On Monday, Governor Bredesen proposed a 40-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax, with the estimated $200 million in new revenues to be directed to improvements in education funding.
Yesterday, he announced his support for a statewide ban on workplace smoking. This would seem to include restaurants, bars, hotels, and such — the few public places where smoking is sometimes (but not always) permitted, at the discretion of the business owner.
Neither concept would seem objectionable to non-smokers, who are decidedly in the majority. I haven’t heard any objections to the tax, even from smokers. But the simultaneous ban creates a problem: banning indoor smoking will unquestionably reduce smoking in general, which would lower the revenues from the cigarette tax.
What happens then for the funding promised to education?
There would be money leftover from TNcare from not having to pay for smoking related illnesses. It is time.
Advocating a nanny state, are we? TennCare spends a lot on diabetes and obesity-related illnesses as well… what’s next? A blood sugar test and trip across the scales at the grocery store and restaurants?
See, it’s easy to propose or support something that only impacts other people. That one wouldn’t affect me, but I still think the government getting too involved in our personal lives is just wrong.
If the concern is cost, then deny TennCare to smokers. Private insurance companies can and do (or charge higher premiums); TennCare could too.
Presently, private businesses can and often do ban or restrict smoking in their establishments. For the governor to advocate a tax for needed education funding and simultaneously propose a rule that would significantly weaken that revenue stream, is just foolish.
“Vices” are always relatively easy taxes. I agree that this one is only a short term solution if it all works well.
“See, it’s easy to propose or support something that only impacts other people.”
But smoking does impact people that do not smoke. In public, when a cigarette lights up I can detect it immediately from the smoke the fills the air I breath. Smoking has increasingly become a major public health concern, from the health effects on smoker’s and that cost to the medical industry/insurance premiums, to second hand smoke.
I agree that this appears to be a double take on the tax issue. However, those that choose to smoke will continue to smoke even if the areas they can partake are limited, it is a legal addiction. On the other hand, this is not a majority rule thing as noted above, but a public health policy promotion to curtail the second hand smoke issue. Just like a drunk driver, there are spillover (externalities) costs to smoking. Those that cause the costs, in this case smoker, should be the one responsible for the payment of those costs. The air we breath is a public commodity, and thus should be as healthy for all as possible and it is governments function to regulate public commodities to make all things equal in that arena.
Sorry for the double post, I ran it through a spell checker and doubled it with a wrong click. The last section is produced twice. Sorry.
Fixed the repeat for you.
“Advocating a nanny state, are we? TennCare spends a lot on diabetes and obesity-related illnesses as well… what’s next? A blood sugar test and trip across the scales at the grocery store and restaurants?”
Typical conservative boilerplate, Netmom. You have a good brain, as you have demonstrated here and elsewhere. Why do you switch it off on occasions like this?
Nobody needs to smoke cigarettes. Everyone needs to eat food.
Tobacco smoke doesn’t make anyone healthy. One of the essential ingredients in our diet is sugar. Even diabetics require sugar.
Cigarette smoking leads to cancer and heart disease.
Sugar doesn’t cause diabetes, nor are obsese people always diabetic.
So your implied comparison is a complete non sequitur. The “nanny state” snark is beneath you.
“Fixed the repeat for you.”
Thanks. You are really alright. Glad to disagree on such congenial terms. Have a good day.
I, being slower than most, still don’t understand. Why is it okay for the state or federal government to collect extremely high rates of tax from the sale of tobacco, when we all agree that this product is poison? This seems to be state sanctioned hypocrisy at its best. If the state of Tennessee was genuinely concerned about our health, and in turn the negative effects on Tenncare, it would simply ban the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products in the state.
…okay, bring on the prohibition argument.
“Why is it okay for the state or federal government to collect extremely high rates of tax from the sale of tobacco, when we all agree that this product is poison?”
Aside from an attempt to make it less desirable to smoke due to costs. To discourgage smoking through the pocketbook is also desirable. If taxes are so bad this formula is simple, don’t smoke, don’t pay the tax.
