Jeffrey Quick's Blog

Do you have any proof or data that shows "smoking is habit associated with the poor"?

By your reasoning above, maybe we are really trying to tax "addict" or "those that have failed". I am not sure that is what you are suggesting either, but it follows your reasoning above.

Something like this suggests we are actually saving the lives of poorer or younger smokers by raising the price.

I cannot stand people that use the argument "they are poor" with a cigarette or a beer in their hand. Neither is distributed for free to the poor, so at some point you decided to spend your money to try one or the other. You made the choice to be poorer in money and health. I say the rest of use should enjoy the money you are willingly throwing away with each breath.

I can't vote on this one either (Lorain County here) but I agree as both a musician and smoker that this issue needs to be soundly defeated by Cuyahoga County voters.

Yes, help the artists, musicians, thespians - but not on the backs of the smokers who have footed a large part of the tab for Jacobs Field and the "Q" as well.

It seems whenever Cleveland needs something it turns to the smokers/drinkers (and I see/agree your point about the poor as well). I also wonder how many artisans/politicians are supporting Issue 18 and at the same time also supporting either or both of the "smoke free" state issues: Let's add lotsa tax on to a pack of cigarettes and then severely limit where that pack can actually be smoked. That makes sense...

And to anon #1, I will vouch, by personal observation and experience that yes, the "poor" smoke. They smoke and drink just like anon #2 states. I guess it's easy to be high and mighty and judgmental when one is anonymous...

Although its intentions are good - it's just a bad Issue.

Anonymous 1: see here for a fuller discussion of your points.

Anonymous 2: Yes, it's self-destructive behavior. But we won't "enjoy the money you are willingly throwing away with each breath"; we'll be enjoying different money, money that could have been used for necessity, or money solicited on the street.

Scott, glad to see you're on-board with me. I too believe in helping the arts, but I draw the line at helping myself to my neighbor's wallet in order for "me" to "help the arts." Good intentions don't excuse bad process.

JQ writes, "And we're not taxing, oh, any wine with a cork in the bottle. That would make way too much sense."

Voters might consider such a tax if it was not for the state mandated markups on wine at the distributor, wholesale, and retail levels. Wine is taxed at something like 7% now, but it's being taxed on a ~100 % price markup. The second link gets into the economic models a little bit, suggesting that this forced markup is actually costing the sate tax dollars by reducing demand.

http://www.fairwinelaws.org/

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/324

So what happens if we run out of smokers to tax? Start concentrating on alcohol drinkers? Then commuters? Then those that walk?

Good question. The arts will whine again that there's not enough money. Maybe Joe Camel can show up at the Severence school concerts.

Smoking isn't a tax on the poor. Smoking, like the lottery, is a tax on the stupid. The stupid who's stupid habit raises health care costs for everybody. So fear not, the smokers are not the only ones who are paying more for their actions.

I meant to say that "The tax on smoking isn't a tax on the poor..." Hmm...perhaps I'm a smoker (at least this morning).

Granted, smoking is a tax on the stupid. But the stupid are generally poor. So that really doesn't speak to the point of it being a regressive tax, for those who care about such things as regressive taxes. A tax on something that you can legally and practically avoid is marginally less onerous than a tax on something you can't avoid, like having an income.

As for smokers raising health care costs, there is absolutely no reason why they should need to. If insurance companies are not collecting enough of a premium from smokers to make them pay for themselves, either they need new accountants, or the government is forcing them to cover certain people. And there is no moral rationale for government-funded health care at all. If we're going to tax a group because it adds costs, where do we stop? Do we tax fast food eaters? Hey, let's tax diabetics, filthy sugar eaters that we are. Let's tax people who aren't married by 25. And let's refund some of smokers' Social Security premiums, since they die early and save the government money.

The only question you really need to ask about any tax is: whose money is it?

As for smokers raising health care costs, there is absolutely no reason why they should need to. If insurance companies are not collecting enough of a premium from smokers to make them pay for themselves, either they need new accountants, or the government is forcing them to cover certain people.

It does raise everyone's costs, not just the smokers. What about the people that come down with smoking-related illnesses, but have never smoked? What about those that go to see a doctor and have to wait longer in the lobby because a smoker who decided to harm themselves is taking the doctor's time?

I have no problem with taxing smokers, but it probably should go into something like medical research or insurance cost reductions, rather than the arts.

"Non-smokers who come down with smoking-related illnesses?" Huh? Either they aren't smoking-related in that particular case, or they have chosen to be around 2nd-hand smoke, which is something every adult can avoid (children are another matter, but the cure for that problem is worse than the disease). Your point about smokers increasing doctor wait time is absurd; it can apply to any sub-healthy behavior, including probably some of your own. If the AMA didn't use the licencing power of the State to restrict entry into the medical field, you might not be waiting anyway.

"Non-smokers who come down with smoking-related illnesses?" Huh? Either they aren't smoking-related in that particular case, or they have chosen to be around 2nd-hand smoke, which is something every adult can avoid (children are another matter, but the cure for that problem is worse than the disease).

This probably is not true of older generations (who are the heaviest users of the health system at this time) that experienced the work environments were smoking was acceptable.

I know spouses or children that will be users of the health care system because of someone else's smoke in the past.

I know people with allergies, asthma, or sinus problems that were exposed to smoke by no fault of their own, and had to receive treatment.