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

E-cigarettes usually aren’t taxed like regular tobacco products. Utah’s governor wants to change that.

By Hunter Schwarz | The Washington Post

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert wants e-cigarettes to be taxed, and his office thinks it could bring in $10 million for the state annually.

“The governor feels strongly we should tax e-cigarettes the same way as other tobacco products,” said Marty Carpenter, a Herbert spokesman, in an interview with the Washington Post. “We don’t want to be in the business of incentivizing” e-cigarettes, he said.

The tax was included as a footnote in Herbert’s budget proposal released Thursday, and first reported by the Salt Lake Tribune. Herbert tweeted about the tax Monday.

While cigarettes are taxed in every state — from a high of $4.35 in New York to $.17 in Missouri — Utah would be among the first to tax e-cigarettes. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only Minnesota and North Carolina currently tax e-cigarettes, but Carpenter said he “wouldn’t surprise me if other states were to look at something similar.”

For e-cigarettes to be taxed, the legislature would need to create and pass a bill. Carpenter said he doesn’t anticipate much opposition to such the proposed tax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/12/15/e-cigarettes-usually-arent-taxed-like-regular-tobacco-products-utahs-governor-wants-to-change-that/

Governor Herbert wants to tax e-cigarette sales in Utah, bring in $10M

By ROBERT GEHRKE | The Salt Lake Tribune

Buried in Gov. Gary Herbert’s budget blueprint is a proposal that is sure to have the users of e-cigarettes fuming.

In a footnote on page 22 of his outline, Herbert is proposing a new tax on e-cigarettes that his office predicts will raise $10 million next year.

Herbert, who boasted his budget is free of tax increases, says he doesn’t consider the new e-cigarette tax to be a tax hike, but rather a change in the way the state treats the products.

“It’s just saying, ‘Here’s a product that should fit under the umbrella of tobacco,’ ” Herbert said in an interview with The Tribune. “It’s a health issue and there are some that think this new e-cigarette that young people are getting hooked on, that’s straight nicotine with good flavors and all that stuff that makes it attractive, should be taxed just like we tax tobacco.”

The governor’s office could not provide specific details of how the new e-cigarette tax would work. There are several options, said Herbert’s spokesman Marty Carpenter, and the governor is willing to work with legislators to find the best one.

Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, an anti-tobacco crusader in the Legislature, said he has met with the governor and representatives from the “vaping” industry and believes the best option would be to tax the e-cigarette liquid, or e-juice, at a lower rate than regular tobacco products, but that it should still be taxed.

Typically, tobacco products other than cigarettes are taxed at 87.5 percent of the wholesale price in Utah. Ray is proposing a rate of about half that for the e-juice. That would add several dollars to the cost of the average bottle of e-juice he said.

“What we have to look at is a fair tax, because tobacco is being taxed and this is a tobacco derivative,” Ray said. “I’ve approached the industry and said, ‘OK, you’re claiming this is less harmful, so let’s go somewhere in the middle, somewhere around 40 percent.’ “

The e-cigarette vaporizers, that turn the juice into steam to be inhaled, would not be taxed. Ray said he hopes the increase in price would be enough to discourage young people from picking up vaping in the first place.

But Aaron Frazier, executive director of the Utah Smoke-free Association, said that upping the price of e-cigarette liquid will mean people will just keep smoking more harmful cigarettes.

“What that’s going to do is protect the tobacco market and drive the price of the e-liquid above and beyond what the price of tobacco cigarettes are,” Frazier said. “Basically, what they’re doing is removing any benefit for a smoker to move over to a scientifically documented less-harmful product and drive them back to smoking tobacco cigarettes.”

Ray said he believes that, within a few years, science will show the health benefits that supporters of e-cigarettes boast about are fiction.

“I think it’s going to be as bad as tobacco down the road,” he said. “People will realize this stuff is not as good as we were told and we’re going to have health problems down the road.”

Frazier said several states have looked at imposing e-cigarette taxes as a cash cow to make up for the tobacco-tax revenue they’re losing because people are using e-cigarettes to quit smoking.

According to the group Americans for Tax Reform, which opposes e-cigarette taxes, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine have all considered legislation looking to tax e-cigarettes, but it has been defeated. In Arizona, an e-cigarette tax is still pending.

