Photo by Ken Ruinard
Lacey Councill, doclink coordinator, looks at a cloth banner with many names of chemicals found in tobacco products. Councill visits Anderson County school children to help them understand potential hazards of smoking.
ANDERSON — Lacey Councill pulls a black piece of rubber shaped like a lung off a shelf in her office. Then she reaches for Mr. Gross Mouth, a model of what the mouth of a smoker often looks like.
These are her props.
Through a program called Doclink, Councill uses these tools to teach the dangers of smoking to fifth-graders in Anderson County schools. Doclink is a program started with $1.5 million from AnMed Health.
“It always grosses the kids out when you tell them that cigarettes contain the same chemicals we use to embalm dead people in,” Councill said.
With the help of volunteers, Councill teaches the “Tar Wars” program, and other health programs, to nearly 10,000 students in a year with a budget of about $85,000, a budget that has shrunk over the years. The nonprofit Doclink, which is housed in a physician’s office off Reed Road, did have two full-time employees. Now there’s just Councill.
Programs like this one could benefit from a bill being considered by the South Carolina legislature to raise the tax on cigarettes by 50 cents a pack, to a total 57 cents a pack.
Legislators and smokers talked about the tax as a new report this week listed South Carolina 44th in the nation for its spending on anti-smoking programs. The same report also said South Carolina’s cigarette tax is the lowest in the nation at 7 cents a pack. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released the report.
S.C. Sen. Thomas Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate subcommittee looking at the cigarette tax legislation, said the tax has not been raised since 1977.
South Carolina has spent $2 million in state funds and $1.2 million in federal money for tobacco prevention programs, compared to the $62 million recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
North Dakota is the only state to spend what the CDC recommends on anti-smoking programs.
S.C. Sen. Kevin Bryant of Anderson said he is not sure how he feels about the state spending more money, specifically money from an increased cigarette tax, on tobacco use prevention programs.
“I have not done the research to see how effective these programs are,” Bryant said.
When Doclink began 10 years ago, the staff surveyed students about their risk behaviors, allowing them to remain anonymous, said Dr. David deHoll, who specializes in orthopedics and has been part of Doclink since it began. A couple of years ago, the survey was conducted again.
“There’s less risk behaviors in the schools where we’ve been able to interact, compared to those where we have not,” deHoll said. “But we won’t really have the true results of our work for decades.”
Councill said the “Tar Wars” presentation has been shown to nearly every fifth-grade class in Anderson County. “But if you only hit kids with this one time, it doesn’t really help,” Councill argued. “They need to be hearing this message over and over again — not just from Doclink.”
To make that happen, Alexander said, more money needs to be made available and a consistent source of funding is needed. The increase in the cigarette tax could generate up to $143 million in the first year, Alexander said.
“However, I do believe it could be a declining source of revenue,” Alexander said. “I think that’s why it is important to get the money in hand before it’s appropriated and allocated.”
Alexander said the cigarette tax will likely be a matter debated, and possibly voted on, in the next legislative session to start in January.
Bryant said he doesn’t believe the legislature should pass such an increase that doesn’t specify how the money is to be spent. As a pharmacist, he said, he is not opposed to a cigarette tax, altogether, but he wants to know where the money will be spent and wants to see corporate taxes decreased in the process.
“Take the same amount, and lower corporate income tax, which would boost job creation,” Bryant said. “Anytime you raise taxes, you are drawing money out of the pockets of consumers in an economy that’s hurting already.”
Smokers like Kathy Gibson and Patty Smith don’t like the cigarette tax at all, saying it’s unfair. Both said they have been smokers for 20 to 25 years. Each said she will continue to smoke, if she wants to, whether or not the tax is increased.
“If you tax cigarettes, why not other stuff, like candy?” Smith said. “It’s an easy tax. They know where to get extra money fast. They pick things like beer, gas or cigarettes. They know they’ll make a fast buck on those. And they know smokers will spend the money.”
“They don’t like us when we smoke,” Smith said, “but they sure like our tax money.”
100-degree days continue
Home values 
Ralph Hayes Toyota Block Part…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 16
yanqui59 writes:
Why don't they just stop making Them, I don't know anyone else that would allow someone to poison us and make money off of it! sitting in traffic can also cause cancer, barbecuing meat and having the juices drip onto those coals we use to cook our food and that is as bad as smoking? Tax something else, like how about if we tax you big politicians and all your useless laws, we should have a Poo tax, so you can tax bathroom use or how about the over weight I assume they don't cost anyone anything for their shabby health huh! Cigarettes are leagal and I wish someone would sue the pants off of all you complainers, it's legal we pay for them and I myself have insurance sooooo.... toot your horn somewhere else, your taking advantage of people who have a habit.
Hortuscustodis writes:
RE:"I wish someone would sue the pants off of all you complainers"
It is simply called the "First Amendment", AKA FREEDOM of SPEECH. This is an open forum!
js2008 writes:
Good. This state needs to get into the new century and ban smoking in all public places for the health of its citizens.
Hortuscustodis writes:
BTW, I will stop complaining when you stop polluting the air I breath, stop throwing cigarette butts out your windows, and I do not have to smell the stench emanating from you when you walk by.
Niblits writes:
In one way it is unfortunate that the poor and less educated, the "majority" of cigarette smokers, are hit with this tax. Smokers pay more for insurance if they have it and might not be hired because of their habit. Then there is the much higher cost to them and the general public for their health care resulting from smoking. Smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death. We all pay for it one way or another.
