I actually have a problem with cigarette taxes in that they’re extremely regressive. Most of the top 1 percent don’t smoke. Over the past have century, it’s become much more exclusively a lower class vice. It’s very easy to dismiss the concern because smoking is a choice, but for the fact that you’re talking about the most addictive substance known. And much like passing laws for tougher laws against child molesters (would you ever oppose tougher laws for child molesters no matter how tough they are already?), tobacco companies make easy targets. Yes, the demand curve is elastic to some degree, and increasing prices does diminish consumption despite the addiction, which means that not all of the revenue generation can be passed off to the consumer. The point is, will you ever oppose more cigarette taxes? I think this is the third or fourth tobacco tax we will have voted on (not sure how many have passed), and this one is a doozy! Five cents per cigarette, meaning $1.00 per pack. That will more than double the existing tax. And it will probably result in a larger black market.
Okay, that’s the downside. On the other hand, the tax increases and the revenue-backed anti-smoking programs in California have actually worked. Fewer teenagers are smoking. More adults are quitting. That will save some lives.
Where will the dollar go? If implemented as planned, 60 cents will go to grants and loans to support research on cancer and other tobacco-related diseases. 15 cents would go to build facilities for the research. 20 cents would go to prevention and cessation programs. 3 cents would go to fight the aforementioned black market. And 2 cents would go to administration of the fund (which I think would set a record for government efficiency!).
There’s also a provision for “backfill” payments to cover the earlier taxes, where revenues might be lost because the deterrence function is actually effective at addiction reduction.
The primary opposition is coming from the usual tax posses, some Chamber folk, and you know who. In support is a slew of cancer non-profits and medical associations. The opposition claims that grants will go out of state, and laments the lack of money going to school programs (which I admit would make me slightly more enthusiastic a supporter). And for some reason the opposition in the Voter Information Guide is spending some of its space opposing high speed rail.
So, anyway, I support it. I won’t be broken-hearted if it fails. Politically speaking, I would like to see the measure pass because the Republicans are literally destroying the economy with an intransigent opposition to all things tax, and maybe it’ll send some sort of message. And research is one of the few industries still thriving in this country – it makes sense to subsidize it. It’s research which will save lives.
So, good cause and all. Ra ra.
I have to say also that the melodramatic whining from self-proclaimed “libertarians” generating the “smoking Nazi” image above presents an extra incentive.
70 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 25, 2012 at 9:14 pm
ED Denson
Seek the cure where the disease is. Smoking causes cancer, let money from smokers pay for researching the cure, just as highway taxes go to build roads. Tobacco interests oppose the tax, but, really, they should have privately financed this research decades ago. Imagine how much tobacco they could sell if the side-effects from use were curable. The only downside to this for tobacco companies will be if demand decreases due to higher prices, then the research fails to find a cure. But, hey, toss the dice Big Tobacco, the odds favor you.
May 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm
tra
The problem with that, Ed, is that cancer is only one of the health problems caused by smoking. Emphysema and heart disease caused by smoking are also huge problems. Do you really think medical science is going to be able to make it possible for people to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and yet not develop serious health problems?
May 25, 2012 at 10:47 pm
pathetic actually
Prop 29 is not a progressive tax. It might be instructive to learn how California compares with the rest of the US, though. Right now, 32 states have higher cigarette taxes than CA. Assuming that Prop 29 passes, and no other states increase their tobacco taxes, 16 states will still charge more tax for a pack. CA cig taxes right now come to 87cents/pack, and would rise to 1.87 under Prop 29. The national average is 1.46/pack, or 1.59 if you leave out the tobacco producing states. So Prop 29 will bring us kind of into line with the national average. Highest in the US is NY, at a whopping $4.35/pack, plus another 1.50 on top of that if you buy your smokes in NY City. This info is available at http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf
Lest we forget, Californians pay many regressive taxes–sales taxes run as high as 9.75% in some locations. Here in Sohum, we get by with just the basic statewide 7.25%. Taxes on gasoline run about 50 cents/gallon. There is a new initiative being circulated now, merging proposals by Governor Brown and primarily the CA Federation of Teachers, which could show up on the November ballot. It seems to be somewhat more progressive, coupling a (regressive) quarter percent increase in the state sales tax with new higher income tax rates on people making more than $250,000, $300,000, and $500,000 per year in taxable income–what was once being called “the millionaire’s tax.” It’s supposedly targeted at increasing funding for education. But we’re not going to fix the “system” with new tax policy. That would require radical and fundamental changes in the way we live our lives. That’s gonna happen–really.
