Cigarette Tax Debate Framed by Moral Issue

The questions seemed to make the temperature inour economy?
the room climb a notch.There are plenty of studies to show that tax hikes do
"How do you feel about working for a company likelead to a drop in young smokers, who can't afford to
that?" And the natural follow-up, "Are you working justkeep up. As for taxes in a recession, well, cigarette
for the money?"taxes are more like user fees. They won't kill the
On the other end were two men representing Philipeconomy.
Morris, the thriving, black-hatted cigarette maker. TheyIn all, our guests came up with only one argument that
had come, along with a representative of the Utahought to give Utah lawmakers pause. It makes little
Taxpayers Association, to lobby the Deseret Newssense to rely too much on money from a habit that is
editorial board against supporting a cigarette tax hike.dying about as quickly as its practitioners. The money
The questions took us off topic. Their pitch was towon't be reliable.
remove the tax-hike debate from morals and put itBut that wasn't enough to take away the moral
onto economic development and good public policy.question. Why do you do it?
Currently, there are two cigarette tax bills at theOur guests said they understood the concern. They
Legislature. The House version would raise it by $1.30readily acknowledged their products lock people into
a pack, to a total of about $2. A Senate version wouldaddiction, cause diseases and even death. But — as
have raised it $2.30, to $3 a pack. The Senate tabledif there could be a "but" to counter that massive
that bill late last week. Apparently, they were swayedweight — they're not interested in luring new
by the guys from Philip Morris. Or maybe they don'tsmokers."I think it's important to look at how we
care about the moral arguments.market our products," said Bill Phelps, who is senior
But at $3 a pack, Utah would go from having amongmanager of media affairs with Altria, Philip Morris'
the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation to having theparent company in Richmond. "We're not trying to get
highest, at least for now. With the recession deepening,more people to smoke. We're not trying to get people
other states are bound to turn to this revenue sourceto smoke more. But if you smoke, we want you to
as one of the few socially acceptable tax hikessmoke our brands."
available.Until those states act, however, we have thisAnd if you want to quit, Phelps said, the company is
economic argument: Currently, Wyoming's cigarettehappy to help with that, too, because, after all, smoking
tax is 60 cents a pack; Idaho's is 57 cents. If Utah'sis deadly.
rises to $3, many of the 16 percent or so who smoke"So, I think that that is an appropriate way for our
here will make weekend visits to Evanston or Burleyproduct to be sold and to be marketed, and that's a
to stuff their trunks with cheap smokes. Or at leastpart of the reason that I work there."
that's what our visitors said. Vote no and save thoseGee, what nice guys.
poor Utah convenience store clerks who might loseThis wasn't the first time Philip Morris sent people to
their jobs!visit us. Each time, I'm left wanting to yell, "Wait! Back
They also wanted to argue that increasing the taxup. You manufacture and market what?"
won't reduce the number of smokers, and that anyIt's hard to cry for these guys. They will sell cigarettes
tax increase is bad during a recession.no matter what the cost. It's easy to be honest about
The first argument may be a tough sell. Maybe peoplehow your product kills when people are addicted. And
once walked a mile for a Camel, but how many reallythat makes arguments about tax policy and consumer
would drive 90 miles for a smoke? And would it harmchoice give you a coughing fit.