Higher Cigarette Taxes Lead Smokers to Quit
When John St. Germain, 21, of Shoreham made his daily trip to Maplefields to pick up a pack of Monte Carlo cigarettes on July 1, he looked past the cashier, realized the price of cigarettes had skyrocketed overnight, pushed his wallet back into his pocket and walked out the door empty-handed, swearing never to buy another pack again.
What happened was the state’s 38-cent cigarette tax increase went into effect, raising the total tax per pack from $2.24-$2.62.
“I walked into a store and a pack that’s usually five and change was $6.99,” said St. Germain last Friday about a pack of cigarettes that he said was the cheapest in the store. “Now they’re easily double the price of when I started smoking and that’s why I refused to buy cigarettes this morning.
“I just simply saw the price and turned around and walked out … This is going to irritate me to the point that I’m going to quit smoking cigarettes.”
So, too, was the case for Tyler Ballard, 24, of Middlebury, who’s accustomed to smoking one to two packs a week.
“Since the tax went up, I haven’t bought a pack of cigarettes,” he said. “They’re just too expensive. As a smoker it stinks, but it’s going to be good for people quitting.”
Vice Chairman of the House Healthcare Committee Rep. Mike Fisher, D-Lincoln, explained that reducing the number of young smokers in Vermont is directly linked to reducing the overall cost of healthcare. One aim of the heftier tax, he said, is not only to sway people away from smoking, but to prevent teenagers from starting.
“The real essence (of this tax hike) is that it reduces the number of people that start smoking. We’re not just talking about cessation here, we’re talking about preventing people from starting in the first place.”
But there’s another government motive at work: generating revenue. Member of the House Weighs and Means Committee Rep. David Sharpe explained that the Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office projects that the new tax will raise an extra $4.6 million in revenues. These funds, Sharpe said, will go to funding the state’s Medicaid program.
The problem of trying to generate state revenue on the one hand, however, and the goal of smoker prevention and cessation on the other creates an inherent conflict.
“There’s a counter conversation about raising the money,” said Fisher. “If we’re successful on the first (front of smoker prevention and cessation) then it interferes with our success on the second (front of generating revenue). My main motivation is around changing behaviors.”
About The Author
Comments