Parkinson to push for statewide smoking ban and may seek increase in cigarette tax / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Parkinson backs statewide measure, may also push for cigarette tax hike

Photo by Scott Rothschild. Enlarge photo.

Gov. Mark Parkinson on Tuesday listens before speaking at the annual meeting of the Governor's Council on Fitness that was held at the Topeka-Shawnee County Public Library. Parkinson advocated for a statewide ban on smoking in public places, and said he was evaluating whether to call for an increase in the cigarette tax.

By Mark Boyle

Gov. Mark Parkinson is pushing for a statewide smoking ban in Kansas. He is also looking to raise taxes on cigarettes, which currently rank Kansas 35th in the nation.

By Scott Rothschild

September 1, 2009

Topeka — Gov. Mark Parkinson on Tuesday said he would push for a statewide ban on smoking in public places when the Legislature convenes in January, and he may propose increasing the cigarette tax.

“We are going to put our full effort behind it,” Parkinson said of the smoking ban. His comment, made during a speech to the Governor’s Council on Fitness, drew applause.

Andrew Allison, acting director of the Kansas Health Policy Authority, said he was pleased to hear of Parkinson’s support of a clean indoor air law.

“All the research shows this will have a very positive impact on the overall health of Kansans and, over the long term, it will reduce health care costs,” Allison said.

Nearly 4,000 Kansans die each year from smoking-related diseases, including 290 deaths annually attributable to secondhand smoke, according to KHPA.

The agency said Kansans spend nearly $1 billion per year on treatment related to smoking, including $200 million in Medicaid.

Many cities in Kansas, including Lawrence, already ban smoking in indoor public places, such as restaurants and businesses.

During the last legislative session, a statewide indoor smoking ban was approved in the Senate but failed to pass the House.

Parkinson said he would try to persuade some House members to get on board with the proposal when the 2010 session starts.

He said he also is considering whether to propose an increase in the state tax on cigarettes, noting that it would increase revenue while also keeping some younger people from smoking.

He said a final decision on that will depend on whether more revenue is needed to shore up the ailing state budget.

Legislative staff have projected a revenue shortfall of more than $500 million, although Parkinson has said it is too early to tell how big the hole will be.

But despite significant budget problems, proposed increases in the cigarette tax have failed to advance in the Legislature over the past couple of sessions.

Kansas’ state tax on cigarettes of 79 cents per pack ranks 35th in the nation and is less than the national average of $1.32 per pack, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

1 September 2009
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

moderationman (Anonymous) says…

A nice $4.00 per pack tax would do nicely.
1 September 2009
at 4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

generalsn (Anonymous) says…

Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, more concerned with “social change” than the bans themselves:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia…

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have absolutly no concern about local issues or businesses.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Funda…

Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?…
1 September 2009
at 4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rdragon (M. Lindeman) says…

How funny the Democrat's say they don't want to tax the poor. It is exactly what they are doing, the majority of smokers are the poor. When will enough be enough?
1 September 2009
at 4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jadkansas (Anonymous) says…

I'm curious on when alcohol will be taxed as heavily as tobacco is now. It's only a matter of time, really.
1 September 2009
at 4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhawks1510 (Anonymous) says…

Smoking bans, demonize cigarettes, tax the heck out of it, and use that money for pet projects just like the federal government…seems hippocritical. I'll be the first to say I hate smoking and I don't cry crocodile tears for the cigarette industry, but if you think about it, it's the government secretly happy about tobacco sales because it creates a huge cash flow for them and rdragon is right. The poor get hit the worst.
1 September 2009
at 5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bluedawg79 (Anonymous) says…

As far as the poor getting hit hardest, if you are struggling financially and finding it hard to take care of yourself or your family, maybe quit smoking! You'll find yourself having a lot more income after you kick your habit.
1 September 2009
at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

keebler1rk (Anonymous) says…

another chicken*&^% politician going after the most overtaxed & underserved citizens in our country! Give me a break. Enough of the health crapola too, If it were truly a health issue he would also want to tax fatty at Mcdonalds, & lush at neighborhood tavern, & what about taxing Westar for filling the air with many times more garbage than smokers. Not a popular opinion I'm sure,but right!

1 September 2009
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

Yup, the Demorat governor wants to promote expansion of the nanny state. So what else is new?
1 September 2009
at 7:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sunny (Anonymous) says…

Ridiculous! Tax the fat!
1 September 2009
at 8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

Outstanding proposal. Soak the drug addicts before they die.
1 September 2009
at 9:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jackpot (Anonymous) says…

How much can be raised by taxes on beer, red bull?
1 September 2009
at 10:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Ahhh smokers, the last minority its truly fine to discriminate against. Glad I finally managed to quit in January.

“dude that's confusing.
cigarette smoke - BAD
coal plant smoke - GOOD”

I guess I missed the news article saying that you can run generate electricity from cigarettes.

“As far as the poor getting hit hardest, if you are struggling financially and finding it hard to take care of yourself or your family, maybe quit smoking!”

Out of curiosity, have you smoked and tried to quit before?
1 September 2009
at 11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

inglec (Anonymous) says…

Smoking is not the really issue here…its that Parkinson has been in office a very short time and it seems the only thing he wants to do is raise taxes.
2 September 2009
at 12:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

Might raise the tax????????????

Puhleeze, it's goin' up, and I mean way up.
2 September 2009
at 12:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Americans are needlessly dying in Afghanistan and this fool is worried about smoking bans?

2 September 2009
at 12:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Meatwad (Anonymous) says…

A tax would be a big help to get people I know to quit. They want to quit, they just need some extra incentive.
And the money is needed to fund other things.
2 September 2009
at 12:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Spin to divert publlic attention from the real issues.

“August deadliest month for US in Afghanistan
By robert h. reid, Associated Press Writer Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 28, 4:23 pm ET

KABUL – An American service member died Friday when his vehicle struck a bomb in eastern Afghanistan, making August the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the nearly eight-year war.

The grim milestone comes as the top U.S. commander prepares to submit his assessment of the conflict — a report expected to trigger intense debate on the Obama administration's strategy in an increasingly unpopular war.

The latest death was reported as Afghan officials announced an 80 percent increase in the number of major fraud allegations submitted after last week's disputed presidential election — a sign of the deep challenges facing the U.S. and its allies in shoring up a legitimate Afghan government capable of withstanding the Taliban insurgency, corruption and drug trafficking.

A brief statement by the NATO command gave few details of the blast and did not say precisely where it occurred. U.S. military spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said the service member who died was American.

That brought to 45 the number of U.S. service members killed this month in the Afghan war — one more than the previous monthly record, set in July.

American casualties have been rising steadily following President Barack Obama's decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban and train Afghan security forces to assume a greater role in battling the insurgents.

Obama's decision was part of a strategic shift in the U.S. war against international Islamic extremism — moving resources from Iraq, which had been center stage since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but where violence has declined sharply from levels of two years ago.

A record 62,000 U.S. troops are now in the country, with 4,000 more due before year's end. That compares with about 130,000 in Iraq, most due to leave next year.

Since the fresh troops began arriving in Afghanistan last spring, U.S. deaths have climbed steadily — from 12 in May to more than 40 for the past two months as American forces have taken the fight to the Taliban in areas of the country which have long been under insurgent control.

At least 732 U.S. service members have died in the Afghan war since the U.S.-led invasion of late 2001. Nearly 60 percent of those deaths occurred since the Taliban insurgency began to rebound in 2007.

cont'd:
2 September 2009
at 12:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“The latest spike in U.S. deaths has raised doubts among the United States and its allies about the course of the war, which was launched by the Bush administration after the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama bin Laden for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that just over 50 percent of the American respondents said the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting. Anti-war sentiment is also growing in Britain following a spike in deaths among British forces in Afghanistan.

The debate over the war is likely to accelerate when the new top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, submits an assessment of the conflict by the end of this month.

McChrystal, who commanded special operations troops in Iraq, is expected to give a bleak assessment of the war, pointing to deficiencies in the Afghan government and recommending vastly expanding the size of Afghanistan's own security forces.

Those weaknesses in the Afghan government have come into sharp focus since the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election, which produced allegations of widespread fraud — most leveled by opponents of President Hamid Karzai.

Final results are not expected for weeks, but preliminary figures released this week show Karzai leading the 36-candidate field with 44.8 percent of the vote, followed by ex-Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah with 35.1 percent. A runoff must be held if no candidate wins more than 50 percent. Abdullah has accused Karzai of rigging the election, a charge the incumbent denies.

On Friday, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission said the number of major fraud complaints which could “materially affect” the outcome had soared to 270. On Wednesday, the commission said it had received 150 major complaints, which could delay announcement of the final results.

The lengthy election process has added to strains in U.S.-Afghan relations, which had already cooled since the Obama administration took office.

On Friday, two officials said Karzai angrily accused the U.S. of pushing for a runoff vote during a heated meeting with the special envoy to the region.

According to officials familiar with the encounter, the verbal exchange occurred the day after the Aug. 20 vote during a meeting in Kabul between Karzai and U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke. The officials were briefed about the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

cont'd:
2 September 2009
at 12:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“Karzai assured Holbrooke he would accept the election results but bristled when Holbrooke asked if he would also agree to a runoff.

An angry Karzai accused the U.S. of urging a second round before all votes had been counted. Karzai said he would accept the election commission's tabulation as long as it reflected the facts. He did not elaborate, according to the officials.

The U.S. Embassy confirmed the Aug. 21 meeting and said the two discussed the election but would not go into details.

“There was no shouting and no one stormed out,” said Caitlin Hayden, an embassy spokeswoman. She noted Holbrooke and Karzai met again a few days later. Karzai spokesman Humayun Hamidzada also confirmed the meeting but gave no further details.

Karzai enjoyed close ties with the Bush administration, which helped propel him to power after the collapse of the Taliban government in the U.S.-led invasion.

Since the Obama administration took office, U.S. officials have accused Karzai of weak leadership as well as tolerating corruption and a flourishing drug trade.

The New York Times reported this week that the Obama administration is alarmed at the prospect that Karzai's running mate, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, may be linked to the drug trade.

Quoting an unidentified administration official, the newspaper said if Fahim becomes vice president, the U.S. would likely consider imposing sanctions such as refusing him a U.S. visa or going after his personal finances.

A U.S. official in Washington confirmed the essence of the report, saying there were “a number of individuals” whom the U.S. would not like to see in a future Afghan government. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter.”
2 September 2009
at 8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

If we legalized marijuana that would be a whole new revenue stream.
2 September 2009
at 8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fordman (Anonymous) says…

ok tree huggers

My dad served this country by being drafted out of high school and sent to the Korean war to serve on the front line.At that time the goverment gave them cigarettes to smoke for free!!!He had never smoked before this.So back then they would give them cigs. and now they are puting all the tax on them when the goverment started some ou this.Yes smoke is a killer but how about the people that drink and drive???I would thing drinking and driving killes more people!!!People will stop smoking them then what will they tax??How about helping people stop smoking,no becuse they need the tax money!!!!!
help the people stop and not take advantage of them becuse they smoke

God Bless the USMC and our military
2 September 2009
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

I really have to wonder if all these money grubbing politicians that talk out both sides of their mouth have figured out how they are going to feed their habit one they kill the Tobacco industry. The politicians really don't want to kill tobacco they just want the tax off of it.

I also have to wonder what all these people who are anti tobacco and that already think they are taxed to much are going to do or say when they get to make up the tax short fall when tobacco is gone.
2 September 2009
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawkerjoel (Anonymous) says…

“…Nearly 4,000 Kansans die each year from smoking-related diseases, including 290 deaths annually attributable to secondhand smoke, according to KHPA…”

Ok. How many of the 290 cases that come from secondhand smoke are attributed to smoke breathed in public places? Don’t most secondhand smoke illnesses come from cases involving domestic exposure in the home – this bill wouldn’t affect those. Oddly enough, neither Gov. Parkinson, the KPHA, nor the LJW article explains this.

“…He said he also is considering whether to propose an increase in the state tax on cigarettes, noting that it would increase revenue while also keeping some younger people from smoking. He said a final decision on that will depend on whether more revenue is needed to shore up the ailing state budget…”

I don’t smoke and no one in my immediate or extended family smokes – it is a nasty habit. Don’t get me wrong, I too enjoy not smelling like smoke when I come home from an evening out. But, this bill is not about smelling good – it claims to be about health benefits. At least break out the “employee rights” argument to rationalize this. No one can convince me that this policy is little more than a regressive tax that feeds governmental addiction to taxation and makes the PC crowd feel good about themselves. Just my opinion.

2 September 2009
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

driedoregano-

If you were concerned about mercury from coal plants, you might actually do some research on how it is put into the ecosystem. You make yourself sound like a moron when you say that it comes down in rain. Mercury is a very heavy element and it is hard to put into the atmosphere through flue gas (which with all the regulations now is mostly water). It gets into the ecosystem through bottom ash landfills. They used to dump it into ash ponds, which when then spread throughout the food chain. They have been much better about lining the landfills lately, but it can still seep out.
2 September 2009
at 8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

I wonder what band wagon the zealots will jump on next after tobacco. To bad they don't consider how many deaths or complications arise from breathing sulfuric acid from automobile exhaust or fumes from household cleaning agents, women's perfume, fumes from bread baking, candle making and burning, self cleaning ovens, and I probably shouldn't leave RF out of the picture with all the overhead lines and appliances. I almost left out a real major cause, stupidity. I have a great idea. Let them outlaw everything and then we can all just set around doing nothing in a perfect world. No houses, no heat, no air conditioner, no real transportation, no real food, no clothes, etc.
2 September 2009
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LarryNative (Anonymous) says…

So if you smoke and are poor, save money and quit smoking. If you are an alcoholic and poor, stop drinking and save money. If your fat and poor, eat less and save money. I think we may have solved all the poor peoples problems.
Cigs are first, alcohol second, high fat foods third. When the gov. is finished we can all sit in a little white box with a laptop and live safe and sterile lives.
2 September 2009
at 9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

charliejohnson (Anonymous) says…

I agree with someone up there who said the increased tax would affect mostly the poor.
2 September 2009
at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Poor or not, I don't want to pay for their healtcare costs that can be prevented to begin with.
2 September 2009
at 10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“I think we may have solved all the poor peoples problems.
Cigs are first, alcohol second, high fat foods third. When the gov. is finished we can all sit in a little white box with a laptop and live safe and sterile lives.”

Then you better be for the public option on healthcare…
2 September 2009
at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

farka (Anonymous) says…

By the way, Parkinson enjoys a cigar now and again. So, what's good for him isn't necessarily good for all of us. Alcohol is already taxed quite heavily, because before this round of know-nothing nannies Kansas had the alcohol prohibitionists.

For all of the quitting advocates, I'd suggest you check your self-righteousness. The point being made by smokers and people who find the continuation of high taxation on tobacco outrageous is that this is becoming a quarterly event. Due to the addictiveness of nicotine, it is very hard to quit. If sixty per cent of smokers did quit, I wonder how we'd have any budget. There was a substantial federal tax that went into effect five months ago. Imagine if petrol went up at the rate of tobacco. Automobiles are a luxury too, and far more harmful to everyone than tobacco ever has been.

