Fri Feb 4, 2005
Court rejects US claim on tobacco billions
$280 billion!! These are dollar figures the Antis take in stride. Had they won the decision, does anyone think they would have spent one penny on really important issues? Just think how many U.S. soldiers could be properly equiped with that kind of money, or how much help even a tiny portion of it could give to the tsunami survivors or our Social Security system.
This entire lawsuit is and has been obscene from the beginning, but the amount of the claim is right in line with anti-smoking budget goals. To place $280 billion in perspective, here is a quote from the American Progress Newsletter on the cost of our war in Iraq.
BUDGET – THE $230 BILLION WAR: The Wall Street journal reports that "Pentagon officials...will ask the Bush administration for an additional $80 billion in emergency funding to help pay costs of the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan." That request would push "the total military costs, since the Iraq war began, to well over $230 billion." The additional funding "comes on top of $25 billion that Congress approved in August to help tide the Pentagon over until it could make a larger supplemental requestHad the federal appeals court found against the tobacco companies, it would have been for $50 billion more than the war in Iraq has cost this country to date. Of course, the suit may still go to the Supreme Court and there are still ramifications... I am not fond of the tobacco companies, but there are limits.....who is the vilian now? I wonder what the court costs have been...taken from taxpayer dollars. It really makes me wonder what kind of monsters are really in control of our world today.
__________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/93ed69f6-76e0-11d9-b897-00000e2511c8.html
Court rejects US claim on tobacco billions
By Lauren Foster in New York
Published: February 4 2005
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a $280bn claim made by the US government as part of a racketeering case against the tobacco industry.
In a significant victory for the industry, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit reversed a lower court ruling that past profits could be seized as "ill-gotten gains" from a 50-year conspiracy to defraud consumers by denying the dangers of smoking and second-hand cigarette smoke.
"This decision is a nuclear strike at the core of the government's case," said Lester Brickman, professor of law at Benjamin Cardozo law school at Yeshiva University, New York.
The decision boosted shares in the top tobacco companies.
Altria, parent of Philip Morris USA, the largest US cigarette maker, closed up 5.11 per cent at $67 in New York. Reynolds American, the company formed by the merger of RJ Reynolds and British American Tobacco's Brown & Williamson, rose 4.5 per cent to $85.60.
The two-to-one ruling is a serious blow to the US government's case - now in its fifth month - because it essentially leaves only non-monetary remedies, such further restrictions on advertising and marketing, if the government wins the racketeering case.
Charles Blixt, general counsel for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, said the court's decision "dramatically transforms the DOJ suit".
David Bernick, lead counsel for Brown & Williamson, said: "This is a very significant ruling. The disgorgement claim in this case was a back door way for the government to . . . get damages. The balance of the case is now non-monetary relief."
But Edward Sweda, senior attorney at Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project, said the case is far from over. "Far from winning the case at trial, the cigarette companies are facing the daunting prospect of remedies other than disgorgement that could transform the way they conduct their business," Mr Sweda said.
But this may not be the last word since the government may opt for an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
The government had sought disgorgement under the civil provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (RICO) Act, designed to fight organised crime.
The act allows the court to impose remedies that "prevent and restrain" further violations.
But Friday's ruling said that disgorgement "a remedy aimed at past violations" does not "prevent or restrain".
Senior Judge Stephen Williams wrote in concurring with Friday's opinion: "The plain fact is that wealth deprivation is an extremely crude device for 'prevent[ing]' criminal behaviour."
Writing for the majority, Judge David Sentelle said Congress was very specific in writing the enforcement provisions of the RICO statute, and that "provides strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorise other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly".
Friday's decision is especially significant for Altria as the company is considering splitting itself in two or three units "when the [tobacco] litigation environment permits".
The government's case was originally brought by the Clinton administration in 1999. The companies named in the suit are Philip Morris USA and Altria, its parent group; RJ Reynolds and Brown & Williamson; British American Tobacco (Investments), a unit of the UK's British American Tobacco; Vector Group's Liggett; and Loews Corporation's Lorillard.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Fri Feb 4, 2005
Court Blocks U.S. From Seeking Billions From Tobacco Industry
Whoopee!!!
Congratulations to the federal appeals court for ruling that the government could not use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, familiarly known as RICO, to "disgorge" billions of dollars from the tobacco industry. Of course it isn't over, but this is a GIANT step in reversing the massive landslide of rulings and legislation that Antis have been enjoying, by eliminating their additional $280 billion in anticipated funding!
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04cnd-tobacco.html?ex=1108184400&en=28968ffd74909357&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
Court Blocks U.S. From Seeking Billions From Tobacco Industry
By DAVID STOUT
Published: February 4, 2005
ASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - A federal appeals court ruled today, in a big victory for cigarette makers, that the federal government could not use an antiracketeering statute to collect $280 billion from the tobacco industry, which it accuses of conspiring for decades to hook people on smoking and conceal the deadly effects of the habit.
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled, 2 to 1, that the government could not use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, familiarly known as RICO, to "disgorge" billions of dollars from the industry.
The majority held that "disgorgement," which a layman might interpret as forcing a party to surrender its ill-gotten gains, was not an appropriate remedy in this case because that particular remedy is meant to make up for past violations - not for anticipated future violations.
Judge Sentelle said the government might have sought remedies like injunctions against future wrongful activities or dissolution of the companies, but not disgorgement, which he called "a quintessentially backward-looking remedy focused on remedying the effects of past conduct to restore the status quo." As such, he said, it is not allowed under civil sections of the RICO act, which was originally meant as a weapon against organized crime.
Neither the tobacco companies nor the Justice Department had an immediate reaction to the ruling. But given the importance of the issue, and the thicket of suits against tobacco companies in recent years, an appeal to the full District of Columbia Circuit is likely, as is perhaps an eventual appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Judge Sentelle wrote for himself and Judge Stephen F. Williams that there is no Supreme Court precedent dealing with disgorgement under the RICO law. "With no Supreme Court case having direct application, it is our duty to construe the statute," Judge Sentelle held. "That is what we have done."
In so ruling, the majority overturned a district court ruling that disgorgement was appropriate in this case, in which the government is suing Philip Morris and other big tobacco companies.
The government could have proceeded under criminal sections of the RICO act, but a much higher standard of proof would have been required.
Judge David S. Tatel wrote a sharply worded dissent, arguing that the majority had interpreted the RICO section in question too narrowly and that the government's claims that "the companies are likely to continue their deceptive practices and commit further racketeering violations in the future" were entitled to deference, and that the district court had ruled correctly.
