Bill would raise Oregon cigarette tax by $1 a pack
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Raising cigarette taxes by $1 a pack would make it too expensive for some minors to take up smoking, public health advocates told an Oregon legislative panel Tuesday in urging the increase.
The House Revenue Committee heard public testimony on cigarette taxes but took no action.
"Cigarettes are unsafe at any level of consumption," Bud Pierce, a Salem oncologist and president of the Oregon Medical Association, told the committee. "We need to take this step and move forward, do all we can to make people not smoke. Paying more money makes people not smoke."
Critics said the tax hike would be particularly harmful to people with low incomes, who smoke at much higher rates than the wealthy, and to businesses that sell tobacco products.
"This is an extremely regressive tax on Oregonians," said Mark Nelson, a lobbyist for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and 7-Eleven Inc., whose convenience stores sell about $400 million worth of cigarettes each year in Oregon.
Taxing a product that people are addicted to might encourage them to forego other spending that could improve their health in order to pay for their addiction, said Rep. Jason Conger, R-Bend.
"I see a real moral hazard in this issue," Conger said, noting he's not opposed to pricing cigarettes out of the reach of young people.
At $1.18 a pack, Oregon's tobacco tax ranks 29th in the country and below the national average of $1.49, said Colleen Hermann-Franzen, advocacy and communications manager at the American Lung Association.
The tax hike would discourage children from smoking and would also encourage some adults to quit smoking or smoke fewer cigarettes, she said.
"We're going to see their health outcomes improve, we're going to see their quality of life improve too," Hermann-Franzen said.
Because it raises revenue, an increase in the cigarette tax would require support from three-fifths of the House and Senate, which would require bipartisan support in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Rep. Vicki Berger, of Salem, the top Republican on the Revenue committee, told The Associated Press that the measure would be a tough sell among Republicans.
  I myself smoke and the tax increase hasn't deterred me from smoking. The point is if one wants to smoke they will despite the tax increase. The same is for under age people, they will find the money one way or another.  More people drink than there are smokers so why not tax alcohol along with all the other unhealthy habits people have. Obesity is a problem nation wide so why not tax all those bad habits. It only seems fair to tax all these bad habits instead of just one group of people.
Tax churches they have been getting a FREE ride forever nothing kills people of the world more than religion my God is better than your God atitude.How ignorant
@Ghetto Baby Yes, your I'm better than you attitude is certainly more appealing than theirs.........
Oh look Commucrats want to raise taxes, what a shock. So you want to raise the tax on cigarettes yet we will completely ignore alcohol again. Could that be because of all the brewers in oregon that have bought and paid for the government of Oregon. If you are going to raise the taxes on one unhealthy item raise the taxes on all of them, cigarettes, cigars, soda, alcohol, fast food, medical marijuana, all of it.
And why go after the people addicted to cigarettes? They don't have money. Â How about going after the companies that make them addicted by adding extra nicotine? Now those SOB's have money!
@concerned thinker Do you not know how business works? No matter which side of the table you put a tax on the consumers pay it.
Glad I smoke cigars. Of course, they are evil like ciggy's I suppose.  Not that I really care. :)Â
However, nobody seems to mind that MMJ. After all, it's "medical", right?
This whole guise that it will deter minors is a load of B.S.
If smokers grow their own will they send in the oregon ATF?
Send health troopers door to door to confiscate this evil weed and seize all guns and bibles. Â Install GPS on all vehicles and charge fines for unauthorized non preapproved travel. Â Encourage compliance with a patriots hot line for suspected unapproved useage of freedom or liberty.
"We need to take this step and move forward, do all we can to make people not smoke. Paying more money makes people not smoke."
Then raise the tax to $10/pack.Â
If the only purpose is to stop 'the childruuuuun' from starting smoking, and deter current smokers, then don't do it half way, make it hurt. Raise the tax $100/carton.Â
But, if the true goal is to raise revenue, then $1/pack seems like a much more palatable number. It may cause a few to quit, or change brands to less expensive types, but the most notable side effect will be an exponential increase in state revenue.Â
I don't know what is more pathetic to me personally.Â
The fact that the state of Oregon is such a prolific enabler of addictions for revenue, or the fact that they continually sell increases in 'sin' tax revenue as being 'fer the childruuuuun'.Â
@MarkKpic ~  I think the only thing that's going to happen if they drive cig taxes up too high is that it'll drive the whole thing underground (black market)... just as happened with alcohol and Prohibition some decades ago... There's already a black market for cigs; by taxing them out of peoples' reach, that black market is just going to expand to meet the demand.  Â
@margay1 @MarkKpic I already know of at least 1 long haul driver friend of mine who makes a good deal of side income by buying cartons at reservations in various states and bringing them back to Oregon. I guess one side effect of the proposed tax, 'fer the childruuuun' of course, would be an increase in his side revenue.Â
@margay1 @MarkKpic Well, 'AndyP' and I are already setting up a small black-market side business to supplement our income.  I already called 'driver' though, so you and he can fight it out for who rides shotgun and who has to sit on the hump.  =)
How about using the money that tobacco companies have had to pay for smoking cessation programs to actually be used for that purpose, instead of every other pet project that has absolutely nothing to do with stopping smoking? Taxation with representation is tyranny! If smoking is bad, prohibit it! But stop taxing, and taxing, and taxing, a product that at this point is legal! How can they sleep at night, getting additional taxes on something that really is bad for the users? Use the money for helping people quit, instead of getting them to cough up (no pun intended) for continuing to buy cigaretted?
