Supporters of cigarette levy cite health, wellness benefits

May 17, 2005

DARRELL L. BREESE/Frontiersman reporter

PALMER - Margaret Patel said she is furious about the Mat-Su Borough's Assembly proposed $1-per-pack cigarette tax. She thinks this time it might be just enough to finally quit.

"Of course I'm angry," said Patel, 50, of Palmer. "It's not fair to the smokers. But if they pass it, I will likely quit a 30-year habit."

"It's already too expensive," said Marc Woita, 34, of Palmer. "My wife has been on me to quit for some time now. I guess if the assembly approves the $1-a-pack tax, I will finally make her happy. The borough can get their money from somebody else."

So will smokers join them and snuff out their cigarettes in protest of the tax? It's possible, according to Emily Nenon, a representative of the American Cancer Society.

"National studies have shown that since tobacco taxes have been implemented, there is a corresponding decrease of smokers," Nenon said. "In Alaska since 1997, when the state tobacco tax was introduced, we have seen a 50-percent drop in youth smoking."

Nenon added that national surveys show that for every 10-percent increase in cigarette taxes, there is a corresponding 4-percent decrease in the number of smokers.

Borough manager John Duffy said they have factored in an initial drop-off, because some people will stop smoking as soon as the tax passes. But he hopes the extra tax will encourage people to stop smoking in the future.

While the purpose of the tax is to diversify revenues and help alleviate the burden on property-tax payers, the related health benefits associated with the tax have become the main selling point for supporters.

"The American Cancer Society supports the proposed tobacco tax for health reasons," Nenon said. "People of the Valley have the right to be concerned with property and other local taxes. As an organization we are focusing on the improved health of everyone in the community."

She said the potential emotional impact the loss of a loved one to a tobacco-related illness would have is tough to put a price on.

In addition to the American Cancer Society, the Alaska chapters of the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association have offered their support of the tax because of expected decreases in youth smoking, a decrease in smoking-related deaths, heart attacks and strokes and the long-term health benefits for the community.

Will the expected health benefits become a reality?

According to a study in Michigan released one year after the state's 2004 tax increase, fewer people are lighting up and the state is making money in cigarette revenue. The Michigan Department of Treasury study revealed that in 2004, there were 681 million packs of cigarettes sold, down from 705 million in 2003. Still, thanks to the tax hike, Michigan collected $993 million in tobacco tax revenues in 2004, compared to $892 million in 2003.

Borough officials are hoping for a similar result. They predict the tobacco tax will generate approximately $4.5 million that will be used to lower property taxes and provide additional source of funds for education.

"We expect to see the non-tax-relief health benefits if the tax is approved," Duffy said. "However, people will still smoke. And because of that, property-tax payers will realize some relief."

Mike Butler, owner of Up-N-Smoke 2.0, considered the plan to tax smokers into quitting a flawed one. However, Duffy pointed out that he doesn't foresee all the smokers in the borough kicking the habit.

"I guess that would be a good thing," Duffy said. "But I don't foresee it as being reality."

Assembly member Betty Vehrs, who smoked for 27 years before putting the habit behind her, understands the health benefits that accompany quitting smoking. However, she was not sure how she would vote on the issue.

"I'm listening to my constituents and getting a lot of input," Vehrs said. "I see the value in raising the tax to diversify revenue sources. But I am also sensitive to what it means to be addicted.

"No matter how we vote there are going to be people upset," she concluded. "I am going to consider all the facts, phone calls and e-mails and attempt to make a decision that is best for the residents of the Valley."

Darrell Breese can be reached at 352-2267 or darrell.breese@

frontiersman.com.