Posts

The Post's View: Maryland’s cigarette tax is saving lives

By Editorial Board, The Washington Post

AMID AN electoral backlash against high taxes in Maryland, anti-smoking advocates have abandoned a campaign to raise the state-imposed levy on cigarettes. Politically, that makes perfect sense. As public-health policy, it is foolish.

A new study by Maryland’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shows that the state’s drop in teen smoking rates, already steep following three sharp tax increases since 1999 on a pack of cigarettes, has continued in the past few years.

The rate of cigarette smoking among underage youth in the state has fallen from 23 percent in 2000 to just 11 percent last year. Since 2008, when the per-pack levy was doubled, to $2, smoking among high school youth has fallen by about a third; according to the state study, for the first time, slightly more teenagers now smoke cigars than smoke cigarettes.

Adult smoking has also fallen by about a fifth since 2000. Smoking among both youth and adults in Maryland is considerably below the national average, which is about 16 percent for youth and 18 percent for adults.

No doubt, the anti-tax mood in Maryland was central to Republican Larry Hogan’s upset victory in November’s gubernatorial election. That sentiment notwithstanding, the smoking numbers are a strong argument for leaving in place the state’s relatively high levies on tobacco products, which are not just a revenue source but also a means of saving lives.

According to the state study, hospital admissions to treat tobacco-related cancers in Maryland have fallen by 11 percent from 2000 to 2011, saving more than $102 million in hospital charges in 2011 alone.

The state study also showed a strong link between youth smoking and other forms of substance abuse. Minors who smoked were three times more likely than non-smokers to have used alcohol in the past 30 days, five times more likely to have used marijuana, six times more likely to have used other illegal drugs, and nine times more likely to have used — or, more likely, abused — prescription drugs.

It’s no coincidence that states that have been loath to offend the tobacco or anti-tax lobbies by raising the tax on cigarettes have significantly higher smoking rates. As we’ve noted before, a case in point is Virginia, where the per-pack levy is among the lowest in the nation, the price of a pack of cigarettes is $2 lower than in Maryland and the smoking rate is much higher. For continuing to bow before the throne of King Tobacco, the Old Dominion will pay a price in the public health of its citizens.

As smoking rates nationally have fallen, the use of e-cigarettes among high school-age youth appears to be rising. That’s a worrying trend, given that e-cigarettes also contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, and could promote the use of cigarettes and other harmful substances.

You don’t have to be enamored of the nanny state to recognize that tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, correlates directly with lung cancer and other diseases and is a major threat to public health. Nor is there any serious doubt that tax increases have played a critical role in cutting cigarette use, especially among price-sensitive teens.

If Mr. Hogan intends to cut taxes, as he has promised, the tobacco tax is one he’d be well advised to leave intact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marylands-cigarette-tax-is-saving-lives/2014/12/27/36f2818a-8573-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

Tobacco tax: Move for $2 per pack gains momentum in CA

By Dr. Nicholas Leeper | Special to the Mercury News

The changing of the New Year brings about a fresh start. If you are one of the estimated 46.6 million Americans who smoke cigarettes, quitting the habit is likely being considered for a New Year’s resolution. Polls have shown that a vast majority of smokers would like to quit, and we at the American Heart Association are dedicated to giving smokers every edge we can to put their habit in the past. One such proven way to encourage quitting is a tobacco tax.

This is why we are joining with doctors, health care workers, taxpayers and other nonprofit health organizations to support a $2-per-package tax on the cost of tobacco.

The benefits to our state would be enormous and would more accurately account for the true cost of tobacco. Currently, California spends about $9 billion a year on tobacco-related medical care, with taxpayers footing about a third of that. In fact, in data compiled from the Centers for Disease Control, the true cost to society in California is $15 for every pack sold. Our current tobacco tax is 87 cents.

A tobacco tax is also a particularly effective way to prevent younger people from ever taking up the habit. A staggering 80 percent of smokers start before they are 18, while only one in 100 begin at age 26 or older. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, based on previous research, a 10 percent increase in the cost of tobacco will result in a five to 15 percent decrease in youth tobacco usage. This compares to three to seven percent for adults.