"If the district court concludes that the government has shown that the tobacco companies have committed RICO violations by advertising to youth despite assertions to the contrary and by falsely disputing smoking's addictive, unhealthy effects, then it may order whatever equitable relief it deems appropriate," Judge Tatel held.
Court Blocks U.S. From Seeking Billions From Tobacco Industry
Whoopee!!!
Congratulations to the federal appeals court for ruling that the government could not use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, familiarly known as RICO, to "disgorge" billions of dollars from the tobacco industry. Of course it isn't over, but this is a GIANT step in reversing the massive landslide of rulings and legislation that Antis have been enjoying, by eliminating their additional $280 billion in anticipated funding!
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04cnd-tobacco.html?ex=1108184400&en=28968ffd74909357&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
Court Blocks U.S. From Seeking Billions From Tobacco Industry
By DAVID STOUT
Published: February 4, 2005
ASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - A federal appeals court ruled today, in a big victory for cigarette makers, that the federal government could not use an antiracketeering statute to collect $280 billion from the tobacco industry, which it accuses of conspiring for decades to hook people on smoking and conceal the deadly effects of the habit.
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled, 2 to 1, that the government could not use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, familiarly known as RICO, to "disgorge" billions of dollars from the industry.
The majority held that "disgorgement," which a layman might interpret as forcing a party to surrender its ill-gotten gains, was not an appropriate remedy in this case because that particular remedy is meant to make up for past violations - not for anticipated future violations.
Judge Sentelle said the government might have sought remedies like injunctions against future wrongful activities or dissolution of the companies, but not disgorgement, which he called "a quintessentially backward-looking remedy focused on remedying the effects of past conduct to restore the status quo." As such, he said, it is not allowed under civil sections of the RICO act, which was originally meant as a weapon against organized crime.
Neither the tobacco companies nor the Justice Department had an immediate reaction to the ruling. But given the importance of the issue, and the thicket of suits against tobacco companies in recent years, an appeal to the full District of Columbia Circuit is likely, as is perhaps an eventual appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Judge Sentelle wrote for himself and Judge Stephen F. Williams that there is no Supreme Court precedent dealing with disgorgement under the RICO law. "With no Supreme Court case having direct application, it is our duty to construe the statute," Judge Sentelle held. "That is what we have done."
In so ruling, the majority overturned a district court ruling that disgorgement was appropriate in this case, in which the government is suing Philip Morris and other big tobacco companies.
The government could have proceeded under criminal sections of the RICO act, but a much higher standard of proof would have been required.
Judge David S. Tatel wrote a sharply worded dissent, arguing that the majority had interpreted the RICO section in question too narrowly and that the government's claims that "the companies are likely to continue their deceptive practices and commit further racketeering violations in the future" were entitled to deference, and that the district court had ruled correctly.
"If the district court concludes that the government has shown that the tobacco companies have committed RICO violations by advertising to youth despite assertions to the contrary and by falsely disputing smoking's addictive, unhealthy effects, then it may order whatever equitable relief it deems appropriate," Judge Tatel held.
Feb 4, 2005
Excellent commentary!! There is a link for contacting the author at the bottom.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6720
Do Smokers Have Any Rights?
By Alan Caruba (02/04/05)
Do people who enjoy smoking have any rights? Increasingly, the answer is no. It is essential to keep in mind that smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes is an entirely personal choice. No one is required to smoke. Millions voluntarily stop smoking every year. People have been smoking and enjoying tobacco products for a very long time, but now they have been demonized and ostracized.
Using the power of government to tax, smokers are being ripped off at every level. Recently New York City sent letters to 2,300 residents giving them thirty days to pay the taxes on the cartons of cigarettes they had purchased over the Internet. It’s the law. A single pack of cigarettes in New York City comes with a state tax of $1.50, a city tax of $1.50, and a federal tax of 39 cents. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes will cost you $7.00. A ten-pack carton will cost you more than $55.00. Purchased at an international airport’s duty-free store the same carton retails for just $16.00.
There are few, if any, people that do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere. Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating.
The US engaged in a hugely failed experiment called Prohibition to stop people from drinking alcoholic beverages at their favorite saloon. It took a Constitutional amendment to end it. For many years now, the same thinking that imposed Prohibition has been at work to achieve the same outcome with smoking.
It is un-American in the most profound sense of that term. In a nation founded on the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, preventing people from the enjoyment of smoking runs contrary to the inherent right to enjoy this lifestyle option if you want.
Consider, however, some events in 2004. The first worldwide antismoking treaty—the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)—was ratified and is now in effect. It is yet another example of the United Nations’ intention to control every aspect of the lives of everyone on planet Earth. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is the lead organization in America and it has promised to “now concentrate on enforcement efforts.”
During 2004 six nations imposed a no-smoking ban. Among them were Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. These nations are notable for their liberal, i.e., socialist political agendas. Here in the US, so-called “nonsmoker’s rights” became law in Idaho, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. At the local level, thirty-two jurisdictions passed comprehensive workplace smoking laws in 2004 along with “less comprehensive smokefree workplace laws.
There’s more. Eleven States, including Virginia where historically tobacco was the crop that encouraged its establishment and growth as an American colony, substantially increased their cigarette taxes. Consider the example of New York City and multiply it by other cities and states, cashing in while, at the same time, banning smoking indoors and out. That is obscene.
Now imagine a similar level of taxation on a candy bar, a cup of coffee or soft drink. Think it can’t happen? Think again.
ASH has big plans for 2005. It plans to “take advantage of a new ruling which now makes it possible for sensitive nonsmokers to sue states which do not provide them with reasonable protection from tobacco smoke pollution.” These suits will eventually cost taxpayers millions, draining vital financial resources from serious needs such as infrastructure improvements. ASH will push for more and more bans on people who smoke outdoors on beaches and elsewhere. In California, it is already against the law to light up on the beach.
Let’s say you’ve just bought a condo or moved to an apartment. ASH intends to encourage and assist lawsuits by apartment dwellers who object to neighbors smoking in their own apartments. In the name of protecting children, ASH will pursue laws that ban parents from smoking around their children by getting courts to issue orders to ban smoking in custody cases or by a foster parent or in a car while driving children anywhere.
All this is happening in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”, as well as around the world where the UN antismoking treaty bans any advertising for tobacco products, requires health warning labels similar to those on products sold in the US, bans any secondhand smoke in workplaces, public transport, and indoor public places.
It empowers a vast law enforcement program against smuggling and there will be smuggling, leading to cartels that rival illegal drugs. There’s more, but the ultimate objective is to eliminate smoking anywhere on the face of the Earth.
