Here in Alaska, the total tax on tobacco, including federal, state, and city, is $3.31 per pack, a 122% increase on the original $2.71 wholesale cost. A recent hike in tobacco taxes was trumpeted by state officials as a way to increase revenue and discourage tobacco use. The great harms caused by tobacco use make at least one of these goals unquestionably sound. The other, increasing revenue, works for a time unless one succeeds in reducing the use of the very product the state is trying to discourage. One hardly has to wonder which of these diametrically opposed goals state officials are most interested in accomplishing. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume a reduction in consumption of a harmful and addictive substance is the most sought after end result.

     Why not then apply this same model to an even more addictive and harmful substance, a substance whose use not only pollutes and poisons the user but the user’s environment and the atmosphere of the entire planet: gasoline. In Alaska, gasoline currently has less than 26 cents of state and federal tax applied, roughly a 15% increase if one uses a somewhat lower and optimistic base price. Certainly discouraging the poisoning of the air we all breathe is of equal importance to singling out the health of individual smokers.

     A 2002 Congressional Budget Office report on methods of reducing gasoline consumption to increase US energy security concluded that while increasing gasoline tax could not ensure a specific reduction in use, it was the most cost effective method among those studied, including an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards. The report, entitled "Reducing Gasoline Consumption: Three Policy Options", claims that a "...tax increase would provide an equal incentive for producers and consumers to undertake all possible activities to save gasoline, rather than focusing on just a few activities (such as improving the fuel economy of vehicles). "  The report points out that simply decreasing the operating costs of vehicles by increasing their fuel efficiency could actually encourage driving and thus increase overall consumption.

     It has been argued in the past that increased gasoline prices affect lower income users disproportionally and this is true to a certain extent whether one takes into account the increased cost in personal transportation or the inevitable increase in the cost of living as companies pass on the cost of doing business to their customers. This regression is, however, the nature of all taxes, especially tobacco. Tobacco use is not only higher among lower income families, but highest among the lowest sub poverty level income bracket. Education also has an inverse relationship with the lowest education levels reporting more tobacco use. Conversely, those in the mid to upper income and education brackets are more likely to not only use their car more often, but to take longer trips when they do, and be less likely to use public transportation.

     Tobacco taxes are, in no uncertain terms, taxes on the poorest and least educated members of our society, members who are addicted and, for the most part, harming only themselves. Increasing the tax on the sin of excessive burning of gasoline and adversely affecting the world’s environment could bring real positive change to all, even those that indulge least or not at all. However, war and elections revolve around oil and gasoline’s price at the pump, while few take notice when the unhealthy habits of the poor are further exploited. Filthy habits are easy to punish when they are far less glamorous and culturally reinforced than driving a shiny new car.

Todd Burns is a blogger who currently resides in an undisclosed location in Alaska. He can be reached at TWBurns@gmail.com.