Supporters of a proposed $1-per-pack Massachusetts cigarette tax increase argue the measure would reduce smoking in the commonwealth, but some smokers said the tax would have little effect on smokers’ behavior.
The tax was proposed in February by House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi. The potential increase would raise the tax on cigarettes to $2.51.
The Harvard School of Public Health hosted a symposium March 6, “Will a Dollar Increase in the State Cigarette Tax Benefit Public Health?,” that examined the proposed legislation’s potential effects on smoking levels among children and adults and the significant revenue intake that would benefit the government.
Cigarette tax supporters cite New York, New Jersey and Chicago’s higher cigarette taxes as examples of a successful ways to reduce smoking. Massachusetts currently ranks 15th in the nation for highest tobacco taxes, according to Tobacco Free Massachusetts. With the increase, Massachusetts would have the second highest state tobacco tax, according to a Feb. 11 Cape Cod Times article.
University of Illinois-Chicago economics professor Frank Chaloupka said the economic benefits the tax would bring would outweigh potential revenue losses the state would face if smokers left Massachusetts to buy cigarettes.
“The evidence is extremely clear at this point,” Chaloupka said. “Increases in tobacco taxes are extremely effective in reducing tobacco use.”
He said a Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids study projected the $1-per-pack tax increase in Massachusetts would reduce cigarette sales by between 26 and 50 million packs. The same study predicted a 10 percent price increase would reduce youth smoking by 79 percent.
Chaloupka cited peer pressure as the main reason youth decide to smoke, as they disregard the negative health effects of smoking. He said if a relatively small number of teens quit smoking because of the price increase, more would stop smoking because their peers no longer smoke.
Though cigarette producers Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds claim smokers will buy cigarettes elsewhere to avoid the tax, reducing revenue for the state, Chaloupka said this would but a small percentage of smokers. The number of people who would continue to pay the tax and those who would stop smoking because of the tax would far outnumber the former group, he said.
Healthcare for All spokeswoman Jean Leu called the policy “really smart” on both an economic and medical level.
Some tobacco companies have condemned higher cigarette taxes, claiming the increases do little to stop tobacco use and force smokers to bear an unfair amount of taxation based on a personal decision.
The R.J. Reynolds website has a large banner congratulating smokers for their opposition to a federal bill that would direct federal cigarette excise tax funds to children’s health insurance. The website said current tobacco control funding is sufficient and any increase in tobacco taxes could result in “negative consequences.”
College of General Studies sophomore Chloe Bush said she is an “occasional” smoker and said she would be prompted to cut back on smoking because of the tax, though it would not make her quit smoking.
She said smoking is a personal choice and short of criminalizing tobacco, the government could not do anything to stop citizens from smoking.
School of Management sophomore Stefanie Kappeler said increased smoking taxes did not deter her from beginning to smoke. She said she avoids taxes and the high cost of cigarettes in the United States by buying cigarettes by the carton in Japan.
“I started because I just wanted to try it and I eventually just got addicted,” Kappeler said. “The price didn’t really matter because I got cigarettes for free when I first started smoking.”