Blowing SMOKE!

Not surprisingly, the Lexington Herald-Leader has discovered a poll indicating that 60% of 500 “likely voters” favor an increase in the cigarette tax. The poll was conducted by – SURPRISE – a “coalition of health advocacy groups.” The actual story is not about the 60%, but how that group could possibly have not come up with a number more like 95% in favor of “Read my burned-out-lips…huge new taxes (okay…75 cents).” Anyway, this startling news made it to the front page above the fold on 13 November.

No reason was given for the assertion that the poll was taken among “likely voters,” even though the “likely voters” don’t structure Kentucky’s tax system. No breakdown was given on the basis of whether or not the respondents smoked or abstained. One might even wonder about a poll taken among 500 “likely voters” since there are some 2,840,000 registered voters in Kentucky, meaning that the sample covered .018% of them, or one out of every 5,680, roughly the entire population of Central City.

This is not a brief for smoking. Everybody knows by now that smoking causes a pronounced health-risk. I quit 50 years ago. The usual elements were presented with regard to this poll – dedication to a program to reduce tobacco use, especially among kids, and the funding of education, Medicaid, and other health needs. This is blowing smoke (no pun intended), since the money raised will go into the general fund, there to be divided and wasted among the projects favored by the lawmakers…in short, a significant tax increase discriminatorily levied and questionably spent.

The last increase voted by the legislature (2005) to “discourage” smoking (just 27 cents a pack) and save people from themselves brought into the general fund $158.9 million in 2006…and that ain’t to be sneezed at. The new tax would bring in at least three times as much, as all smokers underwent a new program of saving themselves from themselves, and most would rearrange their budgets to suit the nicotine need. Medicaid might or might not get a boost, but so what. Smokers, on average, die at least seven years younger than non-smokers, so maybe the cigarette tax ought to be lowered in the interest of getting people onto cigarettes and therefore off Medicaid sooner.

Or, perhaps the “cigarette principle” could be used in behalf of climate change. Raise the price of gasoline by a dollar a gallon and therefore cut down on driving, which would mean less air pollution (Carbon monoxide’s a killer, doncha know?), which would make Algore, the greatest peace-monger since Yassir Arafat, a very happy camper. Or, place a tax on all ice cream that isn’t low-fat so folks will stay obese-free and therefore off Medicaid with everything from gout to knee failure. Just like with cigarettes, the ice-creamers would rearrange their budgets and – VOILA! – a huge increase in TAXES…with thinness gone the way of the world.

Why not just outlaw cigarettes anywhere in the state? That won’t happen because the alcohol crowd will see to it that the bubbly flows, never mind that it causes an exponential degree more misery in the state than cigarettes or anything else. Maybe a local option law would be in order, as is the case with alcoholic beverages? Alcohol is perfectly legal but cities and counties can outlaw its sale if they so desire. Why not try that?

Nah! The legislature has no stomach for taking responsibility and attacking the problem realistically by cutting waste. The lawmakers are interested in enhancing state revenue (called raising taxes in other days) the easiest way possible, and that’s to pick out a fairly vulnerable group and put the monkey on its back – this time, the smokers…again, in just two years. If not the smokers…well then…get the casinos up and running as soon as possible and let the suckers bring in the lucre…wait, make that bring in the revenue.

The governor is against further taxing the smokers, he says, but the budget, according to the Constitution, is supposed to be fashioned in the House. It’ll be interesting to see if he actually means “no new taxes” or might just say, “Well, I tried, but… .”

And so it goes.

Jim Clark