by Michael Hall

…continued from PART 1

One of the main arguments against tobacco control and taxation is that it is an attempt by governments to socially engineer its population.  According to Bert Waisanen’s article “Taxing Behavior: Personal Vices Have Been around a Long Time…,” state governments are using excise taxes in an attempt to “change personal behavior and choices” (30).  This is nothing new as governments have historically used this method to influence behavior, with such vices as alcohol (Waisanen 30).  But the question of whether or not the government should use its power to influence behavior is mostly a philosophical one, with no right answer.  This is because the answer is based on the interpreter’s values.  But when that interpreter is a government, the philosophical options become much narrower in scope.

This is because it is the government’s duty to look after the well being of its population, and a philosophy that is anything but can lead to ruin.  Therefore, many governments, such as our own, choose to adopt a philosophy that somewhat mirrors that of John Stuart Mill, and do whatever is necessary for the greater good of society.  So when confronted with an addictive substance that has been proven to cause harm to its users, the government is responsible to do what it must to prevent its citizens to use such a substance. So, some level of social engineering is necessary to maintain a healthy population.

Another common argument against tobacco taxation is that it falls on lower income citizens more than the rest of the population.  This is a sound statement.  The reason that taxation is disproportionate for the lower income brackets is that they spend a larger percentage of their income on the tax (Wilson 654).  Unlike other forms of taxes, like income tax, tobacco excise taxes do not vary based on what the purchaser makes.  It is a flat tax in which everyone pays the same rate.  This just happens to be one of the downsides of taxation.  However, there are possible ways to compensate for this tax burden.

By redirecting the revenues from tobacco excise taxes towards programs that benefit the lower income population, citizens from that tax bracket may have their burden lifted (Wilson 655).  For example, a certain percentage of the funds could be redirected to assist low income families with medical bills associated with smoking-related illnesses.  Or another option could be to use a portion of the revenues to fund low-income community youth centers which could, in turn, promote health and fitness and discourage tobacco use.  These are just a few of the many practical options available that could compensate lower income individuals for their share of the tax burden.

Yet another argument against tobacco taxation is that it is merely a tool for the government to extort money from the American public.  For example, in her article “Big Brother’s Two Minute Hate,” Linda Bowles states her belief that current policies “have very little to do with curing the ills of tobacco,” but instead “what we see is a scheme by government autocrats to take over a private industry, plunder its wealth, raise taxes—and look like heroes in the process” (168).  These are serious charges indeed.  If this is, in fact, going on, then something must be done.  Unfortunately, as Mrs. Bowles did not provide any evidence to support her accusations, her statements are groundless.  But after further investigation at the U.S. Census Bureau website, I found that the total national revenue from tobacco taxation is just over 13 billion dollars (“State Government”).  Now this is, indeed, an astronomical sum of money.  And if Bowles is to be believed, this should cover all the damage smoking inflicts on the population, with money left to spare.

However, after examining the American Lung Association website, I found that the economic cost the nation faces due to smoking is about 170 billion dollars annually (“State of Tobacco”).  Clearly, the cost of smoking greatly outweighs any benefit that can be derived from tobacco taxation.  And if the government were truly looking for more money, they would want their citizens not to be smoking.  This would enhance productivity and lessen time off for medical reasons, which means more people at work working.  When this happens, the economy ascends and more taxes are collected.  Therefore, any statement accusing the government of making money of the present situation is erroneous.

Another concern opponents have with the tobacco tax is the rise of discount brands.  Andrew Hyland, in his article “Cigarette Purchasing Behaviors When Prices are High,” states that “when cigarette prices increase, some smokers are motivated to try to quit smoking, others reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke, and still others switch to cheaper brands” (487).  But how many Americans would actually seek out these alternatives?  Well, “in the United States, 21% of smokers say that if the price of cigarettes increased, they would look for a cheaper source for their cigarettes” (Hyland 487).  This clearly is an issue of concern as these alternatives create loopholes that prevent the tobacco tax from achieving its goal.  And according to Nanette Byrnes and Mike France in their article “Suddenly, Philip Morris Isn’t Smokin’,” many discount brands of cigarettes are taking advantage of the present situation in which the larger manufacturers are charged with paying the settlement for the tobacco lawsuit (par. 7).

Many of the newer brands from smaller companies do not have to pay any penalties to state governments.  The lawsuit settlement, however, was not intended to allow smaller companies to obtain a larger share of the market, but that is exactly what is happening.  So what can be done to solve this problem?  I am not sure, but this is definitely an issue that needs to be examined by legislators.  If left unaddressed, it threatens to undermine the whole concept of reducing tobacco use through taxation.

One of the most controversial issues against tobacco control is the stigmatization of the smoker.  “Cigarette smoking is not simply an unhealthy behavior.  Smoking is now considered a deviant behavior—smokers are stigmatized” (Bayer 49).  We can see the effect of this everywhere.  Smokers are separated from their non-smoking counterparts in restaurants and bars.  Many facilities require smokers to smoke outdoors in designated areas.   And there are also a growing number of corporations who refuse to higher, and may even terminate, smokers due to additional health care costs and because their smoking has an adverse effect on the company’s image (Bayer 47).  Although this last example may seem extreme, these corporations are dealing with people who are knowingly participating in a preventable reckless activity.

