Cigarette Tax Increase in the State of New York - Essay Example

CIGARETTE TAX INCREASE IN THE OF NEW YORK Smoking causes and contributes to the etiology of many diseases or conditions affecting people in all parts of the globe, regardless of their socioeconomic status, age and gender. Smoking has been linked to several types of cancers and other non-cancerous diseases including heart disease, aneurysm, etc. Yet more than 40 million Americans continue to smoke. Moreover, 4,000 youths aged 12 to 17 years try their first cigarette every year and about one third of high school students currently smoke cigarettes. This disturbing statistics and the need to prevent negative health related consequences of smoking constitute the reasoning behind systematic increase of cigarette taxes occurring in the American states for the last decade. The most recent cigarette tax increase implemented in the New York state as a part of an emergency budget measure adding $1.60 in state taxes to a cigarette pack became a subject of social and political debate. Politicians, sociologists and healthcare professionals, each having statistical data, tested mathematical models and forecasts to operate with, became divided with mixed opinions and feelings regarding this new law. This paper aims to examine different perspectives on increases of cigarette taxes to combat smoking practices. Moreover, as a result of the analysis paper is going to argue that current cigarette tax increase law should be repealed as unjust and ineffective. In crisis situations like economic downturn state politics can result in very unpopular decisions and policies, which can be qualified by many as discriminatory and unjust. From the perspective of managing the state budget, governments in past did not hesitate to implement so called “sin” taxes (gambling, smoking and drinking) to compensate state budget deficits (Economist, 2002). In 2002, the state of New York had already conducted a cigarette tax increase from 8 cents to $1.50. Interestingly, state governments justify this strategy of cigarette tax increases with needs to address smoking-related health problems, because current taxes are not high enough for population to stop smoking (Economist, 2002). However, as evidently pointed out in Economist (2002), practically, increased tax burden does not solve the problems of state deficits, though futile attempts are continuously made. It is important to understand that attempts of state legislatures and governments to fix the budget deficits at the expense of smokers - about one fifth of total population - are unjust to say the least. There are other socially fair alternatives to provide adequate funding for budgets, such as state lotteries, state expenditure optimization and efficiency increase of municipal companies. It is widely believed, specifically among policymakers, some sociologists and other interested parties, that cigarette tax increase constitutes an effective restrictive measure against smoking and youth smoking, particularly. The state of New York has the highest cigarette taxes in the country due to latest tax cigarette increase. The NYC Health Department believes this move is justified because tax increases contribute significantly to combatting tobacco addiction (National Conference of State Legislature, 2010; Al Muslim, 2010). In addition, legislators believe that tax increase will be deterrent factor for young smokers to continue smoking (Al Muslim, 2010). This thinking emerges from numerous studies published by reputable institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the British Medical Journal, which suggest that tax increase is considered to be the most effective method to reduce demand for tobacco (Dembosky, 2008). Moreover, both institutions reveal that youth and people with low socioeconomic status are the most sensitive and therefore responsive to price changes (Dembosky, 2008). Indeed, these findings correspond to the conclusion made by Carpenter and Cook (2007), that the large state tobacco tax increases of the past 15 years were associated with significant reduction in smoking participation and frequent smoking by youths. Moreover, Carpenter and Cook (2007) found statistically significant evidence that higher cigarette taxes resulted in decreased smoking behavior among young individuals. Their numerical analysis of Youth Risk Behavior Surveys data revealed that a one-dollar increase in the cigarette tax decreases smoking participation by 10-20 percent (Carpenter and Cook, 2007). Findings of the study conducted by Carpenter and Cook (2007) may be convincing to some. However, if assessed critically, their study contains several important limitations, which characteristic to many sociological studies. Particularly, there are no evident algorithms by which an increase in cigarette taxes impacts smoking behavior of youths, because the majority of high school students is not eligible of obtaining cigarettes officially, only buying them on black market or with the help of family or friends. Legislation enacted to secure state budgets at the expense of particular category of population can be safely considered unjust and discriminatory. Statistical data reveals that during the period from year 2000 to 2009, states received $203.5 billion in tobacco revenue, while less than 3.0% were directed to tobacco prevention and cessation programs (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2009). In addition, most states decreased financing of tobacco prevention programs by more than 15% (Tobaccofreekids, 2010). It is evident that cigarette taxes are effectively used by state governments to secure their budget deficits instead of cessation and educational programs that combat smoking. Moreover, the idea that cigarette tax increases are socially fair and effective is largely based on the assumption that cigarette tax is a progressive type of tax, which means that financial burden of the tax is proportionally distributed on the rich. However, Remler (2004) in the analysis of cigarette tax effectively proves that practically, cigarette tax is regressive. His analysis of horizontal equity (fairness within a given income group) reveals that cigarette taxes heavily burden poor smokers who do not quit, no matter how tax burden is assessed (Remler, 2004). In other words, cigarette tax is socially unjust, because higher tobacco pricing cause individuals with lower socioeconomic statuses to cut back on smoking more so than the rich. There is empirical evidence that illustrates the ineffectiveness of cigarette tax increases in smoking deterrence. Addressing the similar problem from a different angle, Levy et al (2010) in their simulation study refuted the finding of Carpenter and Cook (2007), revealing that evidence-based cessation treatment policies have the strongest effect on smoking individuals’ quit rate (78,8% in relative terms). Cigarette tax increases are recognized as less effective with quit rate constituting 66%. These data leads to conclusion that tax increase is only conveniently believed to be the most effective method to combat smoking rate. Levy et al (2010) also reveals how ineffective are smokefree air laws and mass media and education policies with their quit rates of 31.8% and 18.2% respectively. From this perspective, if any given state legislature seeks to eliminate smoking behavior and secure health of population, it should focus not on continuous tax increases with subsequent redirecting of funding elsewhere, but on cessation treatment policies. Practically, these policies increase cessation treatment coverage, promote evidence-based state-sponsored telephone quitlines, and improve customized stepped-care approaches and long-term effectiveness of evidence based treatments. Proper implementation of these strategies and clinical interventions can educate smoking population about the dangers of tobacco use and assist them in quitting (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2009). Furthermore, Levy et al (2010) evidently argues that in order to understand the impact of policy changes and justify them as well as find the optimal combination of policy changes, research should track multiple components of smoking prevalence – quit attempts, treatment use and treatment effectiveness. Position taken by Levy and colleagues provides additional evidence that cigarette tax increase is only one-sided and hardly effective approach to resolve the smoking problem among population. Recent cigarette tax increase enacted by the New York State legislature became a controversial and debated issue. On the one side of the debate are proponents of the tax, who believe that cigarette tax increase constitutes an effective smoking deterrence, particularly for young individuals. On the other side are opponents, who question the effectiveness of tax increase, its progressive nature and overall necessity. This paper through analysis and argumentation revealed that the enactment of this law is questionable and do not correspond to the principle of social justice and equality. REFERENCES Al Muslim, A. (2010). Cigarette tax hike bad for bodegas. The Queens Courier, July 12, 2010 Sinning gets expensive. (2002). Economist, 364(8292), p.30 National Conference of State Legislature. State Cigarette Excise Taxes: 2010, Retrieved from < http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14349> September 18, 2010 Dembovsky, A. (2008). More Smokers Seek Help With Quitting Since Latest Cigarette Tax Took Effect, New York, July 20, p. 22. Carpenter C., Cook, J.P. (2007). Cigarette Taxes and Youth Smoking: New Evidence from National, State and Local Risk Behavior Surveys, Working Paper 13046, NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved from < http://www.nber.org/papers/w13046> September 14, 2010 Levy D.T. et al (2010). Reaching Healthy People 2010 by 2013. A SimSmoke Simulation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38 (38):373-381 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2009). Cigarette smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking Cessation – United States, 58(44), Department of Health and Human Services, Services for Disease Control and Prevention A Broken Promise to Our Children. (2010). Report retrieved from < http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/> September 18, 2010 Remler D.K. (2004). Poor Smokers, Poor Quitters, and Cigarette Tax Regressivity. American Journal of Public Health, 94, pp. 225-229 Read More