COLUMBIA — Local lawmakers may sift through a plethora of topics when they go back into session in January, but one issue they’re sure will be evaluated again is a possible tobacco tax increase.

“I definitely think it’s something we’re going to look at,” said Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Seneca.

The state Senate passed a 50-cent per pack tobacco tax increase in early May, higher than Georgia (37 cents) and North Carolina (35 cents). The increase would have moved the state from last in the nation at 7 cents to 39th in the nation with a total per pack tax of 57 cents. The last time the General Assembly addressed cigarette tax was in 1977.

Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed the measure in late May.

The millions in expected revenue from the tax were to be allotted to the Smoking Prevention and Cessation Trust Fund but were primarily intended for the expansion of health care premium assistance plans and eligibility of Medicaid to include more low-income families.

Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, said he believed that while the issue of a tax increase would once again hit the floor of the General Assembly, the appetite for taking significant action might very well be dictated by the economic landscape of the state.

“Whatever is done, we know we’d need two-thirds to override an impending veto,” Martin said. “I’d say it’s an uphill climb. If we go under another major round of budget cuts, it would make the tobacco tax a viable source of additional revenue for Medicaid, which would free up some funding for K-12 education and other agencies.”

Revenue is currently hard to come by for the Palmetto State, evidenced by the General Assembly’s $488 million in targeted budget reductions in October, which hit primarily state agencies and higher education.

Martin said there is a “case to be made” for increasing South Carolina’s paltry tobacco tax as a means of revenue in stressful economic times for both the nation and the state.

Sandifer, who voted to sustain Sanford’s veto, disagrees with implementing the tax increase for the sake of producing revenue, saying he would only vote for such a measure if it was offset by a comparable cut.

“My position for as long as I can remember has been that if we were voting on a tobacco tax, the only way I’d support it is if it was revenue-neutral, and by that I mean there would have to be a reduction in tax equivalent to that increase,” he said.

Martin said he believes tougher economic times and more budget shortfalls might force the hands of more members of the General Assembly to consider the hike and said that may be the way the state is going.

“To be quite frank with you, we’re heading in that direction,” he said. “Nothing I’ve seen on the horizon in the state and national economy makes me think it’s going to be any different.”

The common thread, however, is the belief that when legislators trek to Columbia for session, tobacco talk could be inevitable.

“There will be tobacco tax legislation proposed,” Sandifer said. “I have no doubt about that.”