An increase in Missouri’s tobacco tax proposed by state Rep. Mary Still would generate $400 million in new revenue for education if approved by state voters. Missouri has the lowest cigarette tax in the nation at 17 cents per pack. Mary Still, D-Columbia, wants to increase that tax to 89 cents. The new tax, proposed in House Bill 1478, would remain well below the national average of $1.46. The tax also would apply to cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco. “I value funding education over having the lowest cigarette tax in the country,” Still said Tuesday.

Last week, Gov. Jay Nixon released a proposed budget for fiscal 2013 that would cut higher education funding by $89 million.

“The way to avoid cuts to higher education is to have more revenue coming in,” Still said.

Still has several co-sponsors on the bill, including Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, but she has no Republican co-sponsors. She also is working with the Missouri Cancer Society and the Missouri Budget Project and she has consulted the website for the Missouri Foundation for Health for information to support the rationale behind her bill.

The amount of revenue added by the tax would be above limits established by the Missouri Constitution’s Hancock Amendment, which means it would require voter approval to become law.

Still said because the higher tobacco tax would be subject to a public vote, that her bill has a fighting chance. But it has a long road ahead. The bill was introduced on Tuesday and will now be referred to a House committee, possibly the Ways and Means Committee, for a hearing. If it clears the committee, it would go the House for floor debate and then to the Senate.

If approved, it would appear on the November general election ballot unless a special election is called before then.

Sen. John Lamping, R-St. Louis County, also has filed Senate Bill 638, which would increase Missouri’s tax on cigarettes to 43 cents. His proposal, however, would send the money to the state’s general revenue fund. Lamping’s bill also would exempt the first $2,000 of Missouri adjusted gross income from state income tax and adjust tax rates on other levels of income.

Still and Lamping aren’t the only ones calling for higher tobacco taxes. Several initiative petitions have been approved by Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, and supporters are collecting signatures to have them placed on the ballot.

Missouri ranks fourth in the nation for percentage of adults who smoke and fifth in the number of new lung cancer cases, Still said in a news release.

Missouri received a failing grade on the American Lung Association’s smoking report card for the fourth year in a row. Missouri received an F in all four categories: program spending, smoke-free air, cigarette tax and cessation.

Still has been pushing a higher tobacco tax for a couple of years.

“To me, a tobacco tax is a no-brainer,” she said.

Recent surveys, reports and investigations show that Albertans, in the hopes of setting a good example for future generations, are moving towards a more smoke-free way of life. But while smoking rates amongst adults continue to drop, youth smoking rates have remained steady over the past few years. Of the 809 Albertans questioned by Ipsos Reid in an online poll between Dec. 20 to 26, 70% said they’d support a two dollar per pack tax increase on cigarettes, on the condition the proceeds go towards reducing tobacco usage and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Albertans hope that by restricting the ability to obtain cigarettes, it will help to keep youth from picking up the habit.

“We’ve made great improvements in the rates of smoking amongst the general public,” said Les Hagen, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health. “The rates are now less than one in five, but we haven’t had the same progress with young people. In fact, that rate of 14% had more or less stayed the same for the past several years. It’s a huge concern.”

The Canadian Community Health Survey shows 14% of Albertan youth aged 12 to 19 consider themselves to be current smokers, 4% above what Alberta Health Services lists as their youth smoking target for 2010.

In a survey conducted last summer by Campaign for a Smoke-Free Alberta, Premier Alison Redford agreed to help reduce tobacco sales to minors through tougher laws, adding that “Discouraging teens from lighting up is critical to lowering health-care costs and keeping Albertans healthy. A major part of this effort involves making tobacco products harder to obtain and I believe this requires legislation to further restrict vendors’ ability to sell tobacco products to minors.”

The sale of tobacco products is illegal to minors under the age of 18. An investigation of 60 tobacco retailers was conducted across Alberta by ASH — a western Canadian organization dedicated to the prevention and control of tobacco use — and the Canadian Cancer Society, after a Health Canada survey showed Alberta had one of the worst compliance rates amongst tobacco retailers.

The tests were conducted throughout Fort McMurray, Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary and Lethbridge using 16- and 17-year-old volunteers who attempted to purchase cigarettes and were to tell the truth if asked for their real age or to produce photo ID.

“More than 90% of retailers are requesting ID, and that’s a good thing,” said Hagen. “Unfortunately, two-thirds of those retailers will sell to minors, even after the minor presents valid photo identification. To me, that means either the clerk is bad at math or they don’t care. The bottom line here is that the staff are poorly trained.”

Hagen believes the root of the problem stems from a lack of government policy regulating the sale of tobacco products.

“We’re asking the Alberta government to address this problem and what we’re recommending is that they apply the same rules to tobacco sales to minors as they currently do to alcohol sales to minors.”

Implementation of rules similar to that of alcohol sales would require provincial licensing for the sale of tobacco products, clerks to be 18-years-old and have completed mandatory online government training in order to sell tobacco, a request for valid photo ID from anyone appearing under the age of 25 and potential fine and license suspensions of establishments who are caught selling to minors.

Hagen says smoking awareness and prevention amongst teens is crucial as tobacco companies direct much of their advertising towards that vulnerable demographic.

“The vast majority of new smokers are under the age of 18, so if tobacco companies don’t get them before they turn 18, chances are they won’t get them,” said Hagen.

Echoing the sentiments of Hagen and ASH, Randy Sloan, a pharmacist with the Wood Buffalo Primary Care Network says its important to realize the problem with smoking starts at a much younger age than most people realize.

“Most smokers begin smoking when they’re in adolescence,” explained Sloan. “In actual fact, it is a pediatric disease that people carry into adulthood with them. I don’t encounter many smokers that started in their 20s or 30s. Almost everyone started in their teens. By nature, smoking is an adolescent problem. That’s when it starts.”

Sloan has been working with the WBPCN to develop a smoking cessation program to help Fort McMurray residents as they deal with the struggles of quitting.

“We’ll discuss things like how to deal with the triggers. A lot of people have those triggers that prompt the idea in their mind that they want a cigarette. We also talk about withdrawal symptoms and how to manage those to prevent a relapse back into smoking. We talk about the medications that are available to help you quit smoking and really help the patient choose the best option for them. If something needs to be prescribed, we take care of that (during the appointment). Everything happens all in one visit,” said Sloan.

While patients are required to have a local family doctor, they do not need a doctor’s referral to contact Sloan. The program is also free of charge because, Sloan adds, it’s important to make quitting as easy as possible.

“We want to take advantage of that person’s motivation to quit, because motivation can be a flakey thing. It can be there one day and not the next, so if someone comes in for their visit, we want to take advantage and get them as prepared as possible to begin the process of quitting.”

The benefits of quitting are numerous, but as Sloan points out, are not always immediately evident, often getting lost behind the hardships of withdrawal symptoms.

“Generally speaking, the first month would be the time that an individual would be most challenged by symptoms of withdrawal, but everybody’s different. It’s not carved in stone. Some withdrawal symptoms last longer than others, for example, (increased) appetite is one of the ones that lasts longer. That can go for about 10 weeks. Some of the other symptoms are certainly the cravings, the obsession to smoke, and depression or irritability,” he explained.

“(After quitting) energy levels go up, they can breath better, and people can climb a flight of stairs without running out of breath. There are things people will experience, but may not notice, such as their blood pressure going down. You’re reducing the chance of heart attack and strokes and various forms of cancer.”

It’s reported Premier Alison Redford would have the support of most Albertans if she raises tobacco taxes, according to a new poll. An online survey by Ipsos Reid, which questioned 809 Albertans between Dec. 20 and 26, found 70 per cent of respondents support a $2-per-pack tax hike on cigarette prices if the proceeds are used to reduce tobacco use and promote healthy living, says the Herald. Not answered, of course, is what would the result be if the question was: Do you support a $2-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes if the cash is wasted?

Clearly the government wouldn’t use the extra millions of dollars a year trying to wean smokers off their guilty indulgence. The money would be collected and burned up just like any other dollar. Just like gas taxes aren’t spent on promoting public transit and liquor taxes aren’t spent on discouraging people from enjoying a drink after work, cigarette taxes are simply a source of revenue — a necessary one to a large extent. God help us if people stop smoking. Where would the lost revenue come from? So don’t expect the Alberta government to pump every dollar it gets from higher cigarette taxes into stop-smoking initiatives, as noble an initiative as it would be.

The government needs the money, of course. It’s got all sorts of services to provide and must look after dedicated public servants, such as the city’s own Lindsay Blackett. He’ll have spent a full four years doing the bidding of voters, and after choosing not to seek re-election this spring, he’ll receive just $183,000 as a transition allowance. When you know where the money is going, you don’t mind paying higher taxes.

Two new initiative petitions have met state standards for circulation in Missouri. One relates to taxation on cigarettes and tobacco products; the other relates to a municipal police force (see ballot language below). Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan says before either measure can reach the statewide ballot in November 2012, they each need the signatures from registered voters equal to 5-percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor’s election from six of the state’s nine congressional districts.

The signatures are due to the Secretary of State’s Office by 5 p.m. on May 6, 2012.

The ballot title for the petition relating to taxation on cigarettes and other tobacco products reads:

Shall Missouri law be amended to: create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of a tax of $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products; use Fund proceeds to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding; and increase the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and create bonding requirements for these manufacturers?

Estimated additional revenue to state government from this proposal is $283 million to $423 million annually with limited estimated implementation costs or savings. The revenue will fund only programs and services allowed by the proposal. The fiscal impact to local governmental entities is unknown.

The petition, which would amend Chapters 149 and 196 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, was submitted by Mr. Robert Hess, Husch Blackwell, LLP, 235 E. High St., PO Box 1251, Jefferson City, MO 65102-1251.

The ballot title for the petition relating to a municipal police force reads:

Shall Missouri law be amended to:
allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city and establishing a municipal police force;
establish certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension; and
prohibit retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press?

State governmental entities estimated savings will eventually be up to $500,000 annually. Local governmental entities estimated annual potential savings of $3.5 million; however, consolidation decisions with an unknown outcome may result in the savings being more or less than estimated.

If you’re a smoker, you know it is a costly habit in Florida. Some lawmakers are pushing to make the high cost even higher, citing a goal of cutting down on teen smoking. Not many people will disagree teen smoking is a problem that needs to be dealt with. A higher tax could even encourage adult smokers to knock the habit, but for those who won’t quit, it could be become quite the burden. At Cig-O-Rama in Tallahassee, if you’re looking for a deal, all you’ve got to do is pick out your tobacco and hit a button.

At the bottom of the machine, machine-rolled cigarettes cost you half the price of what you would pay for a carton of brand name smokes.

The man who owns the machine, Greg Haskins, said business is booming and it could get even busier if new taxes raise the price of cigarettes.

The new tax bill would double Florida’s cigarette tax. Haskins predicts the move would send more value-conscious customers his way.

Though he will get more business, Haskins feels the move would still accomplish its main goal of making it tougher for teens to smoke.

“I think it’ll be a better incentive for the young adolescents to try to stop that, because, you know, it’s going to be more money for them and it’ll be harder to find it,” Haskins said.

Statewide, one-fifth fewer high schoolers are lighting up.

When lawmakers hiked the tax over two years ago, Florida began raking in a billion dollars more a year.

Raising that kind of money in this economy is also a big selling point for the bill, but there is no guarantee the money jar will fill again.

If the tax were to climb packs of cigarettes to $2.34, many smokers could find they couldn’t keep their habit going.

If they stop paying for the packages, the extra money won’t roll into the money jar. But, there are folks like Ann Ladato who have been smoking for 30 years or more.

“If I had to buy regular cigarettes at that price, I’d have to leave town to buy them,” Ladato said. “[I'll] go to Georgia, or buy them when I go home for a visit in Louisiana.”

The bill faces a high hurdle.

The Capitol’s majority Republicans, along with Governor Rick Scott, have made it clear they’re opposed to any and all new taxes.

Even though they voted overwhelmingly to hike cigarette taxes in 2009.

The bills has been dubbed the ‘Youth Smoke Prevention Act’ and is sponsored by South Florida Democratic State Rep. Jim Waldman.

Two Rochester men were charged Saturday in Genesee County with illegal possession of untaxed cigarettes. About 2:45 p.m., the Genesee County emergency dispatch center received a report of two men heading south on Route 77 with a large amount of untaxed cigarettes. Their car was stopped in Pembroke and Genesee County Sheriff’s deputies allegedly found 60 cartons of untaxed cigarettes in the car.

Devontre Levar Harvey, 27, of Garfield Street, and Holsey Wedlow, 59, of South Avenue, were arrested.