This is pure fascism using the power of the state to deny this simple pleasure from being enjoyed anywhere. And when the national and global antismoking campaign is successful, these same people will turn their attention to banning the consumption of meat, fish, cookies, candy, potato chips, soft drinks or anything else they decide you should not enjoy.
Do smokers have any rights? Apparently not.
------------------------------------------
Alan Caruba is the author of "Warning Signs", published by Merril Press. His weekly commentary is posted on www.anxietycenter.com , the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
Send Feedback To Alan Caruba
Excellent commentary!! There is a link for contacting the author at the bottom.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6720
Do Smokers Have Any Rights?
By Alan Caruba (02/04/05)
Do people who enjoy smoking have any rights? Increasingly, the answer is no. It is essential to keep in mind that smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes is an entirely personal choice. No one is required to smoke. Millions voluntarily stop smoking every year. People have been smoking and enjoying tobacco products for a very long time, but now they have been demonized and ostracized.
Using the power of government to tax, smokers are being ripped off at every level. Recently New York City sent letters to 2,300 residents giving them thirty days to pay the taxes on the cartons of cigarettes they had purchased over the Internet. It’s the law. A single pack of cigarettes in New York City comes with a state tax of $1.50, a city tax of $1.50, and a federal tax of 39 cents. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes will cost you $7.00. A ten-pack carton will cost you more than $55.00. Purchased at an international airport’s duty-free store the same carton retails for just $16.00.
There are few, if any, people that do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere. Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating.
The US engaged in a hugely failed experiment called Prohibition to stop people from drinking alcoholic beverages at their favorite saloon. It took a Constitutional amendment to end it. For many years now, the same thinking that imposed Prohibition has been at work to achieve the same outcome with smoking.
It is un-American in the most profound sense of that term. In a nation founded on the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, preventing people from the enjoyment of smoking runs contrary to the inherent right to enjoy this lifestyle option if you want.
Consider, however, some events in 2004. The first worldwide antismoking treaty—the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)—was ratified and is now in effect. It is yet another example of the United Nations’ intention to control every aspect of the lives of everyone on planet Earth. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is the lead organization in America and it has promised to “now concentrate on enforcement efforts.”
During 2004 six nations imposed a no-smoking ban. Among them were Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. These nations are notable for their liberal, i.e., socialist political agendas. Here in the US, so-called “nonsmoker’s rights” became law in Idaho, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. At the local level, thirty-two jurisdictions passed comprehensive workplace smoking laws in 2004 along with “less comprehensive smokefree workplace laws.
There’s more. Eleven States, including Virginia where historically tobacco was the crop that encouraged its establishment and growth as an American colony, substantially increased their cigarette taxes. Consider the example of New York City and multiply it by other cities and states, cashing in while, at the same time, banning smoking indoors and out. That is obscene.
Now imagine a similar level of taxation on a candy bar, a cup of coffee or soft drink. Think it can’t happen? Think again.
ASH has big plans for 2005. It plans to “take advantage of a new ruling which now makes it possible for sensitive nonsmokers to sue states which do not provide them with reasonable protection from tobacco smoke pollution.” These suits will eventually cost taxpayers millions, draining vital financial resources from serious needs such as infrastructure improvements. ASH will push for more and more bans on people who smoke outdoors on beaches and elsewhere. In California, it is already against the law to light up on the beach.
Let’s say you’ve just bought a condo or moved to an apartment. ASH intends to encourage and assist lawsuits by apartment dwellers who object to neighbors smoking in their own apartments. In the name of protecting children, ASH will pursue laws that ban parents from smoking around their children by getting courts to issue orders to ban smoking in custody cases or by a foster parent or in a car while driving children anywhere.
All this is happening in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”, as well as around the world where the UN antismoking treaty bans any advertising for tobacco products, requires health warning labels similar to those on products sold in the US, bans any secondhand smoke in workplaces, public transport, and indoor public places.
It empowers a vast law enforcement program against smuggling and there will be smuggling, leading to cartels that rival illegal drugs. There’s more, but the ultimate objective is to eliminate smoking anywhere on the face of the Earth.
This is pure fascism using the power of the state to deny this simple pleasure from being enjoyed anywhere. And when the national and global antismoking campaign is successful, these same people will turn their attention to banning the consumption of meat, fish, cookies, candy, potato chips, soft drinks or anything else they decide you should not enjoy.
Do smokers have any rights? Apparently not.
------------------------------------------
Alan Caruba is the author of "Warning Signs", published by Merril Press. His weekly commentary is posted on www.anxietycenter.com , the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.
Send Feedback To Alan Caruba
Feb 4, 2005
Raise tobacco tax for good of smokers and state - Wisconsin
Letter to Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel with e-mail addresses for the publication.
Garnet
-----------------------------------
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
P.O. Box 661
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Attention:
Martin Kaiser, Editor and Senior Vice President, mkaiser@journalsentinel.com
George Stanley, Managing Editor and Vice President, gstanley@journalsentinel.com
Gerry Hinkley, Deputy Managing Editor - Local News, ghinkley@journalsentinel.com
Christine McNeal, Deputy Managing Editor - Weekend News and Presentation, cmcneal@journalsentinel.com
Gary D. Miller, Senior Editor, gmiller@journalsentinel.com
James B. Nelson, Deputy Editor, jnelson@journalsentinel.com
Brett Chase, Deputy Editor, bchase@journalsentinel.com
Joanne Cleaver, Deputy Editor, jcleaver@journalsentinel.com
Stanley A. Miller II, Assistant Editor, smiller@journalsentinel.com
Thomas Koetting, Assistant Managing Editor - Assistant Managing Editor / Projects and Enterprise, tkoetting@journalsentinel.com
Kathy Schenck, Assistant Managing Editor - Copy Desk, kschenck@journalsentinel.com
Gary Krentz, Senior Editor - Local news, gkrentz@journalsentinel.com
Bruce Gill, Senior Editor - Suburban News, bgill@journalsentinel.com
David Vogel, Senior Editor - News, dvogel@journalsentinel.com
RE: Rebuttal to"Raise tobacco tax for good of smokers and state" - Wisconsin Tax
I have been under the impression that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel publishes unbiased news. How could you possibly endorse an editorial like this and allow it to be published without examining the facts? Below, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to two other news sources, Governor Jim Doyle and Assembly Speaker John Gard.
Please examine the statistics I compiled from the other news stories below and be impartial enough to either publish my letter or include another story in your paper, sharing the real purposes for the revenue expected to be generated by this proposed cigarette tax hike. As in other states that have imposed staggering tax hikes on tobacco products, many residents will find other means to buy their cigarettes, and the resulting revenues will not live up to the anticipated dollar amounts.