Education about the ill effects of tobacco over the past several decades has been instrumental in lowering the rate of smoking in the United States. Toward that end, the tax would bolster proven youth prevention programs to deter smoking. A few years ago, it was estimated that even the $1 added tobacco tax then proposed in California would have prevented 200,000 children in California from becoming adult smokers.

Given that tobacco is a major contributor to coronary disease in our nation, we at the American Heart Association are always looking at effective policies that result in fewer smokers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if even a roughly $1 per package tax were to be instituted on cigarettes next year, there would be 2.6 million fewer adult smokers over the age of 18 by 2021. This would certainly be helpful in a nation where 443,000 people die from smoking-related diseases yearly, including 46,000 heart-related deaths attributed to secondhand smoke.

If these statistics just seem like numbers on a page, just think about the intangibles, such as the value added from having more years with a grandparent, or not watching a loved one suffer through the pain of emphysema, heart disease or cancer. These are things on which it’s impossible to place a monetary value, but with an estimated 100,000 California lives that will be saved in future years through a tobacco tax, they are nonetheless primary benefits.

So, in the New Year, if you need help to quit smoking, please visit our website, http://www.heart.org, for more information. And please join with us at http://www.savelivesca.com and support a $2-per-package tobacco tax next year. The life you save may be yours or a loved one’s.

Dr. Nicholas Leeper is Assistant Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery and Medicine at Stanford University Medical Center and president of the American Heart Association, Silicon Valley Division. He wrote this for this newspaper.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_27190645/tobacco-tax-move-2-per-pack-gains-momentum

Higher tobacco taxes save lives

By: Vincent DeMarco, Baltimore

A recent op-ed criticizing Maryland’s tobacco tax increases ignores the most important consequence of these measures: a dramatic decrease in tobacco use by teens that has saved thousands of young people from preventable tobacco-related deaths and serious illnesses (“Md. cigarette taxes have unintended consequences,” Dec. 18).

According to data compiled by the Campaign For Tobacco Free kids, within two years after the 2008 increase in the state cigarette tax, from $1 per pack to $2 per pack, there was a 29 percent drop in teen smoking in Maryland.

That translated into 15,000 fewer high school smokers (some of whom have become non-smoking young adults by now); more than 70,000 kids today who will not become adult smokers; more than 30,000 kids alive today who will avoid future premature smoking-related deaths; and more than $1.5 billion in long-term health care cost savings tp the state.

The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently released a study showing that between 2010 and 2013 there was an 18 percent drop in Maryland teens smoking cigars. This happened at a time when nationally there was no statistically significant change in teen cigar smoking.

This progress, which also resulted in saving thousands of Maryland youth from tobacco addiction and preventable death and illnesses, occurred in part because of the 2012 increase in the state tax on cigars, along with an effective public education campaign by the state health department.

Granted, there will always be some people who will seek to avoid the tobacco tax by going to other states or resorting to smuggling. But very seldom will this involve children, whose lives we are saving in record numbers.

And we know from experience that the drop in cigarette sales in Maryland far outweighed the increase in sales in neighboring states that didn’t increase their tobacco tax. And were are fully confident in Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot’s ability to prevent and prosecute those who would try to illegally smuggle cigarettes into the state.

In addition to saving lives, tobacco tax increases are good for Maryland taxpayers because they both reduce the health-care cost for tobacco-related illnesses and help fund critical health care programs. The 2008 tobacco tax increase partially funded the expansion of health care to over 100,000 uninsured Marylanders.

Although the Maryland Taxpayers’ Association doesn’t seem to want Marylanders to have these benefits, many independent polls show the vast majority of Marylanders clearly understand these benefits and would strongly support further increases in the tobacco tax to save more lives and money for the state.

-The writer is president of the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-tobacco-letter-20141222-story.html

Smoking Rates Continue to Decline

MMWR – MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT

The CDC recently updated its statistics about current cigarette smoking among adults. In its MMWR article of November 28, 2014, it tracked changes in smoking between 2005 and 2013. In general, the trends of previous years continued. Here are some of the results:

  • The proportion of U.S. adults who smoke declined from 20.9% to 17.8%, a 15% decline during that period. The 17.8% is a modern low in adult smoking prevalence.
  • The proportion of daily smokers declined from 16.9% to 13.7%, a 19% decline and another all time low.
  • Among daily smokers, the proportion who smoked at least one pack per day decreased from 52.1% to 36.4%, a 30% decline. And daily smokers now average 14.2 cigarettes, down from 16.7, a 15% decline.