Both men are due in Pembroke Town County on Dec. 6.

The number of people giving up the habit jumped 70 per cent when federal taxes last forced up the price of cigarettes, a study published today in the Medical Journal of Australia shows. However, the motivation to give up appears short-lived. Four months after the average cost of a pack of 30 leapt $2.20 last year, quitting rates slipped back to normal. Researchers used data from the Cancer Institute’s continuous health survey of adults in NSW to track smoker “quitting activity”.

It found 22 per cent of 1604 smokers quit in May last year – after the 25 per cent hike in tobacco taxes.

This compared with 13 per cent in April last year (immediately before the tax rise) and 12 per cent a year earlier.
“Quitting activity increased substantially in the months immediately after the 2010 tax increase, suggesting a direct link between price increase and smoking cessation,” the report said.

Little cigars, which are taking increasing space on area tobacco-shop shelves, are shaped and smoked just like cigarettes. But because New Jersey taxes them differently, they cost nearly one-third the price. Over the past several years, increased state and federal taxes have helped turn some smokers on to less-taxed tobacco products, local shop owners and anti-smoking groups say. New Jersey has a $2.70 tax per cigarette pack, and the federal government has a $1.01 excise tax it enacted two years ago.

That sixth-highest cigarette tax in the country may entice more smokers to quit or prevent others from starting, said Karen Blumenfeld, executive director of Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy, a New Jersey-based anti-smoking group. But inconsistencies in taxes among various tobacco products cause some smokers to simply switch products, she said.
“We are lagging, as are many other states, with the other types of tobacco products. The industry has caught on to the fact that there’s this loophole with regard to other smoked tobacco products, and they’re cheaper,” said Blumenfeld, who wants a uniform pricing that would tax all tobacco products as cigarettes.
New Jersey collected nearly $742 million in cigarette taxes last year. That was a 4 percent drop, or $33.1 million less, compared to 2008, state Treasury Department data show.
Yet revenue from other tobacco products — such as cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own — shot up 26 percent in that time, generating $3.7 million more from lower tax rates.
The state has a wholesale tax on these products that is 30 percent of the price the wholesaler pays the manufacturer, Treasury spokesman Bill Quinn said.
“If I had to buy cigarettes for seven, eight dollars, I’d consider quitting,” said Dave Schubiger, 52, of Barnegat Township, who bought a 10-pack carton of little cigars for about $22. Had they been cigarettes, it would have cost him nearly $75.
“Price is a big thing; plus, I like them,” he said.
In New Jersey, little cigars in particular have been targeted by proposed legislation that seeks to tax them the same as cigarettes.
“The additional tax will make little cigars less appealing to current cigarette smokers seeking a cheaper alternative,” reads the proposed bill sponsored by state Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, Essex, Passaic.
The Office of Legislative Services estimated in 2010 that the bill would increase tax revenue from $6 million to nearly $9 million. The office estimated more than 5 million packs of little cigars were sold in fiscal year 2010.
But rising taxes will not stop people from smoking, although future increases may hurt New Jersey businesses that are being undercut by other states that have lower tobacco taxes and, likewise, cheaper tobacco, said Jeff Melchiondo Sr., owner of Tobacco Road in Barnegat.
The tobacco shop Melchiondo runs with his son sells cigars, pipe tobacco, cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and little cigars.
“Whether cigarettes are selling for $2 a pack or $8, people will still smoke — that may put more weight on the roll-your-own market if that is not taxed any more. The little-cigar smoker may go back to roll-your-own instead,” he said.
Roll-your-own cigarettes have been popular, but that tobacco is taxed more heavily than pipe tobacco, which can be used instead. Roll-your-own tobacco has a federal tax of $1.55 per 1-ounce pouch. Pipe tobacco, on the other hand, has a federal tax of about 18 cents per 1-ounce pouch.
Nationally, nearly 3.6 billion fewer cigarettes were manufactured from January to July than last year, a 2 percent drop, data from the federal Department of Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Bureau show.
Meanwhile, pipe-tobacco manufacturing picked up substantially — by about 5.7 million pounds, or about 44 percent.
Bob Tyjewski, manager at Smoker’s Haven in Galloway Township, has seen roll-your-own-cigarette sales double in the past few years. The shop keeps roll-your-own tobacco and pipe tobacco together on a shelf.
“Going to roll-your-own is an economic move, not because you got tired of what your Marlboro tastes like. It’s a matter of nickels and dimes,” he said.
Tyjewski said he is losing business to other states. New Jersey is behind only New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Washington, and Rhode Island in the highest cigarette taxes.
Pennsylvania and Delaware’s cigarette tax is $1.60 a pack.
Tyjewski has even seen the reverse — he has regular New York clients heading to Atlantic City who buy cartons of cigarettes. New York’s cigarette tax is the highest in the nation, at $4.35 per pack. They save $16.50 in state taxes per carton.
“The government, they don’t want you to smoke, but you can bet they spent that tax money,” he said.
Absecon resident Bharat Patel, manager of Northfield News and Tobacco in Northfield, said little cigars and roll-your-own have increased significantly in the past few years due primarily to the price of cigarettes.
In New Jersey, about 14 percent of the adult population — about 1 million people — are smokers, data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. The national median is about 18 percent.
At Tobacco Road, little cigars come in two brands: Cheyenne and 1839. They come in full flavor, light, menthol, cherry, peach and others.
Little cigars are more profitable for Tobacco Road to sell than cigarettes which, unlike little cigars, are available nearly everywhere and have low profit margins in order to compete, Melchiondo said.
Now, the shop sells as many packs of little cigars as they do cigarettes, he said.
“People will still buy them as long as they’re reasonable enough. If these go up to 3 or 4 dollars a pack, then they’ll go back to buying the roll-your-own stuff, probably,” he said “As long as there are savings involved, I think a market will still be there.”