BTW, I agree with Eric. I voted for Prop 29, and urge others to do the same, but I won’t be terribly upset if it fails. It will mean the tobacco companies pulled the wool over some people’s eyes once again and bought themselves another election, and that’ll make me sad.
May 26, 2012 at 5:28 am
Stephen
I think the fact that this post of Eric’s is exactly the same as the one in Heraldo speaks to a greater threat locally—identity fraud used by Progressive pols.
May 26, 2012 at 5:30 am
Fred Mangels
Smoking does not cause cancer. If it did, 10 to 15% of the state’s population would be dying at any given time. It can be a contributing factor. The only people I’ve personally known with lung cancer didn’t smoke.
This just goes to show how corrupted and immoral “democracy” has made us. I’m not sure if any of you would be willing to beat up some homeless fellow walking down the street and take his wallet, but that’s what you’re doing with this tax. You just think it’s ok to beat someone up and steal from him via the ballot box.
It’s also telling that, being typical stupid Californians, you support a tax that, by your very own argument, will result in decreasing revenues over time.. Who are you going to go after to pay for this new bureaucracy when smokers either quit, or go to out of state sources for tobacco?
Maybe you should go after the fat folks? Obesity is probably the #1 health problem in the state, if not the country. Should we start taxing what one group or another declares to be unhealthy foods? There are already such proposals in the mill.
May 26, 2012 at 6:59 am
Bruce Ross
Given the state’s economic meltdown and the drastic cuts proposed in core public services, does frittering away the public’s finite willingness to tax itself on medical research (nice, but what’s the NIH’s budget again?) and anti-tobacco education (in the state that already has the second-lowest smoking rate, second only to largely Mormon Utah) really make sense?
Here’s how to solve the world’s problems:
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/may/21/editorial-raise-tobacco-tax-151-but-not-via-prop/
May 26, 2012 at 8:05 am
Bolithio
Why couldn’t they have taken 15% of that and put to education and social services? Do legislators in the past few years really believe cancer research is our biggest problem in CA right now?
Id like to see more luxury taxes in these tuff times. Another good point was how smoking is a ‘lower class’ habit. Lets tax some other arbitrary product, but one that is mostly accessible to the upper class. Im sick of people with money telling me that the lower classes “have a sense of entitlement” and that we should just accept a lower standard of living.
May 26, 2012 at 8:28 am
Fred Mangels
Why couldn’t they have taken 15% of that and put to education and social services?
Again, Bolithio: By proponent’s own argument, revenues from tobacco should decline over time. You want to fund your pet government services from a declining source of revenue? That sort of thinking helped get this state into the mess its in now.
And thanks for making my case about who will be attacked next, when revenues from tobacco end up declining enough they won’t be able to pay for the new bureaucracy you created. Will we go after “unhealthy” foods? There’s already been a number of proposals for that.
You’re falling right into the divide- and- conquer trap so many gullible Californians fall for. Go after one group and nobody speaks up because the tax might not affect them. Eventually, everyone gets attacked.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.- Martin Niemöller
May 26, 2012 at 8:38 am
Anonymous
The only people I’ve personally known that died from lung cancer did not smoke. The people I’ve personally known that smoked and died, died from emphysema.
May 26, 2012 at 9:47 am
Ryan Burns (@RyanBurnsy)
Fred, someday someone should introduce you to the concepts of proportionality and critical thinking.
“Smoking does not cause cancer.”
Maybe you should take that argument up with the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization.
You compare California’s initiative process to beating up a homeless fellow and taking his wallet? That may be the most absurd analogy I’ve ever heard.
And then you trot out that overused Niemoller quote, comparing a cigarette tax being presented to voters for approval to Nazi concentration camps. That would be shameful if it weren’t patently absurd.
