A 4.5 cent per pack increase in the price of cigarettes appears to be going up in smoke - at least temporarily.
Gov. Mike Leavitt has strongly hinted to sponsors of the tax increase that he will veto HB43 - a veto supported by at least one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Robert Montgomery, R-North Ogden."I'm sure the governor will veto it if we push him to, and he has suggested he will," Montgomery said. "I think he should veto it and then we can put it on the special session and make the changes we need to."
At issue is not the price of cigarettes, but an amendment tacked on in the Senate that gives the state, not local communities, total regulatory authority over the distribution and promotion of tobacco products. That amendment stunned sponsors of the bill, who could not get the amendment removed before time expired in the 1996 Legislature.
"My understanding is that it would be better to veto the bill as far as that amendment goes," Montgomery said. "If we let it become law and then go into special session and don't get it off, it could be disastrous for tobacco policy in this state. It seems more of a risky strategy not to veto it."
But Rep. Jordan Tanner, R-Provo and House sponsor of the bill, said he would much rather see the bill become law and then try to amend it in special session. He is confident he has the votes in the House to remove the amendment, but Montgomery is not nearly so certain he has the Senate votes.
"If the governor decides to veto it, I will concur with that. But I am not in favor of that solution," Tanner said.
Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, sponsored the amendment at the request of Utah's retail stores who are frustrated with a patchwork of local ordinances that regulate where tobacco can be displayed and how it can be purchased. Riverton and Pleasant Grove, for example, have ordinances that require all cigarettes be placed behind the counter.
An attempt in the Senate during the waning hours of the session to get the amendment removed failed in a 13-14 vote.
If HB43 becomes law as currently written, cities and counties would lose their regulatory authority, and the state would establish uniform tobacco policy throughout the state. The Legislature, not state agencies, would be charged with setting that policy.
The way the bill is written could threaten aspects of the Utah Indoor Clean Air Act by limiting the ability of the Department of Health to write rules as to how that law is to be interpreted. One rule currently being enforced is that no smoking be allowed within 25 feet of an entrance.
"That requirement is not in the law. Rather it is implied that the Health Department is responsible for interpreting the intent of the law," Tanner said.
But the amendment to the tobacco tax increase makes it clear the Legislature would have to decide every tobacco issue. "We don't want to get into a situation where we have to dot every `i' on tobacco policy," he said.
Most of the $4 million that would be raised by the tax increase was earmarked for programs to keep children from taking up the habit and to help others quit. The programs, which had the enthusiastic support of Utah's medical community, would be administered by the Department of Health, the Utah Substance Abuse Council and the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
The Dmitrich amendment caused a split in the coalition supporting the tax increase. Advocacy groups such as the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Utah were adamantly opposed to major changes in state tobacco policy, whereas the groups administering the stop-smoking programs argued it was more important to get the money into the programs.
As for Montgomery, "we'd rather lose the tax benefits and keep the amendment off," he said. "Once (a law) is on the books it is very difficult to get off."
Leavitt is in Washington, D.C., and was unavailable for comment. However, during the legislative session he repeatedly stated his opposition to any tax increases during a year of record revenue projections. The Dmitrich amendment could give him added reason to veto the bill.