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of cancer in California. One out of every four residents in California die from cancer each year. Despite continuance of medical treatments and prevention, cigarette smoking remains to be a burden on the health care system. Studies show that the tax will save over 104,000 California residents from smoking-related deaths. It will also prevent more than 200,000 kids from ever becoming addicted to cigarettes when they become adults (CCRA).

The purpose of this measure is to not only increase the tax on cigarettes but to establish the California Cancer Research and Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund. A nine-member “Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee” will oversee this organization.

The panel will consist of chancellors from the campuses of UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley, three of the directors for the National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Centers, one cardiovascular physician from an academic medical center and two tobacco-related illness advocates (UC). Within this fund, there are five sections where the tax revenues will be deposited. Sixty percent ($468 million) will be spent on cancer and tobacco-related disease research; 15 percent ($117 million) will pay for facilities and equipment to support research; 20 percent ($156 million) will fund smoking cessation and tobacco use prevention; 3 percent ($23 million) will help police stop tobacco smuggling and enforce tobacco laws and no more than 2 percent on administrative costs (CCRA).

According to the UC Newsroom, a cumulative of $855 million should result from the tax during the first year. The proposition entails that the money will be dispersed into “medical research into cancers and heart disease, smoking education programs and tobacco law enforcements” (CCRA). In addition to the $855 million given to tobacco-related research and programs, already existing programs for health, natural and research will be increased by $45 million and state and local sales taxes will be raised to $32 million annually. Another study by University of California estimates that California could save up to $28.2 billion in health care costs between 2012 and 2016.

Although Perata has accumulated enough signatures for the ballot to qualify on the next general election, he recognizes that “getting the signatures was really the easy part” and that “[he’s] going to be in a big fight” against the tobacco industry (All Business). The tobacco industry has already invested in $2 million to overturn the legislation. This fact was taken from the filed reports to the California Secretary of State. In reference to the future battle from the tobacco industry, “We know that Big Tobacco will spend gobs of cash opposing this campaign because they want to keep California cigarettes cheap in order to recruit new smokers,” Perata said. “But as this endorsement proves, Californians understand this initiative will make our state stronger, save lives, save billions of dollars in avoidable health care costs, and keep California as ‘THE’ place for groundbreaking medical research” (Business Law Daily).

Since 1998, the 87-cent excise tax on cigarette packs has remained unchanged. With the proposed $1.87 tax on cigarettes, the UC Regents anticipate that cigarette consumption be reduced. With this newly proposed tax, will cigarette smokers actually lessen how much they smoke? Will they find new ways to have their nicotine fixed? How much effort will the tobacco industry make to maintain their loyal consumers? Will they take an aggressive approach at all? All of these questions will be answered within the next year as the general election rolls in.