What would be the problem with a five dollar cheeseburger? At some point, something other than tobacco has to be taxed. Think of the wisdom of ten dollar packs of cigarettes. Think there might be a black market for a highly addictive product that becomes prohibitively expensive to acquire legitimately? If someone responds that tobacco is a luxury and food a necessity, well, yes; however, the garbage they serve in fast food restaurants is hardly nutritious and it would likely be better if lower income people (and their children, who get medical care through SCHIP, which is funded by the aforementioned tobacco tax from this year) got priced out of high fat, high sodium, low nutrition foods.

And coal does produce (dirty) energy, but that doesn't change the fact that the overall environmental impact, which we all will have to deal with, outweighs the public health impact of tobacco consumption.

The bottom line is that the government depends upon tobacco tax for a number of things, so they don't want people quitting. The argument about a high price deterring teens is also nonsense. How many teenagers have rent or house payments, utility bills, etc. etc. I smoked when I was a teenager, and the price was never an issue because my budget was what was in my pocket day to day.

Finally, check Greek and French life expectancy. Then observe their smoking rates, then have a look at what they eat, how much they walk, how their health care system operates and a number of other variables.This is not to say that it isn't a dangerous and often deadly habit. Just that it isn't the only one out there, and we should be thinking long and hard about the other habits we endorse de facto. Pepsi Cola the Lucky Strike of 2025, provided climate change and water scarcity don't make life unsustainable?
2 September 2009
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Just don't tax my sunflower seeds.
They are so small to put a stamp on,
and I've got opening them with my teeth down to perfection.

2 September 2009
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Blessed4x (Anonymous) says…

I'm a little reading challenged this afternoon. Would this ban affect only indoor public places or would outdoor public places (i.e. street rights-of-way, etc…) be affected as well?
2 September 2009
at 1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HootyWho (Anonymous) says…

Hey meatwad,
raising the price won't help,
smoking is an addiction,
i've been an ex smoker for 1 yr and its still a struggle
2 September 2009
at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kampinqueen (Anonymous) says…

I am proud to say I have been a non-smoker now for 3 yrs. Most all my friends still smoke. I just don't think I have the right to tell them they should not smoke. It is an addiction and should be treated that way. I quite for myself only and for my kids which have been estatic that I quit. They hated the way the house smelled my clothes smelled and the way others would tell them they smelled because of my smoking. Enough said. Power and to those who are quiting and those who are thinking about quiting.
2 September 2009
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

Hey…raising the taxes may keep Barak Obama out of Kansas. Damn chain smokers.
2 September 2009
at 6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mr_right_wing (Anonymous) says…

I'm still curious, and have been since before the inauguration…. Since smoking is not allowed in ANY federal building (I guess that would apply to the White Hose as well..) does Barry just go ahead, break the law and light up in the Oval Office, or does he have to gather the Secret Service and head outside for a puff?? Is there a law that says you have to be a certain distance away from a federal building to smoke?
2 September 2009
at 6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LarryNative (Anonymous) says…

“Poor or not, I don't want to pay for their (poor) healthcare costs that can be prevented to begin with.”

Isn't the bulk of healthcare spent on keeping old people alive for a few more weeks?
3 September 2009
at 3:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that Kansas spend $32.1 million a year to have an effective, comprehensive tobacco prevention program. Kansas currently receives $2.0 million a year for tobacco prevention and cessation, which includes both state and federal funds. This is 6.2% of the CDC's recommendation and ranks Kansas 42nd among the states in the funding of tobacco prevention programs. Kansas's spending on tobacco prevention amounts to 1.1% of the estimated $180 million in tobacco-generated revenue the state collects each year from settlement payments and tobacco taxes.

Source - Smoke Free Kansas Website

Seems the state is doing quite well off the smokers already. Taxing at a rate of approx 15% on top of the federal tax or .79 per pack. They are not funding the cessation programs and rank 42nd nationally on those efforts. That's an A+ for taxing and an F for actually being sincere in wanting to do anything about it.
3 September 2009
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

With all the information out there now, smoking is Darwinism for humans.