Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / April 23, 2009, edition 1 / Page 17
Part of University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Opm Thursday, April 23, 2009 usNfoice {The Blue Banner} New cigarette tax lowers smoking rate, revenue Even though smoking remains one of the worst choices a person can make for their health, the new federal and North Carolina tax increase does little to help address the problem. At the start of the month, the federal government increased the tax on ciga rettes by roughly 60 cents, according to the National Conference of State Legisla tures, Lawmakers passed it to raise mon ey for children’s health insurance. The NCSL also reports some of the reasons states want to raise the tax rate include increasing available money and deterring smoking. While certainly laudable goals, the tax hike doesn’t make much sense. If the purpose of raising taxes is to both deter smokers and to help health pro grams, then won’t one affect the other? If more smokers quit because of the tax increase, then less money will be available to fund health projects. How ever, the NCSL states the federal budget will Increase by an estimated $33 billion over the next five years with this new tax. Maybe or maybe not. By targeting smokers, lawmakers ob viously want to get what looks like easy money. But the federal government might not be aware of who does the smoking, which affects available tax money. People with a GED or less education have higher levels of smoking than those with undergraduate degrees or more, ac cording to the Centers for Disease Con trol and Prevention. Additionally, more people who smoke live below the poverty line than those above or at the line, according to the CDC. Because we know more education correlates with higher income levels, the federal tobacco tax really goes after poor people because they make up the largest amount of smokers. Sure, advocates for the tax increase can argue raising the tobacco tax deters people from smoking, and for some it does. But the advocates fail to see they tax themselves out of money because tax levels will eventually reach a point where no one will smoke. And then where will the money come from? Advocates need to stop citing health reasons for people to stop smoking as well. One group called the Tax founda tion says, anti-smoking groups seek hieh- By Tom McLean Staff Writer TJMCLEAN@UNCA.EDU er taxes to reduce the health hazards of smoking. The foundation says the groups should seek prohibition of cigarettes, not higher taxes, if they really care about harmful effects. Of course, prohibition will throw to bacco onto the black*market which will increase crime. But with nearly half a mil lion people dying each year from smok ing, according to the CDC, prohibition might not be a bad thing. But that will never happen. Lawmak ers would rather have the == money. And North Carolina would like a piece of the cake, too. At the beginning of the year, lawmakers put forth a draft to the General As sembly which would in crease cigarette tax from 1.75 cents a cigarette to 5.95 cents, or roughly 80 cents a pack, accord ing to the North Carolina General Assembly. If the — = draft eventually gets sub mitted as a bill, the combined federal and state taxes will increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $1.40. Additionally, the state recently called for a smoking ban in public places with minors present, according to the N.C. General Assembly. This looks like a logi cal solution to stop the health concerns of cigarettes, but falls flat on its face. A ban on public places with minors means a smoking ban in restaurants, as several media outlets recently reported. And with lawmakers protecting minors from smoking, they should also ban the bad foods. With the obesity rates across the coun try, it seems a ban of bad food in restau rants will help curb this problem. But with a ban, the state won’t see money. Perhaps that’s why we saw lawmak ers discussing a tax on soft drinks a few weeks ago in the media. Rather than ban the product or educate people on what happens with too much soda, government would rather get more green out of it. Lawmakers might also cite personal choice as a reason they can’t ban a prod uct. Leave it up to the consumer and let the chips fall where they may. But if con sumers get taxed to the point of not being able to afford a product, then they really don’t have much of a choice. This point brings us back to poor peo ple. With the CDC reporting so many less educated people smoking, and less educa tion meaning less money, no reasonable person can deny the government exploits the poor by increasing these taxes. Lawmakers might also hide behind this tax by calling it a sin tax. If they want to tax sins, they can do a lot more than just single out smokers. With the current raise in cigarette tax, the fed eral government wants to raise money for health programs. The Tax Foundation wants to know why smokers should be the focus of the tax. They question why not tax other things in society as well, while ===55=s==== also discussing how programs needing fund ing shouldn’t be supported by one group of people. This point makes sense. If government uses smokers to fund health programs, specifically children’s health insurance, then taxes should be spread out across the board to fund the program. Government can raise food or clothing taxes or could hold back a little more on paychecks. These broader taxes would be less since they spread out across different areas and more people, as opposed to the one big tax on cigarettes. The point being, no single tax should discriminate against a group of people. And by heavily taxing cigarettes, the gov ernment targets the poor. Smoking remains a harmful activ ity, but until some changes come around, people can’t deny the exploitation of the government’s tax. If more smokers quit because of the tax increase, then less money will be available to fund health projects. ly/T Page 17 Accident shows benefits of safe driving habits By Jonathan Waiczak Managing Editor JMWALCZA@UNCA.EDU Last Friday afternoon, I was driving with one hand, speeding and texting my room mate, when I looked up and saw a blue SUV swerve towards the guardrail in the opposite lane on Interstate 40. As our cars were parallel, I looked to the left and saw the SUV hit the guardrail, flip in the air, as if something out of h movie, and come crashing down. A trailer it towed careened across the road, blocking traffic. When I arrived back in Asheville later that evening, I read online that the driver lost control when his trailer started to sway back and forth. He and his wife were unharmed, but their 15-year-old son died in the crash, which also injured their daughter. I’m not one to believe every little thing is a sign, but the irony of what I was doing when I looked up and saw the crash is not lost on me. The driver of the SUV easily could have been looking toward my lane and seen the same thing happen to me. It would be hypocritical of me to lecture on the danger of speeding, texting while driving or other risky behavior. But this week, I drove carefully. More than 40,000 people die every year in traffic accidents, probably including many of our friends. Some wrecks cannot be prevented. Many, however, are the result of prevent able behavior, whether it be speeding or drunken driving. These behaviors are selfish. They save a few minutes and allow for convenient com munication with friends, but endanger the individual driving, passengers in the car and all other people on the road. I’ve been in a few minor wrecks and seen several others before, including my ex-girlfriend crashing into a tree. When I was a year old, a cop in New Jersey called my mom a few days before Christmas to tell her a drunk driver hit rr ' « « t . See CARS Page 19 I
University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 23, 2009, edition 1
17
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75