Posts

Maryland cigarette sales down 17% since tobacco tax hike, report says

, Reporter-Baltimore Business Journal
The number of cigarette packs sold in Maryland has declined 17 percent since 2008, according to a new report released Wednesday by a health care advocacy group.
A total of 200 million packs of cigarettes were sold in Maryland in fiscal 2012, down from 243 million in 2008, according to data compiled by Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative that analyzes data from the national Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The report is intended to highlight improvements in combatting smoking among teens and adults since Maryland raised a tax on cigarette packs in 2008 to $2.
The report comes as the Citizens’ Health Initiative and other health care organizations prepare to lobby for another $1 increase on the cigarette tax. If successful in the Maryland General Assembly, the tax would rise to $3 a pack.
The total number of cigarette packs sold in Maryland has been declining for more than a decade, according to the report. Back in 1995, 389 million packs of cigarettes were sold in the state.
Maryland’s General Assembly in 2012 increased the tax on mini cigars (which come in fruit flavors and have become popular among teenagers) to 70 percent of wholesale price, up from 15 percent. The assembly also increased the tax on smokeless tobacco to 30 percent of wholesale price, up from 15 percent.
In the assembly’s next session, which starts in January, health advocates will also be seeking another increase to the tax on smokeless tobacco and mini cigars.

Aldermen mixed on Emanuel cigarette tax hike

By John Byrne and Hal Dardick
Clout Street
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposed 75-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase is getting mixed reviews from aldermen today.
The increase in the city’s cigarette tax is projected to bring in about $10 million. Some aldermen questioned that figure, however, saying the higher tax would result in more black-market and across-the-border sales.
Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, said he supports efforts to discourage smoking but worries about the impact on retail stores.
“For the $10 million revenue gain we get from dramatically increasing that tax, my concern is that we’re going to be pushing that business to the suburban communities right across the border from Chicago, where tobacco addicts will be getting their fix. So we don’t want to inadvertantly punish Chicago retailers by trying to do something good on public health,” Reilly said. “So that is something I think we’re going to need to explore. In the greater scheme of a $340 million deficit, a $10 million revenue boost from the cigarette tax may not be worth the negative impact on business.”
Also raising questions about the wisdom of the cigarette tax, which opponents say will dampen retail sales and result in the illegal sale of loose cigarettes, was Ald. Carrie Austin, 34th, the City Council Budget Committee chairman.
“I just think it will hurt sales,” Austin said. “I want to see what 75 cents is going to cost. . . . . I don’t want to lose our revenue from cigarette sales to another state.”
Ald. Joe Moore, 49th, who has become a strong supporter of the mayor, said he’s glad the budget does not have an increase in property or sales taxes, a sentiment clearly shared by his colleagues.
He then went on to defend the cigarette tax, which is opposed by many of his colleagues and retail groups.
“The cigarette tax has the benefit of leading to a healthier Chicago,” Moore said. “It results in a healthier populace: less people are smoking, and less people need health care. So it’s a win-win for everybody.”
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposed 75-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase is getting mixed reviews from aldermen today.
The increase in the city’s cigarette tax is projected to bring in about $10 million. Some aldermen questioned that figure, however, saying the higher tax would result in more black-market and across-the-border sales.
Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, said he supports efforts to discourage smoking but worries about the impact on retail stores.
“For the $10 million revenue gain we get from dramatically increasing that tax, my concern is that we’re going to be pushing that business to the suburban communities right across the border from Chicago, where tobacco addicts will be getting their fix. So we don’t want to inadvertantly punish Chicago retailers by trying to do something good on public health,” Reilly said. “So that is something I think we’re going to need to explore. In the greater scheme of a $340 million deficit, a $10 million revenue boost from the cigarette tax may not be worth the negative impact on business.”
Also raising questions about the wisdom of the cigarette tax, which opponents say will dampen retail sales and result in the illegal sale of loose cigarettes, was Ald. Carrie Austin, 34th, the City Council Budget Committee chairman.
“I just think it will hurt sales,” Austin said. “I want to see what 75 cents is going to cost. . . . . I don’t want to lose our revenue from cigarette sales to another state.”
Ald. Joe Moore, 49th, who has become a strong supporter of the mayor, said he’s glad the budget does not have an increase in property or sales taxes, a sentiment clearly shared by his colleagues.
He then went on to defend the cigarette tax, which is opposed by many of his colleagues and retail groups.
“The cigarette tax has the benefit of leading to a healthier Chicago,” Moore said. “It results in a healthier populace: less people are smoking, and less people need health care. So it’s a win-win for everybody.”
Ald. Ameya Pawar, 47th, defended the cigarette tax and said people will need to consider how much money and time they use up to cross borders to get cigarettes.
“At some point, people are going to say, ‘If I really want to smoke, am I going to drive 40 miles and spend 4 bucks a gallon to get the cigarettes? Or do I buy ‘em here? Or, do I quit?” he said. “That coupled with the fact that we’re using a lot of the money to enroll kids in Medicaid that are Medicaid eligible, I think it’s a brilliant use of dollars.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-aldermen-mixed-on-emanuel-cigarette-tax-hike-20131023,0,1732047.story