Only two states — Minnesota and North Carolina — have an e-cigarette tax in place, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Minnesota taxes the liquids at 95 percent of the wholesale price of the liquids. North Carolina imposes a tax of a nickel per milliliter.

Ray also is planning to once again sponsor legislation to regulate the sales of e-cigarettes. Last session, he ran a bill that got worked over with multiple amendments and was up for passage on the final night when the Legislature adjourned without voting on it.

The bill would require businesses that sell e-cigarettes to be licensed by the state and the retailer could lose its license if it sold e-cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1941695-155/governor-wants-to-tax-e-cigarette-sales

Our View: Do more to keep e-cigs, youths apart

The Times Editorial Board, SC Times

Surveys of Minnesota and U.S. youth show alarming increase in e-cigarette use. Lawmakers can slow this increase by immediately acting to limit access.

Two surveys released the past week — one state and one national — deliver a powerful message about the most pressing issue regarding e-cigarettes:
Government needs to lead a stronger charge to keep them out of the hands — and bodies — of minors.
To this point, most of the e-cigarette debate has been about whether e-cigarettes — which electronically convert liquid nicotine into vapor to be inhaled — are as harmful as traditional tobacco and secondhand smoke.
That debate has raged for years, even decades. A resolution seems months, or more likely, years away.
What’s more pressing to resolve — as evidenced by two surveys of youths’ nicotine use — is slowing the fast-rising number of minors who are trying these devices.
How fast?
The 2014 Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey released Monday found 28 percent of high school students have tried e-cigarettes. On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 4.5 percent of high school students nationally used e-cigarettes regularly in 2013 — triple the percent from 2011. Equally disturbing: 12 percent of U.S. high school students and 3 percent of middle-schoolers had tried them at least once.
And remember, e-cigarettes have been widely available in America for only about seven years.
Such findings make it clear e-cigarettes hold potential for creating countless new generations with unhealthy and high rates of nicotine addiction.
Hasn’t America learned enough hard lessons from 50 years of tobacco-based nicotine addiction to know it needs to snuff out that potential now instead of waiting for more research?
Ultimately, there is no debate that nicotine is a potent, addictive drug. E-cigarettes are simply a delivery mechanism.
So lawmakers should act now to keep the drug and the delivery system out of the hands of minors.
An easy decision is to enact a federal ban on selling minors e-cigarettes, “e-juice” and related products. Minnesota is one of about 35 states with such bans. However, sales via the Internet still provide youth access.
Another important step is to apply the same rules to the marketing of e-cigarettes that are applied to traditional tobacco.
After all, even a cursory glance at products and advertising makes it clear many producers are targeting youth. Think everything from trendy-looking e-cigarettes (and accessories) to bubble-gum flavored e-juice.
Finally, there is merit in increasing the taxes paid on all e-cigarette products.
Such an approach proved successful in reducing youth use of traditional tobacco. And it might even dissuade adults from nicotine addiction.
Again, too much of the debate about whether and how to regulate e-cigarettes remains focused on comparisons to traditional tobacco.
Seeing how e-cigarettes are gaining traction among youth, the focus needs to shift to keeping these nicotine-delivery devices out of their hands — at least until they are legal adults.
http://www.sctimes.com/story/opinion/2014/11/16/view-keep-e-cigs-youths-apart/19089759/

Fewer high school students smoking

Posted by: Colleen Stoxen
In the steepest decline ever found in Minnesota, the percent of high school students who smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days dropped from 18.1 percent in 2011 to 10.6 percent in 2014.
The 2014 Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey also found fewer young people used used chewing tobacco and cigars between 2011 and 2014.
Efforts to curb cigarette smoking appear to be helping. They include a 2013 tobacco tax, bans on indoor smoking, and tighter restrictions on youth access to tobacco products.
For the first time, the survey also asked about e-cigarette use and found that 12.9 percent of high school students used or tried an electronic cigarette in the past 30 days. The survey found that 28 percent of high school students reported ever having tried an e-cigarette.
“These new findings indicate that our statewide efforts to reduce and prevent conventional tobacco use among Minnesota children are working,” said Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Dr. Ed Ehlinger. “At the same time, we are seeing a wild-west approach toward e-cigarettes, which allows tobacco companies unlimited marketing access to young men and women. This has led to increasing numbers of Minnesota high school and middle school students using e-cigarettes.”
An estimated 85,900 Minnesota public school students in grades 6-12 have tried e-cigarettes, and 38,400 reported using them in the past 30 days. Nicotine is known to harm adolescent brain development. Nearly one-fourth of high school students who have tried an e-cigarette have never tried another tobacco product.
Read more from the Minnesota Department of Health.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/blogs/282152861.html