So the following question arises: “If stigmatization does contribute to reducing the human costs of smoking by encouraging cessation or preventing the onset of tobacco use, are the personal burdens it creates morally justifiable?” (Bayer 49).  I believe the answer is yes.  We must remember that smokers are not only affecting themselves when they smoke, but the community around them.  This not only applies in terms of health, but also in the form of economic hardship for the rest of the public.  Therefore, stigmatization is a just measure in attempt to reduce smoking.

One of the most significant arguments against tobacco taxation is that governments are using the tax revenues to fund programs which are totally unrelated to smoking.  But exactly how widespread is this misuse of revenue?  Well, according to one source, “of the 36 states that proposed increasing tobacco excise taxes, 20 states proposed distributing at least a portion of the revenue to state general funds” (“State Tobacco” par.6).  This is a disturbing fact that gives substance to the arguments of tobacco tax opponents.  The reason for this is that excise taxes should not be used to compensate for the shortfalls of other taxation methods or budget inadequacies.  This is because if the tax did in fact distribute funds to unrelated programs, legislators would be guilty of unjustifiably extracting funds from a group of people to provide for the rest of the public.

If governments’ need additional income for their programs, taxes should be implemented in which all taxpayers are held responsible for their funding.  Smokers, therefore, should not have to pay any more than the average citizen when it comes to funding any state program which benefits the public as a whole.  Instead, they should only be held accountable for funding smoking-related programs in which they are responsible.

Overall, we have seen the effects that tobacco control and taxation has on the public and, most of all, on smokers.  First, we examined the history of the public’s perception of tobacco, and how that view has changed over the years.  Next, we looked at the current state of taxation in the country, and why cigarette taxes are so high.  We then examined other programs that are beneficial to the goal of reducing smoking, such as: increased regulations on the advertising of tobacco products, increased funding for tobacco cessation and prevention programs, and an increase in public smoking bans.  And we finished our discussion by examining many of the common arguments against tobacco control and taxation.

After analyzing a number of these, we were able to see that some arguments were sound, while others were baseless.  So after examining the many facets of the issue, we see that tobacco taxation is a fair and effective tool to curb smoking habits, but only when teamed with proper legislation and with other prevention and cessation programs that are funded by the tax revenues themselves.

Works Cited

Bayer, Ronald and Jennifer Stuber. “Tobacco Control, Stigma, and Public Health: Rethinking the Relations.” Public Health 96.1 (2006): 47-50. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 3 Apr. 2006. .

Bowles, Linda. “Big Brother’s Two Minute Hate.” Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Ed. William Vesterman. 5th ed. New York: McGraw, 2006. 167-69.

Byrnes, Nanette and Mike France. “Suddenly, Philip Morris Isn’t Smokin’.” Business 2 Dec. 2002: 50-51.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 6 Apr. 2006. .

Forbes, Steve. “This Bad Bargain Must Go Up in Smoke.” Forbes 175.5(2005): 25-6.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 3 Apr. 2006. .

Hyland, Andrew, et al. “Cigarette Purchasing Behaviors When Prices are High.” Public Health Management Practice 10.6(2004): 497-500.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 3 Apr. 2006. .

Krisberg, Kim. “Advocates: Tobacco Taxes should fund Cessation.” Nation’s Health 33.4(2003): 12.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 6 Apr. 2006. .

Levy, David T., Frank Chaloupka, and Joseph Gitchell. “The Effects of Tobacco Control Policies on Smoking Rates: A Tobacco Control Scorecard.” Public Health Management Practice 10.4(2004):338-53.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 3 Apr. 2006. .

“State Government Tax Collections: 2005.” U.S. Census Bureau 17 Apr. 2006. 17 Apr. 2006. .

“State of Tobacco Control: 2005.” American Lung Association 17 Apr. 2006. 17 Apr. 2006. .

“State Tobacco Excise Taxes.” National Conference of State Legislatures 10 Oct. 2003. 9 Apr. 2006. .

Sung, Hai-Yen, et al. “A Major State Tobacco Increase, the Master Settlement Agreement, and Cigarette Consumption: The California Experience.” Public Health 95.6(2005): 1030-35.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 3 Apr. 2006. .

Waisanen, Bert. “Taxing Behavior: Personal Vices Have Been Around a Long Time. But the Price for those Habits and other Controversial Behaviors is about to go Up.” State Legislatures June 2004: 30-31. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 3 Apr. 2006. .

Wilson, Nick and George Thomson. “Tobacco Taxation and Public Health: Ethical Problems, Policy Responses.” Social Science and Medicine 61(2005):649-659.  Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Toledo Carlson Lib. Toledo, OH. 6 Apr. 2006. .

Leave a reply

Name (*)

Mail (will not be published) (*)

URI

Comment

CAPTCHA Code *