Don’t drink? Don’t smoke? Whatcha gonna do?

There truly may be nothing else in life to do – as the stupid Adam Ant 1980s song suggests – but that’s all right, because at least we non-smokers, unlike our inhaling compatriots, don’t have to pay an ever-increasing amount of Maine’s tax burden.

I don’t smoke – don’t want to – but I feel bad for those who do. The average retail cost of a pack is almost $6 now. That’s crazy. The Marlboro Man must be crying. And we can only hope his tears aren’t drowning his cigarette.

I like the idea of smoking. I tried one at a tennis court with my good buddy Geoff Visgilio, a cultural rebel if ever there was one, when I was a teenager. One puff and it was over. (I’m sorry you have to read this, Mom.) In a blink of a smoke-filled eye, except for a few cigars enjoyed with my brother at important moments in both of our lives, my life as a sophisticated smoker was history with that one smelly and nasty tasting cig. Good thing too, because later in life I moved to the state of Maine where cigarettes and smokers obviously aren’t welcome.

It’s really amazing how the state’s lawmakers are getting away with the recent tax increase on cigarettes. The full retail value of a pack of cigarettes went from $4.85 to $5.85 a pack Sept. 17. Lawmakers argue that the increase is needed because health care costs associated with smoking are exploding and the state needs to increase taxes to help pay for it. These always-altruistic reps are also intimating, maybe not directly, that increasing the costs will probably make smoking history by pricing it above people’s means. The state is calculating that smokers will analyze the costs and the benefits, as well as the risks, and decide to put out their cigarettes for a final time.

That’s highly unlikely. What will happen is people will continue to smoke, and since studies show that poorer people are more likely to smoke, poorer people will be paying more tax to the state of Maine. If a smoker lights up to the tune of two packs a day, this tax will add an additional $700 a year. Big money for sure. And that’s on top of the tax already imposed on cigarettes. They say lottery tickets are a “poor man’s tax” since most who play the lottery are those who can least afford it. Now, thanks to the Maine Legislature, another poor man’s tax is the cigarette tax.

No doubt, political correctness is at the bottom of this. It’s okay now to punish smokers because they are on the socially acceptable fringes of society. Why not, as many are wondering, increase tax on alcohol or candy bars? Can you imagine a 75-cent Snickers becoming $1.75 overnight. Caramel, chocolate and peanut lovers would be up in arms. Or, how about a $1 tax on Little Debbies? Well, that may be a good thing. She’s evil. She and her high fructose corn syrup do wonders for the taste buds and endorphins, but not so much for the waistline. But lovers of Little Debbies and Snickers are nowhere near the level of ill repute as are those who inhale.

Yes, smoking is bad for you and can cause early death and costly illness, but it’s wrong that we are targeting a group of Mainers and taxing them out of something they enjoy. People forget that some folks do enjoy smoking, just as others enjoy drinking alcohol or going to the beach or riding a motorcycle. Are they going to tax gasoline at a higher rate for motorcyclists? In Scarborough, it already costs a lousy $10 to park your car at Pine Point. That’s a tax on beachgoers.

The idea of taxation should be to spread the burden around to all groups of people. Last week, this space was devoted to lamenting the pay-per-bag trash program in Windham on this same principle. Last year about this time, voters were focused on Carol Palesky’s proposal to limit property tax rates for Maine property owners. Palesky wanted the tax burden lowered and shared more equally by everyone. Smokers should have the same expectations. The Legislature is asking one group of Mainers to shoulder too much of the tax burden. We need to equalize the burden. Spread the burden; share the wealth.

Or lower spending. That’s an even better idea.

-John Balentine, editor