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel calls for huge cigarette tax increase

By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times
Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em — and then hurry and quit, because Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is planning a massive tax increase on cigarettes.
His proposed 75-cent increase would bring a pack of cigarettes in the Windy City to $7.42 a pack, the highest price in the nation, Fox News reported.
But the tax hike could have a countereffect on raising revenues for the city. That’s because border residents only need to jump across state lines to buy in bulk. Already, the city’s total tax collection on cigarettes has fallen in recent years due directly to tax increases. In 2006, the city brought in $32.9 million in cigarette taxes, but after two consecutive tax hikes, revenues fell to $16.5 million, the Chicago Sun-Times said.
The tax rate per pack now stands at 68 cents.
Mr. Emanuel said the move could raise $10 million for schools. He plans to bring it before the City Council for consideration in his Oct. 23 proposed budget.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/chicagos-rahm-emanuel-calls-huge-cigarette-tax-hik/
 

Emanuel wants 75 cents a pack cigarette tax increase

Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans to propose increasing the city cigarette tax by 75 cents to help plug a budget gap and provide more free vision care for low-income ChicagoPublic Schools students, a City Hall source said Saturday.
The increase would leave Chicago with the nation’s highest total cigarette taxes. The administration expects to collect an additional $10 million, with $8 million going toward the budget shortfall and $2 million to expand a program that provides free eye exams and glasses to students who fail vision screenings, the source said.
The cigarette tax hike money represents only a fraction of the city’s estimated $339 million budget hole for next year. Even as City Hall was preparing to print budget documents on Sunday in advance of the mayor’s Wednesday budget address, there still was uncertainty over whether Emanuel will propose an increase in the city’s amusement tax on movies, plays, musical performances and sporting events.
Emanuel has ruled out politically toxic property and sales tax increases, so he will have to rely on other less-lucrative ways to raise revenue in addition to cutting costs. Further privatization of city services has been ruled out, the City Hall source said.
That approach will result in “a whole package” of options that aldermen will have to consider as they weigh in on the budget proposal, said Ald. Patrick O’Connor, 40th, the mayor’s City Council floor leader. “I don’t think that anybody is going to go through this and say I’m happy with everything here,” he said.
O’Connor predicted the new budget will be tougher for aldermen to swallow than last year’s spending plan — when there were no tax, fee or fine increases other than adding speed camera revenue — but less difficult than the mayor’s first budget, which increased a host of taxes, fees and fines while cutting and privatizing services.
If aldermen approve the cigarette tax increase, it will come on top of $1 smoke tax increases by the state and Cook County that went into effect during the past 16 months. The city hike would increase the per-pack total tax in Chicago to $7.42, putting it ahead of New York City’s nation-topping tobacco tax, which now is 19 cents higher.
Spending an additional $2 million on the CPS vision program would allow it to serve 45,000 students instead of 30,000.
In keeping with the theme of expanded youth programs, the mayor also plans to propose increased funding for after-school and summer jobs programs, allowing the city to continue increase funding for those programs despite federal cuts, the source said. Funding would come from revenue generated by the city’s speed cameras near schools and parks that are just starting to issue fines.
If approved, the total budget for after-school programs would be $12 million, a 15 percent increase since Emanuel took office in May 2011.
Meanwhile, some aldermen are expected to push for a commuter tax on suburban residents who work in the city, something the mayor has rejected partly because he worked to get rid of the city’s head tax on employees that businesses despised.
“For God sakes, we just got rid of the head tax,” O’Connor said. “If that’s just a replacement for the head tax, I think that’s counter-intuitive.”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-20/news/chi-emanuel-wants-75-cents-a-pack-cigarette-tax-increase-20131019_1_amusement-tax-aldermen-pack-cigarette-tax-increase
 

Poll: Most Nebraska voters support increasing cigarette tax

By KEVIN O’HANLON / Lincoln Journal Star

A majority of Nebraska voters favor increasing the state’s cigarette tax and using the money to provide property tax relief and smoking-cessation programs, according to a poll released Friday.
“Nebraskans have made it clear they are ready for a tobacco tax increase,” said David Holmquist of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, which paid for the poll.
The poll of 500 likely voters in Nebraska showed strong bipartisan support, with 68 percent supporting and only 29 percent opposing a proposal to increase the state tobacco tax in order to reduce property taxes and fund smoking cessation programs.
“A tobacco tax increase would have many immediate positive impacts, from the reduced health costs from smokers who choose to quit and youth who are priced out of the market to the ways that increased revenues could be used to fund smoking cessation efforts or offset property taxes,” Holmquist said.
Support for the tax increase was consistent across all subgroups, including smokers. Support remained high when voters were told that the state tobacco tax could be increased by $1 per pack, which if adopted would make Nebraska, currently a low tobacco tax state, slightly higher than Iowa’s current tax.
Nebraska’s cigarette tax is 64 cents a pack, which ranks 38th nationally. Iowa’s is $1.36, which ranks 26th.
The highest cigarette tax is New York’s $4.35 a pack. The lowest is Missouri’s 17 cents.
According to the poll, 78 percent of Nebraska voters said it was important to fund programs that will prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit, with 36 percent saying that this is very important.
The poll was done as the 14 members of the Legislature’s Tax Modernization Committee are looking to create a tax system that is fair, simple, stable and competitive with other states. The tax committee has asked business leaders and the public to come forward with ideas to help the process.
Gov. Dave Heineman said the priority should be lowering income and property taxes.
The framework for the present tax system was built in the 1960s. Three major tax sources fund state and local governments in Nebraska: 44 percent comes from property taxes, 29 percent from income taxes and 27 percent from sales taxes.
According to the poll, most voters said property taxes are the most problematic tax by far. When asked which tax concerns them the most, 57 percent of Nebraskans said property taxes, only 26 percent said income taxes and 11 percent said sales taxes.
“Now is the time for our state’s political leaders to listen to their constituents and step up and lead on the issue of tobacco taxes,” Holmquist said. “We have an opportunity here, within the tax reform discussions that are taking place, for a winning plan — we can improve Nebraska’s health, and we can provide much needed property tax relief.”
The poll was done by Public Opinion Strategies from Oct. 6-8. It included 500 likely voters and was done via cellphones and landlines. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percent.
http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/poll-most-nebraska-voters-support-increasing-cigarette-tax/article_ba7d9805-7b29-50f1-a97a-ea05665afcd4.html

Costly cigarettes and smoke-free homes: Both effectively reduce tobacco consumption

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine say high-priced cigarettes and smoke-free homes effectively reduce smoking behaviors among low-income individuals – a demographic in which tobacco use has remained comparatively high.

Writing in the October 17, 2013 issue of theAmerican Journal of Public Health, principal investigator John P. Pierce, PhD, professor and director of population sciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and colleagues found that expensive cigarettes – $4.50 or more per pack – were associated with lower consumption across all levels.

Writing in the October 17, 2013 issue of theAmerican Journal of Public Health, principal investigator John P. Pierce, PhD, professor and director of population sciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and colleagues found that expensive cigarettes – $4.50 or more per pack – were associated with lower consumption across all levels.
“Living in a state where the average price paid for cigarettes is low ($3.20 or less per pack) means that all , regardless of income, will smoke a lot more than those who live in a state with higher prices,” said Pierce. “This is the case for those living below the  as well as for the wealthy.”
When smokers agreed to a smoke-free home, not only were they more likely to reduce their smoking but, in addition, if they quit, they were less likely to relapse.
“Price is a deterrent to smoking,” said Pierce, “but successful quitting (90 or more days) was associated in this study only with a smoke-free home.”
The challenge to anti-smoking groups is that low-income smokers are less likely to adopt a smoke-free home environment. Pierce offered several possible explanations: “First, there’s a higher prevalence of smoking in people with lower incomes, which means that there will be more spouses who smoke as well. When both adults smoke, there is much lower motivation to introduce a smoke-free home. Also, social norms against smoking have historically been lower in those with lower incomes.
“No one is mandating a smoke-free home,” Pierce continued. “We are telling people that if they really want to quit, then introducing a smoke-free home will help them be successful. This study supports the current policy of increasing (cigarette) prices and building social norms that protect against secondhand smoke. These policies will reduce consumption among all smokers – reducing potential harm – and the ensuing smoke-free homes will help smokers quit successfully.”
The findings are derived from the 2006-2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a monthly nationally representative cross-sectional survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The researchers analyzed three sets of supplement data containing responses from more than 150,000 participants aged 18 and older who self-reported both income and smoking habits.
Maya Vijayaraghavan, MD, assistant clinical professor in the Department of Family and Preventive medicine and the study’s first author, said one potential avenue for intervention was to increase regulation of  in public housing.
“This may change norms around smoking among low-income populations living in public housing,” Vijayaraghavan said. “What is important is that clinicians need to emphasize  concerning tobacco use and should encourage and discuss strategies for adopting smoke-free homes among all smokers. Additionally, there is a lot of interest in raising cigarette price to reduce smoking. While we have evidence that moderate increases reduce  behavior in all income groups, it is important to match such a policy with support to help lower income smokers to quit successfully.”
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-costly-cigarettes-smoke-free-homes-effectively.html

Forum editorial: Minn. tax on tobacco is a health tax

Opponents of Minnesota’s new tobacco tax seem to believe the $2.83 per pack of cigarettes tax is about only revenue and business. It’s not. It’s first and foremost about public health.
While the tax has had expected impacts on revenue and business since it went into effect July 1, its primary purpose is to discourage smoking. The tax is having the predicted results: Sales of cigarettes are down. Early evidence suggests the steep rise in the tax will generate a corresponding decline in smoking. That has been the experience of every other state that raised its cigarette tax substantially. Young smokers or potential smokers are especially sensitive to price.
Even as sales of cigarettes slipped as the tax took hold, revenue increased, as forecast. The tax is up 30 percent, after all. Some of that additional revenue will be used to fund the new Vikings stadium.
However, as fewer Minnesotans take up the habit and others quit or reduce cigarette purchases, revenue will decline. The ideal situation, of course, would be that tobacco use falls so far as to make revenue from the tax unimportant to the state’s overall financial picture.
Reacting to the decline in sales, one person at a retail store said: “It’s very bad.” No, it’s not. In the long term, fewer people smoking cigarettes is a good thing. It’s good for their health, their medical bills and the nation’s health care system.
Often characterized as “sin taxes,” taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products are in effect health taxes. There is no sin in public policy that aims to improve and protect health. The real sin is peddling a product that sickens and kills people.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/414349/

Minnesota cigarette sales down, but tobacco revenue up

By: Mark Zdechlik, MPR News 90.3 FM, INFORUM
Cigarette sales in Minnesota have dropped since a $1.60 per pack tax increase took effect July 1, as tobacco sellers have feared.
Early Minnesota Department of Revenue numbers show cigarette stamp sales dropped more than 35 percent this July compared to July a year ago. Tobacco stamp sales for August were down 12 percent compared to the same month a year ago.
Although sales are down, because of the higher tax, the money the state collects from cigarette taxes has grown, according to the department.
“It’s very bad,” said 28-year-old Abdul Habit, who works at New Smokes in Maplewood. “It went down, like people [are] cutting back. People who used to buy a carton, now they buy five packs. People who used to buy a pack, now they just ask for single cigarette.”
Habit said his customers complain a lot about the tobacco tax increase.
“They cry a lot,” he said. “Nobody’s happy about it.”
Before cigarettes can be legally sold at shops like New Smokes, wholesalers apply tobacco stamps they buy from the state to each pack.
The stamps prove the state taxes have been paid.
The stamp machine at M. Amundson Cigar and Candy Co. in Minneapolis has not been as busy as it was before the tobacco tax increase, even though the company still sells more than $1 million in cigarettes each month.
“We’ve lost one-third of our sales,” company co-owner Ross Amundson said. “Stores that we sold to along the Wisconsin border have basically lost most of their volume and the larger cigarette stores around the cities here that we sell to, their volume in cigarettes is probably in half.”
Amundson said while cigarette sales are down sharply he’s selling more “roll-your-own” tobacco and more electronic cigarettes.
“I’m not going to just be laying people off,” he said. “We’ll figure it out somehow. We’ll bring on other products, we’ll bring on new stores — whatever we have to do to survive.”
Amundson said he’s heard cigarette sales are up dramatically in North Dakota where the state tax on a pack is just $.44 compared to Minnesota’s $2.83.
North Dakota Department of Revenue statistics show cigarette sales there were up a little more than 9 percent in August over the same month last year.
Minnesota officials predicted that increasing the cigarette tax by roughly 30 percent would lead to a roughly 30 percent reduction in cigarette consumption.
There’s no way to quantify whether that’s happening. But officials at ClearWay Minnesota, a group that offers free services to help people stop smoking, said interest in its programs is up sharply over last year.
“It’s pretty striking in terms of the number of web visits of people who are checking out Quitplan.com,” ClearWay spokesman Mike Sheldon said. “We’re talking about a 240 percent increase year-over-year. That’s a huge increase and certainly the tax is a big effect of that in making people think about quitting.”
Sheldon said he expects cold weather and New Year’s quit smoking resolutions will sustain that increased demand into the winter for ClearWay’s smoking cessation programs.
Although cigarette stamp sales to Minnesota wholesalers dropped significantly, tax revenue the state collects from cigarettes is up more than 56 percent for July and August compared to the same two months last year.
Tax collections on other-than-cigarette tobacco products such as ‘roll-your-own’ tobacco also are up.
Still, while tobacco tax receipts are up sharply, the initial numbers show tax revenue is $7 million below projections for July and August.
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/413402/group/News/

Report: Cigarette sales down, tax haul up in Minn.

By: Associated Press,
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota’s tax increase on cigarettes has dampened sales since taking effect on July 1, just as tobacco sellers and anti-smoking groups predicted would happen.
Early Department of Revenue figures show a sharp drop in demand for the stamps affixed to each pack of cigarettes, Minnesota Public Radio News reported Thursday. The stamps are proof that state taxes have been paid. Wholesalers and retailers pin the dip on the extra $1.60 per pack tax, especially in border towns.
For July, stamp sales fell more than 35 percent over the same month a year ago. For August, the drop was 12 percent.
The department reports that tax collections are up by more than 56 percent anyway, though that figure slightly lags projections used when lawmakers built the tax increase into their newly enacted state budget. Tax collections on other-than-cigarette tobacco products such as ‘roll-your-own’ tobacco also are up.
Abdul Habit, who works at New Smokes in Maplewood, said customers complain regularly about the tax increase.
“It’s very bad,” Habit said. “It went down, like people (are) cutting back. People who used to buy a carton, now they buy five packs. People who used to buy a pack, now they just ask for single cigarette.”
Minnesota officials knew that demand for cigarettes within the state would fall when the tax went up. They predicted a 30 percent reduction in cigarette consumption.
Anti-smoking groups say the higher cigarette tax is having its intended effect: Getting people to consider quitting.
“It’s pretty striking in terms of the number of web visits of people who are checking out Quitplan.com,” ClearWay Minnesota spokesman Mike Sheldon said. “We’re talking about a 240 percent increase year-over-year. That’s a huge increase and certainly the tax is a big effect of that in making people think about quitting.”
Ross Amundson, co-owner of a candy and tobacco wholesaling company, said his bottom line has taken a hit, too. He thinks the tax has shifted where purchases are made.
“Stores that we sold to along the Wisconsin border have basically lost most of their volume and the larger cigarette stores around the cities here that we sell to, their volume in cigarettes is probably in half,” Amundson said.
In North Dakota, where the per pack tax is $.44 compared to Minnesota’s $2.83, cigarette sales rose by more than 9 percent in August over the same month last year, according to state statistics.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/274244/group/homepage/