May 26, 2012 at 9:58 am
Fred Mangels
Ryan; You’re as stupid as that Dan Morain fellow with the Sacramento Bee. He couldn’t figure out the analogy, either. First you attack the smokers, then go after the soda pop drinkers. After that, red meat eaters? There have already been proposals for just those taxes.
And that’s exactly what voting is: Violence via the ballot box. Few of the proponents would have the guts to beat someone up and take his money, but they’re more than willing to do the same thing behind the safety of the ballot box.
That you can’t see that raises grave concerns to me about your own concepts of proportionality and critical thinking.
I stand by my statement that smoking does not CAUSE cancer. It can be a contributing factor as smoking can supposedly increase your chances of getting cancer, but it doesn’t cause it. Otherwise, you’d have 10 to 15% of the people in this state dying from lung cancer at any given time.
The cancer organizations you mention are known for hysterical statements as a way of doing what they’re main function is: raising money.
May 26, 2012 at 10:43 am
tra
“That would be shameful if it weren’t patently absurd.”
Is there some reason why it can’t be both?
May 26, 2012 at 10:47 am
anon
soda pop should be heavily taxed, or outlawed–its probably the largest factor contributing to childhood obesity as well as adult health problems as well…
but well, we live in a very free country so keep drinking your soda pop, keep adding to extraordinary health care costs, and well, no one gets out alive…
May 26, 2012 at 10:50 am
anon
and tra, estelle is a foreigner, get over it…and eric and hank could have easily added gay to the list of interesting characteristics for this new darling of the fortuna right…(and imagine your uproar over that–why is it that stating truths are so unacceptable to some?)
May 26, 2012 at 11:36 am
tra
Fred,
Saying that smoking cigarettes “causes cancer” is no different than saying that driving drunk “causes accidents.” That doesn’t mean that the speaker is claiming that smoking the only cause of cancer or that it causes all cancers, just as making the statement that drunk driving “causes accidents” doesn’t mean that the speaker is claiming that drunk driving is the only cause of accidents, or that drunk driving causes all accidents. It also doesn’t mean that the speaker is implying that every single smoker will get lung cancer or that every single drunk driver will cause accidents.
Yes, in a certain sense it’s more precise to say that smoking is a “contributing factor in the development of lung cancer,” because that phrasing explicitly conveys an additional truth — that smoking is not the only factor that contributes to lung cancer. But if your goal is to be as precise as possible, and you want to go with the phrase “contributing factor,” then it would be even more accurate to at least note that cigarette smoking is a “major contributing factor in the development of lung cancer” or better yet, that smoking is “one of the most significant risk factors in the development of lung cancer,” or maybe even “the single most important avoidable risk factor in the development of lung cancer.”
Choosing to emphasize the fact that smoking it isn’t the only factor, without noting another very relevant fact — how important a factor it actually is — leaves out an important part of the picture, and this may lead to folks perceiving your preference for the use of the phrase “contributing factor” as an attempt to downplay the hazards of smoking.
Since smoking is certainly a very significant contributing factor — and perhaps the single most important avoidable risk factor — in the development of lung cancer, it seems to me that using the more concise, if less technically precise phrase “smoking causes cancer” is not really misleading anyone any more than using the phrase “drunk driving causes accidents” is misleading anyone (and I don’t think it is). In other words, I think the use of the phrase “cigarette smoking causes cancer,” seems like a perfectly reasonable way to convey the fact that your chances of developing lung cancer are a whole lot higher if you smoke cigarettes than if you don’t smoke cigarettes.
May 26, 2012 at 11:44 am
Fred Mangels
Whatever, Tra. The only two people I personally know with lung cancer didn’t smoke.
May 26, 2012 at 11:54 am
Ryan Burns (@RyanBurnsy)
I rest my case.
May 26, 2012 at 11:55 am
j67k
Fred, you call people stupid then say one of the most idiotic things possible. We know carbon monoxide causes cancer, cigarette smoke has carbon monoxide, QED. You don’t know anyone who died of lung cancer that smoked? Fine, but everyone I’ve known who died of lung cancer smoked, and that was their ONLY risk factor.
