Jackson Free Press

[Verbatim from Communities for a Clean Bill of Health]

A coalition of Mississippi public health leaders called on the Legislature (yesterday) to stop delaying and approve an 82-cent increase in the state cigarette tax passed two months ago by the House of Representatives. If the Legislature refuses to take action, it risks more kids smoking, more Mississippians dying from smoking, and more lost revenue that could be used for critical state programs.

Since the House approved increasing the tax to $1 on January 16:
• More than 2,279 kids under 18 have tried cigarettes for the first time
• More than 678 kids have become new regular, daily smokers
• More than 759 Mississippians have died from smoking
• Forfeited $5.9 million in new revenue that would have been generated by the 82-cent increase

Each day lawmakers delay passing a $1 cigarette tax, 12 Mississippians die from smoking-related disease; 11 children become regular, daily smokers; and the state loses $369,000 in critical new revenue.

Lawmakers cannot continue to put off the state's health needs in lieu of one time monies from the recently approved federal stimulus package - funds that ultimately won't cover the long-term costs of running the state. While the stimulus bill provides substantial assistance to the states, the amount of funding Mississippi and other states will receive for current activities amounts to less than half of projected state budget deficits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. States will still have significant budget gaps to close on their own.

"Mississippi needs a $1 cigarette tax now," said Roy Mitchell of the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program. "It's a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a fiscal win that will raise much needed revenue, and a political win that is incredibly popular with Mississippi voters."

Communities for a Clean Bill of Health, a statewide coalition of health organizations and individuals, is urging lawmaker to stop delaying and pass a $1 cigarette tax now. The coalition includes the Mississippi affiliates of AARP, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, the American Academy of pediatrics, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the Children's Defense Fund, the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program, the Mississippi Hospital Association, the Mississippi Nurses Association, the March of Dimes, and the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi.

Large bodies of economic research, numerous expert panels, experience in other states, and even reports from the tobacco industry have concluded decisively that price increases effectively reduce smoking, especially among youth. The U.S. Surgeon General concluded that raising cigarette taxes is widely regarded as one of the most effective tobacco prevention strategies and that such increases would lead to "substantial long-run improvements in health."

Mississippi can expect a $1 per pack cigarette tax to prevent some 32,100 Mississippi children alive today from becoming addicted adult smokers; produce more than $747 million in long-term health care savings; and raise more than $151 million in new revenue each year, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"The evidence is clear that increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among children and pregnant women," said Shannon Coker of the Mississippi Hospital Association.

Previous Comments

ID

144909

Comment

Does anyone else notice all of the contradictory info in this? The tax hike will raise more than $151 million new revenue each year but the tax hike is to make people stop smoking. If people stop smoking, the revenue decreases, not increases. I know someone that died of heart disease. Never smoked a day in their life. Didn't live with anyone that did. Didn't go to bars, which are usually smoke filled places. The doctor said he didn't believe this person was a non-smoker. The science and data is flawed because people dieing of heart disease that have had nothing to do with smoking in their life, get reported as heart disease due to smoking. You can Google it, it's fact.

Author

LambdaRisen

Date

2009-03-18T22:26:22-06:00

ID

144914

Comment

LambdaRisen, Can we all agree that the vast majority of people who have lung cancer are smokers? Can we all agree that if we reduce the number of people who get lung cancer, high blood pressure, respiritory problems, circulatory problems, and all of the other problems associated with smoking we will save more meney in health care costs than we lose in tax dollars? If we can't agree on these two points i suggust you Google it. It's fact.

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-03-19T08:33:48-06:00

ID

144916

Comment

@The Casual Observer: No, we can't agree that the vast majority of people who have lung cancer are smokers. The facts, as Google tells them, is that the vast majority of people with lung cancer are those working in hazardous and chemical related fields; ie: lung cancer from breathing the stuff they work with. Everything from the plants that make your bleach, to the asbestos removers, to coal miners, to the freaky people that inhale a whole bag of popcorn fumes.