Thus, there has been a decline in overall smokers, a slightly greater decline in daily smokers and in number of cigarettes smoked by daily smokers, and a major decline in the number of cigarettes consumed by daily smokers.

The profile of smokers is relatively unchanged:

  • Men (20.5%) are more likely to be smokers than women (15.3%)
  • Smoking prevalence is higher among adults aged 25-44 years (20.1%) and lowest among those over age 65 (8.8%)
  • Among ethnic groups, multiple race groups had the highest rates (26.8%), followed by American Indian/Native Alaskan (26.1%), Whites (19.4%), Blacks (18.3%), Hispanics (12.1%), and Asians (9.6%).
  • Smokers continue to be stratified by education level, often used as a marker for social class. Those without a high school diploma had smoking rates of 24.2%, followed by those with high school diplomas (22%), undergraduate college degrees (9.1%), and graduate degrees (5.6%). Those who obtained General Education Development (GED) certificates in lieu of high school graduation had the highest rates (41.4%). It is likely that many of these persons were incarcerated and thus also had medical conditions associated with high smoking rates, such as mental illness and substance use disorders.
  • Persons living below the federal poverty level had higher rates (29.2%) than those above that level (16.2%).
  • LGB adults were more likely to be smokers (26.6%) than straight adults (17.6%).

Thus, the trend of smoking to be concentrated among the less educated, the poor, and the LGB population continued. Not included in this report, but summarized previously by a special MMWR are recent data documenting the much higher rates among persons with behavioral health issues, the groups with the highest smoking rates in the entire population. Notably, those working in the health professions in the United States have some of the lowest smoking rates in the world, with some surveys showing that only 1% of physicians are smokers.

This new report should encourage us that progress, indeed, is happening. But, the slow rate of decline, in the face of all the evidence about the harms of smoking and the accumulating tobacco control policies such as taxes, clean indoor air laws, counter-marketing, and coverage for smoking cessation therapies, is sobering. As smokers increasingly resemble members of marginalized parts of the American community, the risk is that resources for tobacco control will be diverted to other causes. Yet, over 40 million people still smoke, including many of the most vulnerable of us. And close to 500,000 people die each year from smoking-associated illnesses. We need to capture better the sense of urgency buried in those statistics.

Finally, it is important to recognize two new potential threats to the health of the nation—electronic cigarettes and marijuana. Right now the rhetoric about the benefits and harms of these two commodities outstrips the evidence. We do know that the use of the e-cigarette is climbing, and it is highly likely that marijuana use is also increasing in the wake of state legalization efforts. We also know that because these commodities contain immense potential for profit, marketing efforts to promote usage are certain to increase. As we continue our efforts against the harm from using combustible tobacco, we need to track the use of these new potential threats, as well as to assemble evidence about what happens to those who use them.

New CDC Youth Tobacco Survey Should Spur FDA to Finalize Rule Regulating All Tobacco Products, Including E-Cigarettes and Cigars

New CDC Youth Tobacco Survey Should Spur FDA to Finalize Rule Regulating All Tobacco Products, Including E-Cigarettes and Cigars

Teen E-Cigarette Use Triples, Cigar Use Stays Steady Even While Cigarette Smoking Continues to Drop 

WASHINGTON, DC – The 2013 National Youth Tobacco Survey released today by the CDC shows that while youth cigarette smoking continues to decline, electronic cigarette use among high school students tripled from 2011 to 2013 and there has been no progress in reducing youth cigar smoking.

These findings underscore the urgent need for the Food and Drug Administration to finalize its proposed rule to regulate all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and cigars, in order to prevent youth use of these products.  We again call on the FDA to issue a final rule by April 25, 2015 – one year after the FDA issued a proposed rule – and to close gaps in the rule by cracking down on marketing and flavors that appeal to kids.  The FDA first announced in early 2011 that it planned to regulate e-cigarettes, cigars and other unregulated tobacco products, so these important public health protections are long overdue.  We cannot afford more delays that allow the tobacco industry to continue targeting our kids with a new generation of unregulated tobacco products.