57freebird writes:
Where is the outcry over alcohol? When was the last time you read a smoker hit a car head on and killed every one or a father came home smoking and beat his wife and children? Once again the do-gooders are bored and will pick on a group of people least able to defend themselves and from this group of people can raise more money for their plan and keep themselves in a job while these people must suffer because they CHOOSE to do some that is legal!
yanqui59 writes:
I understand this is a Forum that's why I'm typing this Freedom of Speech, It's legal to smoke and this attack on Taxing Cigs MORE is down right Prejudice! I say if they are that BAD for the Economy then STOP MAKING THEM!!!! the majority of people would stop out of site out of mind. What would they tax then? Second hand smoke hmmm..... lets see I'm 50 Everyone in my family smoked around us and geesh second hand smoke didn't do anything then? what changed. Did the government allow more poison to be put in the tabacco? This smoking thing could be stopped by not making them in this country anymore then you could climb off the backs of those who chose to smoke cause IT WAS LEAGAL~ More time is spent on Lambasting smokers than their is on Alcohol caused deaths. it just makes sense oH... wait they wouldn't illegalize it cause then they would have ALLOT more people out of Work. Sooooo..... complain away! Until Someone shows me that they are serious about cigs I will not take any of you serious because they don't take you serious by continuing to manufacture the product Do to it's success of Making Money!
Hortuscustodis writes:
YOU are the one that wants to sue others for expressing themselves. I defended free speech when you expressed a desire to suppress it. Alcohol is taxed at a high rate and it is legal so now drinkers are in the same category. I do not like the smell of cigarettes, I said nothing about second hand smoke. But, there is more than enough data to show that second hand smoke is detrimental to non-smokers. Get over your "it is legal I am not hurting anything" attitude and realize that your HABIT infringes upon my right to clean fresh smelling unpolluted air. That is what makes smokers the preferred "target". There are laws on the books to protect others from alcohol.
You are right on one point and that is the money aspect. If it had not enriched so many then tobacco use would have stopped or been curtailed greatly long ago.
baitbucket writes:
Well, for the sake of total exposure, I smoke and I like it. However, it is unhealthy. I mean, inhaling the byproducts of burned organics just isn't good. Not to mention, the temperature of the smoke alone may cause your air sacs to burst.
Nevertheless, I do wish the state would grab their cahoonahs by simply stating that this is a measure to dissuade people from smoking. Granted, they might make calls of socialism, but I assure you, it's in gov'ts best interest to ensure that we are healthy.
As a little thought experiment, I like to consider how future generations may look upon their ancestors' smoking habits.
Much like we can look back now and ask, "How did you people condone slavery?" (i.e. pre-19th century), I have this feeling that our future will say, "Guuush-gosh, how did you people condone such an unhealthy habit that equates itself with time-delayed suicide?"
Then again, I think our future generations will be more focused on pill use rather than combustible organics...
yanqui59 writes:
LOL BaitBcket that was a good comment! Hortuscustodis I think you just want an argument! I don't want to sue others, just the Government for making the Habit forming smokes we are talking about, my MAIN POINT is this STOP MAKING THEM and then everyone else may take them serious, until then they are just going after smokers for the MONEY MAKING of the habit. that's all, relaxe! I got no beef with you! : D
Hortuscustodis writes:
I am not "looking for an argument, I do however enjoy pointing out obviously flawed arguments and illogical statements. Such as the one in your last post about suing "...the government for making the habit forming smokes...". The government has not ever made cigarettes.
I do not disagree that there are government entities making money from it, just as they do from other much more innocuous activities.
yanqui59 writes:
I stand corrected!
clinkieb#277028 writes:
You people can sit and condemn the smoker all day long, how about adding more taxes to the (high fat) fast food joints and the (high fat) southern cooking restaurants. Cigarettes are killers, but, some of the food they are serving in Anderson are making a percentage of our residence obese, also, I will stop complaining when I walk into a restaurant in Anderson where I can purchase healthy food. Let's start with some vegetarian low fat restaurants. Obesity kills!
Hortuscustodis writes:
The "food tax" you suggest is fine, we do not eat at those establishments often anyway.
jmttm#234646 writes:
It is a proven fact that cigarettes, smoked, chewed, and inhaled second-hand, can (operative word) cause cancer in varying forms and without a doubt, emphysema, and decreased oxygenation to every cell of every organ, including the heart. These are cold, scientific facts. And, if you don't believe them, you are living with your head in the sand. While the ultra-conservatives cry about taking a drink, the ultra-liberals cry about not being able to take a puff. All extremes are historically bad. Why don't you all smarten up and see that if you raise the tax on cigarettes, the state will make more money to educate our society about all the perils that face us. The issue here is cigarette tax, not drinking. I would hope that the state taxes cigarettes until they are unattainable by even the uneducated and whiners. Fact: Those who smoke reek of burned toxins, the stink of which eminates from everything a smoker wears and touches, including the smoker's very pores. Blah. As a non-smoker, I have the right to breath tobacco-free air EVERYWHERE I go. South Carolina is so backward that one cannot go into a restaurant without breathing someone else's burned toxins. Are the non-smoker's rights less important than the smoker's rights?
olereb writes:
Ban cigarettes, Nope don't think so.SC worried about all the good tax money and not really the health of the people.The State is like the other bunch in Washington..Pet projects kills the budget.If you happen to live in the right counties,you get the best of the pork.I say we start BBQ-ING the ones we elected and hire someone who looks after the GREAT STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA!!
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.