Del. Eric Luedtke has introduced a bill to hike Maryland’s tobacco tax to provide a mandatory stream of funding for the state’s Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation Program. To many, this may be a tempting idea – make tobacco users fund a program that will help others stop smoking. There are actually a lot of reasons to oppose this tax hike, and I’ll explore them further in future blogs posts, but let’s concentrate today on the reality that if this bill passes, the revenue from it is unlikely to benefit smoking cessation programs.

I don’t know this for certain, but considering how the lawmakers and lobbyists behind the alcohol tax increase acted, I feel fairly safe in saying that if this hike passes, the mandatory funding for the Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation Program will be dropped at the last minute. Remember the alcohol tax hike? The one that was being proposed in order to fund services for people with disabilities? Even though Gov. O’Malley and lobbyists like Vinny DeMarco don’t like to admit it, the money from this tax hike never really went to people with disabilities. Oh, sure, a little bit of the money was directed to them in the first year. But most of the money that first year went to fund school construction projects, projects which seemed suspiciously located in the districts of those legislators who supported the tax hike. After the first year, the money flowed into the general fund, to be spent like any other government revenue. But even though this is the case, tax hike advocates continue to peddle the myth that the alcohol tax helped people with disabilities and journalists don’t fact-check them.

I can imagine something similar happening this time. Let me look into my crystal ball:

A wide cross-section of self-appointed health advocates along with other interest groups have a press conference talking about how much Maryland needs to cut its smoking rate. There will be sad stories of people who died from cancer, tears and outrage from speaker after speaker, and a call from Vinny DeMarco to pass this legislation in order to guarantee that smoking cessation activities will receive their proper funding – something that will save thousands of Marylanders’ lives every year.

Then the bill will make its way through the General Assembly. Advocates will fill the hallways waiting to testify at committee hearings. There will be impassioned pleas to legislators and the professional public health advocates will spend a lot of time on radio and talking to reporters. The sad stories of the people who died from lung cancer will be talked about over and over again. If only these men and women had this guaranteed funding to help them kick their evil smoking habit, the advocates will say.

As the final days of the General Assembly approach, the prospects for the tobacco tax will be unclear. There will be wavering support from some Democrats and the press will be filled with stories on how there may not be enough time to get the bill finished. Maybe next year, the reporters will conclude.

But then there will be a breakthrough. The tobacco tax will pass! But lost in the news stories is the fact that the proceeds will go not to the tobacco fund, but into the general fund. Maybe in the first year they will go to pay for new transportation construction. After all, the gas tax was too unpopular and we need to find some way pay for roads, right? In order to give a false veneer to the tax hike, a small percentage (maybe 15%) will actually go to smoking cessation activities.

There will be a press conference the day the governor signs the bill. Advocates will say it’s a huge victory for anti-smoking activities in Maryland. The lobbyists who ushered the bill through the General Assembly will talk about the money going towards smoking cessation, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the money is being spent on other things. Reporters will fail to do any checking on these matters and report the advocates’ words as fact.

In September 2013, the Board of Public Works will meet to approve funding for the transportation projects being funded with this new tax revenue. Amazingly, the first of these projects are located in districts of legislators who were initially wavering in opposition to the tax hike, but who ultimately decided to support it. Pure coincidence, these legislators will say in the off-chance any reporter will question them.

Is this too cynical? Perhaps. Legislators, please prove me wrong.