Amendment 72: At What Cost?

Smoker or not, this is an interesting proposed amendment appearing on the Colorado ballot this election cycle.

Amendment 72 proposes a state tax increase on a pack of cigarettes from $0.84 to $2.59, a rather large jump from the 2005 increase of $0.64 per pack.  Colorado currently maintains one of the lower tax rates on a pack of smokes; falling well under the average state tobacco tax rate of $1.75.

The amendment would also impose a state increase on other tobacco products, such as cigars and chewing tobacco, from 40 percent to 62 percent of the price.  Should Amendment 72 pass, the additional tax revenue generated from the increase will be allocated primarily to medical research, tobacco-use prevention programs and other health related programs.  But what do the proponents and opponents of Amendment 72 cite in their arsenals of persuasion?

Those in favor of the proposal argue heavily that an increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes will deter tobacco use.  According to the Colorado Blue Book’s ‘arguments for’ section, the last tax increase on cigarettes resulted in a 12.6 percent decrease in cigarettes consumed per person in the state.  Furthermore, supporters argue that the tax revenue would continue going to necessary state health programs such as education and prevention in tobacco use.

It may also be worth noting that smoking has declined among adults and youth in America, according to the CDC.  Therefore, supporters aim to continue that trend in the reduction of smokers in the US.  The Campaign for a Healthy Colorado 2016 is the main supporter backing Amendment 72.  They have seen about $2 million in contributions, mostly from health-related institutions and companies such as Children’s Hospital Colorado.

On the other side of the fence, the opposition argues that the amendment locks spending into the Colorado Constitution for programs they feel have not been thoroughly specified.  In theory, the programs described in Amendment 72 may become less necessary if the amendment does succeed in decreasing the number of tobacco users in Colorado.  Thus, millions of taxpayer dollars may be wasted on programs that may not continue to be useful.

Additionally, the opposition believes that the billions of dollars sent to the state by tobacco companies has not been properly spent on health programs.  Rather it has been diverted to programs that are not related to tobacco use and if the state were to cease funding to these programs, there would be no need for a tax increase.

The main opponent of 72 is the political action committee No Blank Checks in the Constitution, which has seen a much larger contribution of $17.4 million.  Almost all of the contributions have come from – you guessed it – Altria Client Services LLC, formerly known as Phillip Morris.

So Colorado, should smokers pay an additional $1.75 on that pack containing 20 sticks of tobacco?  You decide.  Let’s put it to a vote!