Houston Chronicle Sunday

Hesitant states could vote on cigarette taxes

- By David A. Lieb

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — An entire generation has come of age since the last time Missouri raised its cigarette tax, from 13 cents a pack to 17 cents, in 1993.

Today, it’s the lowest tax in the nation. And Missouri is one of just three states — along with North Dakota and California — that has held cigarette taxes flat since the turn of century. In that time, other states have increasing­ly tapped smokers to fill budget gaps and raise money for services such as health care and education.

That soon could change. Petitions are seeking to put higher cigarette taxes on the fall ballot in all three of those holdout states, as well as Colorado.

Victories by anti-tobacco advocates would add to a surge that has already raised tens of billions of dollars for states while helping drive down the nation’s smoking rate, from about a quarter of adults in 1990 to fewer than 17 percent in the most recent surveys.

From 2000 through 2014, states raised their cigarette taxes nearly 120 times, helping generate more than $85 billion of additional revenue, according to an Associated Press analysis of state-by-state figures compiled by the economic consulting firm Orzechowsk­i and Walker, which is funded by the tobacco industry.

More than a dozen additional cigarette tax hikes have been enacted since then.

They include July 1 increases that will raise West Virginia’s tax to $1.20 a pack and Connecticu­t’s to $3.90, the second highest nationally behind New York’s $4.35.

In June, California be- came only the second state behind Hawaii to raise the legal smoking age from 18 to 21 under a new law that also regulates electronic cigarettes.

Advocates believe the timing is right for people in even the most historical­ly hesitant states to embrace higher tobacco taxes.

“What we’ve seen is momentum, and I think voters are ready to take the next step,” said Mike Roth, a spokesman for the Save Lives California coalition.

Yet even in a society that has increasing­ly turned against tobacco, the cigarette tax initiative­s are no sure thing to pass.

California voters narrowly rejected two previous tobacco tax measures, in 2012 and 2006. Missouri voters did the same to three tobacco tax initiative­s over the past 14 years.

Charlie Hake, a nonsmoker who owns the We B Smokin chain of tobacco shops based in Jefferson City, said he opposes the latest proposals.

“I think that our government needs to live within its means, and any tax increase is just simply unnecessar­y,” Hake said.

Two separate initiative petitions have been submitted in Missouri — one seeking a 23-cent-a-pack increase, the other a 60cent hike.

A petition being circulated in North Dakota would raise the cigarette tax from 44 cents a pack to $2.20. A California initiative seeks a $2 increase to the current 87-cent-a-pack tax. The Colorado proposal would ask voters to raise the cigarette tax by $1.75 a pack to a total of $2.59.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices leads to a 4 percent decline in cigarette consumptio­n. It says smaller tax increases often have little effect.

The potential financial hit from Missouri’s proposed tax hikes has already helped persuade We B Smokin clerk Kenneth Houser, 32, to give up the cigarettes that he first started smoking at age 13.

“I’ve scraped by as it is,” Houser explained. “More money out of the pocket, I can’t afford.”

Even with declining sales, states that have raised cigarette taxes have seen an increase in revenue. But in many states, that revenue surge has diminished over time, and some have failed to realize the windfall predicted.

 ?? David A. Lieb / Associated Press ?? Charlie Hake, owner of We B Smokin in Jefferson City, Mo., opposes proposals to raise taxes on cigarettes, calling any tax increase “simply unnecessar­y.”
David A. Lieb / Associated Press Charlie Hake, owner of We B Smokin in Jefferson City, Mo., opposes proposals to raise taxes on cigarettes, calling any tax increase “simply unnecessar­y.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States