Some ideas on tobacco

I am a non-smoker. I have smoked maybe once or twice, but never took up the habit. My mother is an 18-year non-smoker, quitting in 1991. My brother quit in 2000. I do not have a problem with smokers, however - if they choose to take up the habit, I'm not going to stop them.

I have always stood by the notion that the taxation system we have in our country is circular. The government slaps taxes on the rich, and the government gives money to the poor. The poor think they're on easy street - until they have to fork over fees, taxes and other items, making them even poorer. And of course, all these taxes fliter right back to the government.

I think the state has just as much of an addiction to sin taxes as smokers do to cigarettes. I would bet most of that tax money doesn't quite make it to children's health care, or smoking cessation programs, or the like. Rather, it makes up for budget shortfalls and pork - so even though the thin veil is "for the children," it's really "for the government who can't control their spending and rely on the people to fund their shortfalls." The Carrie Nations of tobacco - the finger waving nags and lobby-funded nannies who seem to have no problem with being "control freaks" - until the revenue dries up when smokers finally quit or the state bans tobacco entirely. Then they need a huge nicotine-style patch to get over their money cravings.

I offer four ideas that may or may not assist in the fight between government and smokers.

1. Rather than banning cigarettes outright, put them under state monopoly - liquor and lottery tickets too.

Taking tobacco products off the shelves of convenience stores and liquor stores in a Carrie Nation-style fervor shifts the tobacco sales underground. Taking them off the shelves and making the state responsible for pricing and distributing these items is a much better alternative, as it puts the full onus of monitoring and sales on the Commonwealth, not on mom-and-pop stores. If it includes State Police monitoring IDs, all the better, as mom-and-pop stores shell out punitive fines for catching underage smokers.

In fact, tobacco and liquor should be put under state monopoly. If the state of New Hampshire can be successful in having State Liquor Stores, so can the Commonwealth. Let the convenience and liquor store lobby seethe - many have done a lax job in monitoring anyway and have the fines and multiple-day sales prohibitions to show for it. The Commonwealth will no longer have to shell out commissions or fees, and can be in direct competition with New Hampshire. It will also force the Commonwealth to defend itself against critics - "If smoking is so dangerous, why is the state being a enabler? Must be for the taxes, correct?"

2. Illustrate the total price -including wholesale, distribution and marketing fees, federal, state, and sales taxes - for a pack of cigarettes.

People are already angry that their cigarettes are pushing $9 a pack. $3.52 of that is federal and state tax, plus an additional 20-40 cents in sales tax. On the really cheap cigarettes - which last year were $4 and now are $6 - the wholesale prices really shock the dickens out of smokers, i.e. "They buy for this cheap and they sell it for this outrageous price?"

E.g. $4.00 wholesale per pack of premium cigarettes + $1.01 federal tax + $2.51 state tax + $0.38 sales tax = $7.91 per pack. Total tax take based on price - 50%.

E.g. $2.50 wholesale per pack of budget cigarettes + $1.01 federal tax + $2.51 state tax + $0.30 sales tax = $6.33 per pack. Total tax take based on price - 61%.

These taxes are far higher and easier to collect than the income tax of 35% - and everyone pays it. They are definitely regressive - meaning the poor, who pay little or no income taxes, will see themselves forking over almost 61% in tobacco taxes instead - hence the circular function of taxation in our country, from rich to the government in taxes, the government to the poor in entitlements, and then the poor back to the government in sin taxes and fees.

Another interesting thing to consider: when minimum wages in the 1970s were $1.25 per hour, a pack of cigarettes cost around 40 cents, so a MW earner could buy about 2 packs of cigarettes. Today, the state mimimum wage is $7.50, and now a pack of cigarettes costs $8 and effectively prices a MW worker out of a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents, yet it also removes one potential revenue source. The government loses out on tax revenue when a MW worker cannot afford to buy the premium cigarettes at $8 a pack.

3. For those who wish to quit, the lure of free money is always the best incentive.

The Commonwealth should institute a program that encourages people to quit. Take a sliver of all that tax money collected from smokers and offer them a deal - go into a smoking cessation program (with patches, chewing gum, pills and the like) and if they successfully complete a six month program, you can take $2,500 off your taxes. After that, all that money in taxes you spent on cigarettes is yours to keep and save - and invest wisely.

4. For once and for all, investigate the effects of tobacco, free of politics and lobbyists - and then release the results to the public and take appropriate action.

If independent research - free from lobby groups, rigged numbers that trill of the tip of the tongue, and others - determine that tobacco is indeed dangerous and has caused deaths and health problems, then the people and the Commonwealth can come to an agreement on what the next step is. If a ban is appropriate, then so be it. If putting gross pictures of cancer victims will be an effective deterrent, even better.

Aside (in honor of Kate Jackson at Pointy Universe): When I watch those ads on TV with the young college kids demonstrating all the icky things that happen when you smoke, or all that statistical mumbo-jumbo, I think to myself, "What do they do afterwards? I know...they pull out a big fat joint and take a hefty drag on it." (Yes, Kate - this proves I do read your blog!)

But giving the responsibility of research to the tobacco or anti-tobacco lobby invites trouble, as the statistics can be skewed one way or the other to their favor.

Not all of you will agree with my proposals. They are ideas worth considering, however.