligated to use similar figures to estimate the cost of death. You and the tobacco companies might not like to use such arguments, but anyone wanting to argue the point rationally and honestly needs to take both sides of the coin into account. - = - Personally I feel both sets of figures are hogwash: they're exaggerated enormously through computer simulations and formulae in order to promote taxes and bans. But if you accept antismoking #s as fact, then it's the sheerest hypocrisy to take some and ignore others. - = - Honesty is the key, and that's where the Antismokers fail today just as miserably as the Big Tobacco companies ever did in the past. - = - Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by stephan on 27 Feb 09 03:39 PM EST
Stop saying 'antismoker,' that is as polarizing and misleading as 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life'. We are not opposed to people who choose to smoke. We are opposed to a poisonous product that is marketed ruthlessly to the poor and disenfranchised. That is sold to those who are suffering and trying to self-medicate their anxiety, depression or other mental illness, mild or severe. That addicts and kills with a slow, painful death. We are opposed to lying corporate Suits and their spinning lobbyists. To address the argument of taxation: To many politicians, citizens are measured in dollar signs. This is why the economic impact of smoking is discussed. How much financial drain will a bunch of healthy 80-year-olds put on the system, compared to 440,000 a year dying slowly from tobacco-related diseases? Public health is about improving length AND quality of life. Smoking impacts both.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 27 Feb 09 10:39 PM EST
Stephan, if you think the term "Antismoker" is polarizing, you should wander the web a bit and see some of the invective that's become totally acceptable when aimed at smokers. As to the taxation argument: I agree... I think the "smoking cost" argument is a callous and poor one, but it's one that the Antismokers began using heavily years ago in order to gain support for their programs. Once it was shown that the argument actually went against them they suddenly changed religion and started complaining that anyone arguing economics was being cold-hearted. They basically wanted to have their cake and eat it too: that doesn't work in the real world. Increases in taxes cannot be based upon "fairly" balancing medical costs. The argument is a lie and it needs to be shown honestly as a lie. If we want to play Big Brother and have government engineer our behavior by punishing us with taxes when we're naughty then we ought to be honest in admitting that that is what we're doing. - = - = - Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by Marlena on 03 Apr 09 02:49 PM EDT
I totally agree with Michael J. McFadden !!!

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines