A new bill requiring state tax on cigarettes sold on reservation lands has passed the state Senate. If the bill becomes a law, the measure is expected to generate $70 million in revenue for the state.
The American Cancer Society predicts that the legislation will have a positive outcome, forcing 100,000 people to quit smoking. Though I totally support a smoke-free New York, I'm not holding my breath.
The purpose of raising taxes on cigarettes has always been to increase revenue for the state. Sure, a few people may quit as cigarettes become less affordable.
But as far as Albany is concerned, human health will always take a back seat to dollars and cents.
Politicians, of course, spin the issue to make themselves look all-the-more benevolent to their constituents. But politicians know that nicotine is addictive and that addicts will always find a way to support the habit, no matter how expensive.
Albany is actually banking on smokers to offset the state deficit, which I find more disgusting than smoking.
Smoking is unhealthy and highly addictive. But smoking is legal. If someone wants to smoke in the privacy of their own home or outdoors in a designated area, they have every right to do so.
The state is blatantly taking advantage of smokers to fuel the economy. To suggest that raising taxes on cigarettes will encourage people to quit smoking is ludicrous and any politician worth their salt knows it.
Albany has a responsibility to educate New Yorkers, especially young children, about the negative side-effects of smoking. If Albany was truly invested in a smoke-free New York, they wouldn't be trying to squeeze every last penny from cigarette sales.
Bottom line: It isn't fair or ethical to place the state's entire financial burden on smokers. The New York state economy is far too dependent on people who are sick or addicted. Consider: smokers often become very ill with exorbitant medical bills and they tend to die young, freeing up pension funds. Why would Albany care about people who are suffering when they generate so much revenue?
I find the whole scheme despicable.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The purpose of raising taxes on cigarettes has always been to increase revenue for the state. Sure, a few people may quit as cigarettes become less affordable.
But as far as Albany is concerned, human health will always take a back seat to dollars and cents.
Politicians, of course, spin the issue to make themselves look all-the-more benevolent to their constituents. But politicians know that nicotine is addictive and that addicts will always find a way to support the habit, no matter how expensive.
Albany is actually banking on smokers to offset the state deficit, which I find more disgusting than smoking.
Smoking is unhealthy and highly addictive. But smoking is legal. If someone wants to smoke in the privacy of their own home or outdoors in a designated area, they have every right to do so.
The state is blatantly taking advantage of smokers to fuel the economy. To suggest that raising taxes on cigarettes will encourage people to quit smoking is ludicrous and any politician worth their salt knows it.
Albany has a responsibility to educate New Yorkers, especially young children, about the negative side-effects of smoking. If Albany was truly invested in a smoke-free New York, they wouldn't be trying to squeeze every last penny from cigarette sales.
Bottom line: It isn't fair or ethical to place the state's entire financial burden on smokers. The New York state economy is far too dependent on people who are sick or addicted. Consider: smokers often become very ill with exorbitant medical bills and they tend to die young, freeing up pension funds. Why would Albany care about people who are suffering when they generate so much revenue?
I find the whole scheme despicable.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The Citizens' Say
There are 7 comment(s)
mister r wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:37 AM:
brian33908 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:49 AM:
Great article. I'm down here in Florida where cigarettes are $2.50 a pack, gas is $3.69 and there's no state income tax. I admit property values are higher, school spending is low to the point of being detrimental and local governments are starved to the verge of collapse.
But there has to be a happy medium.
Albany has no excuse for taxing smokers like they do. If we're ranking immoral behavior, I'm going to put irresponsible taxation above cigarette smoking. "
brew1234 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 12:02 AM:
smokedbacon wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:27 PM:
"Thirdly...I'm not sure the goal is to get people to quit as it is to get young people to not start smoking. A 16 year old may think twice about smoking if it costs 8 bucks a pack!"
In case you don't know it 16 year old kids are buying weed as it is easier to buy (no ID checks) and even believe buying from a friend is more financially helpful than increasing the profits of the big bad tobacco! Plus the American Cancer Society has placed so much junk science on cigarettes Weed looks like a organic safe alternative!
My own personal opinion when we had drinking ages of 18 we did not have a drug problem as kids would at least go out into the public bars to drink. Now kids use house parties where out of the blue comes the drugs as a house partry normally doesn't have a bar tender or owner worried about losing their business.
Perhaps we ought to tax the health care system for charging so much to care for the so called smoking related health care cost, as it's profit for them!
Perhaps priorities in this society ought to be rexamined. "
AJ wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:57 PM:
" if the state and health dept do not want people to smoke why don't they provide the patch,or whatever other detterent is available to smokers for free. "
I totally agree with this. They want all of this extra money from smokers but give little of it back in any form of cessation programs. CA did this back in the 90's - they sold the program on the basis that the funds would be used to help people quit, but in reality most of the money went straight into the general fund. I expect NY will do the same. "
rocky-g wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:23 PM:
qwerty1234 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:19 AM:
First of all...the law (if signed) is expected to bring in $400-500 million, not $70 million. Big difference.
Secondly...if you are a non smoker, why should you care if a smoker has to pay more for their cigarettes? They are slowly killing themselves anyway. Let em pay for it!
Thirdly...I'm not sure the goal is to get people to quit as it is to get young people to not start smoking. A 16 year old may think twice about smoking if it costs 8 bucks a pack!
Fourthly...not sure if it has a huge impact, but in the first month after the tax on cigarettes went up, calls to the NY smokers quit line quadrupled.
Well done Carole. Another column without facts, research or any knowledge whatsoever. "