Amendment 3

A commercial asks why convenience stores are against the new tobacco tax (Missouri Amendment 3). Here’s why: A smoker in Raytown needs to buy a carton of smokes. That’s 10 packs and $8 of new tax.

That smoker, like many in Missouri, lives close to a state line. The smoker goes to Kansas to buy cigarettes and avoids the higher tax.

While buying cigarettes, the smoker also buys gasoline, a drink, some candy and a newspaper. That money has left Missouri never to return because of the increased tobacco tax. That smoker will probably start shopping more often in Kansas rather than Missouri. Missouri loses out on the new tax money and much more tax money besides.

That is why convenience stores are against Amendment 3. Pure economics that anyone but a politician can understand.

Calvin L. Oyler
Claycomo

Comments

[Jeff H]

My apologies, the last paragraph in my previous post was directed at Lost, not CRD...

[CRD]

Missouri has the second lowest tobacco tax in the nation, and has the third highest rate of smoking.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

I'm voting for Amendment 3.

[Jeff H]

Several thoughts I haven't seen mentioned...

Mr. Oyler talks about this seemingly huge increase in tax on cigarettes driving customers across the state line to buy cigarettes in Kansas. What Mr. Oyler conveniently ignores is the fact that Kansas already has a tobacco tax of $.79 a pack, compared to Missouri's current $.17. As I understand it, the increase to $.80 a pack would put Missouri's tobacco taxes at 1 penny more per pack than Kansas' tobacco tax (source: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html ). Do you REALLY believe people will drive across the state line to pay $.01 less in tobacco tax? That's hardly realistic, with the cost of gas these days... most of the smokers I know buy their cigarettes in places where the gas is cheaper.

Jack, the fact that Missouri legislators have squandered what they received is exactly why this constitutional amendment should be considered. It specifically states that this money is "For the sole and exclusive purpose of providing additional moneys to be expended and used only for tobacco use education, prevention, and cessation programs and initiatives, and the improvement of health care access and treatment in both urban and rural areas of the state". That means the politicians can't use it to pay for their pet projects instead of its intended purposes as happened with the previous moneys... (source: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ip200623.asp?pid=25 )

CRD, again as I understand it, the money from this tax wouldn't just be used for commercials, it would be used for smoking cessation programs, education, prevention, and greater access to health care and treatment.

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

CRD

I am all for reducing teen smoking. And I would like to see this done by parents being parents and teenagers using their brains.

At the ripe old age of 16 I understood that when people die they never come back. And I understood that smoking increases your risk of many terminal illnesses. Somehow I managed to resist despite the fact that my father and older brother smoked, my bosses and co-workers smoked and my girlfriends mother smoked. The dangers of smoking are covered in high school health class. If they can't figure it out there, a bunch of commercials they ignore aren't going to work either.

[CRD]

You're against reducing teenage smoking, Jack?

[jack]

So, this really isn't about the Republicans in control of Missouri being abe to have their cake and eat it too? It's really about the non-smokers doing the smokers a "favor"?

I've tried to never use the words "hypocrit" or "hypocrisy" here. But for this I make an exception.

"I'm not really taking your money. I'm really doing you a favor." What B.S.

[CRD]

I have to agree with BJB. For every increase in the cost of smoking, the percentage of smokers, both youth and adults, goes down.

Here's a tangential article on the inadequacy of ventilation systems in restaurants and other workplaces, lending strength to the argument that we should ban smoking in enclosed public spaces:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Smoking-Ventilation.html

November 1, 2006
Study: New Air Systems Don't Clear Smoke
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:18 p.m. ET

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- State-of-the-art ventilation systems used to clear cigarette smoke from bars and restaurants don't eliminate dangerous soot and carcinogens and can even push their levels higher in nonsmoking sections than in smoking areas, researchers concluded.

Their findings from three restaurants in a little-studied field come just a week before voters in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio consider dueling smoking-related initiatives. Ballots in each state include a tough ban on smoking in public places and a more lenient proposal -- with exemptions for bars and casinos -- backed by industry groups.

Two of the restaurants studied were Mesa, Ariz., establishments that had claimed their ventilation systems would comply with that city's smoke-free restaurant law.

But in one of those, contaminants in the nonsmoking sections were higher than in the bar, said lead researcher James Repace, a secondhand smoke expert and visiting professor at Tufts University School of Medicine. And in the other restaurant, the nonsmoking section had very high levels of soot.

