"A Smoke-Free Kentucky? Sounds Great, Doesn't It?"
Statewide ban a smoke screen
A smoke-free Kentucky? Sounds great, doesn't it?
Until you realize that any statewide smoking ban enacted this year would probably leave Kentucky with weaker protections against secondhand smoke in the long-run.
Why? Because anything our pro-tobacco legislature is likely to pass would be weaker than the ordinances that local governments are enacting. A statewide ban would drain the political energy from local efforts to enact better protections.
And without a ton of money behind it, enforcement would be a joke.
If Senate President David Williams is serious about reducing tobacco's toll on Kentucky's health, he'd support a big increase in the excise tax on tobacco and channel $53 million a year from the increase into tobacco control. Then enact a statewide smoking ban.
Kentucky spends just $4.2 million a year on smoking prevention and cessation, and some of that comes from the federal government. The state should be spending $57.2 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
At least that much would have to be spent on prevention, education and enforcement to reap the benefits of a state smoking ban.
Williams, who's suddenly touting a ban in place of Gov. Steve Beshear's proposed 70-cent cigarette tax increase, probably is genuinely torn between his party's strategy of opposing all tax increases and his desire to do the right thing. Like most life-long Kentuckians, he has seen people he loves smoke themselves into early, painful deaths. His south-central Kentucky district has been slow to go smoke-free.
Williams manages to compartmentalize his concerns in a brutally cynical way, though. He wants to protect himself and other Kentuckians from tobacco-induced death and disease. But he's fine with addicting and killing Tennesseans, Hoosiers and Buckeyes as long as they keep crossing the state line to buy cheap smokes in Kentucky.
After throwing out his idea Monday night on a KET appearance with Beshear and House Speaker Greg Stumbo, Williams cited Lexington's and Louisville's smoke-free laws as examples of what he'd want to see in a statewide ban.
That's a good starting point. But Williams knows better than anyone that it would take an enormous amount of work and political capital to get the 138 members of the General Assembly there.
And, if you're sincere, you don't launch that kind of effort by blind-siding on statewide TV two of the people you'd have to get on board.
More likely Williams is just trying to create a distraction and dissent among those backing a cigarette tax increase.
If he and the legislature are serious about protecting Kentuckians from the ravages of smoking, they'll dramatically increase the price of smoking. ...
Editor's comment: Both David Williams and the Herald Leader Editorial are correct on this smoking issue. There is NO reason why we can't have both a smoking ban, and an increase in tobacco tax.
Both ideas should NOT be thought of as being mutually exclusive!
A smoke-free Kentucky? Sounds great, doesn't it?
Until you realize that any statewide smoking ban enacted this year would probably leave Kentucky with weaker protections against secondhand smoke in the long-run.
Why? Because anything our pro-tobacco legislature is likely to pass would be weaker than the ordinances that local governments are enacting. A statewide ban would drain the political energy from local efforts to enact better protections.
And without a ton of money behind it, enforcement would be a joke.
If Senate President David Williams is serious about reducing tobacco's toll on Kentucky's health, he'd support a big increase in the excise tax on tobacco and channel $53 million a year from the increase into tobacco control. Then enact a statewide smoking ban.
Kentucky spends just $4.2 million a year on smoking prevention and cessation, and some of that comes from the federal government. The state should be spending $57.2 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
At least that much would have to be spent on prevention, education and enforcement to reap the benefits of a state smoking ban.
Williams, who's suddenly touting a ban in place of Gov. Steve Beshear's proposed 70-cent cigarette tax increase, probably is genuinely torn between his party's strategy of opposing all tax increases and his desire to do the right thing. Like most life-long Kentuckians, he has seen people he loves smoke themselves into early, painful deaths. His south-central Kentucky district has been slow to go smoke-free.
Williams manages to compartmentalize his concerns in a brutally cynical way, though. He wants to protect himself and other Kentuckians from tobacco-induced death and disease. But he's fine with addicting and killing Tennesseans, Hoosiers and Buckeyes as long as they keep crossing the state line to buy cheap smokes in Kentucky.
After throwing out his idea Monday night on a KET appearance with Beshear and House Speaker Greg Stumbo, Williams cited Lexington's and Louisville's smoke-free laws as examples of what he'd want to see in a statewide ban.
That's a good starting point. But Williams knows better than anyone that it would take an enormous amount of work and political capital to get the 138 members of the General Assembly there.
And, if you're sincere, you don't launch that kind of effort by blind-siding on statewide TV two of the people you'd have to get on board.
More likely Williams is just trying to create a distraction and dissent among those backing a cigarette tax increase.
If he and the legislature are serious about protecting Kentuckians from the ravages of smoking, they'll dramatically increase the price of smoking. ...
Editor's comment: Both David Williams and the Herald Leader Editorial are correct on this smoking issue. There is NO reason why we can't have both a smoking ban, and an increase in tobacco tax.
Both ideas should NOT be thought of as being mutually exclusive!
Labels: Kentucky politics, Public health
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 2:19 PM
2 Comments:
Why not just outlaw tobacco entirely? Set up roadblock at the border with tobacco sniffing dogs?
Sorry, anon. . It sounds like you are a smoker.
We don't have to go as far as outlawing cigs., but we don't have to go ahead and subsidize them when they get sick from smoke related injuries, either.
Kentucky is number one in smoking and smoking related deaths, and FRANKLY that reputation has proved to be very costly for those of us who don't smoke.
Government can use taxes to discourage costly BAD habits and cigs. are one BIG part of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home