Public Health in Oregon - Join The Conversation

I really agree with Laura Siltanen’s thinking. If we look at the issue from a big-picture standpoint, I think the title of this article is right, this is the best tobacco tax yet. Why? Because it takes a systems approach to dealing with the problem, directly and indirectly. It’s not just an individual-level intervention targeted at smokers, but something to prevent people, especially young people, from ever starting. For those who do smoke, the tax is a disincentive and offers a reason to quit. And for those who continue the habit, the tax begins to recoup some of the massive costs associated with smoking that currently all Oregonians pay, and funds programs that can help those who just can’t stop on their own.

My mother has been a devout smoker since she was 16 due to the death of her mother. We have never been people of wealth and it has ALWAYS been frustrating to watch her so easily fritter away money we’ve always needed. The funds for one years worth of cigarettes could have been used for that computer my brother and I needed in high school or the extra bit of cash she always complains about not having. I am absolutely for the 60 cent tax on cigarettes but the only problem is that people like my mother would simply cut budgets in other areas of their lives. There will always be excuses made to continue a habit that has such a grip on your being. Part of me thinks the principle of increasing a tax and then using that money to help support programs related to the tax itself should spill over to alcohol. Who’s next in line to pay someone to slowly kill them?

I feel very conflicted with this topic.  Taxes seems like a great way to incourage people to quit smoking so in the aspect I am very supportive of this idea.  But on the other hand, i was the one to make the arguement last assignment that everyone should take responsibility for their actions, and not leave the burden on the government or companies.  I realize that tobbaco use is much more deadly than fast food, but it is all the same principle.  If I support the government involvement here then it would be very contradicting to my last arguement, but with all that weighted, I still feel that the tax would be very effective.

I strongly support rasing tobacco related taxes because it decreases the number of people who smoke directly and also stops people who are trying to start smoking. When I came to United States last year, I noticed that I could easily breathe because Oregon had much less smoking people than Japan. Japan is still struggling to separate smoking people from non-smoking people by setting smoking room in front of stations. If Japan can learn how to negotiate with tobacco industry from United States, probably it works to decrease smoking population.

By the way, how about stopping selling tobacco products at duty free stores in airports? I know so many people buy tobacco there because it is duty free!!

I strongly support the idea of raising taxes on cigarettes, and I believe that many good things can come from it.  What I like most about it, is that the money that is made from the taxes will be put towards programs that can help smokers.  I think this will really help the public to be more accepting of the taxes, because they will hopefully realize that the money is being used to help fix the problem at hand.  While this could economically effect addicted smokers, it will pay off in the long run.  Not only will the public be healthier from having fewer smokers, there will also be less smoking related health care costs.  Over all, I think a tax raise in cigarettes is a good idea, especially since the money will be used to promote being smoke-free, and will help those who are already addicted.

I 100% completely agree that the tax should be raised on cigarettes. I am not a smoker and wish there were less of them when I walk around.  By raising the tax this should decrease the amount of people that buy them because they are to expensive. This will hopefully make our environment healthier and cleaner as well as decrease the diseases and long term affects cigarettes have on our body. I like that the tax would go to a health insurance program for children because those that can still afford the cigarettes with the new increased tax are donating to a could cause and those that quit smoking because they can’t afford it are making our environment healthier and their bodies.

I am in favor of adding the extra tax to cigarettes.  Every measure we can take to help limit the number of people who smoke is a benefit to public health. I especially like that the money from the tax would go to tobacco prevention and public health programs.  The cause is getting double the benefits this way:  people quit because they can’t afford it, and those who can afford it still contribute to prevention.

I’m actually torn about the tobacco tax for a variety of reasons.  Although I think it would prevent younger teens from ever starting to smoke and it would make a small decrease in those that are currently smoking, I don’t think this will dissuade long time smokers to quit.  I also think that it may contribute to an increase in the taboo around smoking, which is both a good and bad thing.  Many smokers will just start buying their cigarettes on reservation land, because they do not have to comply with the federal or state tax laws (at least, as far as I know) and start buying cartons rather than packs, to save money in the long run but maintain their smoking habit.

Another point I wanted to make is that addiction is both a public health issue and a medical issue and programs geared toward prevention and intervention are needed; but the funds that go into those programs are created by the smokers themselves, so if too many stopped or found cigarettes on the rez and/or black market, the programs would be out of money and there would still be smokers.  I have a hard time thinking about backing a tax that discriminates against people making a personal choice that is a symptom of a deeper problem, whether it’s stress management or poverty.  So many people smoke that the government can’t make it illegal (plus, they get a lot of money from the tobacco companies), so they tax it to generate more money during a time when people have little.

