Despite widespread belief, Maine is not the highest taxed state in the nation, but it’s close. So talking about raising taxes here doesn’t seem to make sense. Except that, when it comes to raising taxes on cigarettes, the result is healthier people. Healthier Mainers.
That’s worth raising taxes for.
We fully support a $1 increase in Maine’s cigarette tax, not because it will raise money and ease the state budget deficit, but because it will save lives.
Maine used to have the highest cigarette tax in the nation, but it has slipped in recent years as other states have added what can only be described as punitive taxes designed to curb smoking.
Raising the price of cigarettes has been proven to reduce smoking, especially among young people. We can thank taxes for that.
According to the Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine, cigarette sales are down significantly since 1997, when 101.1 packs per capita were sold in Maine. In 2006, that figure had dropped to 64.8 packs per person. That’s real progress, and a good portion of that progress has resulted from raising the tax on packs.
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, if we raise the tax $1 per pack:
• 8,500 fewer children will become smokers;
• 4,600 current adult smokers will quit;
• 3,900 Mainers will not die from smoking-related causes;
• Maine will save $192.5 million in health care costs; and
• Maine will realize $26.2 million more in annual revenue to fund health care.
Mainers now pay $2 in state tax for every pack sold, the same paid in Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan and Washington, D.C. Eight states levy more than $2.
New Yorkers pay $2.75 a pack, Hawaiians pay $2.60, Vermonters pay $2.24 and, in Wisconsin, the state tax is $2.52. The smoking rate for each of these states is less than in Maine because an increasing number of smokers are unwilling to pay the higher per-pack cost, and kick the habit.
Rhode Islanders pay the most taxes — $3.46 a pack — which includes a $1 hike enacted last year.
If Maine increases its cigarette tax $1 a pack, raising it to $3, we’re still behind Rhode Island.
What’s interesting about the climbing state tax in Rhode Island is the resulting decrease in smoking.
In 1998, when cigarette taxes among states were more equal, 22.4 percent of Mainers smoked, compared to 22.7 percent of Rhode Islanders. Equal taxes and pretty equal smoking rates.
As Maine’s tax rate increased, its smoking rate declined, with 20.1 percent of Mainers smoking in 2007. Rhode Island’s tax rate climbed higher, and its smoking rate decreased faster, with only 17 percent of Ocean Staters smoking in 2007.
It’s a fine example of cause and effect; raise taxes and cigarette use declines. It’s about life — not death — and taxes.
This year, in Maine, 2,200 people will die from cigarette use. Maybe, in future years, fewer people will die if we make cigarettes more expensive to buy. One extra dollar per pack can and will save lives.


UGH!! So wrong, what happend
UGH!! So wrong, what happend to America, land of the Free? We the people are not allowed to do anything, as one person commented, start over taxing other things like soda, McDonalds, anything else. Its incrediable the amount of things that we Mainers put up with !
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Danny is likely correct that
Danny is likely correct that anyone can grow tobacco and harvest the leaves, which then have to be hung in a well-ventilated barn or shed for up to eight weeks in order to cure. In Conn. this curing is done in tobacco sheds during the latter half of the summer.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If the rationale here is to
If the rationale here is to raise taxes on tobacco as a way to promote better health, then the discussion should include alcohol, fast food, fried any food, and just about anything else that causes potential health problems. Let's pick on smokers is getting really f'n old!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Maine is not the highest
"Maine is not the highest taxed state in the nation, but it’s close" In an otherwise, factual and important editorial this sentence sticks out as very wrong out-of-date idea and perpetuates the myth that Maine is highly taxed.
The Tax Foundation (a right wing organizations which uses its tax burden ratings to justify its policy choices) has written that Maine is 2nd in the nation a few years ago. Then they admitted that their method miscalculated the tax burden and they changed Maine from 2nd to 15th. Then Maine cut its budget and harmed its citizens in so doing on the wrong assumption that we were highly taxed. By last year Maine had fallen to 22th. Since then 35 states have raised taxes and fees some very significantly. Maine will surely fall once again probably to the mid-30's. Even this is wrong. The Tax Foundation pro-rates taxes paid in other states for commodity production based on commodity usage. So Maine gets charged with taxes paid in Alaska for oil produced in Alaska under Alaska state law disproportionately because we are a cold winter state. Remove this and Maine will fall to the low 40's.