According to your logic being shot doesn’t cause death, because a lot of people who are shot don’t die [from being shot]. The people who die from being shot usually have organ failure, or blood loss. So, really, you could say being shot is just a contributing factor. You would be wrong, but you could, in fact, say it.
And by the way, everyone knows the quote, it’s just that it’s inappropriate to use that quote. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but you cannot “quit” being Jewish, black, or Gypsy. Also, they were not taxing them on it, they were hauling them off to be slaughtered you douche-clown.
May 26, 2012 at 12:05 pm
tra
Fred,
(1) “Whatever” isn’t a very persuasive argument. In fact it comes off as an admission that you are unable to provide a persuasive argument.
(2) A case study of one person’s acquaintances isn’t very persuasive either, particularly in a case like this where there is plenty of relevant research available that draws on data covering millions of people. Surely you must realize that.
If you want to downplay the hazards of smoking based on what you’ve seen in your own circle of acquaintances, well that’s you’re prerogative. But don’t be surprised if others find that argument just as laughable as someone who tries to downplay the hazards of drunk driving on the basis that the only two people they know who were injured in car accidents weren’t injured by drunk drivers.
May 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Ryan Burns (@RyanBurnsy)
Fred, let me walk you through your logical fallacy:
As evidence for your claim that smoking does not cause cancer you say:
The only two people I personally know with lung cancer didn’t smoke.
This is akin to saying, “Smashing your thumb with a hammer doesn’t hurt. I know because my thumb hurts and I didn’t smash it with a hammer.”
This is called a composition fallacy.
May 26, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Anonymous
soda pop should be heavily taxed, or outlawed–its probably the largest factor contributing to childhood obesity as well as adult health problems as well…
and tra, estelle is a foreigner, get over it…and eric and hank could have easily added gay to the list of interesting characteristics for this new darling of the fortuna right…(and imagine your uproar over that–why is it that stating truths are so unacceptable to some?)
May 26, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Anonymous
Is this supposed to be a serious conversation?
May 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Bolithio
Again, Bolithio: By proponent’s own argument, revenues from tobacco should decline over time. You want to fund your pet government services from a declining source of revenue? That sort of thinking helped get this state into the mess its in now.
Ah… Yes I do. Im also OK with being taxed and would gladly pay more to ensure others have safety nets and our populace is well educated. And this sort of thinking did not get us into this mess, the finical industry did, along with the cult of money followers who help resonate this hatred of government.
What have the Romans ever done for us!!!???
May 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm
pathetic actually
You’d have to call Prop 29 a “regressive” tax. It’s interesting to note, though, that at CA’s current rate of 87 cents/pack, 32 states charge more than California. The national average is $1.46/pack, or $1.59 if you leave out the tobacco producing states. Assuming that prop 29 passes, and no other state raises its cig taxes, sixteen states will still charge more than CA’s $1.87 per pack. NY state charges the most at $4.35, plus an extra $1.50 if you buy your smokes in NY City. Can you say “drive to Jersey?” You can check out:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf
Regressive taxes are hardly unusual. We’re “lucky” in Sohum to pay only the 7.25% statewide sales tax rate, with some places in CA charging as much as 9.75%. Don’t forget the taxes on gasoline. At 69 cents/gallon, the rates in California are second only to NY.
There is an initiative petition circulating now that would put a somewhat more “progressive” tax measure on the November ballot. A compromise between the CA Federation of Teachers and Governor Brown, it would add higher income tax rates on those whose taxable incomes are more than $250,000; $300,000; and $500,000 per year. But it would add a quarter percent onto the State sales tax, too. “They” say the new tax revenue would go mostly to education.
BTW, I agree with Eric. I voted for Prop 29, and tell my friends to do the same, but if it doesn’t pass, so be it. It’ll make me sad that the big tobacco companies will have bought another election, but what else is new?
May 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm
pathetic actually
Jeez, what’d we do? Seems like our posts aren’t going through.
