Jewish World Review Feb. 5, 2002 / 23 Shevat, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Antismoking: Who pays? -- CONSERVATIVES, despite what many liberals believe, aren't opposed to sugar and spice and everything nice. We are opposed to the fiction that they can be had only if the government provides, mandates, or pays for them. Food would be plentiful even without farm subsidies; letters would be delivered even if there were no US Postal Service; and fine TV programming would exist even if PBS never got a nickel of federal funds.

Which brings me back to something I wrote last week.

In my column on the fiscal turmoil in Massachusetts, I noted that the American Cancer Society was upset by a proposed 60 percent reduction in the state's lavish budget for antismoking programs. I quoted a spokeswoman's appeal: "We have to invest in tobacco prevention just as we would in a polio vaccine." But must it be the government that does the investing? "Why can't the American Cancer Society raise the necessary funds from willing donors," I asked, "and pay for these programs itself?"

It was a better question than I realized. For as I have since learned, the American Cancer Society used to do just that.

Massachusetts created its elaborate tobacco control operation in 1993 after voters adopted a ballot measure hiking the tobacco excise tax. (It was hiked again in 1996). But long before the state entered the field, private organizations -- including the American Cancer Society -- were helping smokers to quit.

"In those days we offered a variety of direct services, like smoking-cessation programs and counseling," recalls David S. Rosenthal, the director of Harvard University's health facilities and a past president of the American Cancer Society. "We had volunteers who were going one-on-one with smokers and volunteers going into the schools to work with teachers and students. We ran a Smoker's Quitline. And the Great American Smokeout Day began here in Massachusetts."

Other organizations were involved in antismoking work, too. One program operated by the Tobacco Control Resource Center offered six-week cessation courses in hospitals and community centers. The cost to participants was low. "We didn't turn away anyone who couldn't afford it," a former instructor recalls. "Though we did ask them to pay at least what they would have spent on cigarettes."

Before 1993, the state's budget to combat smoking was minimal -- less than $1 million per year. That changed dramatically with the influx of revenue from the new tax. The Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program began life with a huge budget -- $96 million -- and immediately set to work spending it.

Money was poured everywhere: into antitobacco advertising, into a statewide hotline for smokers trying to quit, into stop-smoking counseling and publications, into school activities to discourage smoking, into a tobacco education clearinghouse, into programs run by local boards of health, into tobacco litigation and activism, and much, much more.

Virtually overnight, a powerful tobacco-control industry arose, one that a growing constituency soon depended on for jobs, contracts, and power. Private groups, unable to compete with the state, ended their programs. No longer, for example, did the American Cancer Society train volunteers to run stop-smoking classes or operate its own Smoker's Quitline.

Which is not to say it was unhappy about the rich new player on the antitobacco block. It dropped its policy against taking government funding and was soon contracting with the state to supply tobacco-control services. Instead of providing cessation counseling or a smoker's hotline at its own expense, it began providing them at the taxpayers' expense. The sincerity of the American Cancer Society's antismoking fervor cannot be doubted. But neither can the fact that it came to have a financial interest in the new arrangement.

The upshot is that tobacco control in Massachusetts, once a mostly private endeavor, is now wholly funded with government dollars. A sharp budget cut would certainly be felt by the people who consume those dollars. But what effect would it have on smoking?

Interestingly, the answer appears to be: almost none. Over the past decade, there has been a marked decline in smoking in Massachusetts. Cigarette tax collections indicate that the number of packs sold each year has fallen from (roughly) 550 million in 1991 to 355 million in 2001. Adjust for the smokers who travel out of state to buy tobacco, and it appears that tobacco consumption has dropped by around 30 percent. But nearly all of the drop was caused by the 1993 and 1996 hikes in the cigarette tax. It isn't clear that the hundreds of millions of dollars the state has spent to fund its tobacco-control empire has had any impact on smoking at all.

To say that smoking prevention is important to public health is not the same as saying that the Department of Public Health must be in charge of smoking prevention. A huge government budget is no guarantee of effectiveness. Sometimes all it guarantees is a lot of noise when government budgets must be cut.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe