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.”

Independent Mail

Comments