When Gov. Jim Doyle first proposed his budget, Republicans turned it down because it called for huge tax increases and increased spending.
For example, Doyle had proposed a 162 percent excise increase on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The current tax of $0.77 would jump to $2.02 per pack.
How is this justified? The idea seems to be since smoking is so unhealthy, it does not deserve to be affordable. Smokers are compromising their health when they use tobacco.
But what does this have to do with taxes and increasing state funds? How can smokers be held responsible for filling the budget gap just because they have an unhealthy habit? Taxing smokers is about as relevant as taxing people who regularly eat fast food.
People make unhealthy choices on a daily basis when it comes to smoking, alcohol intake or food consumption. None of these lifestyle choices should not be singled out considering all people are entitled to their free will.
Smokers are often the poorest and most disadvantaged citizens. A Center for Disease Control study from 2003 found that about 64.7 percent of all smokers earned an income ranging from at or below the poverty level to 1.99 times the poverty level (what I would comfortably consider lower-middle class).
Since people that smoke tend to earn less money than other people, this would actually be a regressive tax system, truly a tax on the poor. Asking them exclusively to foot the costs of the budget seems quite backward, considering the Democrats are supposed to be the party for the middle and lower classes.
After being forced outdoors to suffer the elements and cold winters, as well as being lectured by strangers, smokers are already being treated like second-class citizens. It is becoming less acceptable to smoke and people could possibly pay more money for it.
Would quitting smoking allow these people to have more money and improve their socio-economic status? Perhaps it would, but why should they have to? This is largely a matter of government influence.
The government should not have the power to disrupt individual behavior just because they think they know what is best for us. People deserve the personal freedom to decide to smoke. This tax does not quite take that away, but its intent is to alter public behavior. What could be more authoritarian?
The tax increase is part of Doyle's larger anti-smoking plan. It is supposed to curb smoking rates and phase tobacco out of public life. Why is this a priority? When did it become the purpose of the governor to weaken individual liberty?
Forcing people to quit smoking by raising taxes on cigarettes overreaches the limits of what the government should do. What is next? Will the government tax people who do not exercise or eat healthy? This form of personal choice-influencing legislation goes too far.
Why is the government working to force an industry out of business? If people decided that tobacco was no longer something they wanted, they would stop using it, and the tobacco companies would naturally disappear. This is gradually happening in today's society, but since most people are non-smokers, it is politically popular to attack tobacco. As a diminishing minority, smokers' rights are consistently being eroded.
This tax is simply the wrong approach. Instead of taxing the poorest people, why not institute a tax on high-end, luxury goods? That makes more sense. Or allow people to make choices for themselves, based on the best information.
At least the Republicans in the Assembly have enough respect for the rights of smokers to only propose a $0.75 tax increase. Political pressure forced them to include the increase, but unlike tax-and-spend Doyle, they are not as willing to take money from people based on their idea of acceptable behavior.
Brian Bisek is a sophomore with an undecided major. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