The FDA currently regulates cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco under a landmark 2009 law, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.  But the FDA must assert jurisdiction over other tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and cigars, before it can regulate them, which is what the proposed rule would do.

Key findings of the new survey include:

·        Youth cigarette smoking continues a steady, long-term decline, again reaching a record low.  In 2013, the cigarette smoking rate among high school students was 12.7 percent, down from 14 percent in 2012 and 15.8 percent in 2011 (the CDC last year published results of the 2011 and 2012 National Youth Tobacco Surveys). Since 2000, cigarette smoking among high school students has been cut by more than half (from 28 to 12.7 percent), while middle school smoking has fallen by 74 percent (from 11 to 2.9 percent).

·        In 2013, 4.5 percent of high school students reported using e-cigarettes in the past 30 days. That is triple the 1.5 percent who reported doing so in 2011 and up from 2.8 percent in 2012. This increase comes as e-cigarette makers have marketed their products with the same tactics long used to market regular cigarettes to kids, including celebrity endorsements, slick TV and magazine ads, sponsorships of race cars and concerts, and sweet flavors such as gummi bear and cotton candy.

·        There has been no progress in reducing youth cigar smoking in recent years.  In 2013, 11.9 percent of high school students were cigar smokers, compared to 11.6 percent in 2011.  In 2013, high school boys smoked cigars at higher rates than cigarettes – 15.4 percent vs. 14.1 percent, while African-American high school students smoked cigars at much higher rates than cigarettes – 14.7 percent vs. 9 percent.  Because cigars are unregulated, often taxed at lower rates than cigarettes and can be sold individually, tobacco companies have been able to market an array of cheap, sweet cigars that appeal to kids.

As the CDC noted in its report on the survey results, nicotine use by youths in any form is unsafe and can harm adolescent brain development.  It is critical that the FDA act to regulate all tobacco products and prevent youth use of any tobacco product.

The big drops in cigarette smoking demonstrate that we know how to win the fight against tobacco by implementing scientifically proven strategies. These include higher tobacco taxes, strong smoke-free laws, well-funded tobacco prevention and cessation programs that include mass media campaigns, and effective FDA regulation of all tobacco products.

Tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in our country, killing 480,000 people and costing at least $289 billion in health care bills and economic losses each year.  It is within our reach to win this fight and make the next generation tobacco-free, but only if we have the political will to fully implement what we know works.

The National Youth Tobacco Survey results were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

NOTE: In addition to the increase in youth use of e-cigarettes, poison control centers across the country continue to report soaring numbers of accidental poisonings related to e-cigarettes and the  nicotine liquids used in them.  The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that, through October 31, there have been 3,353 calls so far this year involving exposures to e-cigarette devices and nicotine liquids.  This is more than double the 1,543 calls in all of 2013 and more than 12 times the 271 calls in 2011. The huge increase in poisoning incidents related to e-cigarettes is one more reason why the FDA must quickly finalize its rule, including requiring child-resistant packaging of nicotine liquids.

