In 2005 the Washington legislature passed a new estate tax (to replace a previous death tax that the state Supreme Court had ruled illegal), plus more taxes on alcohol and tobacco, to fund important state budget items such as K-12 education. Are California voters who would vote “Yes” on Proposition 86 willing to fund from their own pockets through new taxes $1 billion-plus in permanent revenue shortfalls that the ballot measure could create?
A Comprehensive Long Term Nicotine Policy
Tobacco Control, 2005;14:161-165
“Toward a Comprehensive Long Term Nicotine Policy”
N Gray, J E Henningfield, N L Benowitz, G N Connolly,
C Dresler, K Fagerstrom, M J Jarvis and P Boyle
Received 7 October 2004 Accepted 19 January 2005
“Clean nicotine is defined as nicotine free enough of tobacco toxicants to pass regulatory approval. A three phase policy is proposed. The initial phase requires regulatory capture of cigarette and smoke constituents liberalising the market for clean nicotine; regulating all nicotine sources from the same agency; . . . The second phase anticipates clean nicotine overtaking tobacco as the primary source of the drug (facilitated by use of regulatory and taxation measures); simplification of tobacco products by limitation of additives which make tobacco attractive and easier to smoke (but tobacco would still be able to provide a satisfying dose of nicotine). The third phase includes a progressive reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes, with clean nicotine freely available to take the place of tobacco as society’s main nicotine source.” (Underline, bold, italic added.)
The above comprehensive long term nicotine policy research paper
was published in 2005 by the journal Tobacco Control. One of the
paper’s authors, Neal Benowitz is with Department of Medicine,
Psychiatry and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, University of California
San Francisco. He has been actively involved as a leader in tobacco
control advocacy for about two decades. California tobacco control
advocates who support Proposition 86 are necessarily aware of
the contents of the above research paper. What the paper coauthored
by Benowitz reveals is a clear and concise plan to replace tobacco
with Nicotine Replacement Therapy delivery devices such as Nicorette
gum, NicoDerm CQ patches, Commit lozenges, and Nicotrol nicotine
inhalers.
But no Nicotine Replacement Therapy product pays any state excise
tax in Washington. So the comprehensive long term nicotine policy
becomes a plan to cause consumers to switch nicotine brands from
highly-taxed cigarettes to ZERO TAXED “Smoke Free”
Nicotine Replacement Therapy. In effect, each box of Nicorette
or NicoDerm CQ, etc. sold in Washington becomes a transfer of
$20.25 in state excise tax revenues out of state coffers, removing
those funds from state budgets. Carried to its Phase 3 completion
as described above, that nicotine policy would reduce California
cigarette excise tax revenues to virtual ZERO because the written
purpose of the policy is for zero taxed Nicotine Replacement Therapy
products to “take the place of tobacco as society’s
main nicotine source.”
We therefore observe that tobacco control advocates and their
political supporters hold out with their left hand – and
handsomely benefit from – Proposition 86, while holding
behind their back in the right hand a clear and concise plan to
eliminate the cigarette excise tax revenues that fund new state
costs the ballot measure creates. That creates the appearance
of Proposition 86 being an underhanded “bait and switch”
for California taxpayers. It would be nice if tobacco control
advocates were required to keep both hands above the table when
playing revenue roulette with taxpayer’s money.
