Gov. Janet Mills’ proposal to bring the tax from $2 to $3 per pack of 20 cigarettes is sensible, future-oriented and deserves Mainers’ support.

There are two primary reasons to endorse this piece of budgetary policy. The first comes down to cold, hard cash. The increase to the tax stands to pull in $80 million in the space of two years. Those millions will, according to Mills’ recent statements, go toward the maintenance of “core” services and supports that are state-sponsored and administered. Revenue from the tax on ​​cigarettes has increased to record highs in recent years.

The second reason is more complex, and it has less to do with politics or public spending (although there is, ultimately, public spending rationale). It’s the very effective role that increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes plays in reducing smoking, which is extremely destructive to smokers’ health and a dependable cause of lung cancer, heart disease and stroke. More than one-third of Maine cancer deaths are due to smoke; it’s a gruesome statistic.

In 2020, according to the American Cancer Society, Maine was among the top 15 states for smoking-related cancer deaths. The statement introducing the analysis pointed out that those 15 states “also have historically higher tobacco use rates, excluding Maine.”

We just don’t belong in this group.

In a recent letter to the editor, a Maine surgeon threw his weight behind the tax increase. “Having performed cardiac and thoracic surgery in Maine for over 30 years, I know firsthand the human suffering caused by smoking,” wrote Dr. Seth Blank, of Cape Elizabeth, who went on to cite a National Bureau of Economic Research study that found a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes could decrease adult consumption by between 3% and 5%.

Opponents to the hike brand it as a “sin tax” overstep, a grubby bit of official money-grabbing that unreasonably squeezes consumers who are already feeling very squeezed. That squeeze is no joke. Neither, however, is a cancer diagnosis.

It would be one thing if the Mills administration was attempting to bring in a cigarette tax that shot it way up out of step with our regional and cultural state counterparts. The fact of the matter is we have the second-lowest cigarette tax in New England (second to New Hampshire, which, in the spirit of living free, hovers below the national average), and it’s been at the same level for 20 years. Even if we succeed in moving to $3, our tax will still be lower than that of Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

It is important to note that this tax, if implemented, can’t stand alone, nor be looked upon as some kind of magic wand; to be really effective, it needs to be part of a wider and concerted drive toward the prevention and cessation of tobacco use. That requires education, warning labels, a fresh emphasis on smokeless environments, and sincere, unshy support of interventions proven to help people cut back or quit.