By David Ammons
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, Oct. 20, 2001; 2:15 a.m. EDT

OLYMPIA, Wash. –– Washington voters are being asked to boost their cigarette taxes to the highest in the nation, with the bulk of the money going into health coverage for thousands of people who are uninsured.

Sponsors say it has the added benefit of helping to price cigarettes out of the range of children: The tax increase would boost cigarette prices at many stores to over $5 a pack and drive the price of a can of chewing tobacco to $6.

But some young adults say an extra 60 cents a pack isn't enough to make a difference to smokers, and opponents of the plan deride it as an unfair tax on a legal substance and a legislative mistake that could led to future problems for the insurance program.

Inside a smoke-filled cafe, Tristan Swanson, 20, and three friends have mixed feelings about Initiative 773.

As they puff on Camels from a pack they've just bought for $4.35, two say they oppose the tax, while the other two praise the health insurance goals and say they might vote for the plan.

All agree on one thing: It won't change their cigarette buying habits.

"It'll make it more difficult to keep up my standard of living, but it won't cut down on smoking," Swanson says. "I'll scrape up another 60 cents. I just wish they'd stop punishing smokers and stop trying to save us from ourselves."

Washington already has the fourth highest cigarette tax in the country, at 82.5 cents a pack, trailing only New York, at $1.11, and Alaska and Hawaii, both at $1. With Initiative 773, Washington's per-pack tax would be $1.42 1/2.

A 54.5 percent surtax on cigars, pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco would boost the state tax rate on those products to a national high – 129.4 percent of the wholesale price.

The initiative, scheduled to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, would increase the state's cigarette taxes by 60 cents a pack starting next year. The plan has the support of local chapters of the American Medical Association, PTA and lung, heart and cancer associations, while the opposition is largely financed by tobacco companies.

The latest independent statewide poll shows the measure winning handily.

Eric Jaffe, spokesman for the initiative, says the plan is an "elegant" solution to two big health care problems: teen smoking and inadequate access to health insurance.

The 15 states that have raised tobacco taxes in recent years have seen a drop in youth smoking, Jaffe says. The states include California, where a 50-cent-a-pack increase was pushed through in 1998; Alaska, with a 71-cent increase enacted in 1997; and Oregon, with a 30-cent hike the same year.

Washington's Department of Revenue estimates that its proposed tax increase would generate $219 million in the 18 months left in the current budget cycle and $270 million in a two-year budget period starting in 2003.

Ten percent of the money would go for anti-tobacco programs, including television commercials.

The majority, however, would go into expanding the state's subsidized insurance plan for uninsured people who don't qualify for Medicaid.

Under the program, coverage is offered on a sliding scale to individuals who earn less than $17,000 a year. For a family of four, the upper income limit is about $35,000.

Roughly 400,000 people statewide qualify for the program, but only 125,000 are currently covered. The tax increase is designed to add 50,000 people to the program.

Some opponents of the initiative say the increasingly expensive program shouldn't be built up using tobacco taxes, which they call a shaky, declining source of revenue.

"This is horrible fiscal policy," says Valoria Loveland, a former chairwoman of the state Senate's budget committee.

Others say the tax increase is exorbitant and will just end up hitting the poor – the people it is meant to help – the hardest.

–––

On the Net:

Sponsors: http://www.i-773.org

Opponents: http://www.stopi773.com