This greedy and unfair tax will affect citizens guilty of nothing more that using a legal product and will harm small businesses located close to Wisconsin borders.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My letter of 01/27/05)
Thank you for your informative story on the proposed dollar per cigarette pack tax increase in Wisconsin. I have read two other articles on this subject and would like to know how anyone with a conscience can possibly attempt to justify this new attempt at taxation without representation.
It has already been printed that State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, Republican-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee, is planning to introduce the proposal next month. Also, Governor Jim Doyle has indicated in the past that he opposes a cigarette tax increase, and Assembly Speaker John Gard opposes this plan.
Quoting your story, "The statewide group (Smoke Free Wisconsin) says increasing the tax to $1.77 a pack from 77 cents a pack will keep 72,000 children from starting to smoke..."
If tax increases stopped "children" from smoking, there would be no smoking "children" left in the United States and Canada today. This exploitation of the word "children" is meant to draw a mental picture of curly-headed tots smoking cigarettes and represents social engineering tactics in their most disgusting form. The "kids" being referenced are almost adults..and many are old enough to fight for their country. Also, legislation and tax increases have never helped anyone to stop smoking.
The Wisconsin state revenues from this proposed tax have already been estimated at $251 million annually, according to Smoke Free Wisconsin, with $15 million going towards tobacco use prevention efforts and the rest to offset a $121 million deficit in the state's Medicaid program. Using simple mathematics, that means that about 6 percent of the anticipated annual revenues would be "used to prevent the children from starting to smoke."
The remaining additional funds of $235mm would be applied to the Medicaid state deficit. State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, R-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee was quoted as saying that the tax makes sense because 15 percent of Medicaid costs are caused by smoking. That means smoking has been "guestimated" as being responsible for $18,150,000 of the Medicaid deficit, leaving the other 85 percent of the $102,850,000 balance to also be paid out of smokers' pockets with the $1 dollar per pack additional tax.
The state would still have a projected $114,000,000 balance remaining for various "other" places. Not bad profit for a supposedly "for your own good" sin, er...excuse me, user tax. I wonder how much of that amount will be applied to additional funding for Smoke Free Wisconsin and the American Cancer Society?
Sincerely,
.................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jsonline.com/alive/column/jan05/297422.asp
Raise tobacco tax for good of smokers and state
Guest Columnist (Susan Turney, MD is CEO/EVP of the Wisconsin Medical Society. Steve Brenton is president of the Wisconsin Hospital Association)
Posted: Jan. 29, 2005
Did you know the money Wisconsin collects now from the cigarette tax ($.77 per pack) doesn’t come close to covering the health costs of treating sick smokers? In fact, every pack of cigarettes sold results in $7.14 in health costs, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
We need to close this gap and fast by encouraging people to quit smoking, for their good health and the financial health of the state. Raising the cigarette tax is the answer. It is the single most effective way to reduce teen smoking and bring in money at the same time. Add a dollar per pack onto the cigarette tax and we can save thousands of Wisconsin citizens from an early death and provide a steady, annual stream of new revenue for our cash-strapped state.
The $250 million stream of new money each year from this proposal can help fund Medicaid health care programs for the poor and elderly that are now in deficit. Those who are less educated and earn less money are more likely to smoke than wealthier, more educated citizens, in part, because tobacco company marketing targets the young and low-income groups. Still, a higher tax for smokers is appropriate because taxpayers shoulder the immense burden of covering smoking-caused illnesses for Medicaid recipients. There isn’t universal support for raising this “user fee” because some say poor people would get stuck paying most of the freight. But the reality is that smokers—rich and poor alike—are the ones who are most likely to benefit from a higher tax.
What’s happened in states that have raised their cigarette tax by a significant amount is something we can all cheer: children are much less likely to start smoking, many smokers simply quit and those who continue to smoke tend to smoke less. Raising this tax provides an economic incentive to give up what is truly a lethal addiction. In fact, raising the cigarette tax is the single most powerful way to reduce teen smoking. Secondly, all smokers, low-income ones included, can choose to quit and not pay a cigarette tax at all. That’s good for the former smoker and better for the taxpayer, who will be relieved of astronomically high health bills in the future.
Smoking is not only the most preventable cause of early death but Wisconsin simply can no longer afford to suffer its economic consequences. Smokers can continue to smoke if they choose, but they must begin to pick up a greater share of the consequences of their decision.
Our fantasy scenario is zero tobacco revenue comes to the state following a significantly higher cigarette tax because all smokers in Wisconsin simply quit in protest. The hundreds of millions of dollars saved in health costs would more than offset the lost tobacco revenue. Unfortunately, we all know that won’t happen overnight, if ever.
Still, a substantial number of smokers would quit and 72,000 of today’s children may never become smokers in the first place if Wisconsin experiences what other states have from increasing their tax.
The beauty of this proposal is that once enacted, there is no way it can fail. All the evidence clearly demonstrates that raising the cigarette tax leads to fewer smokers and more tax revenue. What more could we possibly ask when health costs are rising rapidly and greater demands are being made on government? Under the circumstances, there is no worthier option.
But logic will not result in action until more of us tell our elected officials we need a higher cigarette tax—not because anyone is hell-bent on blaming nicotine addicts, but because everyone deserves a chance to avoid a smoking-caused death or illness. Likewise, taxpayers deserve a break from the overwhelming costs of treating sick smokers.
Susan Turney, MD is CEO/EVP of the Wisconsin Medical Society. Steve Brenton is president of the Wisconsin Hospital Association.
Raise tobacco tax for good of smokers and state - Wisconsin
Letter to Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel with e-mail addresses for the publication.
Garnet
-----------------------------------
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
P.O. Box 661
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Attention:
Martin Kaiser, Editor and Senior Vice President, mkaiser@journalsentinel.com
George Stanley, Managing Editor and Vice President, gstanley@journalsentinel.com
Gerry Hinkley, Deputy Managing Editor - Local News, ghinkley@journalsentinel.com
Christine McNeal, Deputy Managing Editor - Weekend News and Presentation, cmcneal@journalsentinel.com
Gary D. Miller, Senior Editor, gmiller@journalsentinel.com
James B. Nelson, Deputy Editor, jnelson@journalsentinel.com
Brett Chase, Deputy Editor, bchase@journalsentinel.com
Joanne Cleaver, Deputy Editor, jcleaver@journalsentinel.com
Stanley A. Miller II, Assistant Editor, smiller@journalsentinel.com
Thomas Koetting, Assistant Managing Editor - Assistant Managing Editor / Projects and Enterprise, tkoetting@journalsentinel.com
Kathy Schenck, Assistant Managing Editor - Copy Desk, kschenck@journalsentinel.com
Gary Krentz, Senior Editor - Local news, gkrentz@journalsentinel.com
Bruce Gill, Senior Editor - Suburban News, bgill@journalsentinel.com
David Vogel, Senior Editor - News, dvogel@journalsentinel.com
RE: Rebuttal to"Raise tobacco tax for good of smokers and state" - Wisconsin Tax
I have been under the impression that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel publishes unbiased news. How could you possibly endorse an editorial like this and allow it to be published without examining the facts? Below, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to two other news sources, Governor Jim Doyle and Assembly Speaker John Gard.
