YES OR NO ON CA PROP 29

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2012 9:03 PM GMT
    Yes or no on California Prop 29?

    Prop 29 increases cigarette tax by $1 to pay for cancer research.
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 01, 2012 10:00 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidYes or no on California Prop 29?

    Prop 29 increases cigarette tax by $1 to pay for cancer research.


    1) I'm in Texas and it doesn't effect me and 2) I don't know anyone who smokes. So I'm going to say I just don't care.

    When I was in San Francisco last weekend the counter point to this the "No on 29" people had issue with the money raised not being spent in California ONLY. Of course the ads were payed for by tobacco companies. I think the way the prop is written will be it's own death.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 1:31 AM GMT
    I am all for taxes that pay for addicts self destructive behavior. I would love to see a dollar per soft drink to pay for obesity education and prevention. Maybe 25 cents per burger, same thing.

    Dollar a pack for smokers, good start.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 2:48 AM GMT
    Just a $1? I say we increase it $50 to pay for all economic crumbling in this state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 2:50 AM GMT
    ^^^ THIS! Might help if it applied to indian reservations too. Yeah, I know.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 3:10 AM GMT
    Huge NO!
  • CalebKM

    Posts: 156

    Jun 02, 2012 3:15 AM GMT
    I smoke and I think it's a great idea, knowing a dollar from millions of people is going towards something that could end an illness that kills thousands a day? Definitely, maybe if they did this everywhere awhile ago my mother and many other could be alive? Maybe, considering the government doesn't want drug companies to disappear. Answer to question: Yes. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Vaughn

    Posts: 1880

    Jun 02, 2012 4:17 AM GMT
    I think it should only apply to research grants done by institutions in California. I also agree with the guy with the guy who mentioned soda/fast food. Instead of obesity eduction maybe the government could use that money to subsidize gyms or diabetes treatments. Maybe there should be a warning on every can of soda like how there is on cigarette packs.
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Jun 02, 2012 4:38 AM GMT
    I'd vote yes if I lived in California.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 4:40 AM GMT
    I'm going to vote for it. I think the attack ads that are just characterizing it as a new tax going to support a bureaucracy and that the money will be sent out of California but never specifically mention that its a cigarette tax are laughable and irrelevant. If it gets people to stop smoking, it's a good thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 4:47 AM GMT
    I have a place in California, but I'm a resident of Michigan. If I was a resident, I would vote for it. Cigarette smoking usually drops when a state raises it's cigarette tax. I wouldn't care if the money was going to research out of the state because it's going to cancer research, a good cause. There are some hard core smokers that are never going to stop, so raise money from their bad habit. One of the casinos here in Detroit sells cigarettes for $14 because you are captive there as a customer and I always see people desperate for a puff purchasing them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 5:02 AM GMT
    I'd vote yes, but ideally it should go to research within the state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 12:58 PM GMT
    According to the LA Times:

    California's cigarette tax is currently a mere 87 cents, but smoking costs taxpayers more than $15 for every pack sold, according to a report compiled from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Also according to the CDC, annual healthcare expenditures in California directly caused by tobacco use total a staggering $9.1 billion. Furthermore, Proposition 29 is estimated to result in more than $5 billion in long-term savings that accrue over lifetimes of persons who stop smoking or never start because of the tax increase.
  • studflyboy87

    Posts: 194

    Jun 02, 2012 1:16 PM GMT
    I would vote YES on Prop 29 regardless of how the money is spent.

    The average state tax per pack is $1.46. But that's not the whole story. The average state tax per pack from "Major Tobacco States" is only 48.5 cents per pack, while the national average for normal states is $1.59 per pack.

    California is WAY below the national average at only 87 cents per pack. That puts it 33rd, ahead of basically just "major tobacco states" and a few others. California has not raised their tax on cigarettes since before 1999! Meanwhile, 47 out of 50 states have raised their tax on cigarettes since 2002.

    I would probably vote YES on Prop 29 even if they took the money and burned it. The point of a cigarette tax is decrease the number of smokers (or the number of cigarettes that certain smokers smoke). That also helps reduce the amount of second hand smoke that people are exposed to. If you want to see some data on price of cigarettes vs. percentage of smokers, check out this document. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf

    I am definitely voting YES on Prop 29.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 1:21 PM GMT
    Increase cigarette tax $5.00/pack. Maybe that would get some
    people to quit. Cigarettes here in Canada are between $8-12/pack.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 02, 2012 1:28 PM GMT
    biman84 said Increase cigarette tax $5.00/pack. Maybe that would get some
    people to quit. Cigarettes here in Canada are between $8-12/pack.