Repace said evidence showed the complex, difficult-to-maintain ventilation systems were not working properly.

Unlike older ventilation systems that mainly dilute smoky air with fresh air, displacement systems use cooler air, ideally pumped in at floor level, to force hot, smoky air up to ceiling ducts.

''They've been heavily promoted by the tobacco industry'' and the casino industry as a way to accommodate both smokers and nonsmokers, Repace said.

''I don't think it is possible for somebody to come up with a system that works,'' he said. ''You'd need tornado-like ventilation.''

In one Mesa restaurant, the average evening level of soot -- inhalable particles that raise the risk of heart and lung disease -- was three times higher in the nonsmoking section than in the smoking bar. The level of cancer-causing chemicals in tobacco smoke was 50 percent higher than in the bar.

A 1999 Finnish study of four restaurants with older ventilation systems had similar results, Repace noted.

A third restaurant he tested in Toronto had soot and carcinogen levels in its nonsmoking section much lower than in the bar area, but the bar had much higher contaminant levels than six bars with old-style ventilation previously tested by Repace. After the Toronto restaurant banned smoking entirely, a re-test found carcinogen and soot levels had fallen sharply.

Repace's results were published Tuesday by an engineering journal and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a New Jersey-based health care philanthropy.

''They demonstrate that these systems do not seem to be effective in controlling contaminants in the nonsmoking section,'' said Patrick Breysse, an environmental health sciences professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Gil Cormier, chairman of American Industrial Hygiene Association's indoor air quality committee, agreed with the study's conclusions. ''Ventilation systems over time degrade'' and stop functioning as designed, he said.

Price Industries Inc., a top maker of displacement ventilation systems, said they significantly improve air quality but are ''not intended to be a panacea.''

In June, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that ''separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.'' The report noted the top U.S. standard setters on ventilation, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers -- which published Repace's study -- concludes that ventilation technology cannot remove smaller particles or gases found in secondhand smoke.

Those conclusions and Repace's findings are consistent, said Terry Pechacek, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientist who worked on the Surgeon General's report.

Repace said few places had the newer ventilation systems when he did measurements for his study, between December 2002 and December 2004, but many casinos now have them.

[BJB]

The motives behind this may be debateable, but the end effect of making it cost more for people to smoke is a good thing.

[jack]

This is in no way shape or form about smoking or the problems caused by tobacco use. The State got a huge amount from the tobacco settlement that was to pay for those issues.

The State urinated the money away. "Because of the tobacco settlement we can do this without raising taxes..." "Because of the tobacco settlement we can do that without raising taxes..."

They conveniently ignored the fact that they HAD raised taxes on smokers. That is who paid the "windfall" received by the State.

Of course, after the "windfall" money ran out there was nothing left to pay for all the "free" services. So the State no longer has enough money to pay for medicaid.

Now they go, "Worked once, why not again? We'll just raise taxes on smokers and claim we are doing them a favor."

So only smokers will now pay for medicaid. Non-smokers can have there program but not bother paying for it. And the Republican "tax hawks" can claim credit for "not raising taxes" to pay for the program.

This entire program is dishonest at it's core. If the program needs funding "for the good of the State" then all citizens should be paying for it. If it is "for the benefit of smokers", then 100% of the money should go to stop smoking programs and other "smoking related" issues. Otherwise it is just the majority dishonestly stealing from a minority group.

And, "you don't have to smoke" doesn't change the dishonesty. The dishonesty is the lack of willingness by the majority to pay for the social program they so want.

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

That should read, you don't drive...you don't pay.

[Lost_In_Ambivalence]

T. Hanson

That is just rediculus, you can't help being blonde.

I would just like to push to a gas tax. It is only 2.5 cents per ounce of gas. You don't...you don't pay. (please don't consider that it is $3.20 a gallon) Remember, if big oil is against it, I am for it.

[T. Hanson]

Lets tax everyone that has blond hair. I don't have it so I am sure it will pass. Man I am not for smokers, but this tax is nothing besides a scam and yes.. it is a 400% increase on tax right now.

[BJB]

You are right, the tax dollars would stay in the state along with the smokers and increasing all their health issues. But then again, all the people who get cancer will bring in even more money to the state and increase the tax revenue for the state as well. Great plan!