Californians Smoking Less, Government Programs Hardest Hit

Cigarette taxes have been a favorite funding tool for all kinds of government programs, but when you increase taxes on an activity you usually end up with less of that activity, and California is learning that lesson:

Cigarette sales in California plunged to their lowest level in a decade last year as smokers were squeezed by new taxes and restrictions on where they could light up.

While tobacco use has been steadily declining, the 8.1 percent sales drop was the largest year-over-year decline since 2000, according to the state Board of Equalization.

The number of cigarette packs sold in the state fell to 972 million – down from from 2.8 billion in 1980.

State officials said higher taxes drove more people to kick the habit. Last year, the federal government increased the per-pack tax on cigarettes by 62 cents, bringing the levy to $1.01 a pack....

But for the state, the decline in smoking also means $74 million in tax revenues have disappeared like a puff of smoke, leaving health programs that rely on cigarette taxes to look for other ways to pay for services.

In all, the state collected $839 million in cigarette tax revenues during the just-completed fiscal year, compared with $913 million the year before.

"It's definitely a bit of good news and bad news for us," said Diane Levin, chief deputy director of First 5 California, which gets most of its funding from state cigarette taxes to pay for anti-smoking education services and other programs that promote healthy living among Californians with young children.

"Declining revenue isn't a new issue for us. We've been expecting it, and we've been planning for it," she said. "We're having to strategize to do more with less, to concentrate our focus in these tough times."

I don't think they've been planning for this decline at all. I think they promoted taxes on smoking because they hoped most people would find it impossible to quit and the revenue would continue to roll in. It's foolish to fund your state's health care objectives on the backs of people addicted to a product.

If you want to end smoking as a health hazard, end smoking.  Ban the product.  We have county governments banning Happy Meal toys because some kid might be attracted to fast food.  Why can't we ban something that we know is actually dangerous and when used as designed causes health damage?