The Oregon legislature is once again trying to raise the cigarette tax, this time by $1.00 per pack. According to the sponsors of the bill―Representative Mitch Greenlick and Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, both of west Portland―the primary purpose of HB 2275 is to reduce tobacco consumption, not raise revenue for the state.

But the bill itself tells another story. It states in Section 6 that “All moneys from the taxes imposed by this Act shall be credited to the General Fund.” Where is the specific assistance for smokers trying to quit smoking? It’s not there. Under current law, the state’s Tobacco Use Reduction account receives only 2.9% of all current cigarette tax revenue, and HB 2275 does not increase that.

Moreover, since 1999 the state has received more than $1 billion from smokers through the so-called “Master Settlement Agreement” with the four largest tobacco companies. That money was supposed to pay for the “costs of smoking” imposed on society. Yet, most of those funds were spent on other programs that had little to do with public health, and none of it went to tobacco cessation programs.

Smokers are routinely picked on by legislators because they are a vulnerable minority, but they are already paying more than their fair share of taxes. If reducing tobacco use is really the goal, it’s time for politicians to try another approach.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

 

3 Responses to “Tobacco Cessation or Just Increasing General Fund Revenue?”

  1. Fred Thompson March 15, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    Cigarette taxes work. They may violate every principle of vertical and horizontal equity, but they work. There is very little evidence as to efficacy of other forms of state intervention. That holds a fortiori for treatment programs. On a per capita basis, California and Washington have spent 10 times as much as Oregon on smoking cessation programs. The rate of decline in smokers is lower in Washington than in Oregon and only slightly higher in California. Implicitly your argument rests on the premise that the price elasticity of demand for cigarettes is less than |1|. That may be the case for smokers over the age of 30. For younger smokers and teenagers the best evidence is that it is considerably larger.

    • adam schaeffer March 16, 2013 at 9:57 am #

      mr thompson completely misses the point of the piece: revenues are being stolen to fund other projects. his argument for higher taxes falls flat, too: cigs are way more expensive in WA, therefore, the rate of decline there should be higher than in OR.

Leave a Reply

 

Other Publications by John

Elliott State Forest Management Puts Small Birds over Small Kids

John Charles | April 15, 2014
By John A. Charles, Jr. Last year the S&P 500 Index had a total return on investment of 32%. That should have been good news ...  read more

Time to Stop Throwing Money down the WES Sinkhole

John Charles | April 11, 2014
In its proposed fiscal year 2015 budget, TriMet forecasts the purchase of two additional vehicles for the Wilsonville-to-Beaverton commuter rail line known as WES. The ...  read more

Are Small Birds More Important than Small Kids?

John Charles | April 9, 2014
Last year the S&P 500 Index had a total return on investment of 32%. That should have been good news for Oregon public schools, which ...  read more

More On These Topics

Do You Know Taxes Take 30% of Your Year?

Kathryn Hickok | April 16, 2014
If every penny earned since the beginning of the year went to pay federal, state, and local taxes, by April 21 Americans would have worked ...  read more

Are Small Birds More Important than Small Kids?

John Charles | April 9, 2014
Last year the S&P 500 Index had a total return on investment of 32%. That should have been good news for Oregon public schools, which ...  read more

Energy-Efficiency Myths of Commuter Rail

John Charles | April 2, 2014
Advocates of rail transit tend to argue that we need trains because they are more energy-efficient than buses or cars. Unfortunately, that’s only true in ...  read more