There are medical risks to smoking
There is no doubt that smoking affects people’s health adversely. I conquered my three-pack-a-day habit over thirty years ago, long before the cost of a pack of cigarettes reached seventy-five cents. Quitting was hard. I went through dozens of false starts before I finally overcame my nicotine addiction and became smoke-free. If anyone cared for my opinion, I’d tell them that it’s far better to quit because you want to, rather than quitting because you have to. I’d tell them that I personally know people with advanced emphysema who breathe from oxygen tanks but are so addicted to cigarettes that they cannot last more than an hour without lighting up. Yes, smoking is an unhealthy habit that can lead to premature death from any number of maladies from heart disease to lung cancer. According the University of Wisconsin Tobacco Surveillance and Evaluation Program, an estimated 7,215 people die annually in Wisconsin from illnesses directly related to smoking.
I don’t know anyone who enjoys the smell of cigarette smoke wafting across their table in a restaurant. Granted, there are a few smokers who are so addicted to nicotine that they smoke while eating. But most would agree that a well ventilated non-smoking area is a boon for any eating establishment. A few weeks ago my wife and I entered a restaurant where the no smoking area was filled. So we drove to a different restaurant that had a smoke-free environment.
All that said; it is a bad idea for the State of Wisconsin to increase cigarette taxes and to pass state-wide anti-smoking legislation.
Tobacco taxes bring in revenue
The State of Wisconsin squeezes out $294 million in revenue each year with one of the highest tobacco taxes in America. Originally those funds were supposed to be earmarked to help reduce the cost of Wisconsin healthcare, with a portion set aside to fund an antismoking marketing campaign. But, as is the norm for Wisconsin politics, the promise of a significant reduction in healthcare costs was merely a ruse. Like gasoline taxes, which were supposed to be earmarked for road repair, but weren’t, tobacco tax revenue was put into the general fund to address Wisconsin budget shortfalls instead of reducing healthcare costs.
It has been proven that in all areas of human behavior, when the costs associated with participating in a given activity go up, the number of people who engage in that activity decreases. For example, when tax increases and supply and demand issues raised gas prices over $4.00 per gallon, sales of preferred gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs dried up. But when gas prices plummeted late in 2008, trucks and SUVs began selling again and auto dealers’ lots were overrun with small gas-sipping cars and hybrids that nobody would buy. The same is true for cigarette smoking.
Punitive taxes on smokers negatively affect revenue generation
Increasing cigarette taxes along with anti-smoking legislation will cause many Wisconsinites to stop smoking. Of course fewer smokers are a desirable outcome, but a Wisconsin Smoking ban, along with the proposed increases in cigarette taxes, could essentially wipe out the smoking population. The unintended consequence is if the state could force everyone in Wisconsin to quit the habit, we would have a $294 million hole in the revenue bucket. That hole would have to be filled with something. How about a fast food tax, which is already being considered? A beer tax? It’s coming. After all, fast food is almost as bad for people’s health as cigarettes, and alcohol abuse causes far more deaths, physical injuries, and broken homes than smoking both short and long term.
Dead smokers keep long-term healthcare costs down
In addressing the issues associated with rising healthcare costs, smoking is a boon. It’s already been stated that over 7,200 people die in Wisconsin each year from smoking related illnesses. That represents 7,200 people who won’t require costly healthcare services after they succumb. Let’s assume, for the sake of illustration, that all 7,200 of those people can live an average of twenty years longer if they hadn’t begun smoking. Dying people consume far fewer medical services than the people who outlive them. As people grow older, the costs of healthcare and drugs increase. After age 65, Americans qualify for Medicare, a nearly bankrupt entitlement which is buckling under the weight of baby-boomers who are entering their retirement years. Each smoking related death provides a few more breaths for Medicare before it finally dies, drained entirely of the funds that are necessary to keep it going.
Conclusion
When one considers rising healthcare costs, the increased burden on Medicare, and declining tax revenues, it’s easy to see that those who puff are doing those of us who don’t a favor. But most importantly, it should not be the responsibility of government to control the life styles of its citizens by increasing taxes or enforcing a Wisconsin smoking ban.
Comments
Well, I don’t smoke, so in theory, this law does not affect me. That’s rubbish, of course, as it affects us all, every time the government is allowed to impose itself in our lives. Some time ago, Wisconsin joined many other states in mandating car seats for infants. A year or so ago, it required that children be restrained in these seats up to the age of eight – that’s third grade. Maybe in a few years, they will decide to move the age up to ten or twelve. What would stop them, their common sense and restraint? Of course, since I don’t have children, this law doesn’t affect me either – in theory.
The way that all of these laws affect us all, whether they seem to or not, is by acclimating us to the idea that there should not be any facet of our lives which is not under government oversight. Frighteningly, it has the same effect on lawmakers. They are the experts, after all, and they care about us so much – even aside from the tax money that this all rakes in. All you have to do is loo
All you have to do is look around your house, and try to find a single object that is not under the purvey of government regulation. This is everything from your government mandated one gallon per flush water saving toilet (which like most government mandated things does not work properly, and requires at least two or three flushes to do the job), to your new power saving light bulbs (which are a health hazard and can not be disposed of in regular landfills, or recycled with regular garbage), and the government mandated warning label on your dish soap. Let’s not even talk about the government regulation enveloping us like a protective blanket, when we actually leave our houses – just the regulations covering the construction of the family car is enough to build the careers of thousands of lawyers.
I think the warnings and $$$ support for smoking have gone on long enough. If there is no debate over the risks I think the debate has been won.
So.......why not outlaw the sales of them and also have them issued by prescription only by a doctor???? This would, at least, break the chain of kids having access.
Stop looking for a simple solution to a complex problem. Some people will continue to smoke regardless of how hight the taxes are. And deaths attributed to smoking are generally long, slow expensive drains on the health care system. There aren't that many other causes of death that equal that drain on resources. Would you be happy if that 7200 people were killed instantly by drunk drivers? If smokers want to kill themselves, I'd prefer they do so without being a drain on our tax burden. And they may not do so in any place or fashion that jepordizes MY health. How about if after every meal in a public restaurant I pull out a gun and squeeze off a shot or two? Probably won't kill anyone, right? Am I jeapordizing their health and safety? Of course I am. And so are smokers. Stop subsidizing tobacco farmers, tax the hell out of cigarettes, and eventually your next Dr.'s appointment won't be right after 7200 people with oxygen tanks.
Kontractor misses the whole point of the article. The author in no way celebrates the deaths of citizens who smoke or drink or from any other cause. He merely askes, if the goal of tobacco taxes and smoke-free legislation is to reduce the number of smokers, where is the lost revenue going to come from? And how will the failing, overloaded medicare entitlement which is collapsing, be funded? In the final analysis he states that the worst part of smoking legislation is the insidious continued intrusion in people's lives by an ever expanding government. By the way, that 7200 killed instantly by drunk drivers was unnecessary and totally uncalled for. But it is a typical progressive tactic to attack the messenger rather than the message.
I like the heading "Dead smokers keep long-term healthcare costs down" funny but true. Although I do have a few smokers in my family.
If they really wanted people to smoke they would outlaw the nicotine that is in cigarettes, and regulate what else is in them that makes them so addicting. However, they don't want people to quit, they want more money. Just like any other drug dealer; get them addicted and then suck them dry of all their resources.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!