May 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Dave Kirby
I second Bruce’s message. I am voting no on this one. Having done a fair amount of research into cancer when my wife had breast cancer I came away totally underwhelmed by the info available from the American Cancer Society and other domestic sources. I had to read Lancet and several european study results in order to make an informed decision on treatment.
The last word did come from a board of bay area oncologists we saw in SFO who looked at the records and made their recommendations which were at odds with both the Eureka cancer “experts” and the ACS. She’s twenty years down the road with no recurrence.
A dollar a pack is going to do nothing to make the addicted quit but it will probably take food off some families’ table. If you are going this route why not a tax on sugar and salt which are responsible for more health problems than tobacco.
May 26, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Fred Mangels
This is akin to saying, “Smashing your thumb with a hammer doesn’t hurt. I know because my thumb hurts and I didn’t smash it with a hammer.
Maybe so, but you’re full of shit, Ryan. Your thinking is as fucked up, if not more than mine. You haven’t even been able to put up a decent argument for this tax. All you’ve tried to do is pick apart mine, and I don’t think you’ve done very well.
May 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Fred Mangels
Oh, and as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter if smoking did cause cancer. Lots of things can cause or contribute to cancer, cured meats for instance. Are you all proposing a ban or tax on cured meats?
I’m sure you will, eventually.
May 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Smoking does not cause cancer. If it did, 10 to 15% of the state’s population would be dying at any given time. It can be a contributing factor. The only people I’ve personally known with lung cancer didn’t smoke.
Both the people I knew who died of lung cancer were chain smokers, and my grandfather whom I never met. Go figure.
It’s also telling that, being typical stupid Californians, you support a tax that, by your very own argument, will result in decreasing revenues over time.. Who are you going to go after to pay for this new bureaucracy when smokers either quit, or go to out of state sources for tobacco?
Actually, I didn’t say that. Revenues will increase, but it won’t be dollar for dollar because some people will quit and a few will turn to the black market. But markets a price-driven, remember? Tobacco companies will lower their base price to some degree as well, the part of my argument you ignored.
soda pop should be heavily taxed, or outlawed–its probably the largest factor contributing to childhood obesity as well as adult health problems as well…
but well, we live in a very free country so keep drinking your soda pop, keep adding to extraordinary health care costs, and well, no one gets out alive…
Carbonated drinks are already taxed – it’s called the “fizz tax.”
Given the state’s economic meltdown and the drastic cuts proposed in core public services, does frittering away the public’s finite willingness to tax itself on medical research (nice, but what’s the NIH’s budget again?) and anti-tobacco education (in the state that already has the second-lowest smoking rate, second only to largely Mormon Utah) really make sense?
Bruce, if I actually believed that taxes were always bad for the economy, I’d agree with your larger point. But right now, even though we’re gaining steadily in private sector jobs, what’s killing the economy is the loss of public sector jobs.
This just goes to show how corrupted and immoral “democracy” has made us. I’m not sure if any of you would be willing to beat up some homeless fellow walking down the street and take his wallet, but that’s what you’re doing with this tax. You just think it’s ok to beat someone up and steal from him via the ballot box.
Fred, it’s exactly those kinds of hysterical statements which provide just a little more incentive for me to vote for a measure like this.
May 26, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Bruce Ross
I don’t know that the economy has anything to do with it. Taxing addictive poisons is surely good for the economy.
But people will only support, with their votes, so many new taxes — even taxes on unpopular minorities like smokers. The state could really use the roughly $800 million a year in tax revenue that 29 would bring in — but assuming it passes that money will already be spoken for. And another buck a pack would that much harder a sell.
May 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, and if you’re right, there may be an argument against 29 – that it could generate a backlash against the tax increase proposals for November, which I think we really do need.
May 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Fred Mangels
Carbonated drinks are already taxed – it’s called the “fizz tax.”
Is that supposed to be a joke? In case you weren’t aware, tobacco is already heavily taxed, and there have been a number of serious proposals for increased taxes on soft drinks (and everything else someone can come up with an excuse for- red meats being one).
Fred, it’s exactly those kinds of hysterical statements which provide just a little more incentive for me to vote for a measure like this.