Please examine the statistics I compiled from the other news stories below and be impartial enough to either publish my letter or include another story in your paper, sharing the real purposes for the revenue expected to be generated by this proposed cigarette tax hike. As in other states that have imposed staggering tax hikes on tobacco products, many residents will find other means to buy their cigarettes, and the resulting revenues will not live up to the anticipated dollar amounts.
This greedy and unfair tax will affect citizens guilty of nothing more that using a legal product and will harm small businesses located close to Wisconsin borders.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My letter of 01/27/05)
Thank you for your informative story on the proposed dollar per cigarette pack tax increase in Wisconsin. I have read two other articles on this subject and would like to know how anyone with a conscience can possibly attempt to justify this new attempt at taxation without representation.
It has already been printed that State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, Republican-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee, is planning to introduce the proposal next month. Also, Governor Jim Doyle has indicated in the past that he opposes a cigarette tax increase, and Assembly Speaker John Gard opposes this plan.
Quoting your story, "The statewide group (Smoke Free Wisconsin) says increasing the tax to $1.77 a pack from 77 cents a pack will keep 72,000 children from starting to smoke..."
If tax increases stopped "children" from smoking, there would be no smoking "children" left in the United States and Canada today. This exploitation of the word "children" is meant to draw a mental picture of curly-headed tots smoking cigarettes and represents social engineering tactics in their most disgusting form. The "kids" being referenced are almost adults..and many are old enough to fight for their country. Also, legislation and tax increases have never helped anyone to stop smoking.
The Wisconsin state revenues from this proposed tax have already been estimated at $251 million annually, according to Smoke Free Wisconsin, with $15 million going towards tobacco use prevention efforts and the rest to offset a $121 million deficit in the state's Medicaid program. Using simple mathematics, that means that about 6 percent of the anticipated annual revenues would be "used to prevent the children from starting to smoke."
The remaining additional funds of $235mm would be applied to the Medicaid state deficit. State Rep. A.J. "Doc" Hines, R-Oxford, who heads the Assembly Health Committee was quoted as saying that the tax makes sense because 15 percent of Medicaid costs are caused by smoking. That means smoking has been "guestimated" as being responsible for $18,150,000 of the Medicaid deficit, leaving the other 85 percent of the $102,850,000 balance to also be paid out of smokers' pockets with the $1 dollar per pack additional tax.
The state would still have a projected $114,000,000 balance remaining for various "other" places. Not bad profit for a supposedly "for your own good" sin, er...excuse me, user tax. I wonder how much of that amount will be applied to additional funding for Smoke Free Wisconsin and the American Cancer Society?
Sincerely,
.................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jsonline.com/alive/column/jan05/297422.asp
Raise tobacco tax for good of smokers and state
Guest Columnist (Susan Turney, MD is CEO/EVP of the Wisconsin Medical Society. Steve Brenton is president of the Wisconsin Hospital Association)
Posted: Jan. 29, 2005
Did you know the money Wisconsin collects now from the cigarette tax ($.77 per pack) doesn’t come close to covering the health costs of treating sick smokers? In fact, every pack of cigarettes sold results in $7.14 in health costs, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
We need to close this gap and fast by encouraging people to quit smoking, for their good health and the financial health of the state. Raising the cigarette tax is the answer. It is the single most effective way to reduce teen smoking and bring in money at the same time. Add a dollar per pack onto the cigarette tax and we can save thousands of Wisconsin citizens from an early death and provide a steady, annual stream of new revenue for our cash-strapped state.
The $250 million stream of new money each year from this proposal can help fund Medicaid health care programs for the poor and elderly that are now in deficit. Those who are less educated and earn less money are more likely to smoke than wealthier, more educated citizens, in part, because tobacco company marketing targets the young and low-income groups. Still, a higher tax for smokers is appropriate because taxpayers shoulder the immense burden of covering smoking-caused illnesses for Medicaid recipients. There isn’t universal support for raising this “user fee” because some say poor people would get stuck paying most of the freight. But the reality is that smokers—rich and poor alike—are the ones who are most likely to benefit from a higher tax.
What’s happened in states that have raised their cigarette tax by a significant amount is something we can all cheer: children are much less likely to start smoking, many smokers simply quit and those who continue to smoke tend to smoke less. Raising this tax provides an economic incentive to give up what is truly a lethal addiction. In fact, raising the cigarette tax is the single most powerful way to reduce teen smoking. Secondly, all smokers, low-income ones included, can choose to quit and not pay a cigarette tax at all. That’s good for the former smoker and better for the taxpayer, who will be relieved of astronomically high health bills in the future.
Smoking is not only the most preventable cause of early death but Wisconsin simply can no longer afford to suffer its economic consequences. Smokers can continue to smoke if they choose, but they must begin to pick up a greater share of the consequences of their decision.
Our fantasy scenario is zero tobacco revenue comes to the state following a significantly higher cigarette tax because all smokers in Wisconsin simply quit in protest. The hundreds of millions of dollars saved in health costs would more than offset the lost tobacco revenue. Unfortunately, we all know that won’t happen overnight, if ever.
Still, a substantial number of smokers would quit and 72,000 of today’s children may never become smokers in the first place if Wisconsin experiences what other states have from increasing their tax.
The beauty of this proposal is that once enacted, there is no way it can fail. All the evidence clearly demonstrates that raising the cigarette tax leads to fewer smokers and more tax revenue. What more could we possibly ask when health costs are rising rapidly and greater demands are being made on government? Under the circumstances, there is no worthier option.
But logic will not result in action until more of us tell our elected officials we need a higher cigarette tax—not because anyone is hell-bent on blaming nicotine addicts, but because everyone deserves a chance to avoid a smoking-caused death or illness. Likewise, taxpayers deserve a break from the overwhelming costs of treating sick smokers.
Susan Turney, MD is CEO/EVP of the Wisconsin Medical Society. Steve Brenton is president of the Wisconsin Hospital Association.