Tobacco tax increase a success: Fewer Minnesota kids smoking

MINNEAPOLIS, Nov. 10, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — The Raise it for Health coalition praised the results of a study today released by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), showing a dramatic drop in the number ofMinnesota kids smoking cigarettes. Specifically, the smoking rate among Minnesota students grades six through 12 decreased from 18.1 percent in 2011 to 10.6 percent in 2014, the steepest decline ever recorded by this survey. The study also showed fewer Minnesota kids using other tobacco products, including cigars, cigarillos and smokeless tobacco.
The Minnesota Legislature raised the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products significantly in 2013. The proposal had strong support from Governor Dayton, elected officials on both sides of the aisle and a majority of Minnesotans from all corners of the state.
“The dramatic drop in the number of Minnesota kids smoking is one clear indication that the tobacco tax is working,” said Molly Moilanen, Director of Public Affairs at ClearWay Minnesota, and co-chair of the Raise it for Health coalition. “The tobacco industry spends nearly 165 million dollars each year marketing their dangerous products in our state. Raising the price of tobacco is the best tool we have to prevent youth smoking and give our kids a fighting chance against Big Tobacco.”
In addition to keeping more kids from smoking, the $1.60 per-pack increase will:

  • Help more than 36,600 addicted adults stop smoking.
  • Prevent 25,700 Minnesotans from dying prematurely from smoking-related deaths.
  • Save $1.65 billion in long-term health care costs.

“Thank you, Governor Dayton and members of the Minnesota Legislature, for taking this bold and important step,” said Janelle Waldock, Director of the Center for Prevention at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, and co-chair of the Raise it for Health coalition. “These results reinforce what we know: increasing the tax on tobacco products was a victory for the health of Minnesota’s kids.”
The Minnesota Department of Health has conducted the Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey (MYTS) in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2014. The survey includes questions on the use of various tobacco products, characteristics of smokers, exposure to secondhand smoke, media awareness and other topics. Public schools and classrooms across the state were selected at random and invited to participate.
For more information on the MYTS, please visit www.health.state.mn.us.
Raise it for Health is a coalition of Minnesota’s leading health and nonprofit organizations with a common goal of reducing tobacco use in the state. Partners include: AARP Minnesota, Allina Health, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association in Minnesota, Association for Minnesota Counties, Association for Nonsmokers – MN, Blue Cross and Blue Shield ofMinnesota, CentraCare Health System, Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, ClearWay Minnesota(SM), Courage Center, Four Corners Partnership, HealthEast Care System, HealthPartners, LAAMPP Institute, Local Public Health Association, Mayo Clinic, Medica, Metro-MN Oncology Nursing Society, Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians, Minnesota Cancer Alliance, Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association, Minnesota Council of Health Plans, Minnesota Medical Association, Minnesota Public Health Association, Park Nicollet Health Services, PartnerSHIP 4 Health, School Nurse Organization of Minnesota, Service Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota, Southwest Community Health Improvement Program and Twin Cities Medical Society.
SOURCE Raise it for Health
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tobacco-tax-increase-a-success-fewer-minnesota-kids-smoking-282162591.html

Letter: Raise state cigarette tax, protect ND kids

By Nicholas Thies, Fargo

I have a friend who started smoking in ninth grade, roughly seven years ago, and he is still addicted to this day. 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, as is the case with my friend. I have talked with him, and he has told me how raising the tobacco tax would greatly encourage him to quit smoking.

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. It can also help detract adult smokers from continuing the habit. Many of my aunts and uncles have been smoking for decades, and I always wished for something that would make them quit.

I’m suggesting we raise North Dakota’s cigarette tax significantly. Of the surrounding states, North Dakota’s tobacco tax is incredibly cheaper.

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 caused deaths 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 legislator and ask them to consider increasing North Dakota’s tax on all tobacco products.

It’s the right choice for our kids.

http://www.inforum.com/content/letter-raise-state-cigarette-tax-protect-nd%E2%80%88kids

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