Measure 50 Unfairly Targets a Minority Group
Roll Yer' Own, 18.10.2007 12:19
The majority of Oregon's obese motorists seem to be in favor the passage of Measure 50, which will increase the tax obligation on smokers under the guise of funding children's health care, but I have news for them- you're next!
Get Off of Old Smokey
I would like to begin by stating that I am in favor of identifying all of the costs of a product, including heath costs, and including those costs in the price of that product.
Although I do smoke, I will not be affected by the proposed tax increase, because I roll my own cigarettes; often with additive-free, and/or organic tobacco. I am opposed to singling minority groups for taxation, based only on disproportionate demonization, hype, and poorly thought out funding proposals.
Measure 50 seems to be ill-conceived, not only because it places a disproportionate cost burden for children's health care on a minority group (smokers), but the ranks of this minority group are likely to shrink, or intended to do so as a result of this measure. With smokers already facing accelerated mortality as a result of tobacco use, and a big tax increase on cigarettes likely to reduce cigarette use even further, this measure appears to be attempting to pin the future of children's health care in Oregon to a revenue base that is simultaneously intended to become smaller. This does not appear to be a very coherent plan.
As I have indicated, I am not opposed to the inclusion of all identifiable costs of a product, into the sales price of that product. I am in favor of this approach.
But let's compare the costs of tobacco use to tremendous externalized costs represented by fossil-fuel consumption in automobiles, for example. We see more than 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. as a direct result of automobile accidents. In addition, we now know that even more people die as a result of automobile emissions, than die from automobile crashes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/369169.stm
This is arguably the greater health threat, yet no additional tax is being proposed on automobiles.
If the true intent of Measure 50 is to address lung health and children's health, rather than simply singling out a vulnerable minority group for penalty, why aren't we proposing big tax increases on fossil fuels and automobiles as well?
The costs that I have cited do not even take into consideration the massive costs of defending our oil consumption rate with illegal wars, or the costs of global warming, etc.
I have news for all of you overweight, cell-phone blabbing, anti-smoking zealot SUV drivers out there: according to a recent study conducted by British scientists, obesity (our fastest growing problem) is deadlier than smoking. According to one report, "cigarette smoking cuts the average lifespan by ten years, while being seriously overweight can trim life expectancy by 13 years".
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/obesity_smoking.html
How does that grab you? Are you ready for your own tailored tax?
On a related note, what ever happened to the massive tobacco settlements with the States? Does this money get used to fund smoking-related health costs, or does it simply get dumped into the States' general revenue funds, paying for us to continue to spend beyond our means, and leaving tobacco users to fend for themselves? Is that equitable?
In conclusion, I would once again like to strongly endorse the concept of including as many societal costs of a product as possible into the sales price of that product. This includes the externalized disposal, health, and social costs of automobiles, consumer electronics, alcohol, and yes, tobacco use.
Unfortunately, Measure 50 unfairly targets an already disproportionately taxed minority group, in a short sighted and unsustainable approach to funding children's health care in Oregon.
I would love to see the assets of R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris seized and liquidated, and used to help to pay for some of the damage that they have done, but targetting smokers for disproportionate penalty, for and unsustainable funding program is poorly thought out, in my opinion.
You do not have to support big tobacco if you don't want to. You may chose not to smoke at all, but if you do smoke, please consider: Rolling Yer' Own. It is easy; way less expensive, and you can even include filters, if you choose.
Measure 50 is mean spirited, shortsighted, and unfair, and I will be voting no on 50.