Tue Feb 1, 2005
Drifting from freedom - Commentary
Hi,
I found this commentary, originally referenced on the Smokers Forum and printed by the Smokers Club, Inc. It's so "on target" that I wanted to share it.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=979
Drifting from freedom
January 29, 2005
By Richard W. Rahn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Do you feel more or less free today than you did 10 years ago? If you happen to be a property developer, sit on the board of a public corporation, often travel by air, like to spend your own money supporting political candidates and causes you believe in, or are outspoken in your Christian beliefs, you almost certainly answered the above question, "Less free."
Our Founding Fathers and other political thinkers recognized that free peoples most often lose their freedoms not in one sudden blow, but by the endless erosion of liberties they once had. As a student in biology, you may have learned that if a frog is put in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil, the frog will not be aware of what is happening until it is too late. There is increasing evidence Americans, like the frog, are having their liberties slowly boiled away without realizing it.
Our very disturbing drift from freedom is reflected in the 2005 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom just published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. A decade ago, the U.S. was rated as the fifth-freest economy, this year it has dropped out of the top 10 to No. 12 — and we once were the role model for the world.
As the authors of the Index of Economic Freedom note, the good news is that the world in general is becoming freer and, as a result, economic growth and prosperity have increased over the globe. The bad news is the U.S. has wallowed in past successes and allowed its competitive advantage to erode.
The reason to care is not only that a loss of economic freedom means less personal liberty, but the findings of this and similar studies confirm the following statement of the authors: "The countries with the most economic freedom also have the higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than are those with less economic freedom."
The U.S. is on a government taxing, spending and, most of all, regulating, binge that in the long run is incompatible with a free and prosperous society.
We now know poor societies can become prosperous within two generations as a result of free market economic policies coupled with the rule of law.
We also know rich societies can quickly become poor. Look at Argentina, which was the seventh-wealthiest country on the planet in the early 1900s.
Because of the socialist policies of the Peronists (i.e., excessive government spending and regulation, coupled with a decline in the rule of law) beginning in the 1930s, Argentina has become a poor country mired in crisis. Without a change in direction, the same fate eventually will befall the United States.
Not only is our economic freedom being eroded but also our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion and our rights of privacy and property. The McCain-Feingold Act curtailed our freedom of political speech. People engaging in "politically incorrect speech" are increasingly punished by college administrators, employers and by state and local officials (including judges), none of whom seem to have either read or understood what our Founding Fathers said they intended when they wrote the First Amendment.
Schoolchildren increasingly are penalized for bringing small symbols of their own religion to school. Anti-money laundering laws make it very difficult, if not almost impossible, for many of the young and the not well-established to open bank accounts.
If you happen to own a piece of land, whether you are a farmer, hunter, developer or just an ordinary homeowner, you are increasingly subject to an endless parade of local, state and federal officials — and even nongovernmental public interest groups (a k a PIGS) telling you what you can and cannot do with your land. Landowners often are subject not only to laws or rules of what is and is not permitted, but to the arbitrary judgments and whims of various officials.
For thousands of years, it has been recognized people cannot be free if subject to the rule of an individual or collective rather than the rule of law. Yet even basic contract law has been made less definite in the last few decades by adding vague standards, such as "reasonable, timely and material."
Indeterminate sentencing assumes there is an appropriate sentence for each criminal as opposed to a sentence for a defined crime. Equal protection under the law has been twisted to mean unequal protection, depending on race, religion, sex (or sexual preference), weight, wealth, ethnic origin, parental and peer group influences, and political viewpoint.
Given there are almost limitless possible divisions of each of the above criteria, we are rapidly reaching a point where each individual will be subject to "law" applicable only to him or her.
Our freedoms are eroding because too many Americans fail to understand the consequences of encouraging the political class to try to protect us from all real and imagined ills — whether it be a terrorist, a disease (including eating too much and aging), bad weather, a more efficient competitor, our own personal financial stupidity or irresponsibility, or a cigarette smoker.
Just remember: Every time you vote for a politician who promises to make the government do more for you, he also is saying that same government will make you less free and ultimately poorer.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050129-095132-5873r.htm
Drifting from freedom - Commentary
Hi,
I found this commentary, originally referenced on the Smokers Forum and printed by the Smokers Club, Inc. It's so "on target" that I wanted to share it.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=979
Drifting from freedom
January 29, 2005
By Richard W. Rahn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Do you feel more or less free today than you did 10 years ago? If you happen to be a property developer, sit on the board of a public corporation, often travel by air, like to spend your own money supporting political candidates and causes you believe in, or are outspoken in your Christian beliefs, you almost certainly answered the above question, "Less free."
Our Founding Fathers and other political thinkers recognized that free peoples most often lose their freedoms not in one sudden blow, but by the endless erosion of liberties they once had. As a student in biology, you may have learned that if a frog is put in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil, the frog will not be aware of what is happening until it is too late. There is increasing evidence Americans, like the frog, are having their liberties slowly boiled away without realizing it.
Our very disturbing drift from freedom is reflected in the 2005 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom just published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. A decade ago, the U.S. was rated as the fifth-freest economy, this year it has dropped out of the top 10 to No. 12 — and we once were the role model for the world.
As the authors of the Index of Economic Freedom note, the good news is that the world in general is becoming freer and, as a result, economic growth and prosperity have increased over the globe. The bad news is the U.S. has wallowed in past successes and allowed its competitive advantage to erode.
The reason to care is not only that a loss of economic freedom means less personal liberty, but the findings of this and similar studies confirm the following statement of the authors: "The countries with the most economic freedom also have the higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than are those with less economic freedom."
The U.S. is on a government taxing, spending and, most of all, regulating, binge that in the long run is incompatible with a free and prosperous society.
We now know poor societies can become prosperous within two generations as a result of free market economic policies coupled with the rule of law.
We also know rich societies can quickly become poor. Look at Argentina, which was the seventh-wealthiest country on the planet in the early 1900s.
Because of the socialist policies of the Peronists (i.e., excessive government spending and regulation, coupled with a decline in the rule of law) beginning in the 1930s, Argentina has become a poor country mired in crisis. Without a change in direction, the same fate eventually will befall the United States.
Not only is our economic freedom being eroded but also our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion and our rights of privacy and property. The McCain-Feingold Act curtailed our freedom of political speech. People engaging in "politically incorrect speech" are increasingly punished by college administrators, employers and by state and local officials (including judges), none of whom seem to have either read or understood what our Founding Fathers said they intended when they wrote the First Amendment.
Schoolchildren increasingly are penalized for bringing small symbols of their own religion to school. Anti-money laundering laws make it very difficult, if not almost impossible, for many of the young and the not well-established to open bank accounts.