Author

LambdaRisen

Date

2009-03-19T08:37:51-06:00

ID

144919

Comment

While it's true that people die of heart disease without smoking, Lamda, smoking markedly increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and dying because of it. That, too, is a fact. And while the idea behind the tax is to reduce smoking, and, if effective, revenue raised by the tax will decrease year over year, the state will also realize lower overall health costs and higher productivity. Project the costs / benefits out over the years and it's a financial plus, not to mention the lives saved.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-03-19T08:42:37-06:00

ID

144926

Comment

Lambda, just because you see something on Google doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate. What sources are you looking at on Google?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-03-19T08:56:16-06:00

ID

144928

Comment

LambdaRising, I hereby call yur bluff. I Googled the American Lung Association and they stat that 87% of lung cancers are smoking related. http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.33484/k.438A/Quit_Smoking.htm

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-03-19T09:01:24-06:00

ID

144932

Comment

Lambda, your arguments aren't going to last long here if you don't avoid vast generalizations and post links to primary sources in support. Mentioning Google on the fly won't help much. Just a tip.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-19T09:07:55-06:00

ID

144937

Comment

@everyone: Try http://digtoesin.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/myth-1-smoking-causes-lung-cancer-period/ and the best http://www.lcolby.com/index.html Additionally I'll refer back to my original post where I said I know someone that died of heart disease. Never smoked a day in their life. Didn't live with anyone that did. Didn't go to bars, which are usually smoke filled places. The doctor said he didn't believe this person was a non-smoker. Of course, you can't Google that but it's what I know personally...

Author

LambdaRisen

Date

2009-03-19T09:52:08-06:00

ID

144939

Comment

Lambda, those aren't primary sources. They are blogs with a point of view. Right under the first one, someone is asking where he got his numbers! Primary means where the numbers originated from. Anyone can post numbers and say they are authoritative. And your logic is soft: no one is saying that you can't die of heart disease if you're a non-smoker.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-19T09:57:34-06:00

ID

144943

Comment

LambdaRisen and Ladd, Primary Source Citation Alert! The American Lung Association cites data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their assertion that smoking is a contributer in 87% of lung cancers. http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/{7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256}/LDD08.PDF

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-03-19T10:11:18-06:00

ID

144945

Comment

Ladd, I tried the link to the ALA .pdf file and it won't work. Is it possible to post the acteul pdf pages to the JFP site? Also to view the report an interested person could fill out a brief form for direct access the the interrnet .pdf report file. http://www.kintera.org/AutoGen/Contact/ContactUs.asp?ievent=168540&en=deKBLJPqHeKFKPOAJaIALNPxHfIIIXOxGdKFJTPxG9JMJ0PxEaLEIMMmGfLZH

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-03-19T10:15:55-06:00

ID

144947

Comment

Here's an American Lung Association link that will take you to a page that summarizes data from last year.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-03-19T10:21:36-06:00

ID

144948

Comment

American Heart Association info on smoking and heart disease. National Institutes of Health on smoking and cancer. March of Dimes on smoking and pregnancy.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-03-19T10:30:09-06:00

ID

144949

Comment

@ladd: The sources are within those links I provided. Those links are written by someone else but they did include primary sources. I'm not sure what the problem is because they are plain as day... Regardless, I don't buy the bull that anti-smoking zealots are pushing. My first hand account with someone that died from lung cancer is enough for me. Couple that with the fact that smoking has reduced 50% over the years but lung cancer rates have increase.. the numbers don't lie.

Author

LambdaRisen

Date

2009-03-19T10:41:34-06:00

ID

144951

Comment

Actually, not all the original sources are listed. Just find places with original sources like other people are doing here and skip the middle man with an agenda, and you'll build a better case. Otherwise, you waste everyone's time. I think we've down this road before on a different topic. It's easy to solve. Just click a few more times before posting to make sure you're sharing credible information.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-19T10:49:40-06:00

ID

144958

Comment

This is how the control starts Lambda. First they want to "give" you health care. Then, since they are "paying" for the health care they can begin to restrict what you can do. Because it's unhealthy. Smoking is just the start. The writing is already on the wall for fatty and unhealthy foods. Pretty soon anything fun or tasty will be either taxed heavily or illegal altogether.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-03-19T14:16:20-06:00

ID

144966

Comment

WMartin, Sounds good to me! If you knowingly choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, why should the rest of us pay for your unhealthy choices.

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2009-03-19T15:12:03-06:00