Can whoever moderates this please get rid of Che's posts? They are always some long article that is completely off topic. This isn't "Wisconsin Moment." Thanks...

Phylis Jordan, we know you're out there. isn't there anything you guys at the post.com can do to ban che's totally off-topic comments?

i'm not only speaking for myself, but others when i say they do nothing buy stifle further discussion.

I'm interested in bloggers thoughts on this. My first instinct is to remove them, but they do not violate our standards (profanity, personal attacks or inappropriate comments). They are just irrelevant. That seems like a slippery slope to be judging on.

Now, to be on-topic, myself - I have no problem with this. I'd favor a hike in the tobacco tax (is it actually a tobacco tax or a cigarette and cigar tax?).

Not only would an increase in the tax help to fund healthcare for the uninsured and to alleviate the high costs all of us shoulder for treatment of smoking-related illnesses, it would also benefit efforts to reduce teenage smoking.

Phylis, I can definitely see your view that this can become a slippery slope but there is a difference between irrelevant comments and what Che is posting which I liken to spam. If someone posts an irrelevant comment, then so be it. Che is posting entire articles that are a pain in the behind to scroll through and ruins the flow of the conversation. I find it disruptive in addition to irrelevant.

Phyllis,

You're right, it may be a slippery slope to begin removing comments that do not necessarily violate post.com's standards; however, I would argue that with the length of the comments (che's are always longer than the MD Moment post they are attached to), their total irrelevance, and the fact that they are not only copy-and-pasted into multiple posts (and you can check this yourself) they cross posted to many of the post's other blogs.

If the purpose of the comments section is to "encourage users to analyze, comment on, and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews, and multimedia features", relevance to the specific post should be the focus of the comments. With 'che' we get none of that, and ultimately, I think it detracts from the on-topic discussion that those posting comments wish to have. (The fact that we're having this dialogue on the subject is proof of that.)

I urge that "off topic" posts such as these Che posts be removed. They are spam or graffiti.

And when cigarette sales drop due to the increased price, where will these self-serving politicians find another funds source? No one would expect them to eliminate a giveaway program.

The wise folks at washingtonpost.com inform me that reprinting a full article from another publication does violate our standards. So I'm removing Che's remarks. Links to other stories still allowed.

Steve, I don't think anyone - including the most cynical of politicians - would not welcome the reduction of a revenue stream like the one coming from the tobacco tax, if it meant fewer people were smoking. The effects that smoking has on our healthcare system - especially on publicly funded Medicare and Medicaid, as well as for institutions that end up eating the costs of uninsured emergency room visits - will diminish as fewer people take up or continue the habit.

I'm a 20-something smoker and I'd welcome the $1 increase in cigarette tax. I need to quit. I want to quit. I'm the last of the "college" smokers in my group of friends.

By the way, if you want to curb smoking addiction, don't stop prevention efforts in high school. College means alcohol and independence and I, like many "good" high schoolers, didn't fall prey til then.

Also - a big thank you to Phyllis Jordan for her efforts here. Don't be surprised if you find yourself deleted che's off-topic comments from future posts though. It really will help keep discussions on track. And with that, I'm done commenting off-topic myself. :)

It's interesting how all the liberals who complain about regressive taxes are the first ones to jump up and favor incredibly high taxes on cigarettes. Since the poor smoke more than the rich, high cigarette taxes disproportionately affect them. Of course, the liberals' concern about the poor somehow doesn't extend to this area. Or, that concern is masked in the paternalistic notion that those people need government to step in and raise the price of their cigarettes because they are too stupid/weak/short-sighted to quit themselves. And the nanny state continues to grow.

TaxMe, if you want to quit smoking, then quit. Don't ask the governmentment to raise taxes on everyone who smokes because you can't find the willpower to give up your habit.

Once again, let's punish smokers with a tax that does not directly benefit them. But why stop there?!? Let's also raise the alcohol tax for alcohol related diseases, impose a sugar tax to tackle obesity, add a tax to car owners getting less than 15 mpg for polluting our atmosphere twice as much as others, tax those not a member of a gym, or who fail to see a doctor regularly. But, wait! We can do more. We can tax those with a genetic disposition for getting ill! When will the madness stop?!?! Let's all share the responsibility for the rising medical costs and uninsured citizens. If you want to subsidize the insurance and medical industries (i.e. taxes to decrease the number of uninsured), it should come from everyone, not just a select group that is currently in disfavor with public opinion.

MK, it seems we always do battle on the same issues. I don't think we'll ever agree, but it's always a lively debate. Adding another dollar to the cigarette tax is regressive, but the larger issue is a public health concern. Cigarettes are hazardeous to people's health. Before you jump all over me with the liberatrian line that it's their body and smokers should be able to do what they want, you need to remember that their smoking affects MY body. It has been proven again and again that second hand smoke can lead to cancer and other pulmonary disorders. Raising the tax will help people kick the habit which will be good for them, their friends, and their families which are all exposed (sometimes against their will) to the smoke.

If you were a smoker I doubt you would have said, "..that concern is masked in the paternalistic notion that those people need government to step in and raise the price of their cigarettes because they are too stupid/weak/short-sighted to quit themselves." That is such an arrogant statement to make. Cigarrate addiction isn't some lah-dee-dah take it or leave it habit. I was a smoker for 5 years and I can tell you that quitting was one of the hardest things I have ever done. Have you ever been addicted to something? Can you imagine obssessing about something and can feel the obession in your body? That's what happens when you try to quit. Why do you think quitting rates are so low? People want to quit but they CAN'T. If government can help in any way, then all the better.

re: the comment about smokers' impact on health care costs. The large multi-billion dollar settlement Maryland received in the multi-state tobacco lawsuit was supposed to cover those costs. That was the reason for the lawsuits. But I have not seen one penny of that settlement go to such health care nor for programs to help smokers stop. If anyone has read the news recently, you will know that the states' annual payments from the tobacco companies will decrease if their share of the market decreases (and I'm sure also if tobacco sales fall a substantial amount).

Maryland politicians have no desire to see smokers quit since smokers are funding the tobacco settlement which is being diverted to general funds.

So let me get this straight, taxes on cigarettes that are spent on healthcare costs - so much of which are directly linked to cigarette smoking - are somehow "paternalistic"? Give me a break.

There are some cold hard facts that some simply wish to ignore: Smoking causes illness. Treatment for smoking related illness is not cheap. Healthcare costs are rising. The number of uninsured and underinsured are rising. The cost to taxpayers to cover costs for the uninsured are rising.

I know this is a shockingly liberal concept, but I don't have a problem with paying taxes for the good of the community. But I'd rather a higher cigarette tax to help offset rising healthcare costs related to smoking than not having it. Without it, we get to hear our elected leaders tell us that we can't meet tomorrow (or hell, today's) transportation needs because the money isn't there. We hear them say that we can't do more to build or renovate schools because the money isn't there. Where's the money? Disproportionately covering healthcare costs, that's where.

And lastly, you know what, if a higher cigarette tax keeps more teens from smoking (and studies have shown this to be the case) and you feel that's "paternalistic" then so be it.

You're right about the tobacco settlement, but its not just MD that's done little or nothing with their chunk of the money. And that is a real shame, and it is disgraceful. The settlement should be used for exactly what it was intended to be used for: to cover smoking related healthcare costs and smoking prevention and cessation programs. Unfortunately, the leaders of neither party are willing to do what that big bag with the $$$$$ signs all over it was meant for.

ACK! I fudged that last one up... it was from me, not Ted. I was responding to Ted. Apologies.

Would be interesting to see how you select your likely voters to poll. Let's not stop with the tobacco tax as Maryland is only sending its smokers to other states for purchase of tobacco. What makes you think smokers should have to pay for other's insurance needs? Gimme some break here.Let's add this tax to chips and other fat forming foods so that obese people can also contribute toward other's insurance needs. And nots let forget beer and wine.

First of all, I agree that smokers have higher medical related diseases than non-smokers, and that in high enough concentrations, second-hand smoke can cause medical problems. However, the actual link between second hand smoke and an increase in diseases in non-smokers is not all that clear. Many studies (on both sides of the issue) only use subsets of data to prove their point. Furthermore, the most condemning studies all use short-term high concentration studies to simulate the long term effects of passive smoke. Indeed, many studies show that due to dilution effects, the non-smoker's exposure is equivalent to on average smoking less than half a pack of cigarettes a year! (see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-05/NS-COTE-260599.php and http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm) Furthermore, unless you live with a smoker, the current rash of smoking bans in public places reduces exposures to non-smokers to almost nil. As far as taxing smokers for health related problems, they already are! In MD $1.21 in state taxes and $0.80 in fed taxes, equaling half of the price of a pack of cigarettes. Finally, if you are so concerned about stopping teens from smoking, let's add an additional tax to alcohol, sugar and condemns so that children simply won't have the money to do other "unhealthy" acts. Again, don't single out 1 cause for concern and tax it to death; spread the burden to ALL factors adding to the rising health care costs and number of uninsured Americans.

As mentioned above, second hand smoke is not the killer that the media makes it out to be. So unless I live with a heavy smoker and constantly breathe in his/her smoke, smokers do no damage to me even if I hang out around them. Therefore, government should quit meddling in this personal decision.

Furthermore, it's interesting that you bring up addiction, Mr. K. For if these people truly are addicted (and I don't buy that), then it is especially cruel to raise taxes on the substance that feeds their addiction. If they can't help themselves from smoking this deadly weed, then it's hardly fair to punish them more by taking their hard earned money away from them. Your logic is flawed.

As for second-hand smoke, the argument against smoking in public places isn't for the protection of patrons (though I have to say, it IS rather nice to be able to breathe in a bar), but for the protection of the employees of those businesses. Now let's hear the chorus of "if you don't like, work someplace else"... *rolls eyes*

doug notes: "Finally, if you are so concerned about stopping teens from smoking, let's add an additional tax to alcohol, sugar and condemns so that children simply won't have the money to do other "unhealthy" acts."

Well, okay, I can see the alcohol thing. And being a drinker, I don't really have a problem with that. Oh no! A dirty liberal who doesn't mind paying taxes! For shame!

As for sugar, I think yesterday's agreement brokered by Bill Clinton to remove sodas from schools is a good start.

And back to healthcare to finish up. The point is that you and I, as taxpayers, are already paying for those suffering from smoking related illnesses, through Medicare and Medicaid and through higher bills when we go to the hospital, who have increased priced because they have to make up costs for treating the uninsured.

I have to thank Corbett for many good points, so I will not re-hash them. In response to MK, my logic is only flawed due to your contortion of it. If you do not believe that people are addicted to cigarettes then I am throwing down the gauntlet. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is. Take up smoking for a few months and tell me how easily and effortlessly you quit. Do you work for the tobbacco industry? I can't see any other reason why you would so ignorantly assert that people aren't addicted to tobbaco despite years and years of studies (not to mention millions of people who can verify those claims).

It's also very telling that you seem to put money above more valuable things like a healthy and longer life. Is it more cruel to take some money away but get a healthier life in return? In the long run they would be saving money (which you so covet) in healthcare costs and be better overall.

corbett: I don't buy the argument that we as tax payers are already paying for smoking realted illnesses. As was stated by and Ted and confirmed by yourself, the cigarette settlement that was supposed to support health burdens on the state have not been appropriated as such. Therefore, it is the politicians' misuse of money that we as taxpayers are paying! The cigarette companies and smokers are already paying their additional cost to rising health care through the settlements and taxes.

Doug: I'd hate to disagree with you, but no matter what the amount of the tobacco settlement, it would never have been enough to cover the costs of smoking-related illnesses in America.

While I do not have the most recent numbers, in 1998 the healthcare costs associated with smoking-related illnesses were $78 BILLION ANNUALLY.

The tobacco settlement was $368 billion, to be paid out of 25 years. Yet if you look at how much those annual costs to healthcare for smoking-related illnesses will run over that same 25 year period, it comes to $1.8 TRILLION.

Through Medicare, the federal government spends $20 BILLION for smoking-related illnesses. Veterans Affairs pays more than $8 BILLION annually in smoking-related healthcare costs.

Then there's the annual Medicaid payments that run over $23 BILLION for smoking-related illnesses. And the last time I checked, Medicaid was paid for by both the federal government and by the states, which means no matter how you look at it - you and I, as taxpayers - are fitting the bill for the most preventable cause of death, disease, and disability in the United States.

Sure, we (as taxpayers) are already paying for the health care of some smokers (and as more smokers tend to be poor, then I'm sure that they are over-represented in the Medicaid population). I think it's admirable that those who advocate for cigarette taxes think that those who burden the system should help pay for it. However, a cigarette tax is a very broad way of going about it. After all, the person with health insurance who buys cigarettes is also paying the tax, even though he will never use government health care. I say let's tighten up the connection -- those who smoke should bear the cost of their health care. If you smoke, no Medicaid or Medicare. That will substantially raise the cost to the smoker and should help cut down on those unhealthy activities. It's a much more fair system than taxing everyone indiscriminately. And, of course, since obesity costs so much, if you are obese then no Medicaid or Medicare, either.

Mr. K, I don't really believe in the concept of addiction. I think people do certain things because they give them pleasure and find it hard to stop because the long-term benefits are outweighed by the short-term pleasure. By endorsing raising cigarette prices you show that you buy into this, too, since you advocate raising the short-term costs of a product to help overcome the short-term pleasure that product brings.

And I don't put money over more valuable things like health. I simply advocate for the freedom to choose. I don't think the government should be in the business of coercing people into the "correct" behavior. I also don't think government should be there to help you when your bad behavior hurts you, though.

I should not dignify MK's indication that he does not believe nicotine to be addictive with a response, but I will anyway. It is a true physical addiction. In law school, in New Orleans, I struggled some with alcohol dependency. I was drinking daily for a long enough period that I had physical withdrawl symptoms. I tapered off the drinking and within about a week stopped. I can now drink responsibly. That's the difference between addiction and dependency. I was briefly dependent on alcohol to maintain a normal physiological state. I am addicted to cigarettes. When I abstain, I have physical symptoms. That's the dependency. The difference is that the addiction hijacks my brain and causes it to fight against itself. The rational side says "you've fought the symptoms, why would you do that to yourself again?" The animalistic impulsive side starts to justify it and overcomes the rational side. That's not getting past irritability and weight gain, that's the brain fighting the brain on different levels of consciousness.

The "don't punish everyone because x% has a lack of will-power" argument is a political philosophy debate that will never be resolved with shots across the bow attached to the end of an article. I can tell you that it would be great if the government used some of the money preemptively, to provide free-of-charge nicotine replacement therapy such as gum or transdermal patches. The products are expensive (comparable to two weeks cigarettes, but far less pleasurable). They still have to be used with a degree of willpower, but they remove a lot of psychological hurdles.

Doug's comments are right on. It is much easier to tax a minority than a majority, and in Maryland, that's easy money.

Seems as though health care for all should be on the backs of everyone.

MK, like I said I challenege your beliefes about addiction and am throwing down the guantlet. Your rationalization of addiction does not make it less real. I hate saying this to people, but in this case it's warranted. You don't know what you're talking about. You have never experienced true addiction and if you had I highly doubt you would say such things. I truly believe that if you were addicted to cigarettes you would change your thoughts on this topic.

"I also don't think government should be there to help you when your bad behavior hurts you, though." Sorry buddy, we can't just leave people by the wayside and hope some private charity or corporation will pick up the tab. What Libertarians don't get is that we're in this together for better or worse. We pull together, we make things better for everyone. We dump people over the rail when things get dicey and we're doomed to fail. Government should be able to bring us together for a common cause and for a common good. For the people, by the people.

If I wish to rationalize some bad habits I have, I could easily pass them off as "addictions." Hell, with as much candy as I eat, and with the cravings I have for sugar, I'm sure I qualify as a "sugar addict." I also used to drink much more heavily than I do today. I probably could have been called an alcoholic, but I choose not to hide behind such excuses. I like sugar and I like liquor. Some people like to smoke. Sure, I know that giving up cigarettes is tough. I've heard it from too many people to dismiss it. However, I don't believe cigarettes control anyone. You choose to smoke or you choose not to smoke. If you choose to smoke, don't look to blame that on an inanimate object.

Under your system, Mr. K, where the government cleans up after everyone's mistakes, where does personal responsibility start? Since the consequences of my bad decisionsn will be taken care of by the government, why should I bother "working hard and playing by the rules" (as Bill Clinton once said)? The government's generous safety net simply enables people to make choices that hurt themselves and the people around them.

Government was not instituted to take care of people when they make bad decisions. Furthermore, government does an incredibly bad job of helping people to make the right decisions. It's best for the government to stay out of this area and let people take care of each other in a voluntary (not a coercive) way.

Personally I think that these new 'sin' taxes are being applied in a completely unprincipled way. Generally they are justified by the claim that the money collected goes to pay for the victims of the alleged sins, in this case to defray the cost to the state of taking care of people whose health has been compromised by product x or y.

However it has become abundantly clear that in fact these sorts of taxes are simply a way for the state to generate revenue by approving a tax that only a small minority of state residents will be required to pay. If you came and asked me if I wanted discount healthcare to be payed for by taxing wheat germ, I would certainly say yes since I never use wheat germ and will effectively get something for nothing in the deal. Let those wheat germ users pay for it, heck they shouldn't be using the stuff anyways.

From a strictly medical perspective obesity causes far more deaths in the United States than smoking, so the same logic of morality that justifies taxing smoking should apply, i.e. tax the HoHo's, junk food makers etc.... If we are going to use 'sin' taxes to defray the cost of healthcare then why not apply it across the board, I don't see anymore reason why I should have to pay for the healthcare of plump or 'skinny challenged' people that I will never personnally need, than they should be forced to pay for the healthcare costs that may be incurred due to smokers like me.

Of course the rub is that there are so many plump and 'Skinny Challenged' people in the states that laws that really improve healthcare here will never be passed because you will be asking people to tax something that will effect their own pocket books, and that makes such taxes politically impossible.

In the end either you agree that using 'sin' taxes is legitimate, or disagree, but if you agree then certainly one should apply said taxes to lots of things people do or eat etc... and not just smoking.

I think we ought to tax anyone thats overweight since that condition leads to innumerable health problems both physical and mental. If smoking is bad for everyone, then seeing someones fat tush waddling down the street is bad for everyone's health (Mental). Go to a doctors office and see all the people who are sick and you will see most of them are fat and obese or just overweight. I think the government ought to tax them by the pound. Check out the people with handicap stickers at the supermarket parking lot and you see a majority of them are just to fat to walk very far to shop. They are also the ones overflowing the seats on the electric carts provided for the shoppers. Quit trying to tax smoking out of existence, it is not going to work. Attrition of all the smokers will eventually stop all the smoking. Education doesn't do it, we have tried that for years. Shunning doesn't do it, smokers have been shunned like the plague for years. So why do you expect taxing smokers is going to put them out of existence?Besides why should a smoker paying more taxes benefit someone who won't or can't work? Maybe the solution is to eliminate the public welfare state we have developed over the years. I resent having to support everyone because I choose to work and pay my way. I don't smoke, but if I did, I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for my healthcare. I don't agree that I should have to pay for someone's elses healthcare.

Then MK, you simply don't get it with cigarettes. You need to experience it for yourself to see what I'm talking about. It's nothing like candy or other "bad habits."

I never said that I wanted government to do everything or be everything to everybody. I want government to be better and more efficient. I want a fair and balanced system which today it is nowhere near that. I just can't agree that having a compasionless system where everyone does their own thing can every yield net positive results. In fact, I think that is a recipe for division and greed.

