Big Tobacco raises record-breaking $17.5 million to defeat Medicaid expansion in Montana

[phands]

My disgust for these companies knows no bounds.....

A Montana ballot initiative has incurred the wrath of Big Tobacco, which has spent a record-breaking amount of money to defeat it this November. Should it succeed, 100,000 people could lose health coverage.


The tobacco industry raised nearly $17.5 million to defeat I-185, a measure that gives health care to people earning up to 138 percent of the poverty level by taxing tobacco. Montana expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2016, but only until July 2019. To avoid sunsetting the policy and, thus, taking away coverage from nearly 100,000 people, Montana residents need to vote yes to I-185. But by voting yes, voters are also agreeing to increase a tax on a pack of cigarettes from $2 to $3.70 and 33 percent for tobacco products like e-cigarettes.

https://thinkprogress.org/big-tobac...t-medicaid-expansion-in-montana-f074a3bc75fc/

 

[repoman]

Not a big fan of excessive sin (addiction) taxes. They can be regressive.

A nicotine addict is getting fucked by his addiction, the tobacco companies and now the excessive taxes. A rich smoking doesn't care about it.

The mental sharpness and momentary calmness I had from smoking the 30 cigarettes in my life gave an inkling as to how powerful that addiction can be.

A poorish smoker is gonna be put further into poverty by these taxes. He won't by nice things to improve his local surroundings and we have less stress reduction. Less stress and nice surrounding is helpful for kicking an addiction.

 

[phands]

You have good points there.

There's no good answer except to educate people to avoid smoking, and eventually, the tobacco companies will evaporate. My real point, however, is that it should be thoroughly illegal for any company to buy politicians for its own gain.

 

[Trausti]

You have good points there.

There's no good answer except to educate people to avoid smoking, and eventually, the tobacco companies will evaporate.

It's too cool and addictive for that.

 

[starwater]

I have a very good friend that has smoked for 40 years - 3 packs a day. He has tried every single drug, therapy, hypnosis, e-cigarette reduction, blessing, acupuncture, and any other treatment you can name. He has quit for over a year and then gone back. Addiction for some is just not curable with the current state of the knowledge. I feel for these people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have a very good friend that has smoked for 40 years - 3 packs a day. He has tried every single drug, therapy, hypnosis, e-cigarette reduction, blessing, acupuncture, and any other treatment you can name. He has quit for over a year and then gone back. Addiction for some is just not curable with the current state of the knowledge. I feel for these people.

And the companies which profited from this addiction should be the ones to incur the costs for treating the effects of this addiction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Taxing the companies sounds like a good idea on the surface. Dig deeper, however, and it's a very bad idea.

The problem is when you put a hefty tax on things like this the government comes to depend on the revenue--and thus won't take serious efforts to stamp out the sin.

 

[bilby]

Taxing the companies sounds like a good idea on the surface. Dig deeper, however, and it's a very bad idea.

The problem is when you put a hefty tax on things like this the government comes to depend on the revenue--and thus won't take serious efforts to stamp out the sin.

That's probably true, in the rare and special case of a reasonably wealthy nation where the health costs of smoking related disease are not borne by the government.

However, here in the developed world, the reduction in tax revenue due to lower rates of smoking are more than compensated by the reduction in health care costs - while some smokers die quickly and incur lower healthcare expenditure, many more are significantly unwell for long periods before their eventual deaths, requiring large sums to be spent on their care.

The Australian government has taken a very serious approach to smoking reduction - and the effectiveness of their overall strategy is clear. "Nobody smokes here anymore" was the slogan of a recent campaign, and it seems to be largely true. Smokers are marginalized, heavily taxed, and treated as pariahs; Tobacco cannot be advertised at all, even at point of sale, and cigarette packaging is required to be deliberately off-putting, with no colourful logos or branding permitted. The only input the tobacco companies have into the appearance of cigarette packs in Australia is the variety and brandname, which appear in a standard small type to identify one pack from another.

Most states have banned smoking indoors, other than in private homes; Smoking in a private car is permitted only if no children are present; and smoking within a certain distance of the entrance to a building, and within designated outdoor exclusion zones (such as the main Queen Street Mall shopping area in the centre of Brisbane) is prohibited. Outdoor areas where food is served are also no smoking areas, at least here in Queensland.

IMO the approach taken to tobacco here should probably also be applied to other (currently illegal) drugs - High taxes, no advertising allowed, plain and unattractive packaging, severe restrictions on public use. It's no longer 'cool' to smoke here. It's a furtive and sordid activity of addicts who are to be pitied for their habit, and where possible, helped to quit. If you must do it, do it in private, and away from children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Taxing the companies sounds like a good idea on the surface. Dig deeper, however, and it's a very bad idea.

The problem is when you put a hefty tax on things like this the government comes to depend on the revenue--and thus won't take serious efforts to stamp out the sin.

