Anyone else noticing the "No on 29" ads?

[Auggie]

They've been really frequent on sports programming in the Bay Area.

Prop 29 is the $1 per-pack tax on cigarettes, aimed at collecting $700 million each year for cancer research and smoking prevention, with a lot of emphasis aimed at children.

Big Tobacco is spending a ton of money against it. On the website, the "No on 29" campaign calls it a "tax hike" and "a poorly drafted measure that would create a new unaccountable state bureaucracy filled with political appointees."

If the cigarette companies are against it, then I'm for it.

[Mz Pip]

1. I'll have to read it.

However, I am generally opposed to most initiatives. We've gotten some really bad laws because of them. They sound like a good idea but the devil is in the details.

[Kalidurga]

2. Well, they had my sympathy til they lied.

I don't like regressive taxes in general. I don't like taxes that are aimed at poor people and minorities. More poor and minorities smoke than middle and upper class white people. I would like a tax just once to be aimed at people who can afford it without the pain that poor people feel when they have to pay extra for anything. But, really do they think that another agency will be created? Or is it more likely that the money is going to be handled by an already existing agency. I think the later is more likely. Since they want to use tea bagger language, I am inclined if I have a choice to vote Yes on 29.

[zbdent]

3. okay, here's a "conservative spin" on the "aimed at poor people" point ...

maybe if they didn't literally "burn" their money by buying cigarettes ... maybe they wouldn't be as "poor" ...

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. Conservatives don't say that.

Conservatives blame "evil government", "stupid science" and Democrats of all kinds for it. They have been saying it since the 1970s.

[zbdent]

6. Of course conservatives don't say that smoking is "burning money" in a near-literal sense ...

if they did that, they would probably lose the big $$$ from the Tobacco companies ...

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. I was referring to the opinions expressed by conservative citizens.

I don't know what you are referring to.

[DJ13]

4. Good, I hope it fails

They've taxed tobacco too often already.

Yes I know people who hate it find nothing wrong with more (and more.. and more) taxes on it, but hurting the poor because some hate the product is hardly a liberal stance.

[Gold Metal Flake]

8. +1

[Auggie]

9. For people who quit -- rich and poor -- it's a big savings

Pack a day @ $5.00 = $1825.00 a year (health benefits aside). Plus the savings in health insurance premiums.

The price incentive helped me quit. Wish I would have done it years before (wish I had never started, actually). I'd be breathing normally today.

[KamaAina]

12. You have a point. The per-pack tax is regressive.

Better to add a surtax on tobacco, that is, subject it to a higher rate of sales tax. That way the tax on a pack of USA from Kwik-E-Mart is a lot less than on a pack of Gauloises from Snooty Tobacconists, Ltd. on Union Square.

edit: Same goes for liquor. The 5-cent-a-drink thing is bogus. And I say that as a huge supporter of the assemblymember (and hopefully senator soon) who sponsored it.

[KamaAina]

10. I'd be a lot happier if the $700 million were going to the general fund

Lavishing funds on cancer research while people's basic health care needs, such as personal care attendants for people with disabilities, face more draconian cuts is just plain evil.

[roody]

11. I agree. Cancer research

Is somebody's gravy train.

[Merlot]

13. When they say "cancer research" do they mean cause or cure?

Because if they're looking for a "cure" that means they're creating more drugs that the drug companies will control and profit from.

Heaven forbid they look into prevention or causes...

[Auggie]

14. There will be preventative efforts aimed at children and adults

[Raine]

17. TOTALLY agree. This one gets a big NO from me. nt

[ges5626sek]

15. nt.

[bemildred]

16. I was polled about this last night,

It seemed to me the point of the poll was to find which arguments would get traction, that is it was not a push poll that I could tell.

(I'll have to read it, but I'll probably vote against it.)