Okay. Let's talk numbers. Since throwing out large numbers always seems to be used to distort the facts. First of all, how are "smoking-related" illnesses defined? Are all diseases of a smoker lumped into the total, or just those directly related to diseases caused by smoking? And how do you account for those who would have been ill even if they didn't smoke? Remember, smoking is only ONE factor that increases the RISK of disease. There's no guarantee thay didn't get the disease from some other factor, such as genetics, air pollution, or cholesterol. So, costs should be provided as costs ABOVE AND BEYOND what non-smokers do.

Secondly, smokers also pay Medicare taxes. Since ca. 25% of Americans smoke, 1/4 of all Medicare taxes are the smokers paying for their own health costs. Have you subtracted these payments from your figures of "us as taxpayers"?

Finally, in MD alone, MD cigarette taxes account for over $200 MILLION alone. Multiplied by 50 states, is $10 BILLION. Add to that the federal cigarette tax, which totals $7 BILLION a year. This is coming awfully close to your $20 BILLION in Medicare costs, don't you think?

I'm not advocating smoking. Smoking is a filthy, expensive, and health-degrading habit. But, don't throw all the medical cost burden on them! Sin taxes are NOT the answer. Personally, I agree with KM's suggestion: you sin, you pay!

You sin, you pay. Hey that's a great slogan, the problem is that its not how the real world works. The simple hard facts are that we are all paying for the costs for smokers. You can't honestly believe that the Medicare taxes paid by smokers can come anywhere close to paying for the expenses Medicare endures because of smoking-related illnesses.

As of the numbers, you can try to argue them and the semantics of smoking-related illnesses all you want, but again, the facts - that is, the science and the medical community - are what they are.

corbett - Yes, I do believe that smokers have already paid for their additional costs to medical care. As I stated befroe, cigarette taxes alone make up for all Medicare costs due to smoking related illnesses. In addition, smokers pay higher premiums than nonsmokers for both health and life insurance.

As for science, it is what it is: political. I have been a researcher in the scientific field for over 10 years now. Interpretation of the collected data is distorted ALL THE TIME! Plus, medical data is even more distorted, because researchers don't have 20-30 years to find out long term health effects. They use short-term, high concentrations and "elevated levels of chemicals" to deduce the risks of a particular chemical. So, science is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Yes, smoking is unhealthy. Yes, smokers have higher medical bills. And, YES! Smokers even pay more for for their medical bills. So, in the end, with the current tax level of 50% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes and higher insurance premiums, we have already recovered all costs related to their higher medical burden.

Yes, and by the same token, those same numbers show that the amount of healthcare related expenses due to the population being overweight are also astronomical. I don't see where covering your eyes and saying the fact remains that smoking is expensive is an argument. The problem is that these sorts of taxes are a pandora's box. I mean where do you draw the line and say enough is enough, genetics, race, what is it? The same arguments one uses to justify taxing smokers can apply to a wide variety of cases.

In the end we should probably just decide that we don't get to decide who and under what circumstances our health care tax dollars are spent on other than saying we will help out people who are sick regardless.

If you only had to pay for what is going to directly benefit you then the system begins to break down, i.e. lots of people don't own cars and don't drive, yet they pay millions for roads they will never use, and the list could just go on and on.

Nicotine is a very addictive and EXTREMLY potent drug. It is so strong in fact that it is put in the tobacco as PPM "parts per million" Less people would smoke if this drug was not in the product to begin with. It creates a dependancy by the body and the brain on the drug not neccisarily the product. This dependancy is what addiction is. The need to have it to function properly. I propose they make the nicotine illegal. This would take the drug out of the product that causes the addiction. I am also very happy that they have started to ban smoking in public places. It is very nice to be able to breath the air without tasteing it or smelling the stench associated with it. My mother smoked around me all of my life and I have had some health problems associated with it. But thats another story the point is the drug that is in the product is very strong and addictive. Any drug that a drop from an eyedropper will kill you that to me says somthing is wrong. I do see the earlier post's point on alcohol as well. I agree it should cost more and it would help detur people from drinking more. As for obesity as long as there is a McDonalds that will serve you one meal that has the calorie intake for one day and the fat content for 2 or 3 days we will never get rid of that. Oh and to those who drink coffee everyday to get their day going you are no better. The caffiene also causes that same type of addiction. Sorry to any part thats off topic but its not necisarily the product but the ingrediants in the product that are harmful.

