Loading ...
S.C. tax increase proposed on tobacco
Lacey Councill pulls a black piece of rubber shaped like a lung off a shelf in her office. Then she reaches for Mr. Gross Mouth, a model of what the mouth of a smoker often looks like.
These are her props.
Through a program called Doclink, Councill uses these tools to teach the dangers of smoking to fifth-graders in Anderson County schools. Doclink is a program started with $1.5 million from AnMed Health.
“It always grosses the kids out when you tell them that cigarettes contain the same chemicals we use to embalm dead people in,” Councill said.
With the help of volunteers, Councill teaches the “Tar Wars” program, and other health programs, to nearly 10,000 students in a year with a budget of about $85,000, a budget that has shrunk over the years. The nonprofit Doclink, which is housed in a physician’s office off Reed Road, did have two full-time employees. Now there’s just Councill.
Programs like this one could benefit from a bill being considered by the South Carolina legislature to raise the tax on cigarettes by 50 cents a pack, to a total 57 cents a pack.
Legislators and smokers talked about the tax as a new report this week listed South Carolina 44th in the nation for its spending on anti-smoking programs. The same report also said South Carolina’s cigarette tax is the lowest in the nation at 7 cents a pack. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released the report.
S.C. Sen. Thomas Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate subcommittee looking at the cigarette tax legislation, said the tax has not been raised since 1977.
South Carolina has spent $2 million in state funds and $1.2 million in federal money for tobacco prevention programs, compared to the $62 million recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
North Dakota is the only state to spend what the CDC recommends on anti-smoking programs.
S.C. Sen. Kevin Bryant of Anderson said he is not sure how he feels about the state spending more money, specifically money from an increased cigarette tax, on tobacco use prevention programs.
“I have not done the research to see how effective these programs are,” Bryant said.
When Doclink began 10 years ago, the staff surveyed students about their risk behaviors, allowing them to remain anonymous, said Dr. David deHoll, who specializes in orthopedics and has been part of Doclink since it began. A couple of years ago, the survey was conducted again.
“There’s less risk behaviors in the schools where we’ve been able to interact, compared to those where we have not,” deHoll said. “But we won’t really have the true results of our work for decades.”
Councill said the “Tar Wars” presentation has been shown to nearly every fifth-grade class in Anderson County. “But if you only hit kids with this one time, it doesn’t really help,” Councill argued. “They need to be hearing this message over and over again — not just from Doclink.”
To make that happen, Alexander said, more money needs to be made available and a consistent source of funding is needed. The increase in the cigarette tax could generate up to $143 million in the first year, Alexander said.
“However, I do believe it could be a declining source of revenue,” Alexander said. “I think that’s why it is important to get the money in hand before it’s appropriated and allocated.”
Alexander said the cigarette tax will likely be a matter debated, and possibly voted on, in the next legislative session to start in January.
Bryant said he doesn’t believe the legislature should pass such an increase that doesn’t specify how the money is to be spent. As a pharmacist, he said, he is not opposed to a cigarette tax, altogether, but he wants to know where the money will be spent and wants to see corporate taxes decreased in the process.
“Take the same amount, and lower corporate income tax, which would boost job creation,” Bryant said. “Anytime you raise taxes, you are drawing money out of the pockets of consumers in an economy that’s hurting already.”
Smokers like Kathy Gibson and Patty Smith don’t like the cigarette tax at all, saying it’s unfair. Both said they have been smokers for 20 to 25 years. Each said she will continue to smoke, if she wants to, whether or not the tax is increased.
“If you tax cigarettes, why not other stuff, like candy?” Smith said. “It’s an easy tax. They know where to get extra money fast. They pick things like beer, gas or cigarettes. They know they’ll make a fast buck on those. And they know smokers will spend the money.”
“They don’t like us when we smoke,” Smith said, “but they sure like our tax money.”
South Carolina Smokers Could Pay More
Push To Raise Tax By Another 50 Cents Per Pack
The tax on cigarettes in South Carolina isn’t just low, it’s the lowest anywhere in the nation.
“South Carolina does have the lowest cigarette tax in the nation: 7 cents,” said Sen. Thomas Alexander, a Republican who represents Oconee County. ”
The last time it was increased was in 1977.”But now there’s a push to raise that tax by another 50 cents per pack next year. The increase would generate $143 million per year, $5 million of which would be spent on programs to discourage young people from smoking.
“It’s going to prompt kids to quit. It’s going to prompt adult smokers to quit. And over the lifetime of those individuals, we’re going to see a tremendous savings in health care costs for our state,” said Kelly Davis of the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative.
But if South Carolina is on the verge of bringing cigarettes taxes in line with other states, a report out today by a University of South Carolina graduate student gives the state low marks for cigarette prevention.”Last year, South Carolina ranked last in the nation, spending no state funds and only a $1 million federal grant on tobacco prevention,” said graduate student Geri Guy.
While most funds, including the 1998 tobacco settlement, are used to offset health care costs, officials say little is earmarked for tobacco prevention. Plus, the last proposed increase in cigarette taxes was vetoed.”We have a governor who’s made it clear from day one of his service that he’s opposed to any tax increases,” said Sen. Mike Fair of Greenville County.But supporters say they hope next year will be different.
The House of Representatives has approved the tax hike, and the state senate is expected to vote on the measure when the South Carolina Legislature convenes in January.
State cell phone limits sought
The centerpiece of many teens’ lives — the cell phone — has been targeted by state lawmakers who want drivers to take their fingers off the buttons and wrap them around the steering wheel.
Three Upstate legislators are seeking separate crackdowns on cell-phone use while driving.
One bill would ban texting for all drivers regardless of age but continue to allow talking on cell phones. Another would specifically target drivers under 18, prohibiting them from using cell phones unless they were talking with a hands-free device.
Three-quarters of all Americans ages 12-17 own cell phones, and most use them to send or receive text messages, according to researchers at the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Even some teens who find it tough to pry themselves from their glowing phone screens said a texting ban would probably make the roads safer.
“I don’t know if I’d like it, but I know it’s probably the best thing for us,” said 18-year-old Kevin Huffman, who was punching buttons on his cell phone while walking to class at Greenville Technical College.
Drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of nearly five seconds while texting — enough time to travel the length of a football field at highway speeds, according to researchers at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.
Rep. Don Bowen, R-Anderson, is sponsoring the bill that would prohibit all drivers from sending text messages or reading any printed materials, be it a magazine or a cell phone, while in motion.
“It’s the same as if you were drinking and driving,” he said. “It impairs your ability to function as a full person would.”
Sen. Thomas Alexander, R-Walhalla, is sponsoring the proposed cell phone ban on drivers under 18. Violators would face a $50 fine. Read more
Clemson mayor to seek ban on texting while driving
Mayor Larry Abernathy wants Clemson to join the growing list of places that prohibit sending and receiving cell phone text messages, or texting, while driving.
Abernathy announced during Monday’s meeting of the City Council that he will introduce a measure outlawing texting while driving when the council next meets on Dec. 21.
Abernathy said he had broached the idea to state Sen. Thomas Alexander of Walhalla, who plans to push a similar initiative in the legislature.
Alexander told him that “passage in the legislature was uncertain, but it might help if we started it at the city level,” Abernathy said. Read more