    Not sure what other states are at, but in Maryland, I think, they are in the $6 - 7 range... but I would vote to raise taxes on them.
  • Dbrad3693

    Posts: 227

    Jun 02, 2012 1:56 PM GMT
    I think it would be an awesome idea, but i dont live in CA
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 1:57 PM GMT
    How about a mandatory $1 tax on lube to pay for Aids research? All this shit is unconstitutional and it undermines our democracy. Its government sanctioned bullying.

    Im gonna get the government to steal your lunch money from you cus I want a new red bike.
  • studflyboy87

    Posts: 194

    Jun 02, 2012 4:41 PM GMT
    The government can tax whatever they want. If they tax us too much that people don't like it, they can expect to be voted out of office and replaced with someone better. That is how our democratic republic works.

    In the case of Prop 29, this is the PEOPLE (not the government) deciding to tax cigarettes. 85% of the state doesn't smoke and does not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. I'm all for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 4:54 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidHow about a mandatory $1 tax on lube to pay for Aids research? All this shit is unconstitutional and it undermines our democracy. Its government sanctioned bullying.

    Im gonna get the government to steal your lunch money from you cus I want a new red bike.



    It is very doubtful you would win the argument of this tax being unconstitutional in a court of law.

    And a tax on lube is not the same idea. The ingredients in lube are not causing disease. The ingredients in cigarettes are causing disease.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidI am all for taxes that pay for addicts self destructive behavior. I would love to see a dollar per soft drink to pay for obesity education and prevention. Maybe 25 cents per burger, same thing.

    Dollar a pack for smokers, good start.


    Believe it or not - I actually agree with this. I think if fast food were less affordable than healthier food, we could start to turn the tide. Raise taxes and prices on the unhealthy foods to supplement price caps on healthier foods.

    Some states already have price caps on items like bread, flour, and milk. Why not price caps on other healthier items. - Sort of like incentives for "green" products in other areas.

    Just a thought.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2012 5:09 PM GMT
    I am against all sin taxes. Its just another way for the government to steal from people.
  • Gaymer

    Posts: 111

    Jun 02, 2012 5:20 PM GMT
    What *SORT* of cancer research?

    Also, the best way to prevent Lung cancer induced by smoking would be: A) stop smoking OR B) Companies removing the laundry list of carcinogenics and poisons from their tobacco products. Which one is more likely to happen? icon_rolleyes.gif

    However, the price of cigs won't stop people who smoke. Higher prices (NY is pretty redic with the price, yet people still friggin buy them) only hurt the poorer customers. They'll keep buying them and less money will go to their kids or their rent. Who cares about the middle or upper class customers? They have the resources to look up and follow ways to healthier living. People trapped in the poverty cycle will still rely on cigs as some hallucination of "stress relief".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 11:00 PM GMT
    Dav488 saidWhat *SORT* of cancer research?

    Also, the best way to prevent Lung cancer induced by smoking would be: A) stop smoking OR B) Companies removing the laundry list of carcinogenics and poisons from their tobacco products. Which one is more likely to happen? icon_rolleyes.gif

    However, the price of cigs won't stop people who smoke. Higher prices (NY is pretty redic with the price, yet people still friggin buy them) only hurt the poorer customers. They'll keep buying them and less money will go to their kids or their rent. Who cares about the middle or upper class customers? They have the resources to look up and follow ways to healthier living. People trapped in the poverty cycle will still rely on cigs as some hallucination of "stress relief".


    Really? Doesn't stop people from smoking?


    "The number of adult New Yorkers who smoke has fallen 35 percent since 2002, to 14 percent from nearly 22 percent, representing about 450,000 fewer smokers and potentially 50,000 fewer premature deaths by the year 2052, city officials said."

    "City officials said that higher cigarette taxes had also been a deterrent. In 2010, city, state and federal cigarette taxes amounted to $6.86 a pack, compared with $1.58 in taxes in 2000. The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the city is now $11.20."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/nyregion/survey-finds-14-percent-of-new-yorkers-smoke-a-decline.html?_r=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 07, 2012 8:03 PM GMT
    Not being a smoker myself i'm sure i'm biased so obviously i'd be fine with it. One thing I really noticed after moving out here to vegas was the fact that everytime I step out of a casino I smell like smoke. I miss that fact about living in california, that few if any places allow smoking indoors. Any reduction in smoking is a welcome sound to my ears.