All in all, I don’t support this specific tobacco tax.

The raise in price of cigarettes has made people cut back. I know many smokers that have bought less cigarettes due to the rise in price. Raising the tax in the hard economic time was smart too, because it really makes people think about money, health, priorities, and life.

The statistics that Tom gives are all a person needs to know about this tax. When there is an opportunity to help out Oregonians I think we should take advantage of every chance we get.

I think adding the 60 cent tobacco tax to raise money for tobacco prevention and other public health issues is a wonderful idea. Tobacco use creates so many costs for the state and public that I think that creating a tax as such would help making the use a part of the solution.

I think the effects of the tax on tobacco are very valid. There is no question that cigarettes kill, but this seems to have a bit of force. I also support the money being used to fund childrens healthcare, they seem to want to help the future generation of America to be healthy and decrease the chances of tobacco related deaths.

But I don’t know if right now is the greatest time to put on this tax. People are out of jobs and for a lot of people cigarettes are sort of their “goose phraba”. I think people out of work, stressed and unable to afford their comforts will be rough. I also know that many people are so addictive going clean would be a pure miracle, I think it hurts those that are addicted but in the long run will help our country or at least our state to be more healthy.

I think the tax is a great idea, but after reading a few previous comments there are someconcerns that I agree with. If there is a tax, will it cause the tabacoo companies to lower their prices? or will people just go broke because they are so addicted (specifically the baby boomers and people who have been smoking for a long time) I believe that this will pass because the money that will come from the tax has designated areas that it will affect, one of the hopefully being programs to ween people off of smoking.

The growing awarness, trend and popularity of being healthy is making smoking less popular. There are very limited areas to smoke in/at, and plus the tax hopefully it willl stop future smokers, and cause current ones to smoke less or stop. If people are not going to smoke to relieve stress and for other reasons…WHAT OTHER SUBSTANCE will they go to?

If raising the tax on tobacco is the best way to decrease the prevalence of smoking, there should be no questioning the value behind the tax. If there is a change a higher tobacco tax will limit the number of new smokers and stop those why already are smoking, we should raise the tax until it is absolutely unrealistic to buy cigarettes at all. Using the proceeds from the tax to set in place public health programs for former smokes is the best way to assure the public that the public health system is there to help them though the entire process

If raising cigarette prices will decrease cigarette consumption then it is definitely the right choice.  My main concern would be the younger people smoking.  If you get started early on, it becomes an addiction and that can only lead to bad things.  Smoking is obviously harmful to the human body.  Increasing the price of cigarettes will give us dramatic positive long term benefits and that is the direction we should be striving for. 
My only concern about this would be that people may being to buy cigarettes that are cheaper so that they will still be able to smoke as much.  My question is… are less expensive cigarettes even worse for you??

Raising cigarette prices is absolutely the right thing to do to reduce youth smoking in America. I don’t think there is any debating that. However I do have a few concerns:

First, I’m not a smoker, and I never will be, but I have a family full of smokers, who are mostly of the baby boomer generation. I think alot of people from that era, as well as previous eras came up in a generation where there was not alot of negative facts behind smoking. There was alot of societal pressure to smoke as well. So it seems like we have a whole generation of smokers who chose to smoke under a completely different set of circumstances, and are currently addicted. I’ve also worked in American Legion before, which was comprised of alot of older people and war veterans. The amount of smoke in those places were obscene, and I hated it. However I can understand it once again.

It seems to me like alot of people currently hooked on smoking are going to actually pay these rapidly increasing smoking costs, and it’s going to drive them poor.

So I wish there were some kind of grandfather clause to this tax. If you were born before this date of some year, you don’t have to pay the added taxes. I know it’s absolutely the right thing to do, but it is going to alienate, and severely inconvenience many older people.

One more thing, I have to wonder if unaffordable cigarette costs will cause a black market for cheaper cigarettes? I think it’s entirely possible.

A 60 cent/pack tax could reduce youth smoking nearly 8%. Combined with the effect of the federal tax, that’s about 42,000 fewer youth in Oregon who would smoke.  Over time, we could reduce money spent on care for tobacco-related chronic diseases. Chronic diseases account for more than 75% of the money we spend on health care today.