Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > August > 18 > Entry
Editorial: Tobacco tax better than raiding fund
Ohio has a seriously costly problem with smoking, which makes the state’s decision to liquidate its $230 million tobacco prevention fund a very bad idea.
The fund — in the form of an endowment, not an annual budget — is what’s left for smoking prevention out of the $10 billion the state won from tobacco companies in court.
Judge David W. Fais of Franklin County Common Pleas Court now says the state is not entitled to shift this cash to other things. But Gov. Ted Strickland — desperately trying to hold together a shaky state budget — quickly said the ruling would be appealed.
The budget slates the money for worthy causes. And the budget problems certainly are tough. Nevertheless, giving up on any serious effort at smoking prevention is a bad idea for a state ranked eighth-worst for tobacco addiction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says nearly a quarter of Ohio residents smoke.
In fact, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids estimates smoking costs the state more than $4 billion a year in health care expenses. The same study estimates 18,000 new youth smokers take up cigarettes in Ohio every year. If all those kids keep smoking throughout their lives, the diseases and health complications they assuredly will develop will guarantee that spending will keep going up.
The state has won praise from anti-tobacco activists for its ban on smoking in public places. But that does not address the core problem, which is the need to dissuade and prevent young people from picking up the habit.
On this front, Ohio falls short. A recent report on retail sales to youth found that Ohio was worst in the nation for the ease with which minors can get cigarettes, with 17 percent of stores selling to undercover inspectors who were younger than 18.
Coincidentally, one of the best ways to discourage new smokers is to raise the cigarette tax. Studies show a correlation between high cigarette taxes and low smoking rates.
Higher tobacco taxes would have the added benefit of bringing in new state revenue that potentially could fill the budget gap left by Judge Fais’ ruling.
Although Ohio has recently raised taxes on cigarettes, its $1.25-a-pack tax is less than some of its neighbors, such as Pennsylvania ($1.35) and Michigan ($2). It’s also far behind the most aggressive states, including New York ($2.75) and Rhode Island ($3.46).
Just by matching Michigan’s $2 tax, Ohio could raise half a billion dollars in new revenue.
Ohio should also extend the tax to dangerous non-cigarette tobacco products — a big growth area for the tobacco industry.
Some combination of all these strategies — including beefing up penalties and enforcement of laws against underage tobacco — are better strategies than appealing Judge Fais’ decision.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Health Care, Scott Elliott
Comments
By daveb
August 20, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this
To say that people who like to smoke somehow cost the state money is 100% bs. They pay for everybody elses health care.By Jay
August 21, 2009 7:05 AM | Link to this
The looters are at it again, and the DDN is leading the charge. While we lose jobs, Ohio continues to fatten its payroll on our backs.By Paula
August 22, 2009 8:34 PM | Link to this
Unbelievable to continue to tax the smokers who are paying billions on taxes. Why not tax the fat people such as Gottlieb -I bet he is a beacon of good heath! I am curious to see how much is generated by the cigarette tax versus what they say is the cost of smokers?