Smokers bypass new tax increase by rolling own cigarettes

Article by:  PAUL LEVY , Star Tribune
Minnesota smokers have found a way to beat the state’s new cigarette tax. They’re rolling their own.
Tobacco sales have slumped since the nation’s sixth-highest cigarette tax raised the price of a pack of cigarettes in Minnesota by $1.60 in July. But Twin Cities tobacco-shop owners say many customers are buying tobacco by the pouch — purchasing enough to roll at least two cartons’ worth of cigarettes for a fraction of the price.
The pouch tobacco is intended for cigarette rolling but is taxed differently because its wider cut classifies it as pipe tobacco, said Rich Lewis, owner of Lewis Pipe and Tobacco in downtown Minneapolis. A 1-pound pouch of rolling tobacco costs $23. Two cartons of cigarettes (20 packs) cost nearly $160, with the state excise tax now at $2.83 per pack.
“Most of my people are switching to roll your own,” said Yamen Haidari, general manager of Discount Tobacco in Fridley. “People tell me they’re getting two-and-a-half cartons’ worth of cigarettes for a little more than $20.”
A customer at the Tobacco Town shop in Anoka said she usually buys cigarettes by the carton. This week, she bought a pound of loose tobacco and two packs of cigarettes.
At Infinity Smokes in downtown Minneapolis, owner Tariq Hamouda said that he has seen an increase in loose tobacco sales and that “in neighborhoods and in the suburbs, they’re selling a lot more tobacco by the pound since the price of a pack went up to $8.”
The opening stems from a 2009 federal tax increase on cigarettes and cigarette tobacco that did not apply to pipe tobacco. “Any type of loose-leaf tobacco that was considered for cigarettes was relabeled as pipe tobacco, because it would not be covered under the federal increase,” said Mike Sheldon, a spokesman for Clearway Minnesota, an independent nonprofit that attempts to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke through research and collaboration. “There are taxes on other tobacco products, besides cigarettes, but they’re different.”
In Minnesota, the tax on loose tobacco is substantial — 95 percent of the wholesale price — but that still is generally less expensive than traditional cigarettes.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue has yet to determine whether the new taxes have sparked an increase in loose-tobacco sales, said department spokesman Ryan Brown. But Gary Foss, a clerk at Tobacco Outlet Depot in Minneapolis, says there’s no question. “We’re selling more pouches and e-cigarettes. It’s gotten very competitive.”
Tobacco sales, in general, were down last month in Minnesota. Lewis says his sales fell 75 percent when the tax initially took effect. Sales have rallied since, but not to the point they were before the tax increase, Lewis and other local store owners said.
It is too soon to say what the ultimate effect of the new cigarette tax will be on smoking in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Management and Budget Department, which monitors the taxes collected on tobacco.
Dips in cigarette-related revenue are expected the first few months after a tax, said department spokesman John Pollard. August tobacco tax revenue was lower than expected, Pollard said.
Health-related, or perhaps cost-related, concerns over tobacco seemed to grow as sales dropped. The number of calls to Clearway Minnesota’s quit line increased 256 percent in the first week of July (compared to the same week in 2012). Online inquiries into quitting jumped 289 percent that week, Sheldon said.
There is also concern over the growing popularity of e-cigarettes. A recent survey showed one in five young people have used e-cigarettes the past 30 days, Sheldon said.
Some smokers are getting cigarettes out of state. Lewis says a customer in his 70s told him his sister ships him cartons of cigarettes from Missouri, where the excise tax is only 17 cents per pack, compared to Minnesota’s $2.83.
The only states with higher cigarette excise taxes than Minnesota are New York (the nation’s highest, at $4.35), Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Hawaii. Washington, D.C., has an excise tax of $2.86 per pack. In New York City, which has additional cigarette taxes, a pack of Marlboro Red cigarettes costs $14.50.
States surrounding Minnesota all have lower cigarette excise taxes, but Twin Cities smokers are not likely to flock to Wisconsin, where the cost is just 31 cents less per pack.
The most dramatic difference is in North Dakota, where the excise tax per pack is only 44 cents, or $2.39 less than in Minnesota.
“Why would anyone ever buy cigarettes in Moorhead?” Lewis asked.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/223778101.html?page=1&c=y