OPINION & EDITORIAL
Doyle’s tax right for Wisconsin
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Meredith Togstad:
- Student initiative merits reflection (September 19, 2007)
- Controversial green plates for offenders will bolster safety, despite criticism (May 8, 2007)
- Doyle education policies provide innovative solutions for Wisconsin (April 25, 2007)
- Doyle's plan for energy laudable (April 12, 2007)
- DNA backlog imperils justice (March 21, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Doyle's cigarette tax best solution (February 1, 2007)
- More wealth for better health (January 30, 2007)
- A Kool compromise (October 19, 2007)
- Waiting to exhale (January 19, 2004)
- Increasing taxes to fund Medicaid (March 11, 2005)
by Meredith Togstad
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Recently, Gov. Jim Doyle announced his proposal to increase the tax on cigarettes by more than $1 per pack. He also initiated the banning of smoking across the state of Wisconsin in "workplaces and public places, including taverns and restaurants." I find this proactive attempt on the part of the governor to both save lives and encourage Wisconsin's smokers to cut back to be thoughtful, legitimate and necessary.
Mr. Doyle's strong-willed pitch is backed wholeheartedly by overwhelming evidence reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stating, "Increasing the cost of smoking makes people more likely to quit and less likely to begin puffing in the first place." In fact, according to the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, "Mark Manz, 28, of Wisconsin Rapids said he'll quit smoking if the cost of cigarettes goes up. 'I won't be able to afford it anymore — which, I guess, is a good thing,' Manz said." Furthermore, Mr. Doyle finds support in numerous smoking-cessation programs. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Doyle's support for a cigarette tax increase will come only when he is assured the money would contribute toward "health care and anti-smoking programs." As a penniless college student and a one-time smoker myself, I can safely say that my desire to purchase a pack would quickly dwindle once I caught a glimpse of the outrageous prices. Lungs will be salvaged and lives will be saved. Point blank.
For those of you out there who need a bit more convincing, let me throw some interesting facts your way. According to a recent press release from Wisconsin Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar, "It is estimated that 42,000 Wisconsin adults will quit smoking, over 84,000 kids will never start, and 12,000 smoking-affected births will be avoided." In addition to these startling yet exciting statistics, Sen. Jauch also reported that in the past five years, tobacco use in high schools across the state has fallen by 36 percent, not to mention "one UW campus saw a 29 percent reduction in student use." Sen. Jauch gives all the credit to Wisconsin's state-funded tobacco cessation programs. I firmly believe that in addition to Wisconsin's existing campaigns, which correctly label tobacco as the enemy, Gov. Doyle's ideas will further the goals and ambitions of non-smokers nationwide.
Unfortunately, this dream-come-true ban and tax increase will most definitely face a few challengers. Taxpayers will likely be angered when they are asked to cough up more money. Smokers in general will expectedly voice their discontent when charged between $1.25 and $1.77 more per pack. Finally, tavern and restaurant owners who permit smoking in their institutions will frown upon their likely decrease in clientele. The ban would also probably add fuel to the fire that is the never-ending feud between the White House head honchos and American citizens. In other words, it is believed by some that because smoking is legal, the watchdog-esque administration has no reason to punish its citizens for exercising their rights. Furthermore, according to the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, many people enjoy smoking cigarettes while drinking alcoholic beverages: "There's something about drinking and smoking that goes together," claims Mary Lou Duerr, president of the Wood County Tavern League. Despite my personal preference to party and/or dine in a smoke-free environment, perhaps Mr. Doyle's plan should have some wiggle room for tavern and restaurant owners. This is the one time I think they should be permitted to make the decision whether or not to allow smoking in their institution.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 21 states and the District of Columbia already enforce workplace and/or restaurant and bar smoking bans. It is my belief that Wisconsin needs to catch up with the growing trend. The time has come to allow hardworking businesspeople the right to breathe fresh, smoke-free air in their crowded cubicles, but it should not stop there. Don't we all want to enjoy a delicious meal without the intoxicating aroma of tobacco robbing us of culinary and social satisfaction?
I say if people choose to harm their health and quality of life, more power to them. Yet, when innocent bystanders and non-smoking patrons come into play, I stand with Gov. Doyle and am prepared to point all smokers to the exit.
Meredith Togstad (togstad@wisc.edu) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism and French.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 2:58am):
Are you so naive, a cigarette tax is about the largest tax increase you can have on the poorest Americans (that demographic has the largest percentage of smokers). Do you know what a strong addiction nicotine is? (from one who used to smoke), a tax is not going to get people to quit (well, maybe some, but not many)... and if it did, the state would be out money (don't fool yourself, Doyle is NOT doing this for smokers or non-smokers, he is ONLY doing it to put more money in the state coffers). Raise the tax, some will quit, but those affected the most (the poorest) will find ways to get them... whether it be take food off the table of their children, or steal... the addiction is that strong.
Just a thought, there was a huge outcry when Bush let the "rich" keep more of their income while not giving back to those who did not pay federal income tax (the poor)... yet the government is more than willing to sock it to them because smoking is bad and they want them to resort to theft to support their addiction (and the state revenues). You people really have to wake up and get a clue.
All a larger state tax on cigarettes will do is give the state reason not to help people really quit. It is like Phillip Morris telling you how to quit because they have to (court order), yet everything they tell is, "it is ok to relapse, it is understandable".... or better yet (I love this one) get addicted to a gum... so if you can't find the gum, your addiction will drive you to buy more cigarettes and start all over again.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 7:46am):
You make some good arguments, but I'm pretty sure skating rinks and the jean jacket industry would be devastated.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 8:10am):
What does a smoking ban in Wisconsin have to do with "White House head honchos"?