Why is it not OK? This is a situation that you chose, at some point in your life, to get into. The taxes have been there during most of the existing smokers todays life, if not all of it. Thus one knows the taxes exist; one chooses to start with that knowledge thus they chose to pay the tax. It is freedom at its finest, a tax not forced upon anyone who wishes not to pay it.
daco, as you mentioned, prohibition of tobacco won’t work, any more than prohibiton of alcohol did or than prohibition of marijuana, cocaine and heroin does. So that is the answer to your puzzlement–the government doesn’t just outlaw it, because the cost of enforcing such a law, particularly when all the ajoining states allow it, would be prohibitive.
Taxing vice makes a lot of sense to me. Let’s legalize marijuana and tax it, too. I think your dichotomy of either don’t tax it or make it illegal is simpleminded. I see more than two options here.
I fail to see how it is hypocrisy. The state recognizes that tobacco is harmful, so it seeks to discourage smoking by making it more expensive to smoke.
Taxation has been used for many years as a form of behavior modification. Making mortgage interest tax-deductable is done to encourage home ownership. Charity donations are tax-deductable, to encourage people to donate to charity. Tax deductions are allowed for children. Alcohol is taxed to discourage its consumption. Your president has proposed a new tax on people whose employers offer generous health benefits to discourage employers from offering more than a minimum level of health insurance. In other countries, gasoline is taxed far higher than in the US; cars in Europe get better mileage and people use more public transportation.
Here is how it is hypocrisy Joel. Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is legal and taxed. Heroin is not taxed and is illegal. Marijuana is not taxed and is illegal. Cocain is not taxed and is illegal
Tell me the pretty story again about prohibition…
Lots of interesting discussion, but nearly none on the core issue: the tax was proposed to provide additional (needed) funding for education, but the ban will further deplete revenues expected from that source.
I don’t have a problem with the tax. I do have a problem with the ban for several reasons — the biggest being that it will jeopardize education funding.
As noted earlier, private businesses can eliminate smoking in their establishments. At this point, pretty much the only places where smoking is allowed are a few restaurants, establishments that serve alcohol, and some hotels (in a few, less-desirable rooms).
So to show our support for education we should all “light-up”. I can hear it now….”light up for education….it’s enlightening.”
“Here is how it is hypocrisy Joel. Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is legal and taxed. Heroin is not taxed and is illegal. Marijuana is not taxed and is illegal. Cocain is not taxed and is illegal.”
If your point is that marijuana, heroin and cocaine should be legal and taxed, I think we agree. It is hypocritical to make certain vices legal and tax them while making other vices illegal. But if that isn’t your point, you’ve lost me.
“I don’t have a problem with the tax. I do have a problem with the ban for several reasons — the biggest being that it will jeopardize education funding.”
Our society would be better off if (1) nobody smoked and (2) we spent as much money educating our children as we do on the military. I can’t believe you are so naïve as to believe that our choice is between banning smoking and funding education. Typical conservative false dichotomy.
“As noted earlier, private businesses can eliminate smoking in their establishments. At this point, pretty much the only places where smoking is allowed are a few restaurants, establishments that serve alcohol, and some hotels (in a few, less-desirable rooms).”
Uh, no. People can smoke most places out of doors and people can smoke in their cars and in their homes. You’re hyperventilating, netmom. Get a grip.
“If your point is that marijuana, heroin and cocaine should be legal and taxed, I think we agree. It is hypocritical to make certain vices legal and tax them while making other vices illegal.”
Yes Joel, that is my point and yes that is hypocrisy.
‘It is hypocritical to make certain vices legal and tax them while making other vices illegal.’ I disagree with this since some vices are considered unacceptable to society (not that that is a permanent decision) and are then deemed illegal.
But the bottom line of the proposal for funding education is that it needs a more stable foundation eventually. As a hypothesis consider, if the governor wanted to boost education in a tax adverse state, he can do it this way. Over time, when this revenue stream “dries up”, we might value the benefits of a better education system to consider a better source of funding.
Cynics (and opponents) might say he is doing the easy work leaving the hard for future administrations. They would be right and so is he.
“But the bottom line of the proposal for funding education is that it needs a more stable foundation eventually.”
Well said. When Tennessee residents get serious about funding public education, they will support it with a serious tax policy, not one linked to vices like smoking (or gambling). Don’t get me wrong–I support taxation of vices. But to pretend that we shouldn’t discourage smoking because it will harm public education is both cynical and unserious.
Finally someone noticed my jingle. My point exactly, Joel.