LLOYD OMDAHL: Legislature questions intelligence of voters

By: Lloyd Omdahl, Grand Forks Herald
Measure 4 on the November ballot is the latest attempt by the Legislature to restrict citizen use of the initiative process by which voters can propose measures for a vote of the people.
If passed, it would prohibit the secretary of state from putting on the ballot any citizen proposal that would direct the expenditure of money for a specific purpose. Apparently, legislators question the intelligence of the voters.
This is the latest in a never-ending series of attempts by the Legislature to make it more difficult for North Dakotans to use the initiative. In the past, most attempts have been aimed at raising the number of signatures required for filing petitions. They all failed.
This time, the Legislature wants to be sure that it has exclusive control over the huge surpluses in the state treasury. It is afraid that citizens who see neglected needs will win the support of the electorate to appropriate money.
The Legislature should be reminded that these surpluses would not exist without the adoption in 1980 of a measure initiated by the people to add a 6½ percent tax on oil production. The Legislature was doing nothing about the puny oil tax it had levied 25 years earlier.
Let’s look at the Legislature’s track record.
First, there’s the Legislature’s mismanagement of the money from the tobacco settlement in which North Dakota was awarded over $800 million. Even though Former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp won the lawsuit, the Legislature was quick to grab the money for programs other than fighting tobacco addiction.
To get the Legislature back on track, Heitkamp and other tobacco fighters initiated a measure directing the Legislature to spend tobacco settlement money on tobacco addiction. The voters approved the measure.
But the 2013 Legislature, in a petulant fit, refused to accept the decision of the voters. It started stripping out key provisions of the initiated measure. The effort failed only when the leadership could not muster the two-thirds vote needed to change an initiated measure.
Meanwhile, the Legislature held the appropriation hostage until the last day of the session when it relented and belligerently approved funding the program to fight tobacco addiction.
By proposing Measure 4, the Legislature is telling North Dakotans that they are not to be trusted with money. Many residents feel the same way about the Legislature. That is why we have provisions in the state constitution for the initiative and the referendum.
There are pressing needs that have been neglected by the Legislature and may require initiative petitions to appropriate money in the future.
One is the need for more support for clean water, conservation and parks. Even if Measure 5 proposing a significance increase in such funding is defeated, the need will not go away. A new initiated measure may be necessary.
A recent public opinion poll revealed strong public support for such programs.
Another critical need is funding for statewide preschool education. The last session did nothing except authorize cash-strapped school districts to raise their own money for preschool. There is wide public support for preschool education. This may require an initiated measure.
Generally speaking, the governor and the Legislature have done quite well with state money. Nevertheless, the Legislature sometimes develops blind spots when it comes to new needs and new opportunities.
Historically, North Dakota voters have been very responsible in dealing with money issues on the ballot. There is no justification for questioning their intelligence. Measure 4 is an unnecessary restriction on citizens participating in their government.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/lloyd-omdahl-legislature-questions-intelligence-voters

Raise tobacco tax to discourage kids

By KATHLEEN DONAHUE Bismarck

Almost all tobacco users became addicted before age 26. Thousands of kids try their first cigarette every day.

In recent years, declines in youth smoking rates have stalled and the use of other tobacco products by youth has actually increased.

The tobacco companies are aware of these trends and spend millions of dollars on new products and deceptive marketing with the goal of turning children into lifelong customers.

Advertising influenced my cousin to start smoking at an early age. Years later, his tobacco use cost him his life. I want to make sure no family experiences such a loss.

One of the best ways to prevent kids from ever starting the deadly addiction is to increase the price of tobacco products so they can’t afford to purchase them. States have been successfully using this tactic over the past decade by increasing local tobacco taxes.

I’m suggesting we raise North Dakota’s cigarette tax significantly. This one simple act can keep nearly 7,900 North Dakota kids from ever becoming adult smokers. And more importantly, it means that more than 4,700 tobacco-caused deaths like my cousin’s untimely passing would be prevented.

North Dakota, this is a win-win idea. You can decrease long-term health care costs and protect our children. I urge you to write your legislators and ask them to consider increasing North Dakota’s tax on all tobacco products. It’s the right choice for our kids.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/raise-tobacco-tax-to-discourage-kids/article_94347622-4046-11e4-a807-af727e9b9e46.html

Letter: Tobacco taxes should be raised

By Jay Taylor from Durbin, N.D.

Hey! I have a great idea! Let’s raise a tax on something,” said no North Dakota legislator ever.

Wow! Raising a tax on anything, with North Dakota being so flush from oil money, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

And yet, taxes (or fees if you want a more politically correct term) do continue to inch up here and there.

During the 2013 legislative session, North Dakota lawmakers passed a bill that increased fees for many hunting and fishing licenses.

A tax is generally imposed to gain funds to pay for specific services or products: “It is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.”

As said, to raise a tax in North Dakota today just doesn’t seem to make any sense, unless it’s a tax to protect the health of our residents, prevent disease and thwart kids from starting a path of extremely unhealthy behavior.

OK, I’ve beat around the bush long enough. I have read a lot about the idea of increasing the tobacco tax in North Dakota, and I am totally in favor of such an action. Here’s why:

The tobacco tax in North Dakota is one of the lowest in the nation (we are 46th at 44 cents per pack of 20 cigarettes), the lower-than-us states include: Missouri at 17 cents; Louisiana at 36 cents; Georgia at 37 cents and Alabama at 42 cents.