That's probably true, in the rare and special case of a reasonably wealthy nation where the health costs of smoking related disease are not borne by the government.

However, here in the developed world, the reduction in tax revenue due to lower rates of smoking are more than compensated by the reduction in health care costs - while some smokers die quickly and incur lower healthcare expenditure, many more are significantly unwell for long periods before their eventual deaths, requiring large sums to be spent on their care.

The Australian government has taken a very serious approach to smoking reduction - and the effectiveness of their overall strategy is clear. "Nobody smokes here anymore" was the slogan of a recent campaign, and it seems to be largely true. Smokers are marginalized, heavily taxed, and treated as pariahs; Tobacco cannot be advertised at all, even at point of sale, and cigarette packaging is required to be deliberately off-putting, with no colourful logos or branding permitted. The only input the tobacco companies have into the appearance of cigarette packs in Australia is the variety and brandname, which appear in a standard small type to identify one pack from another.

Most states have banned smoking indoors, other than in private homes; Smoking in a private car is permitted only if no children are present; and smoking within a certain distance of the entrance to a building, and within designated outdoor exclusion zones (such as the main Queen Street Mall shopping area in the centre of Brisbane) is prohibited. Outdoor areas where food is served are also no smoking areas, at least here in Queensland.

IMO the approach taken to tobacco here should probably also be applied to other (currently illegal) drugs - High taxes, no advertising allowed, plain and unattractive packaging, severe restrictions on public use. It's no longer 'cool' to smoke here. It's a furtive and sordid activity of addicts who are to be pitied for their habit, and where possible, helped to quit. If you must do it, do it in private, and away from children.

It doesn't matter if the government is paying for the costs of the sin, there still is a huge incentive to not do the job right.

I agree with all the rest of the steps you describe, although I would be inclined to add one more: Cigarettes can only be sold by the carton.

 

[bilby]

Taxing the companies sounds like a good idea on the surface. Dig deeper, however, and it's a very bad idea.

The problem is when you put a hefty tax on things like this the government comes to depend on the revenue--and thus won't take serious efforts to stamp out the sin.

That's probably true, in the rare and special case of a reasonably wealthy nation where the health costs of smoking related disease are not borne by the government.

However, here in the developed world, the reduction in tax revenue due to lower rates of smoking are more than compensated by the reduction in health care costs - while some smokers die quickly and incur lower healthcare expenditure, many more are significantly unwell for long periods before their eventual deaths, requiring large sums to be spent on their care.

The Australian government has taken a very serious approach to smoking reduction - and the effectiveness of their overall strategy is clear. "Nobody smokes here anymore" was the slogan of a recent campaign, and it seems to be largely true. Smokers are marginalized, heavily taxed, and treated as pariahs; Tobacco cannot be advertised at all, even at point of sale, and cigarette packaging is required to be deliberately off-putting, with no colourful logos or branding permitted. The only input the tobacco companies have into the appearance of cigarette packs in Australia is the variety and brandname, which appear in a standard small type to identify one pack from another.

Most states have banned smoking indoors, other than in private homes; Smoking in a private car is permitted only if no children are present; and smoking within a certain distance of the entrance to a building, and within designated outdoor exclusion zones (such as the main Queen Street Mall shopping area in the centre of Brisbane) is prohibited. Outdoor areas where food is served are also no smoking areas, at least here in Queensland.

IMO the approach taken to tobacco here should probably also be applied to other (currently illegal) drugs - High taxes, no advertising allowed, plain and unattractive packaging, severe restrictions on public use. It's no longer 'cool' to smoke here. It's a furtive and sordid activity of addicts who are to be pitied for their habit, and where possible, helped to quit. If you must do it, do it in private, and away from children.

It doesn't matter if the government is paying for the costs of the sin, there still is a huge incentive to not do the job right.

I agree with all the rest of the steps you describe, although I would be inclined to add one more: Cigarettes can only be sold by the carton.

I haven't seen cigarettes sold singly since the 1970s. It's certainly illegal to sell them other than in their original packaging here, and typically that's a carton of 25 or 40. Or are you suggesting selking only bulk cartons of more than 200?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't matter if the government is paying for the costs of the sin, there still is a huge incentive to not do the job right.

I agree with all the rest of the steps you describe, although I would be inclined to add one more: Cigarettes can only be sold by the carton.

I haven't seen cigarettes sold singly since the 1970s. It's certainly illegal to sell them other than in their original packaging here, and typically that's a carton of 25 or 40. Or are you suggesting selking only bulk cartons of more than 200?

Yeah, the 200-cigarette containers.

Here the 20-cigarette container is a pack. I haven't seen 25 or 40, but I've never been a smoker so I haven't looked. 10 20-cigarette packs are bundled into a carton of 200, again I have never seen any other count.