|
San Francisco Chronicle
December 14, 2005
By Jennifer Coleman
A coalition of health organizations wants
to nearly quadruple the tax on a pack of cigarettes in California
to boost funding for hospital emergency care, nursing education,
cancer research and a variety of other health programs.
The per-pack tax would jump by $2.60 under
an initiative the coalition hopes to have on the November
2006 ballot, supporters said Tuesday. If voters approve the
proposal, California's total tax on a pack of cigarettes would
rise to $3.47, the highest in the nation.
The initiative combines two competing tobacco
tax measures that had been in circulation.
One campaign was led by the California Hospital
Association and would have added a $1 tax, while the other
was spearheaded by the American Cancer Society would have
raised $1.50 per pack.
The new campaign includes those organizations,
plus the American Lung Association of California, California
Emergency Nurses Association, American Heart Association,
Children Now, the California Association of Physician Groups,
the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, among others.
Revenue from the extra tax would be directed
to various health programs, including cancer screening, prevention
and research, low-cost children's insurance, and tobacco education
and cessation. Supporters also hope it will provide more money
for emergency care and clinics.
Because the extra per-pack tax would be expected
to curb sales, the initiative also allots $159 million a year
to offset any loss of revenue to Proposition 10 programs.
Proposition 10, approved by voters in 2004, added a tax of
50 cents per pack to fund early childhood education.
The initiative also would give money to local
law enforcement to enforce tobacco control laws, which critics
said would be needed to offset an expected rise in black-market
cigarettes.
Raising the tax by such a large amount might
lead some people to quit smoking, said Craig Fishel, spokesman
for North Carolina-based R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
"But more likely what you have is people
looking for other means to get their cigarettes, usually from
other states or on Indian reservations where excise taxes
aren't enforced," he said.
The increased revenue that the initiative's
supporters are touting also will be short-lived, said Larry
McCarthy, president of the California Taxpayers Association,
an anti-tax group.
If people can't afford to smoke, they'll
quit or buy illegal cigarettes, reducing the amount of taxes
collected, he said.
"It's very ill-advised. It will do nothing
but damage to the tax structure and is not going to lead to
higher levels of health care services," McCarthy said.
The tax is projected to raise $2.7 billion
annually if cigarette sales remain at the current level, but
the higher price is expected to cut sales by about 8 percent
a year, supporters said.
Having fewer smokers, especially among young
people, is one of the proposal's goals, said Paul Knepprath,
vice president of the American Lung Association of California.
"We know that increasing the price of
cigarettes is one of the most efficient ways to stop kids
from smoking," he said.
He said most adult smokers started when they
were under 18.
|
