To smoke or not to smoke? Despite the inherent, well-publicized health risks, 47 million Americans still incur long-term damages to their bodies and appearances by indulging in cigarette use. Years and decades of government and public health officials' efforts to raise awareness about smoking's dangers have been not as successful as they had wished. In an attempt to force the issue, and fill budget gaps, a number of states have raised taxes on cigarettes - and New York leads the pack, no pun intended.
A 39-cent-per-pack increase went into effect Wednesday, raising the New York cigarette sales tax to $1.50 per pack, the highest in the nation. Other states have increased their taxes as well - 60 cents in Washington, 61 cents in Connecticut. Advocates are hopeful the revenue generated will fund a multibillion dollar bailout of New York's health care industry, according to The Buffalo News. Others are hoping the high fiscal cost of smoking - $50 per carton in New York - will force smokers to quit by burning holes in their wallets. The tax could reduce smoking rates by one or two percent. The last time cigarette taxes increased in New York, in March 2000, prices went up 55 cents per pack.
Cigarette taxes are raised because it's politically palpable and justified under the banner of paying for health programs to defer smoking's negative effects. These increases are "sin taxes": revenue generated from luxury items like cigarettes and alcohol. Is it justifiable to tax one vice more heavily to defray health costs while not doing so on other vices such as the aforementioned alcohol or junk food? Yes, it is. While other vices have increased social costs such as expensive obesity or drunk-driving accidents, they serve functional purposes as well.
Junk food, while unhealthy, is food and qualifies as sustenance. Many Americans drink only at parties, and then only moderation. Cigarettes serve no similar justifiable purpose.
Perhaps the tax is unfair because 33 percent of all smokers live below the poverty line. If, however, cigarettes were either essential for life or impossible to quit using, then the tax would be unfair. Both are not the case. The majority of Americans do not smoke, and millions more have quit. If those addicted to heroin, a substance far deadlier than tobacco, can quit, so can smokers.
Another reason not to increase the tax is the damage done to convenience stores, or at least so convenience store owners say. Cigarette sales dropped 20 percent after the March 2000 increase. With cartons priced at $50, many smokers will simply travel to Indian reservations, where the taxes don't apply and costs run as low as $10. One convenience store in the Southern Tier could see cigarettes drop to 15 percent of its total sales. In the face of what cigarette smoking costs society, a drop in revenue, while difficult for the owners' pocketbook, is not much of an overall concern.
It's more than a little disheartening when people choose to quit smoking not for the obvious reason, "It will kill me," but the comparatively trivial, "It's too expensive, so I quit." But even if the tax only forces one or two percent of smokers to quit, and fills the coffers of state government without further taxing property or income, then it's worthwhile to even slightly stamp out a worthless habit.