@jpk What I've been most curious about is the push to list nicotine as a controlled substance. Obviously, neither the state or the federal government truly wants to 'help' people quit. Their addiciton to the revenue stream is exponentially stronger than any narcotic is to the street junky.Â
So, the question I keep coming back to is, to what end is the proposal?
Neither state nor federal tax folks want to kill the golden goose that keep providing them with money to spend on pet projects. Pretty soon they will tax tobacco to the point that no one will buy it. But then again, folks addicted to nicotine will keep paying up to stay happy, even if not healthy. But then again, government only wants to sell you on the fact that they are looking out for you, but then will tax you on anything and everything.. As long as they get their bucks, you and your health are on your own! Good luck!
I tend to agree with you. But I also remember reading stats somewhere to the effect that there are less than 20% of the population that still smokes, but that they fall into the poorer segment of the population. Wasn't there a revolution in this country because of taxation without representation? Of course that involved British taxes on tea sold to colonial America! Â
@jpk The dealer with a conscience.Â
As I said above, if the goal is truly to help people quit and to keep it out of the hands of kids, tax the schmidt out of it. $100-$500/carton. When smokers have to choose between rent, food and cigarettes, they'll quit.Â
Which is where the 'dealer with a conscience' theory breaks down on all fronts. It's not about 'helping people quit'. Nor is it 'fer the childruuuuun'. It's about revenue. Period.Â
Tobacco is a pariah du' jour. It's easy to get people to sign off on a tax increase on it. Unfortunately for the Oregon legicritters, it's a bit of a balancing act. They want the additional revenue, but they don't want to raise the cost of a pack of smokes too much so as to either actually force people to quit, or force them to go to 'black market' (internet, indian reservations) sources for their smokes.Â
The really funny part about it is that if you think about it, a $.05 increase in the tax on alcohol would raise significantly more revenue than even $1/pack cigarette tax would. The difference is in two very important considerations;
1) The microbrew & wine industries in Oregon (read:lobby) would swarm Salem in droves and throw about ample amounts of 'free speech' in order to 'gain access to' legicritters. They would also spend equally copious amounts of 'free speech' with a media and PR blitz against any such proposals.Â
2) The social stigmas are much stronger against 'them dirty smokers' than folks who 'enjoy a glass of wine' with friends.Â
Much as electricity tends to take the path of least resistance, so do legicritters when it comes to tax increases.Â
Raising the tax rate on smokes will do nothing to effect children getting their hands on them.  I would expect that kids  that are interesting in smoking have parents or friends that smoke that inadvertently provides access.  Its how it was when I was raised, my first smoke was stolen from my moms pack.
I smoked for years and finally decided that the real cost, my life, was not worth it. Â That and my doctor telling me that nicotine was more addicting than heroin. Â
Smokers will smoke, nothing will change that until they decide to quit on their own.
Now if we can only get them to stop tossing their butts out their car window.
there goes government again try to steal more money from the tax payers. i already to to much in taxes if they want more money out of me do something about there pay and gas prices so we arent screwed all the way
Don't people pay enough taxes?We don't need any more of your stinking taxes!
Here's another heartwarming story about taxes.
"Obamacare May Bite You At The Vetâs Office".Â
"Why the increase? Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. "
Love the comments...
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/
@NotAChance ~  "âCongress never intended for this tax to impact veterinarian medicine and unfortunately it has, and I think thatâs very unfortunate that veterinarian medicine now is subsidizing human health care,â said Dr. Lutschaunig."  (from the linked article)
Well, people, this should come as no surprise... it is EXACTLY what happens when you have politicians voting to pass a bill they have't read..!
I suspect that this isn't the last of things that are "hidden" in the ObamaCare fiasco...Â
Voting to pass a bill they were not ALLOWED to read. They only got the full text of the bill after the vote was taken.
@Jeremy ~  Perhaps if more of them had grown spines and refused to vote on a bill that was so ridiculously long (2700 pages) and complex, we might not have gotten stuck with that monstrosity...  There's no legitimate reason why that bill could not have been written in parts that could have been read and understood BEFORE they were voted on...but then. that wouldn't have served the purposes of those who put it together in the secrecy of the back rooms...
@margay1 @NotAChance Based on the link NotAChance provided, this WAS read prior to passing the bill, but apparently there seemed to be no easy way to fix it at the time.  Perhaps it'll be changed in the future to make veterinary clinics exempt from the tax? Â
@margay1Â @NotAChanceÂ
Perhaps vets can instruct doctors on the finer points of euthanasia.. I read it's outlined somewhere near page 425 of the what is it,, 2700 page bill..Â
By the way, I apologize in advance if this is off-topic...(which it is...sort of...).
The state is the one with the addiction. They are addicted to cash. Its just going to drive everything underground like prohibition.
Why don't they just raise it 20.00 a pack??? Â That way their revenue stream will drop to near zero and Washington, California, Nevada, and Idaho sales will go up as cigarette smuggling becomes profitable. Â
Keep voting to tax unpopular activities. Â Then when they come for yours nobody will back you.
I don't smoke but this is too much...what is happening to this state??? Just wondering does Obama still smoke??? I've always wondered how he sneaks one with photographers around him all the time...and what really shocked me was when I read that Laura Bush is a heavy smoker..she didn't look the type
@Pazzo1Â Well, if the shrub was your husband, wouldn't you seek relief wherever you could find it?
Meh, who cares? We're only talking about smokers. These are people who wake up every day and try to kill themselves one cancer stick at a time along with the "loved" ones around them. Let them pay a bit to kill themselves. Why should I care?
first its smokers than its booze then fast food, then any other unhealthy thing you can think of.
@Jeremy Oh, it's all going to come around..... Just wait.
Do it! Do it now, then as soon as you can, make it the highest tobacco tax IN THE NATION!!!
Apparently the politicians have never heard of "shoplifting" or "stealing" which is how most teens get their cigarettes. Â You can buy cigarettes on the "black market" now, and it will only get worse as costs go up. Â The lying politicians will tell us they will use the revenue for positive programs to help people quit smoking, then use the money for their pet projects which the average person will never get any benefit from. Â When crooks are running the show, it's no surprise what will happen.
What a crock. Â I don't smoke so it doesn't affect my pocket book but when the government gets a taste for taxing socially unpopular forms of anything, we'll all be screwed over eventually. Â
@negativerep ~  Yep.... and when the revenue runs dry on cigs... well, beer / wine / coffee drinkers, fast food junkies, etc, WATCH OUT... they'll be after you next..!  Â
I strongly suspect that the most addiction in the entire world is a politician's addiction to money..! Â
@margay1Â @negativerepÂ
How about a 5 cent tax on profanity? They'll make billions off the truckers alone.. :P
@negativerep Soon they will be flying off the shelves and being horded like guns and ammo
If they seriously want to make it too expensive for kids to take up smoking then they should raise the tax to $100 per pack and then simply check ID and only charge the tax if they cannot verify age. Now if they want to raise revenue and punish smokers then raising the tax by a buck a pack is totally reasonable.Â
Seriously, if the only intent is to discourage underage smoking then smokers should be able to receive a tax deduction by proving that they were of age when they purchased the smokes.
@Icarus Charge the consumer does not work to solve problems.   If you are having problems with an age check then it's the person doing the check that is to blame.   Enforce business law.
If you are worried about kids getting them in the first place, stop selling them at the grocery store, the local markets, and in vending machines. Â Â Actual setup a system where there is no way a child could steal or purchase from a business devoted to sales of tobacco products only. Â Â This will control the flow of the product more and leave less places to look when something went wrong.
@Ghosts Among Us @Icarus Â
That was exactly my point. Increasing the tax by a dollar is just increasing the tax revenue by a dollar.  If the state of Oregon actually motivated by anything other than more revenue they would implement a different solution.Â
@Icarus @Ghosts Among Us ~  Exactly..!  They're taxing one product (again - repeatedly) - in order to feed another addiction; that of the politicians' addiction to taxpayer money..!  Â
If it moves, tax it. If it breathes, tax it. If it looks at you in the wrong way....tax it.
I thought in this day and age, we moved away from broken records?
lets find out what the good Dr. likes, and tax it into oblivion - just because we dont like it? I am sure I can find something unheathy in just about any activity he can name. What an ignoramus.
@wvboy Funny, I didn't even see the governor's name mentioned in the article.  So you brought him into this discussion....why?  I'm not sure he's the ignoramus.
The oncologist who is advocating this. I personally donot think that you can tax your way to good behavior. Everyone has vice(s) - yes some more potentially hazardous than others.Â
@wvboy Apologies.....I must read too many comments and thought you were slamming Governor Kitzhaber.  A natural assumption here, right?  LOL!