A legislative double whammy against the tobacco industry is making its way through Congress. Barring a veto by President Bush, we may actually see long-needed policy changes to reign in the biggest death-dealer in the United States.
The first measure is FDA regulation of tobacco products. According to this recent New York Times article, the current version of the plan has the support of 52 Senators and would pass through the House by a 2 to 1 margin. Some compromises have been made along the way, of course. The one mentioned in this article would allow clove as an additive to cigarettes. That makes me cringe – clove flavoring targets kids – but overall this sounds like a good deal that will save lives.
The second measure relates to the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), something I obviously support as a pediatrician with an overwhelmingly impoverished patient population. In the current proposal, as outlined in another New York Times article, the expansion would be paid for by increasing the federal tobacco excise tax to $1 per pack from the current level of $0.39 per pack. Increasing cigarette taxes decreases cigarette consumption and saves lives, and healthcare for children gets support in the process. Sounds like a win-win to me.
4 responses so far ↓
1
Scott A
// Jul 23, 2007 at 1:04 pm
So if, as a grown adult I choose to smoke, it becomes my duty to pay more for people on welfare? How do you equate the two? I should not be penalized for smoking if it is legal. Just another instance of too much government. Are we shying away from the idea of democracy and freedom of choice?
2
knightindragonland
// Jul 23, 2007 at 4:36 pm
First off, most people don’t start smoking as a “grown adult.” Most smokers start their habit well before age 18. The tobacco companies conspire to hook their customers on an addictive substance before the age of consent. How’s that for freedom of choice???
And why is it my duty, as a non-smoker, to pay for the increased healthcare costs that accrue from the habits of smokers? I’m not just talking about the costs to government funded healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid – although those are substantial. The higher costs of insuring smokers are passed on to non-smokers with increased premiums for the privately insured as well. How is that fair, Scott?
The choice to smoke is not simply an individual choice. It has consequences that impact the whole society, and those costs are not reflected in the price of a pack of cigarettes. It is the duty of good government to address that oversight.
3
Scott A
// Jul 24, 2007 at 8:32 am
I understand your reasoning here Knight, and it is logical. First, anyone that is on welfare or receiving public aid, should not be allowed to smoke period. if you can’t afford food for your kids or to put a roof over your head, you shouldn’t be able to afford to smoke and drink.
Your point about the insurance premiums is a very good point, as I would agree that it is unfair to non smokers to absorb the cost associated with smokers health conditions. And I really don’t have a good answer to that question. So touche, Knight. You got me there.
But the same can be said for many other things in todays society. So why should I pay higher insurance premiums to cover the costs of all the fat asses I see in Mcdonalds eating 14 cheeseburgers a day? Should I have to pay 10 dollars for a hamburger to offset the costs when all of these obese slobs have heart problems in 10 years?
Your arguments are solid, but can be applied to many other things besides smoking. And yes, these costs are reflected in the cost of a pack of cigarrettes. When I started smoking they were about 1.75. Now they are about 4.25 and I don’t think that any more profit is going to the tobacco company.
4
knightindragonland
// Jul 25, 2007 at 12:11 am
Yes, I agree – it is unfair that the costs of the unhealthy habits of others are passed on to those who take better care of themselves. However, most food components and additives can at least make the argument that they are harmless or even beneficial in moderation. Smoking is never harmless.
Health economics is not exactly hard science. Many generalizations are made that certainly don’t apply across the entire spectrum. However, the estimates of the true societal economic impact of a pack of cigarettes range between $7 per pack and $41 per pack. Four bucks a pack ain’t nothin’.
The bottom lines of the tobacco companies seem to be doing just fine, despite all the regulation, taxation and huge legal settlements. Their marketing departments continue to outspend public anti-smoking campaigns a thousand to one or more, and they ceaselessly push the line on regulations against targeting young smokers.
Leave a Comment