Uh, make vehicular manslaughter legal as long as the victim is on a bicycle? No; no we already have that one...Find some way of making it profitable?

Fund pretty much everything off of the profits from Lotto and video poker? No, that one too...Force rich people to get addicted to gambling in shitty bars?

Start logging old growth again? No, we're gonna do that one too...Uh, do the state equivalent of nationalizing the timber companies? Eminent Domain or something?

Zzzzzzing!

The only thing you left out is the surrealness of allegedly progressive Democrats pushing a patently regressive tax scheme. But I gotta say that your write-up is way more interesting and spicy than my past attempts to focus on just the regressive nature of M50.

Well done. Well said.

i don't get the cynicism on this issue. i do get how it seems absurd in theory, and thus is an extremely easy target, but given that the democrats were unable to even get a few pubs on board to pass it via the leg, what would you cynics have preferred? no cig tax, and more uninsured kids? or some other tax? or ... are you just poking fun because of the absurdity?

It IS true that if everyone in the United States of America quit smoking today, then the loss in tax revenues would make Social Security collapse by Christmas. That's not a joke. But the tyranny of the majority will surely pass this.

By the way, Scott: I've been kinda boycotting blogtown lately because Amy apparently hates my todayinpdx cellphone pics these days and Matt writes like this really cute but totally naive redhead girl with scabies I met in college that almost gave me chlamydia, but that was a seriously great post.

I am poking fun at the absurdity of it, although I don't necessarily blame the Healthy Kids campaign for it. Until we have a sane health care system that takes care of everyone, politicians will have to cobble together a patchwork of solutions to take care of the most vulnerable--in this case, uninsured children.

And I don't fault the campaign on a political level for targeting smokers. They needed to get money for the program, and smokers are pretty close to being the least politically defensible group to get it from. Instead of getting the revenue through a fair tax that's paid by everyone (sales tax, increase in property tax, etc.), since that is politically impossible (the only fair tax is one that somebody else pays, right?), they've gone after a group and a product whose defenders can easily be labeled "heartless shills for the tobacco industry," especially if they advocate against health care for children. It's brilliant politics, but also hard to not be cynical about.

That said, what happens when and if the tax lowers tobacco consumption, especially once the smoking ban in bars goes into effect in 2009? Why are we tying the funding for children's health care to a source that the state wants to see diminished? Aren't these two goals--funding children's health care and reducing smoking--now fundamentally at odds with each other?

Still, unless something crazy happens, I personally plan on voting for M50, and encouraging others to do the same. The idea might be wildly imperfect, but it's the only one we've got. But if we're going to vote for it, I think we need to at least recognize how ludicrous the idea is--or at least how ludicrous the political necessity of the idea is.

Martin: Harsh! Glad you stopped by long enough to comment, though. Feel free to shoot some criticisms over to news@portlandmercury.com.

I haven't seen any math, but I would think that if a serious chunk of people stopped smoking, it would save the state money in other areas, like adult health care.

A couple points:

The "irony" here is superficial. Cig taxes cut cig use. That saves the lives of the people who would otherwise die at a 50% rate, and saves the state millions in health care costs. Using the tax revenue to further relieve the health care system is not ironic.

Second, not killing poor people is progressive, not regressive. People who can't afford cigarette taxes are the first people to quit smoking. Unlike with, say, meth users, smokers do not go out committing crimes to fund their addiction. Nor do they refinance their homes to keep smoking. If they can't afford to smoke, they stop.

Third, cigarettes are the only product that can kill half its consumers without the threat of a consumer safety law or class-action suit. When the worst punishment the tobacco industry faces is a tax, they should thank their good fortune that we as a nation look so kindly upon killing people en masse.

There's also that CDC report from 2002 (dated, but probably still relatively accurate) that showed that federal costs for smoking-related health problems to be about $157.7 billion per year, or about $7.18 per pack. Less than half of that was for actual health care costs, with the remainder being for lost productivity. I find it perfectly fair for taxes of packs of cigarettes to recoup the health care spending--about $3.45 per pack (according to the 2002 numbers). The 84.5 cents per pack still puts the state's tax at a little above $2 per pack.

But why stop there? In 2003, Health Affairs journal reported that the federal government was on the hook for about $46.3 billion for obesity-related health care costs--and obesity is on the rise, while smoking has trended slightly downward since the '60s. Why shouldn't we institute a fat tax? I suppose it would be harder to calculate than a cigarette tax. Would you tax junk food? Soda? Big Macs? Gasoline, since obesity is largely the product of an increasingly sedentary, auto-centric society? Or would you just base it on Body Mass Index numbers?

Eh, how about we just give tax brakes to those who use bikes instead of cars.

> Eh, how about we just give tax brakes to > those who use bikes instead of cars.

Because, idiot, not everyone can ride a bike. The disabled can't, not can those with certain medical conditions. Why should we be tax-punished because we can't ride a bike?

Ride a fucking bike if you want to -- don't expect society to clap you on the back. How narcissistic are you?

The disabled also get the best parking spots. I guess that is where kerry gets his angst from.

James,

Dig into the most current stats and you'll find that the poorer and less educated an individual is, the LESS likely they are to quit due to higher prices. That's why M50 is inherently regressive. As prices go up those who can most afford to pay it (and also most able to afford to buy health insurance for their kids...) quit, leaving those who can least afford to pay the higher taxes still buying cigs.

Step back from this particular issue for a minute and think about whether there has ever been a period in time in which the poorest and least educated among us made some of the worst personal choices.

I'm voting against M50 and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. It's fundamentally BAD public policy.

I agree that 'vice' taxes are an idiotic way to fund public services. I've had mixed feelings about the lottery dollars being used for schools & state parks, etc for years.

On the one hand I don't like our critical public services becoming dependent on items or services that are also actively campaigned against. But then, if it's legal, people are going to do it, so it's a legitimate source of tax income.

Cigarettes for children's health though. Ick any way you look at it.

Can we do it again, Martin? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease....

In response to Kerry calling a poster an "idiot" for suggesting that cyclist should get a tax break for not driving.

It is neither idiotic nor narcissistic to want a tax break for not driving. In fact is may be an even more ethically sound tax law then taxing smokers.
Here's a couple points:
*) There is precedence in tax law that "rewards" certain groups. (Electric Cars, Non-profits, etc)
*) A cyclist reduces over all revenue liability for a city due to less street repair. (Cyclist cause less wear and tear on the roads)
*) Cyclist reduce smog and oil dependence. (Smog lowers property value and causes health problems)
*) Cycling is a healthy activity that improves over all cardiovascular health. (For the poor this means less dependence on state run health programs)

So you see cyclists save you money, by causing your tax dollar to be more valuable. Shouldn't cyclist be given a break for benefiting everyone?

Kevin is correct in his post above that increased cigarette taxes are not an effective means of getting current smokers to quit -- that's the nature of addiction. However, they do seem to be effective at preventing people from starting in the first place which means that the current funding model is probably doomed to failure. I fear that if M50 passes it will go the route of the Oregon Health Plan within 10 years. If we want kiddie healthcare to work long term we all better get ready to squeeze corporations and the general fund to pony up some big bucks.

it really doesn't matter if cig tax revenues dry up in the coming years (tho i fund that unlikely) because we are likely to get a national universal healthcare plan before then. this is just a bandaid policy.