Voice For Liberty

Tag: Smoking bans

  • AFP-Kansas launches website about tobacco taxes

    Following is a press release from Americans for Prosperity, Kansas chapter.

    TOPEKA, KAN. – The Kansas chapter of the grassroots group Americans for Prosperity is working to educate Kansans on the effects of tobacco tax increases on Kansas businesses by creating a new Web site, StopTheWarOnSmokers.Com.

    Gov. Mark Parkinson last month proposed a cigarette tax increase of 55 cents per pack, raising the rate from its current 79 cents per pack to $1.34 per pack.

    “History has shown us that raising the cigarette tax has not increased the revenues coming into the state over the long run,” said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “There may be an initial boost, but with nearby states like Missouri only adding a 17-cent tax per pack, more Kansas smokers are likely to cross the state line to purchase cigarettes.

    “This means Kansas retailers are losing out on those sales, as well as the sales of other items smokers may purchase when buying tobacco products.”

    Economist Patrick Fleenor of Fiscal Economics has prepared a study, “Masters of Tax Avoidance: Kansans and the Cigarette Excise, 1927-2009,” which outlines the state’s history of taxes on tobacco. It illustrates the problems the state runs into when taxes are raised too high on items such as cigarettes, and the lengths to which citizens will go to avoid paying that additional tax.

    “In looking at our state’s history with cigarette taxes, it is apparent raising these taxes does not serve as a deterrent from smoking,” Sontag said. “It also makes little sense to try to raise revenues from cigarettes when just yesterday the Kansas Legislature approved a ban on smoking in public places.

    “Additionally, we know the revenues have dwindled not long after the cigarette taxes increased in the past, so it’s simply unwise for our state government to depend on such an unreliable revenue stream.”

    For more information on Kansas cigarette/tobacco taxes, or to read Fleenor’s study, visit www.stopthewaronsmokers.com.

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for February 22, 2010.

    Proponents of bill want to force ‘charity’

    (Kansas Liberty) “Kansas hospitals say they have been stepping up to the plate and helping individuals with their health bills, but left-wing organizations say the goodwill assistance needs to be required by law.”

    Senate kills attempt to abolish death penalty

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Kansas Senate deliberated today for several hours on whether to repeal the state’s death penalty. Much of the debate focused on how legislators’ religion played into their decision to either support or oppose the legislation and whether the families of victims sought the death penalty for offenders.”

    Unelected SOS to make crucial appointment in 2010

    (Kansas Liberty) “Because of the timing of former Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh’s resignation, the person Gov. Mark Parkinson appoints to replace Thornburgh will have the ability to make an appointment of his own, in addition to serving on the state’s three-member canvassing board.”

    Kansas Senator Tom Holland Announces Democratic Bid For Governor

    (State of the State KS) “Kansas Senator Tom Holland (D) announced his bid to become the next Governor of Kansas on Wednesday.”

    Water Conservation Raises Concern of Stockpiling for Financial Gain

    (State of the State KS) “A water conservation effort raised concerns over hording of water for financial gain when other businesses around the state could put the water to use.”

    Tea Party Activists Vet Candidates at Winter Rally

    (State of the State KS) “Republican and Libertarian candidates campaign for votes with Tea Party activists on Saturday in Wichita.”

    Texting ban passes Senate

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – The Kansas Senate has approved a ban on sending text messages and e-mails while driving. The Senate approved Senate Bill 351 by a margin of 34-6 after making the penalty for a first-time offense a $100 fine. Use of a hands-free cellular telephone while driving would not be an offense and e-mailing or texting would be allowed in emergencies.”

    Child welfare hearings rescheduled

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – Blame it on the blizzard. The chairman of the House Federal and State Affairs Committee said he had to reschedule a series of hearings on child welfare issues because he couldn’t reach the featured speakers, both of whom work in Washington, D.C.”

    Bankers see bleak job prospects for Kansans

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Prospects for Kansas’ and the Midwest’s struggling economies took a turn for the worse in February on bleaker jobs prospsects, according to a monthly survey of bank executives. The Rural Mainstreet Index, an economic barometer for small town economies in 11 Midwestern states, dropped to 36.6 in February from 41.1 in January, primarily because of an expected drop in new job opportunities, reports Creighton University economist Ernie Goss, one of the creators of of the monthly survey.”

    Kansas needs stronger plan for tax breaks, audit finds

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas needs a stronger system for determining when to grant tax breaks to a wide variety of charities, public service groups, business development organizations and others, say two state audits released Wednesday.”

    Audit: Redrawing court districts would save millions

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Crunching Kansas’ 31 state judicial districts into 13 potentially would save the state about $6.2 million annually, legislative auditors told the Kansas House Appropriations Committee Tuesday.”

    Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Opponents to a statewide total smoking ban say anti-tobacco advocates are playing a little loose with their facts. They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, a medical doctor and professor of community health sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He’s a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, a proponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of bad science.”

    Schools for Fair Funding Proceeds with Lawsuit; Permits No-notice Meetings

    (Kansas Watchdog) “NEWTON – Schools for Fair Funding (SFFF) voted today to proceed with a lawsuit seeking an increase in state education funding. Today’s meeting was the first since the Kansas Supreme Court’s rejection last week of the group’s petition to reopen the Montoy case mandating increased funding for K-12 public education. The group also made several changes to its bylaws, including one that allows an expanded board of directors to hold unannounced meetings.”

    Kansas Supreme Court Justice asks Ethics Commission for opinion

    (Kansas Watchdog) “TOPEKA – On Wednesday Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier asked the Ethics Commission whether the retention election for the position of Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court was governed by the Kansas Campaign Finance Act. One member of the commission commented about the irony of a Supreme Court justice asking for an opinion in a legal matter.”

    Government payrolls show continuing, long-term growth as private sector jobs decline

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Kansas continues to lose private sector jobs as it adds more taxpayer-funded government jobs, a trend mirrored at the national level. The private sector lost 57,900 jobs between December 2007 and December 2009 while government added 3,200 jobs in Kansas according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Local government grew the most over the two years, adding 2,000 jobs for a total of 182,900 jobs in the state, followed closely by the federal government which added 1,900 jobs for a total of 26,000. State government jobs decreased by 700 to 53,100 jobs.”

  • Smoking ban advocate says some claims just smoke

    In Kansas, accurate information is sometimes in short supply when talking about smoking bans. From Kansas Watchdog:

    Opponents to a statewide total smoking ban say anti-tobacco advocates are playing a little loose with their facts.

    They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, a medical doctor and professor of community health sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He’s a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, a proponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of bad science.

    In a story published Feb. 18 on his weblog, “The rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary,” Seigel wrote, “It is irresponsible to disseminate conclusions that are not supported by any scientific evidence, especially if that information will be used to infringe upon the freedom, autonomy, and rights of individuals.”

    Read the entire story at Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke.

    Additional coverage of recent legislative testimony on this issue is at Fuzzy “Facts” vs Freedom in Smoking Ban Debate and Smoking Ban Bill Causes Controversy in House Committee.

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for February 16, 2010.

    Supreme Court denies motion to reopen Montoy case

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Kansas Supreme Court decided today that it would not be reopening the Montoy school funding case. … Reopening the Montoy case would have saved the districts a significant amount of time and money.”

    Committee considers school consolidation

    (Kansas Liberty) “Small district complains that community economically relies on schools, Representative says towns should not solely rely on taxpayer dollars to function.”

    Groups launch government transparency Web page

    (Kansas Liberty) “Americans for Prosperity and the Kansas Policy Institute have teamed up to provide an online transparency tool that will allow Kansas residents to see exactly how the government uses their taxpayer dollars.”

    Joe the Plumber Campaigns For 4th Dist. Candidate Jim Anderson

    (State of the State KS) “Joe ‘The Plumber’ Wurzelbacher talks about his role in the 2008 Presidential election and why he is endorsing 4th Congressional District candidate Jim Anderson (R).”

    Senate Education Debates Catastrophic Aid For School Districts

    (State of the State KS) “The Senate Education Committee debated changes to catastrophic aid for school districts after claims jumped to $12 million in 2009 and are estimated to be $47 million this year.”

    Rep. Jim Ward Discusses Education Funding and Budget Solutions

    (State of the State KS) “Rep. Jim Ward (D) talks about budget options. He is the House Assistant Minority Leader.”

    House panel rejects proposed tax-break moratorium

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas House Taxation committee members rejected a state panel’s recommended three-year moratorium on new sales, property and other tax exemptions.”

    Sales tax plan hurts low income Kansans, critics say

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – A Kansas panel’s proposal to streamline sales tax exemptions in the state would hurt many of the state’s most fragile citizens, critics told state legislators.”

    Supreme Court denies schools’ bid to reopen funding suit

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas’ Supreme Court Friday rejected a request by 74 Kansas schools to reopen a landmark school financing case and allow the schools to seek a reversal of recent state school funding cuts.”

    House committee rejects moratorium on tax credits or exemptions

    (Kansas Health Institute news service) “TOPEKA – The House Taxation Committee concluded hearings Tuesday on a bill that would repeal sales tax exemptions for non-profits and charities and eliminate the state exemption on the sale of residential utilities.”

    People who lost state-funded social services tell their stories

    (Kansas Health Institute news service) “TOPEKA – Daniel Perez is a single parent. His 18-year-old son, Danny, is severely autistic. When left alone, Danny will spend hours crinkling cellophane. ‘It’s what he likes to do,’ his father said.”

    Government payrolls show continuing, long-term growth as private sector jobs decline

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Kansas continues to lose private sector jobs as it adds more taxpayer-funded government jobs, a trend mirrored at the national level. The private sector lost 57,900 jobs between December 2007 and December 2009 while government added 3,200 jobs in Kansas according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).”

    Fuzzy “Facts” vs Freedom in Smoking Ban Debate

    (Kansas Watchdog) “There’s almost no debate that smoking is unhealthy, but there’s plenty of debate about whether and how to implement a statewide ban on smoking in public to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. Interested citizens, lobbyists and speakers filled the Health and Human Services hearing room in the Docking building Wednesday.”

    LPA School Consolidation Audit Points the Way for Savings

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Monday’s Legislative Post Audit school consolidation report found the state could save as much as $138 million per year by consolidating smaller school districts. … Several district superintendents filed objections to the report, most citing a desire for local control of consolidation decisions and a desire to avoid the challenges of working with other districts. LPA auditors stated, ‘None of the issues they raised prohibit consolidation.’”

  • An inept Kansas smoking analogy

    From last March.

    In today’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita busybody Charlie Claycomb makes another inept analogy in an attempt to press his anti-smoking agenda statewide.

    A while back he tried to compare a smoking section in a restaurant with a urinating section in a swimming pool. This is ridiculous to the extreme, as I show in the post It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool.

    Now in today’s letter in the Eagle, Claycomb says that although the United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, since that right is heavily regulated, government has license to regulate smoking, as smoking isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution.

    Here’s why this is another ridiculous analogy (without conceding whether the regulations on arms are justified or effective): A person in, say, a bar that’s carrying a gun can’t be detected as you enter the bar. You just can’t tell upon entering an establishment whether someone has a concealed gun and intends to cause harm to patrons. This is the case even if there’s a law prohibiting carrying guns into bars, and even if the bar has a “no guns” sign.

    But you sure can tell if people are smoking.

    Smoking ban supporters might argue that since there may be smoking in some establishments, my rights are being infringed since I can’t patronize those places without exposing myself to harmful smoke.

    That’s true, except about rights being violated. There’s definitely no right in the Constitution to be able to go everywhere you want on your own terms.

    “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” — John Stuart Mill

    “Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.” — Milton Friedman

  • It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool

    A repeat of a column from 2008. Mark McCormick no longer writes for the Wichita Eagle. Recently that newspaper concluded that because Wichita’s smoking ban caused no economic harm, it was a good thing to do. Let’s hope this regulatory zeal doesn’t spread to other areas.

    In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle (“Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate”), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, equating a smoking section in a restaurant with “a urinating section in a swimming pool.”

    This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.

    Besides this, Mr. McCormick’s article seeks to explain how markets aren’t able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.

    As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.

    Despite the doubts of nanny-state regulators, markets — that is, consumers — exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Restaurants live and die by their reputation. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.

    But I will grant that McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can’t tell if it’s going to make you ill. Someone’s probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out.

    But you easily can tell if someone’s smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered.

    The problem with a smoking ban written into law — rather than reliance on markets and individual choice — is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking.

    For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision. McCormick and Claycomb want to deny people that choice.

    This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?

  • Kansas can’t afford a cigarette tax hike

    This is a repost from 2008. The issues are the same, except this time it is Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson recommending an increase in cigarette taxes, and it is $.55 per pack instead of $.75.

    Research & Commentary: Kansas Can’t Afford A Cigarette Tax Hike
    By John Nothdurft, Legislative Specialist at The Heartland Institute

    The Kansas Health Policy Authority’s recommendation to use a 75-cent cigarette tax increase to pay for health costs should be worrisome — not only to smokers, but also to non-smokers and fiscally responsible legislators as well.

    The approach may seem appealing at first, but such tax increases are notoriously unpredictable and regressive. Funding a high-profile need such as health care with a cigarette tax increase is particularly hazardous because it ties an inherently unstable tax to an increase in government spending.

    A big question mark hovers over how much revenue the proposed cigarette tax hike would actually bring into the state’s coffers. According to the Center for Policy Research of New Jersey, since that state’s cigarette tax was raised 17.5 cents two years ago, the state has actually lost $46 million in tax revenue.

    Many other states have seen lower-than-projected revenue returns after cigarette tax hikes were put in place. This is a result of the general decline in tobacco use nationwide, cross-border shopping, Internet sales, smuggling, and other factors that are causing cigarette tax revenue streams to flatten.

    If Kansas legislators were to hike cigarette taxes to fund health care programs, they soon would be stuck having to choose between rolling back the funding for health care or raising other taxes. A recent National Taxpayers Union study found legislators usually do the latter. “Taxpayers face a seven out of 10 chance of seeing another net annual tax hike within two years of a tobacco tax hike,” the group reported.

    Cigarette tax increases also unduly burden low-income taxpayers and punish local businesses.

    The following articles offer additional information on cigarette tax hikes.

    Cigarette Tax Hikes Burn Hole in State Coffers
    Gregg M. Edwards, president of the Center for Policy Research of New Jersey, an independent nonprofit organization that addresses public policy issues facing New Jersey, reports how his organization found that New Jersey brought in less revenue after its cigarette tax hike than was coming in before it was implemented.

    Debunking the “Tax Thee, But Not Me” Myth: Five Reasons Why Non-Smokers Should Oppose High Tobacco Taxes
    According to the National Taxpayers Union, “the per-capita state and local tax burden in high-tobacco tax states is 8 percent above the national average, while the general tax bill for residents of low-tobacco tax states is 15 percent below the national average.”

    Poor Smokers, Poor Quitters, and Cigarette Tax Regressivity
    Dr. Dahlia Remler, with the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, rebuts the argument that cigarette taxes are not regressive.

    Tax Hikes Often Fail to Generate Expected Revenues
    Economists warn tobacco taxes are an unpredictable source of revenue.

    Six Reasons Not to Raise Tobacco Taxes
    Economist Dr. William Anderson of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs outlines six pitfalls of higher cigarette taxes.

    Tobacco: Regulation and Taxation through Litigation
    Professor Kip Viscusi breaks down the social costs of smoking, taking into consideration a wide array of factors including health costs, sick leave, and the lower pension and nursing home care costs incurred by smokers.

    Cigarette Tax Burns the Poor
    David Tuerck, professor of economics and executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, outlines how cigarette taxes unfairly burden low-income earners.

    Cigarette Taxes Are Fueling Organized Crime
    Patrick Fleenor, chief economist for the Tax Foundation, shows high cigarette taxes have fueled organized crime and a profitable black market in New York.

    Cigarette Tax Burnout
    Last year Maryland increased its cigarette tax to $2 a pack in order to fund health care … but now the state’s budget is facing a billion-dollar shortfall. This article outlines the budget mess that always results when states rely on cigarette tax revenues even as smoking rates decline.

  • Smoking is healthier than fascism

    There’s a Facebook group named Vote NO on Statewide Smoking Ban (Smoking is healthier than fascism). Started by Wichita activist Wendy Aylworth, the description of the group starts with the rallying cry “We must stop this tyranny of the majority!”

    Yes, we must.

    I’m tempted to tell you — like many people do when discussing matters of public policy — whether I smoke cigarettes. But does that matter?

    It shouldn’t, because if it does, we shift the basis of policy decisions from “what is right and just and promotes freedom and liberty” to “what is my personal preference.” And there’s too much of that going on.

    Smoking bans are only the start of increased government regulation of more and more aspects of our lives. These things can backfire. As government control becomes more pervasive, smoking ban busybodies may well find themselves coming under onerous regulation that they don’t like. Once started, it’s hard for government to stop.

    We ought to remember the words of C.S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    For more articles from this site on smoking bans and the harm they cause, click here.

  • The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’

    Supporters of comprehensive bans on smoking often point to research findings that heart attacks decrease when smoking bans are implemented. But is this true? Christopher Snowdon reports in Spiked online:

    Tales of heart attacks being “slashed” by smoking bans have appeared with such regularity in recent years that it is easy to forget that there is a conspicuous lack of reliable evidence to support them. It is almost as if the sheer number of column inches is a substitute for proof.

    Later on he concludes:

    What is abundantly clear in each case is that the number of heart attack admissions has been falling for some time. Far from causing further dramatic cuts in heart attack rates, the bans had no discernible effect.

    If we’re going to cite public health as a reason for smoking bans, let’s make sure we’re working with complete and reliable scientific evidence. Snowdon’s full article is The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’.