Our tobacco tax hasn’t increased since 1993.

The effects of North Dakotans’ tobacco use also affects the wallets of those who don’t use tobacco. North Dakota’s annual health care costs directly caused by smoking are $326 million. The portion covered by state Medicaid is $47 million.

But the most important reason is that a higher tobacco tax encourages people to quit and discourages younger folks from starting. According to the Tobacco Free Kids organization, “tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.”

For all the work being done by public health and health advocacy organizations, raising the tobacco tax is win-win.

I think it’s about time the North Dakota legislators started having a serious talk about this rather serious idea.

http://www.westfargopioneer.com/content/letter-tobacco-taxes-should-be-raised

Letter: Tobacco taxes should be raised

“Hey! I have a great idea! Let’s raise a tax on something,” said no North Dakota legislator ever.

Wow! Raising a tax on anything, with North Dakota being so flush from oil money, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

And yet, taxes (or fees if you want a more politically correct term) do continue to inch up here and there.

During the 2013 legislative session, North Dakota lawmakers passed a bill that increased fees for many hunting and fishing licenses.

A tax is generally imposed to gain funds to pay for specific services or products: “It is a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.”

As said, to raise a tax in North Dakota today just doesn’t seem to make any sense, unless it’s a tax to protect the health of our residents, prevent disease and thwart kids from starting a path of extremely unhealthy behavior.

OK, I’ve beat around the bush long enough. I have read a lot about the idea of increasing the tobacco tax in North Dakota, and I am totally in favor of such an action. Here’s why:

The tobacco tax in North Dakota is one of the lowest in the nation (we are 46th at 44 cents per pack of 20 cigarettes), the lower-than-us states include: Missouri at 17 cents; Louisiana at 36 cents; Georgia at 37 cents and Alabama at 42 cents.

Our tobacco tax hasn’t increased since 1993.

The effects of North Dakotans’ tobacco use also affects the wallets of those who don’t use tobacco. North Dakota’s annual health care costs directly caused by smoking are $326 million. The portion covered by state Medicaid is $47 million.

But the most important reason is that a higher tobacco tax encourages people to quit and discourages younger folks from starting. According to the Tobacco Free Kids organization, “tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.”

For all the work being done by public health and health advocacy organizations, raising the tobacco tax is win-win.

I think it’s about time the North Dakota legislators started having a serious talk about this rather serious idea.

http://www.westfargopioneer.com/content/letter-tobacco-taxes-should-be-raised

Taxes on cigarettes help reduce number of smokers

By Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
The Hill
Science and experience have demonstrated conclusively that cigarette tax increases are highly effective at reducing smoking, especially among kids. Thus, the conclusions in a Gallup poll The Hill recently wrote about (“High cigarette prices aren’t stopping smokers,” July 18) are inconsistent with what happens in the real world every time cigarette taxes are increased.

The most recent surgeon general’s report on tobacco concludes that “raising prices on cigarettes is one of the most effective tobacco control interventions.” The report called for additional cigarette tax increases “to prevent youth from starting smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.” The Congressional Budget Office has also reviewed the evidence and concluded that an increase in the federal cigarette tax would significantly reduce the number of adult smokers.

In the year after a 62-cent increase in the federal cigarette tax in 2009, cigarette sales declined by a historic 11.1 percent. Adult and youth smoking rates also declined. “This single legislative act — increasing the price of cigarettes — is projected to have reduced the number of middle and high school students who smoke by over 220,000 and the number using smokeless tobacco products by over 135,000,” the surgeon general’s report noted.

Even the poll The Hill wrote about reported that more than a quarter of adult smokers surveyed said they smoked less due to tax increases. As there are 42 million smokers in the United States, this translates into millions of smokers whose behavior is affected by cigarette tax increases. And this survey of current smokers would not have included former smokers who have already quit due to increased tobacco taxes.
Tobacco tax increases don’t have to cause every smoker or even a majority of smokers to quit or cut back in order to have a big impact on public health. As the scientific evidence and even the new Gallup poll show, such tax increases will impact the behavior of large numbers of smokers, saving many from a premature death.
From Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington, D.C.

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/letters/213571-taxes-on-cigarettes-help-reduce-number-of-smokers#ixzz38sdK91IE
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook