Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

February 19, 2003

Dear Senator Thomas,

     In the Daily Citizen it was reported: "I don't look at these as tax increases, but as tax cuts," said Sen. Don Thomas, R-Dalton, a practicing physician. "If we discourage people from smoking or drinking, we can save money on medical expenses and other costs borne by taxpayers." "For every pack of cigarettes smoked it costs the taxpayers $7 in increased health costs for cancer, emphysema and pneumonia, treating people who have damaged their lungs," Thomas said.

     Would you please explain exactly how this $7 figure was derived? Here are some facts on what smokers contribute to Georgia's tax base:

      SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2002

Here is what smokers already pay because they choose to buy a legal product: Smokers Pay Excise Taxes (2) $ 79,538,401 Smokers Pay Sales Taxes (2) $ 59,957,550 Smokers Pay Tobacco Settlement Payments (3) $175,444,075 These bring the total payments to $314,940,026

Working families pay more (1)

31% of Georgia smokers had household incomes LESS than $25,000 16% of Georgia smokers had household incomes EQUAL to or GREATER THAN $75,000 The impact of smoker payments on the incomes of working families was more than THREE TIMES the impact on higher income smokers. Those who can afford it least pay a disproportionate percentage of their hard-earned income in smoker payments.

Georgia Smoker Facts (4)

Total smokers' payments to Georgia in FY 2002 were: More than twice as large as combined FY2001 revenues from the alcoholic beverage tax ($38.1 million), the malt beverage tax ($81.4 million) and the wine tax ($21.1 million). Larger than FY2001 motor vehicle license taxes ($237.1 million). Smokers' payments in FY2002 were larger than FY2002 budgeted state funds for: The Department of Community Affairs ($60.1 million) AND the Department of Community Health's Indigent Care Trust Fund ($146.8 million) AND Peachcare for Kids ($34.1 million) AND the Georgia Bureau of Investigation ($67.1 million) COMBINED OR The Office of School Readiness ($239.2 million) AND the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety ($60.5 million) COMBINED OR The Student Finance Commission's Lottery for Education unit ($264.9 million). In 1997, smokers provided 26,278 jobs that paid an additional $28.6 million to the state in personal and corporate income taxes. (5)

1. Centers for Disease Control's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2001 2. Orzechowski & Walker, Arlington, Virginia; from state revenue department 3. PriceWaterhouseCooper 4. Tax and Budget Comparisons are from the State of Georgia Office of Planning and Budget, The Governor's Budget Report, FY2003, Online at http://www.ganet.org/services/newleg/budget2003/index.html. 5. American Economics Group, Inc., The U.S. Tobacco Industry in 1997: Its Economic Impact in the States.

     Notice that I cite the references from which I got these figures so that you can check them out for yourself. Unlike your $7 figure, these are not some manufactured numbers bandied about by some anti-smoker group. These are real and verifiable numbers. With these amounts in addition to the amount of non-tobacco taxes we all pay, do you really believe that Georgia smokers are not paying their share, and more than their share of Georgia's revenue? Without a tax increase on tobacco?

     As a doctor, I would assume that you have the necessary knowledge to actually read studies and research papers that have been done and distinguish between junk science and creditable research. As a chemist, I have that same ability. If you have researched this subject, you know that it has never been etiologically proven that smoking causes either cancer, emphysema, or pneumonia. Even merely statistical studies have been unable to prove that smoking is so much as a contributing factor in these or other diseases with the exception of chronic bronchitis (smoker's cough). In fact, as smoking in this country has decreased, we have seen cancer, asthma and other diseases make an inversely proportional rise.

     Is your $7 figure based on the same formula of imaginary numbers that the number of "deaths due to smoking" are based on? Is it based on the same junk science and outright lies that other statements made by anti-smoking groups are based on? As a medical professional it would behoove you to ask your anti-smoking friends to give you cites for the research upon which they base their statements. After actually reading the research while ignoring the synopsis (as you and I well know, the synopsis of a study is meaningless drivel) you will see that you, like other citizens, have been lied to.

     As to the "cost" of smoking, here are some figures from a study done in 1991 when taxes were much lower and when there was no tobacco settlement for smokers to pay for. Of course the net benefit to society would be much more now in this time of excess taxation and theft by lawsuit. This study was done by an anti-smoker and presumes that you believe all the propaganda concerning the ill effects of smoking:

     In 1991, Willard G. Manning, et al., published a landmark study on the costs to society of alcohol and tobacco. Manning and his colleagues were no friends of tobacco. They assumed that smoking causes premature death, extra sick leave, and fires. Never-the-less, when all of the costs attributed to smoking by Manning are added up and offset against the benefits, it is clear that smokers pay more to society than they take from society. In the following table, a minus sign denotes a cost to society, while a positive sign denotes a saving or benefit. All of the figures are expressed in cents per pack of cigarettes smoked:

Additional medical expenses from smoking -26 Sick leave costs -01 Group life insurance costs -05 Fires caused by smoking -02 Lost tax revenues due to premature death -09 Reduced use of retirement pensions +24 Reduced use of nursing homes +03 Federal cigarette tax +24 State and local taxes +26 Net Benefit to Society: +34 The costs of Poor Health Habits, A RAND study, Cambridge, MA.; Harvard University Press, 1991.

     Again, this study is referenced so that you can find and peruse it in its entirety. Please feel free to do so as, unlike the anti-smokers, I am not afraid of someone finding the truth. As a doctor, you know that you can also factor in other cost savings. It is almost unknown for smokers to get Parkinson's disease, non-smokers are 400 times as likely to get ulcerative colitis as are smokers. Asthmatic children of smoking parents have fewer severe attacks and are less likely to have to go to a doctor or hospital than are asthmatic children of non-smoking parents. These, as you know, are just a few of the diseases where smoking acts as a preventative or even a cure.

     One other thing I would like to mention, is that raising prices on tobacco has, historically, not resulted in statistically meaningful reductions in smoking. Instead, it has resulted in alternate means of obtaining tobacco. As tobacco prices and taxes have risen, the black market on smuggled and stolen cigarettes has flourished. Terrorist groups have benefitted from the proceeds of this illegal activity. In other words, raising tobacco taxes has been a direct benefit to terrorists in our country!

     To quote Michelle Malkin in her investigation for the Jewish World Review:

Federal prosecutors say that Mohammad Youssef Hammoud, his brothers, and more than a dozen others collaborated in a major cigarette smuggling, money laundering, and immigration fraud business to support Hezbollah activities abroad. The ring members purchased cheap cigarettes in Charlotte, where the tobacco tax is just five cents a pack, then hauled them to high-tax Michigan, which raised tobacco taxes from 25 cents a pack to 75 cents in 1994. Hammoud's operation is believed to have reaped millions of dollars of profit over a four-year period.

     This is a prime example of unintended consequences. Do you want to aid terrorists? Are these the kind of people you would like to indirectly benefit by raising tobacco taxes in Georgia? While in the meantime placing a greater burden on the working families of this state?

     I am open to facts which will show me I am wrong and willing to accept proof that I have been misinformed. Please explain exactly how the $7 figure was derived so that I can, in spite of all the facts I know, understand that this is a true and valid figure. On the other hand, if you cannot prove that this is, indeed, a valid figure, please ask the Daily Citizen to print a retraction of your statement so that you will not be misinforming the citizens of your district and your patients who trust you.

     Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I would very much appreciate the courtesy of a reply.