Legislators can do better than I-185

While I share Jim Elliott’s feelings about the “big tobacco” anti-185 advertising, I don’t want to vote based on a knee-jerk reaction. And, as much as I dislike that “big tobacco” funds the anti-ads, I’m equally unhappy to see corporate medicine, which has a financial stake in expanded Medicaid, pouring money into the pro-ads. It seems there are more than enough lobbyists to go around.

Drawing a line between tobacco and health care costs is a ruse. If I-185 raised the tax on tobacco, included electronic devices in the tax, and applied that tax revenue (less administrative costs) to tobacco cessation and tobacco related health issues, I’d probably vote for it. If the increased cost succeeded in reducing tobacco use, the need for the expenditures would go down as the revenue decreased.

That, however, is not the case. I-185 is about the money, and smoking is an easy target because it’s not most of us. It seems rather akin to asking voters statewide if they want to impose a tax on Missoula and Flathead counties.

I do fear that if I-185 fails, the Legislature will interpret the failure as a referendum on expanded health care access, rather than a vote against bad legislation. That, however, is no justification to enact bad law.

So, to that end, I will vote no on I-185, then I will contact my legislators, and express my expectation that they can do better.

Pat Crowder,

Thompson Falls