If you happen to own a piece of land, whether you are a farmer, hunter, developer or just an ordinary homeowner, you are increasingly subject to an endless parade of local, state and federal officials — and even nongovernmental public interest groups (a k a PIGS) telling you what you can and cannot do with your land. Landowners often are subject not only to laws or rules of what is and is not permitted, but to the arbitrary judgments and whims of various officials.
For thousands of years, it has been recognized people cannot be free if subject to the rule of an individual or collective rather than the rule of law. Yet even basic contract law has been made less definite in the last few decades by adding vague standards, such as "reasonable, timely and material."
Indeterminate sentencing assumes there is an appropriate sentence for each criminal as opposed to a sentence for a defined crime. Equal protection under the law has been twisted to mean unequal protection, depending on race, religion, sex (or sexual preference), weight, wealth, ethnic origin, parental and peer group influences, and political viewpoint.
Given there are almost limitless possible divisions of each of the above criteria, we are rapidly reaching a point where each individual will be subject to "law" applicable only to him or her.
Our freedoms are eroding because too many Americans fail to understand the consequences of encouraging the political class to try to protect us from all real and imagined ills — whether it be a terrorist, a disease (including eating too much and aging), bad weather, a more efficient competitor, our own personal financial stupidity or irresponsibility, or a cigarette smoker.
Just remember: Every time you vote for a politician who promises to make the government do more for you, he also is saying that same government will make you less free and ultimately poorer.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050129-095132-5873r.htm
Mon Jan 31, 2005
Vilsack calls for 80-cent cigarette tax increase - Iowa
We have all known Social Security is in trouble. Now, it's beginning to look like more and more states are hoping to use cigarette taxes to dig them out their Medicaid deficits and still have money left over...till the next time they can't balance the budget.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050131/NEWS/50131003/1001&lead=1
Vilsack calls for 80-cent cigarette tax increase
By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
January 31, 2005
Iowa smokers could be required to pay an extra 80 cents a pack in state cigarette taxes.
Gov. Tom Vilsack proposed today that the cigarette tax be raised from $0.36 a pack to $1.16 a pack. The $124 million in additional state revenue would be used to help pay for Medicaid and other health care programs.
The Democratic governor's proposal could meet strong resistance from Republican legislative leaders who have said they aren't in favor of raising any taxes.
The cigarette tax increase is part of Vilsack's $5 billion state budget plan for the 2006 fiscal year starting July 1. Iowa's cigarette tax would jump from a tie for 41st place with Louisana to 15th highest among the 50 states if the Legislature adopts Vilsack's proposal.
The tobacco tax was last raised in 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2005/01/31/news/breaking_news/doc41fea2351a931412707952.txt
Monday, January 31, 2005
Vilsack announces cigarette tax proposal
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES (AP) --- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack unveiled a proposal on Monday to increase the state's cigarette tax by 80 cents per pack, using the money to rescue the state's Medicaid program and improve other health programs.
The governor said the cigarette tax increase would generate $129 million annually, to be used exclusively for health programs.
"Without a tobacco tax increase, the Legislature is faced with some very difficult choices," the governor said, pointing to a projected Medicaid budget shortfall as large as $100 million.
Vilsack has said that the state spends as much as $235 million a year treating sick smokers, but collects only $90 million in taxes on cigarettes.
The governor also called for spending $800 million over five years to revive the Iowa Values Fund, the state's centerpiece economic development program, aimed at luring high-tech businesses to build or expand in Iowa. He said he will negotiate with lawmakers over how to finance that effort.
Education also is a winner in Vilsack's budget with nearly $150 million in new spending for public schools, $5 million for community colleges and $40 million for the state's three universities. That triggers a proposal from the Iowa Board of Regents to begin streamlining administration.
Vilsack released his $5 billion budget plan in a series of briefings with lawmakers and state officials at the Iowa Capitol before heading to a public town hall meeting in suburban Waukee.
Vilsack calls for 80-cent cigarette tax increase - Iowa
We have all known Social Security is in trouble. Now, it's beginning to look like more and more states are hoping to use cigarette taxes to dig them out their Medicaid deficits and still have money left over...till the next time they can't balance the budget.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050131/NEWS/50131003/1001&lead=1
Vilsack calls for 80-cent cigarette tax increase
By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
January 31, 2005
Iowa smokers could be required to pay an extra 80 cents a pack in state cigarette taxes.
Gov. Tom Vilsack proposed today that the cigarette tax be raised from $0.36 a pack to $1.16 a pack. The $124 million in additional state revenue would be used to help pay for Medicaid and other health care programs.
The Democratic governor's proposal could meet strong resistance from Republican legislative leaders who have said they aren't in favor of raising any taxes.
The cigarette tax increase is part of Vilsack's $5 billion state budget plan for the 2006 fiscal year starting July 1. Iowa's cigarette tax would jump from a tie for 41st place with Louisana to 15th highest among the 50 states if the Legislature adopts Vilsack's proposal.
The tobacco tax was last raised in 1991.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2005/01/31/news/breaking_news/doc41fea2351a931412707952.txt
Monday, January 31, 2005
Vilsack announces cigarette tax proposal
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES (AP) --- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack unveiled a proposal on Monday to increase the state's cigarette tax by 80 cents per pack, using the money to rescue the state's Medicaid program and improve other health programs.
The governor said the cigarette tax increase would generate $129 million annually, to be used exclusively for health programs.
"Without a tobacco tax increase, the Legislature is faced with some very difficult choices," the governor said, pointing to a projected Medicaid budget shortfall as large as $100 million.
Vilsack has said that the state spends as much as $235 million a year treating sick smokers, but collects only $90 million in taxes on cigarettes.
The governor also called for spending $800 million over five years to revive the Iowa Values Fund, the state's centerpiece economic development program, aimed at luring high-tech businesses to build or expand in Iowa. He said he will negotiate with lawmakers over how to finance that effort.
Education also is a winner in Vilsack's budget with nearly $150 million in new spending for public schools, $5 million for community colleges and $40 million for the state's three universities. That triggers a proposal from the Iowa Board of Regents to begin streamlining administration.
Vilsack released his $5 billion budget plan in a series of briefings with lawmakers and state officials at the Iowa Capitol before heading to a public town hall meeting in suburban Waukee.
Mon Jan 31, 2005
State needs to increase tobacco prevention spending
I'm sharing the following story and related abstract (the full study is not yet available to the public) because this study, State Tobacco Control Spending and Youth Smoking, is going to be used to influence our Illinois State Legislature to significantly increase the budget for tobacco prevention programs in the next fiscal year.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://nwitimes.com/articles/2005/01/27/news/illiana/cf02156483faba2786256f9500808fa4.txt
Report: More money spent, more lives saved
HEALTH: State needs to increase tobacco prevention spending
BY GINA CZARK
gczark@nwitimes.com
219.933.3234
This story ran on nwitimes.com on Thursday, January 27, 2005
More lives would be saved and youth smoking dramatically decreased if states contributed the minimum amount of money recommended from a federal agency toward tobacco prevention programs.
The increased money in Illinois would prevent 81,920 kids from smoking and save 26,210 of them from premature, smoking-related deaths, according to a study completed by Bridging the Gap and analyzed by The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The results are published in the February issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
Currently, Illinois spends $11 million on its tobacco prevention programs, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a minimum budget of $64.9 million annually.
By paying for prevention programs at the minimum level, it's estimated Illinois would save $983 million in long-term, smoking-related health costs.
The increased money would provide states with a better chance to combat marketing campaigns by the tobacco industry, which currently spends $23 for every $1 states spend on tobacco prevention, the study found. Currently, the industry spends $12.7 billion annually on marketing nationwide.
The study was conducted from 1991 to 2000 by researchers from Bridging the Gap, a policy research program based at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Michigan.
Jennifer Williams, a spokeswoman with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said 90 percent of money from the tobacco settlement is used for health-related expenditures.
Next month, the Illinois General Assembly will convene budget talks, at which point they could decide to increase money for prevention programs in the next fiscal year.
"We'd certainly like to see more money," Williams said. "We're all about trying to prevent smoking and encourage cessation programs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/2/338
February 2005, Vol 95, No. 2 American Journal of Public Health 338-344
© 2005 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.039727
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
State Tobacco Control Spending and Youth Smoking
John A. Tauras, PhD, Frank J. Chaloupka, PhD, Matthew C. Farrelly, PhD, Gary A. Giovino, PhD, Melanie Wakefield, PhD, Lloyd D. Johnston, PhD, Patrick M. O’Malley, PhD, Deborah D. Kloska, MA and Terry F. Pechacek, PhD
John A. Tauras is with the Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. Frank J. Chaloupka is with the Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago Health Policy Center, and ImpacTeen: A Policy Research Partnership to Reduce Youth Substance Abuse. Matthew C. Farrelly is with the Public Health Economics and Policy Research Program, Research Triangle Institute. Gary A. Giovino is with the Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. Melanie Wakefield is with the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Victoria, Australia. Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Deborah D. Kloska are with the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Terry F. Pechacek is with the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to John A. Tauras, PhD, Department of Economics (m/c 144), University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 South Morgan, Chicago, IL 60607–7121 (e-mail: tauras@uic.edu).
Objective. We examined the relationship between state-level tobacco control expenditures and youth smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption.
Methods. We estimated a 2-part model of cigarette demand using data from the 1991 through 2000 nationally representative surveys of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students as part of the Monitoring the Future project.
Results. We found that real per capita expenditures on tobacco control had a negative and significant impact on youth smoking prevalence and on the average number of cigarettes smoked by smokers.
Conclusions. Had states represented by the Monitoring the Future sample and the District of Columbia spent the minimum amount of money recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of smoking among youths would have been between 3.3% and 13.5% lower than the rate we observed over this period.
State needs to increase tobacco prevention spending
I'm sharing the following story and related abstract (the full study is not yet available to the public) because this study, State Tobacco Control Spending and Youth Smoking, is going to be used to influence our Illinois State Legislature to significantly increase the budget for tobacco prevention programs in the next fiscal year.
Garnet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://nwitimes.com/articles/2005/01/27/news/illiana/cf02156483faba2786256f9500808fa4.txt
Report: More money spent, more lives saved
HEALTH: State needs to increase tobacco prevention spending
BY GINA CZARK
gczark@nwitimes.com
219.933.3234
This story ran on nwitimes.com on Thursday, January 27, 2005
More lives would be saved and youth smoking dramatically decreased if states contributed the minimum amount of money recommended from a federal agency toward tobacco prevention programs.
The increased money in Illinois would prevent 81,920 kids from smoking and save 26,210 of them from premature, smoking-related deaths, according to a study completed by Bridging the Gap and analyzed by The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The results are published in the February issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
Currently, Illinois spends $11 million on its tobacco prevention programs, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a minimum budget of $64.9 million annually.
By paying for prevention programs at the minimum level, it's estimated Illinois would save $983 million in long-term, smoking-related health costs.
The increased money would provide states with a better chance to combat marketing campaigns by the tobacco industry, which currently spends $23 for every $1 states spend on tobacco prevention, the study found. Currently, the industry spends $12.7 billion annually on marketing nationwide.
The study was conducted from 1991 to 2000 by researchers from Bridging the Gap, a policy research program based at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Michigan.
Jennifer Williams, a spokeswoman with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said 90 percent of money from the tobacco settlement is used for health-related expenditures.
Next month, the Illinois General Assembly will convene budget talks, at which point they could decide to increase money for prevention programs in the next fiscal year.
"We'd certainly like to see more money," Williams said. "We're all about trying to prevent smoking and encourage cessation programs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/2/338
February 2005, Vol 95, No. 2 American Journal of Public Health 338-344
© 2005 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.039727
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
State Tobacco Control Spending and Youth Smoking
John A. Tauras, PhD, Frank J. Chaloupka, PhD, Matthew C. Farrelly, PhD, Gary A. Giovino, PhD, Melanie Wakefield, PhD, Lloyd D. Johnston, PhD, Patrick M. O’Malley, PhD, Deborah D. Kloska, MA and Terry F. Pechacek, PhD
John A. Tauras is with the Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. Frank J. Chaloupka is with the Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago Health Policy Center, and ImpacTeen: A Policy Research Partnership to Reduce Youth Substance Abuse. Matthew C. Farrelly is with the Public Health Economics and Policy Research Program, Research Triangle Institute. Gary A. Giovino is with the Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. Melanie Wakefield is with the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Victoria, Australia. Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Deborah D. Kloska are with the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Terry F. Pechacek is with the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to John A. Tauras, PhD, Department of Economics (m/c 144), University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 South Morgan, Chicago, IL 60607–7121 (e-mail: tauras@uic.edu).
Objective. We examined the relationship between state-level tobacco control expenditures and youth smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption.
Methods. We estimated a 2-part model of cigarette demand using data from the 1991 through 2000 nationally representative surveys of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students as part of the Monitoring the Future project.
Results. We found that real per capita expenditures on tobacco control had a negative and significant impact on youth smoking prevalence and on the average number of cigarettes smoked by smokers.
Conclusions. Had states represented by the Monitoring the Future sample and the District of Columbia spent the minimum amount of money recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of smoking among youths would have been between 3.3% and 13.5% lower than the rate we observed over this period.