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 8:26am):
Last time I checked, there was no law requiring restaurants to allow smoking. That is a business decision. If a restaurant wants to be non-smoking, that is their right. If you do not like smoking in a restaurant, you have the right to find one that has a non-smoking policy.
Let's make a law that bans all stupid people from being seen in public. When I see an idiot in public, it raises my blood pressure and that is harmful to my health.
One thing I have to say about Doyle's proposal is, it is about time the poor start paying more taxes. They have had a near free ride long enough. I think in order to equalize it though, we should start taxing condoms (no condoms no sex, right?) or perhaps Starbucks coffee should be taxed $2.00 a cup... it is interesting how the government loves to tax things that are needed (gas, electriciy, HEATING OIL AND GAS (not that you need them now) as well as things that are addictive (alcohol and tobacco) and punish those who have fallen into the trap of their poison... at the expense of their children (how many children are going to starve if parents can't afford to feed their children because they need to support their habbit).
If you want to see the benefit of raising taxes on cigarettes, just take a look at New York... now organized crime is in on the deal. I think its time to ban Doyle from public, I feel my blood pressure rising.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 10:53am):
Well there Mr Smarty Pants 2:58 AM, what you are really saying is that stupid people with no self-control are more likely to be poor. Calling Captain Obvious!
The ONLY way to convince these people not to smoke is to make it too expensive (although I have seen people keep the butts and put back baby food when they're short at the register).
Maybe the smart thing to do is to actually subsidize cigarettes and lower the smoking age to six, in the hope that people stupid enough to smoke will die before they breed.
It would certainly solve the social security crisis if more people died befor 65!
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 12:27pm):
2:58am, you haven't thought this one through all the way. Do the smoking poor have health insurance? No, then who pays for their lung cancer treatment? Tax payers. If this was a perfect world, the extra cigarette tax would be a down payment on their future thoracotomy and chemotherapy.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 12:31pm):
Doyle, if cigs are so bad, why not just make them illegal? Oh, because then you can't tax them.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 7:02pm):
"Doyle, if cigs are so bad, why not just make them illegal? Oh, because then you can't tax them."
Yeah, that "illegal" plan isn't working real well with drugs now. It funded the rise of the Mafia when they tried it with alcohol.
If you want less of someting the tax the hell out of it. That's why income taxes suck. Replace the income tax with duties on imported goods. The requisite border control would also eliminate illegal immigration.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 7:40pm):
I think this article is very well written and looks at the issue on both sides even though she may be partial to one side. The smoking ban, I believe, takes away the right of the owner to decide to have a smoke free environment. As a non-smoker, I still think the restaurant/bar/tavern owner should be able to decide which they chose to follow. In response to the cigarette tax increase, I think the parents that would now purchase cigarettes over food for their children maybe have more serious problems then their cigarette addiction. Maybe Gov. Doyle should put some of the tax money raised from the cigarette tax into more available mental health care for the psychos that would buy cigarettes before feeding their kids. I can only imagine how hard it is to quit cigarettes, but considering there are probably thousands who do it everyday, it's not impossible to expect those who can't afford the cigarettes to stop smoking and buy their kids some god damn food!
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 8:38pm):
You obviously DON'T understand addiction (this is to 12:27 and 10:53). Ask anyone who has quit (me for example), it is not easy and had I been poor before I wised up, I would have done anything to get my hands on them... luckily I had a job.
Anonymous (February 6, 2007 @ 10:01pm):
I might not understand addiction, but then you wouldn't be able to understand the conditions one were in if they had an addiction and had to raise a family. Luckily for you "you had a job" and weren't under any other pressure besides your own health to stop smoking. If you don't consider feeding children enough of a reason then you need help as well. Although I think that whoever started the whole thing about people not feeding their kids because of their cigarette addictions is a little absurb. There would be other things to go financially before food went.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 5:26am):
The point really is, if the government is making a profit from the "sin" they are going to do nothing substantial to end the "sin".
It is just ironic, everyone seems to want to hang smokers (and I understand, how can someone be so stupid as to start, but it happens... and once it does, it is very hard to quit). All one has to do is work in a "public assistance neighborhood" to see the impact. Back in the day there were food stamps, it was not uncommon to see someone come into a store, buy something for 30 cents, get the change, and repeat until they had enough for a pack of cigarettes or booze. I am sure those who cannot afford to do so still do the same today. Is that wrong, yes it is, should it be punished, absolutely. Is a tax a punishment? Perhaps to the children, but not the parents.
Oh, and by the way, you can think all you want that cigarette taxes are to overcome the medical bills for smokers... WRONG! The smoker is getting no benefit for the taxes they pay, it all goes into general funds and pays for pet projects (and other projects as well)... they do not now nor will they ever go to help those who smoke, either with medical bills or quitting. The government is just blowing smoke up your backside and telling you lies because (thank goodness) most people don't smoke and raising taxes will have no impact on them so the gov't does not care.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 7:25am):
Second comment, how do you know I did not have a family to raise when I was an idiot and smoked for 20 years?
A great website (to give you a perspective on the addiction AND perhaps really help someone who wants to quit) is www.whyquit.com. It is not funded by any corporation, it is not government run, it is run by people who want to get out real information.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