re: Through Medicare, the federal government spends $20 BILLION for smoking-related illnesses. Veterans Affairs pays more than $8 BILLION annually in smoking-related healthcare costs

Veterans Affairs medical budget for FY 2005 (Oct. 1 2005 - Sep. 30, 2006)is $22.5 billion. see the data at http://www.va.gov/budget/summary/1514Chapter3B.pdf

Do you really believe that VA treatment for smoking related medical expenses actually comprises 1/3 of VA's medical budget? Most of VA medical care is for combat related injuries - both physical and mental.

If you are going to cite horrendous statistics, please check them at the government web sites before posting.

I'm a smoker. I quit once for 14 years but after a really stressfull day during a stressfull 1996, I smoked a cigarette. Now, I am hooked and found that it is even harder to quit than the first time. Most smokers are as addicted as heroin users. I would not mind paying additional cigarette taxes if the state would use them to help me cure my addiction but as with the tobacco settlement money and that cigarette tax money, the state spends that on other priorities. As long as state governments have an interest in ensuring that the number of smokers does not decline with a corresponding decline in their tobacco related revenues, any taxes from tobacco products will be diverted to projects other than health cared for smoking related illnesses. In fact, I doubt very much that we can trust our MD legislators to dedicate any increased tobacco taxes to any type of health care for more than a year or two.

Does anyone remember that MD had an instant lottery generating tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars of revenue which was used for schools and senior citizens. But then Governor Schaefer declared that the instant lottery depended too much on the poor and cancelled it. Amazingly, a few months later, he decided to institute a lottery game (to be sold daily) to create a revenue machine for the new MD Sports Authority which went on to build the new and expensive baseball and football stadiums and which is now awash in revenue from this still-existing sports instant lottery with no thought of giving some of that money to our failing schools.
If the politicians care more about stadiums than schools and children failing to learn, does anyone really believe that additional tobacco taxes will be used for the benefit of the ordinary citizen?

From the same fantastic MGA that wanted to ban smoking in cigar shops. Perhaps they ought to tax soda's to help pay for after-school activities too. Hey, maybe we should tax cars too, they're real dangerous. MGA knows one thing and one thing alone: TAX.

I have enjoyed reading all the comments on this poll. I wanted to respond to a few key thoughts since my organization is the one that sponsored the poll. Further, we'll be the key group in cooperation with our parners that will be making this a campaign issue in state elections.

1. For those who want to read the poll memo in depth, take a look at our website at http://www.healthcareforall.com

2. Since tobacco taxes are declining sources of revenue, will there be enough money to fund the programs? The answer is YES! We were conservative in our budgeting program dollars. Knowing that initially there is more money than down the road (as people quit), if you budget a set level that is in the middle between the high and the low, you can make your program funding last longer. We budgeted for $155 M each year knowing that in the early years, there would be about $211 M coming into the state. Since this is a dedicated pool of dollars, the money will be reinvested in the pool until spent.

3. Will this hurt the poor? NO See http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0227.pdf

4. Will this tax cause people to buy their cigarettes across state lines? NO. Again, see our website to view a study by the Maryland Comptroller that proves our point.

5. We hope that people quit smoking. Smoking costs the State of Maryland over $2 billion each year in health care costs. This proposal will help 50,000 people get health insurance, help small businesses afford health care for their workers, strengthen the health care safety net, and establish a strong, effective tobacco use prevention program to help people quit smoking if they want to.

Hope this helps answer people's questions!

Glenn

How the heck did the moderators let things end with an announcement from a lobbying group that didn't answer one of the legitimate questions posed here???

Ah phew, they didn't. But I am probably sending this to no one, :( oh well I will write an op-ed. If there is anyone out there what is the e-mail address to send my piece to?

DcDave,
You can send letters to the editors to letters@washpost.com. Submit an oped at oped@washpost.com. The home page has instructions on both. Good luck

Thanks for the info, :)

I'm surprised that my feelings were so strong on this one.

Are you sure 71244 of this?!?