Cigarette tax increase

In these pages Sunday, prospective voters were treated to a good published debate on the merits and demerits of the proposed state tax increase of 73 cents per pack of cigarettes that will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot as Proposition B. Writing against the tax was Ron Leone, the executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association. Leone's constituents are the largest retail sellers of tobacco products and enjoy a tax advantage over competitors in neighboring states.

Missouri's 17-cent tax is the lowest in the nation, a fact Leone cites as an economic driver for the entire state. He says if the tax is increased, the state's middle class will foot most of the $67 million hit in state and local revenue. He objects to the use of a targeted tax on tobacco to fund unrelated programs such as health care and education and doubts as much money as promised will go to education, calling state use of earmarked funds a "shell game."

Leone agrees education and health care deserve adequate funding and says his group would support a reasonable tobacco tax increase, but "Prop B's outrageous and unfair 760 percent tax increase is simply too big and too dangerous." The case for a "yes" vote is made by Michael Cooperstock, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri. He concentrates on the health benefits of tobacco prevention and says the increase in the nation's lowest cigarette tax will "deter about 40,000 of today's Missouri children from becoming addicted smokers."

Cooperstock does a compelling job of citing the danger of tobacco use. Without doubt, we would be healthier and live longer on average if we were smoke-free. In Missouri, he says, smoking "causes" about 1,800 low-birth-rate and premature babies per year. The Institute of Medicine estimates "the total lifetime medical and societal economic cost for 450 preterm infants in Missouri is more than $100 million each year." He argues a "yes" vote is "a vote for the health and well-being of our children and our grandchildren, and it will improve education and lower health insurance costs for all."

Which of these arguments is most persuasive? Start with a given. Smoking is unhealthy and leads to a lot of public and private health care expense. For our own good and the welfare of the nation, it would be better if people did not smoke or chew tobacco. But it would be better if we didn't bad-mouth our neighbors or run red lights or eat so much fatty food. In an attempt to change bad habits, what is the role of government? The libertarian in me favors Leone's argument against discriminatory taxing of a product like tobacco to arguably improve education or health.

On this basis, there is no end to the improvement we could bring in these important areas if we simply levy a high enough cigarette tax. And what to make of the argument that higher taxes will dissuade people from smoking? Is it the role of government to meddle in people's habits this way? If it is in the public interest to stop smoking, the straightforward method is government prohibition, an excessively intrusive role most people would oppose and one that would bring negative side effects such as black-market crime. Many people want to smoke and drink whiskey and use narcotic drugs.

What is the proper role of government in trying to force changes in these personal habits? So-called "sin" taxes primarily become ordinary government revenue-raising tactics, not vehicles earmarked for doing public good. Government policy generally evolves into levying the highest taxes possible without unduly interfering with individual prerogative. We have found this balance most successfully with alcoholic beverages. We have not found it at all with narcotic drugs, remaining bogged down in the impropriety and ineffectiveness of prohibition. We are seeking the balancing point with tobacco. So, Leone is right.

The way to properly fund education and health care is with general public revenues. Since we are in the habit of taxing tobacco products to produce part of that revenue stream, the tax should be reasonable. But Cooperstock also is accurate. A higher cigarette tax will deter some prospective first-time users. Even if imposing a high tax is a blunt and arguably inappropriate use of government power and will never solve the tobacco use problem, it will have a certain salutary effect. Though it fails to give a clear answer, this nuanced analysis strikes me as the proper approach to the questions posed in Proposition B: Should we increase the tax on cigarettes?

If so, how much? The weakest part of Leone's argument is his contention that his convenience store group would be happy to see a reasonable increase in the tax. Of course, they prefer no increase at all, and one can understand why. As a means of raising general revenue, taxing targeted products is a hallowed practice. When such taxes are earmarked for certain uses, the equation gets flaky, as with the myth that lottery revenues automatically produce increases in education funding. But proponents of targeted taxes always find benefit in arguing a quid pro quo. Voters seldom get fervent in behalf of higher taxes for general revenue.

Prop B pushers have carefully chosen 73 cents per pack as their coveted increase, the largest amount they think they can pass and an amount leaving Missouri in the middle of the pack, so to speak, compared with other states. Smokers are a minority these days. If they had good sense, they would quit or never start, but who are we in the nonsmoking majority to punish them by raising their tax, and is it proper to use the power of government to aim exclusively at those among us engaging in this legal practice?

I don't like the very idea of the Prop B tax, but when distilled to a question of raising general revenue, it can be warranted. On the basis of the argument used in its support, the lonely, self-serving opposition put forth by Ron Leone and his convenience store tobacco merchants is correct. But the state can use the revenue, the nation's lowest tax can afford an increase and, appropriately levied or not, a higher tax is bound to have a deterrent effect on smoking. I will continue this argument with myself as the day of reckoning nears. For what it's worth, when I decide I'll let you know.