Iowa's Great Cigarette-tax Debate

"We know that significantly increasing the tax on cigarettes is the single most effective way to stop young people from being addicted to smoking."

Let's try not only misuse of words, but misunderstanding of the most basic concepts, shall we? Attempting to untangle the words of Sen. Matt McCoy, as quoted in today's Des Moines Register, paints a clear picture as to why very little is ever accomplished-- because the focus is never where it should be.

In this instance, for example, Sen. McCoy's statement prompts an explanation on what the word 'addiction' even means-- and, consequently, the focus shifts off the subject-at-hand: the how and the why this proposed tax will have little effect on whether or not young people smoke cigarettes. One might be tempted to wonder if it is intentional... either that, or the possibility that people from Average Folks all the way up to Elected Officials are so ignorant that they do not know the meaning of words they use on a regular basis. It is more than slightly disconcerting; while all geographical areas have their own language quirks, the accepted habit of misusing words , which, in turn, leaves the listener in the position of dealing with that before addressing the subject-at-hand, well, it is not only frustrating, it is tiring. It causes the listener to wonder what the speaker had actually intended to say.

Open comments to Senator McCoy: first, if the young people are addicted to smoking, raising the tax will not stop them from being addicted; second, if what you meant to say was the tax might help stop youngsters from picking up the smoking habit-- which makes more sense-- your choice of terminology is totally off-base. Perhaps you wished to state that the purpose in raising the tax is to make it more difficult for youngsters to begin a habit to which they will become addicted?

Only after attempting to untangle what a speaker is actually talking about can the subject-matter be addressed: raising the tax will have little effect on youngsters, as teens are the most significant group of consumers, generally coming up with the funding for purchases of their choice.

Governor Culver, on the other hand, has stated that his primary goal in raising the tax is to encourage people to give up the habit. What is essentially a matter of forcing people to quit by placing cigarettes out of the reach of those who cannot easily afford the extra dollar is unreasonable in general, and it will have far less effect on the young people which Iowa's elected officials claim to care about than making it an unnecessary hardship on others-- both adults who indeed do have the right to make such a basic decision for themselves, as well as Iowa businesses which will suffer from Iowans going to Missouri or Kansas to acquire cigarettes at a lower price.

As the state of Iowa frequently claims its wish to have English declared the official language, perhaps elected officials should begin communicating in it. Their approach to raising the cigarette tax is off-base, but not nearly as much as the fumbling manner in which they explain it.