Maine is no where near to the top in tax burden.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.But the right wing wackos
But the right wing wackos have said it so much that it must be true. They've got the SJ hook, line and sinker. That's their main strategy, keep repeating the lie often enough and eventually people will believe it's true.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I have often wondered about
I have often wondered about the effect of cigarette taxes on the smoking rate. In this editorial the Sun Journal has basically said that higher taxes equal lower cigarette usage. To be precise they claim that “a good portion of that progress (lower cigarette sales per person) has resulted from raising the tax on packs.” But is this true? I did some quick research and that has led me to question the validity of this equation.
Based on tax rates and cigarette usage as of November 2009 I found that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 23 states had a lower percentage of smokers than Maine. While Maine ranked 8th in taxes it ranked 24th in percentage of smokers. Of the 23 with a lower percentage of smokers only 5 had a higher percentage of smokers.
Some of the states mentioned by the Sun Journal and the CDC statistics have recently raised their tax rates. But, in dealing with known rates of taxation and cigarette smoking, these figures alone do not seem to support the argument that the Sun Journal is making. Indeed, some of the smoking percentages and tax rates are surprising.
Utah has a 9.2% smoking rate and only taxes 69.5 cents a pack. California, which did raise its rate after these figures were compiled, has a smoking rate of 14.0% but their tax rate was only 87 cents. Here is a sampling of smoking percentages and tax rates:
Oregon - 16.3% - $1.18
District of Columbia - 16.4% - $2.00
Virginia - 16.5% - $0.30
Vermont - 16.8% - $1.99
Idaho - 16.9% - $0.57
New Hampshire - 17.0% - $1.33
Florida - 17.5% - $0.339
Colorado - 17.6% - $0.84
Minnesota - 17.6% - $1.23
South Dakota - 17.6% - $1.53
Delaware - 17.8%, $1.15
Kansas, 17.9%, $0.79
So what does this mean? On the surface I would say that it means that the cost of cigarettes, as manipulated by taxation, is not the primary factor in lower smoking rates. It does look like the states with the lowest tax rates overall, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, also have endemic problems such as multi-generation poverty, low educational achievement, as well as issues unique to rural populations.
Perhaps the best argument that could be made for higher taxes is that this money will be used for smoking education and cessation programs. The bare figures seem to show that taxation rates do not equate to lower smoking rates. A better and more honest approach is to simply state that smoking is a health hazard that we, society, have a vested interested in eliminating. Taxes on cigarettes should be used for education and smoking cessation programs. We must not allow this money to be diverted to cover shortfalls in other areas. This is too important to allow politics as usual.
Countless people start smoking at a young age when peer pressure and lack of maturity obscure the danger and suffering that addiction to tobacco can bring. And, quite honestly, peer pressure does and will continue to overcome whatever price we put on cigarettes. Properly funded and aggressive education programs must help teenagers resist starting the use of tobacco. When education fails we must offer smoking cessation programs that can help break the addiction.
This was done quickly. Please forgive any typos, etc.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.John - Ever stop to think
John -
Ever stop to think why Utah would only have a 9.2% smoking rate?
Consider the Mormon Church rather than taxes.........
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I did think about that and we
I did think about that and we could eliminate Utah and nothing would change. What about California and the other states that are doing better with less taxes? My guess for California is that they probably have an aggressive education program. But none of the figures, at least on the surface, support the contention that higher taxes equal lower smoking rates.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ok by using your method of
Ok by using your method of reasoning. During the prohibition years no one drank alcohol. There were no taxes paid on it so everyone must have stopped drinking. Well we all know this was not true, don't we. That said do I think smoking is a good thing for people to do, of course not. Will it help kids keep from starting , that's up in the air. Those of us that are of retirement age rememder when schools had desoignated smoking areas t obe used during recess, and lunch periods. Yes you read it right. At the old ELHS it was the side of the building closest to the Village Inn. When we moved up ont othe hilll it was the area next to tthe automotive shop. Yes youngun's we were permitted to smoke on school grounds, teachers had a smoking lounge in the building. In our day if you didn't smoke you were an outsider. Something like non drug users are today. everyone smoked it was the in thing. When I entered the service to serve my country a carton of smokes was one dollar. That's right a dime a pack. in the service we didn't get breaks they were smoke em if you got them breaks. C rations contained a pack of 4 cigarettes in them. Thats right paid for by the government that now thinks it is such a bad habit. Was it good for us, of course not but you had to do it to be in the in crowd. Unfortunatly some of us got really hooked. Sort of like all of you that have to have a drink or two every day, or a joint or what ever your habit is. Would i like to quit of course I would, and have tried many times. Would there be an increase in the murder rate if I did . Most likely the answer is yes until I were caught.
If it were easy to quit everyone would have quit when the price went ot a dollar a pack. Some people are truly addicted. It is our drug of choice.
It is time for all of you to remember sooner or later a do gooder group is going t oattack your vice.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Anyone care to share new
Anyone care to share new hampshire statistics on cigarette sales with us? Convenient to ignore the growing sales in NH as people happily drive across the bvorder to buy beer and cigarettes for many years only increasing, and now many do their holiday shopping and purchases of major appliances there as well....hmmmm...LSJ - can you provide the NHs ales figures and smoking rates? If you know the % of smokers and divide that by total sales - and do the same for several states I bet you'll see a pattern...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.According to Orzechowski and
According to Orzechowski and Walker, The Tax Burden on Tobacco report of 2006, when Maine raised its cigarette tax in 1991, 1997, 2001 and again in 2005, NH's per capita sales actually decreased. When NH raised its taxes in 1991 and 2005, sales also dropped. Oddly, when Massachusetts raised its taxes in 1992, 1996 and 2001 the sales in NH went up, so there may be a cross-border problem in Massachusetts, but there doesn't appear to be the same problem with Maine.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This is unfair taxing. It is
This is unfair taxing. It is not right to tax something and keep raising the tax on a product so you can change a person. Its punishment. What if the state decided to pass a gay tax (raising the tax on products used by homosexuals) or raise the tax on black lipstick because we don't like goth kids. This state is being ruined by out-of-staters and bleeding heart liberals. Disugusta cut the sh!t and leave maine alone.
I move that the part of Maine south of US Route 2 be seperated from Maine and called Northern Mass.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.northwoods: smoking is a
northwoods:
smoking is a choice; sexual preference is not.
Go to the end of the class.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Veritas OK I'll admit that
Veritas
OK I'll admit that the gay tax was out there. But the point I was trying to make is that this is a tax on a group of people just because other people don't like it.
Other example, the goth tax. How about an extra tax on pants that are sold that are too big for the buyer because we don't like the kids with the baggy pants. How about raising the tax on gas a $1 every year or two because gas hurts the environment. How about a $3 tax on Colts hats because Maine loves the Patriots. (Sorry but I had to)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.northwoods: smokings causes
northwoods:
smokings causes disease and death - for the smoker and others. Proven fact. That it is legal and cannabis isn't is logically insane - but such is the power of Big Tobacco and Thumpers.
Baggy pants don't cause disease and death. Gang-Bangers and their guns do. That's another issue.
I'de go along with raising the gas tax if we had decent public transportation a la' Europe.
But we're don't.
So we're stuck.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Veritas I know smoking causes
Veritas
I know smoking causes diseases and death but so does so many things in our daily lives. But it seems smoking has been singled out because people don't like it. That is the point I have been trying to make to you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.northwoods: - Unlike 'Baggy
northwoods: - Unlike 'Baggy Pants' - which are also unnecessary and serve no useful purpose
There's an entirely rational reason that people don't like smoking....
It freakin' kills us!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Veritas I said it once I'll
Veritas I said it once I'll say it again.I know smoking causes diseases and death but so does so many things in our daily lives. But it seems smoking has been singled out because people don't like it. That is the point I have been trying to make to you.
And wait do you mean kills us. In Maine there are so many laws of where you can and can't smoke it seems you have to walk a mile or so just to find an area to smoke. So non-smokers no longer can say they have be deal with smoke. A non-smoker has to seek out a smoke pretty hard to have to worry.
Just wonder wait is your view on this tax. I assume you are for it but you know what they say when you assume. There I go again assuming.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Northwoods - would you sign a
Northwoods - would you sign a waiver guarenteeing you would never ask the state to pay for any of your medical care when you have lung cancer from chronic smoking? IF smokers would do that I'd be in favor of reducing the tax...of course thats not gonna happen the state would just use the money elsewhere and keep the tax high.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Thinkingman Don't get me
Thinkingman
Don't get me wrong I am more then willing to pay a fair tax on cigarettes (standard sales tax). But this ain't, it is a tax to punish people for smoking. But to answer your question Yes I would.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Since Media I.E. Newspapers
Since Media I.E. Newspapers cause Greif and dispair lets tax that out of bussiness right I mean, we must after all dictate what one does with thier life what they drink, eat, and every other facet they do must conform to yours right??? If not tax them into submission right??? what a bunch of communistic sloths you are really are... when People wake up ONE DAY SOON they will find they have no rights.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Danny: The media - along
Danny:
The media - along with the rest of us - including you - has a Constitutional Right to publish, so why are you shooting the messanger?
Why not try growing your own tobacco - seeing how it's not a 'scheduled' drug as cannabis is, and see if you can avoid state and federal taxes as do home brewers?
You might still have that right.......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.