Because that’s exactly what you’re doing and you don’t really care all that much about anyone but government and its workers. Funny thing is, this isn’t going to really add any government workers, per se, except for high paid administrators along the same line as that stem cell research bond you voted for a while back.
May 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm
tra
“and tra, estelle is a foreigner, get over it…and eric and hank could have easily added gay to the list of interesting characteristics for this new darling of the fortuna right…”
Your enthusiasm for labeling Estelle a “foreigner,” and for highlighting her sexual orientation (as demonstrated by your insistence on posting this off-topic and totally extraneous paragraph twice on this unrelated thread), is duly noted.
I will just say that I don’t think that most people would label as a “foreigner” someone like Estelle, who is a U.S. Citizen, and a longtime resident of the area who has been deeply involved in the community. Sure, you can choose to use your own definition of “foreigner” and regard anyone who immigrated here as always and forever remaining a “foreigner,” no matter what their citizenship status or how long they have been here…but let’s just say you’re not exactly in very good company in taking that attitude.
I’m not going to bother to comment on it any further on that, nor on your interest in highlighting her sexual orientation, since I think most readers here don’t need any help in recognizing your slimy tactics for what they are.
May 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm
tra
Fred said: “Lots of things can cause or contribute to cancer…”
Some a lot more than others, Fred.
May 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm
tra
As far as whether I want to vote for this additional tax on tobacco, I have mixed feelings.
The argument that it hits poor people hardest concerns me greatly. The counterargument that this shouldn’t matter because if people don’t want to pay the tax they should just quit smoking — well, that argument is somewhat undercut by the fact that tobacco is so highly addictive. Addiction is sometimes referred to as a “disease,” and I think there’s something to that, since some people seem to be more susceptible to various addictions than others, and in some cases genetic predisposition may play a role. Which means that it may be that at least some of the people who end up being targeting by the tax may have already drawn the short straw, so to speak, and now we’re making them pay for it.
On the other other hand, I remember reading that there is pretty strong evidence that raising the price can reliably by projected to reduce the number of young people who start smoking in the first place, which is obviously a huge benefit both to those people, and to society at large.
And now I see that there is also an argument being advanced that by raising this tax now, it may dampen the public’s willingness to support other taxes in the fall — taxes that, unlike this one, would actually put money into the general fund to help pay for vital services like education and health care and so on — money that is desperately needed, as these areas have already been cut deeply and would have to be cut even more deeply if we don’t come up with more general fund revenues. I’m afraid this argument may have some validity to it.
It seems to me that there are some pretty strong arguments on both sides. I am actually undecided on this at the moment…but not because I have any real doubt that cigarette smoking can be really, really bad for you.
May 26, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Eric Kirk
The fizz tax isn’t a joke Fred.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/30/local/me-tax30
Fred, it’s exactly those kinds of hysterical statements which provide just a little more incentive for me to vote for a measure like this.
Because that’s exactly what you’re doing and you don’t really care all that much about anyone but government and its workers.
I don’t know where you get that I only care about government and its workers, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that I get what is probably an unhealthy satisfaction voting for measures which stick in the craw of whiny Cato Institute types who equate seat belt laws with life in a gulag. I should probably curb that impulse, but it’s definitely there.
May 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm
pathetic actually
I guess I still don’t get this blog posting thing. The two posts sent earlier that didn’t come up now seem to have appeared. Oh well, so much for our living in the 21st century. Next time, I’ll ask for help from the teenagers.
May 27, 2012 at 1:38 am
j67k
Fred, Eric stated the reason in his original post. If it helps people quit, then it will save lives. For those who still can’t quit, they will be contributing to the research that might save their lives.
The downside is that low-income people who are unable to shake their addiction, will be paying a disproportionately large percentage of their income on something that will benefit wealthy people far more.
Until/unless we get some form of universal healthcare only those of us with decent healthcare will reap the benefits from most new research. But, on the bright side, it will also help Canadians & Europeans quite a bit…
May 27, 2012 at 1:49 am
j67k
@PA It could be that the blog site was checking your link to make sure it was safe. It could also have been your browser, hitting F5 will refresh the page.
May 27, 2012 at 9:27 am
ICU812
Right, so how much money are the Prop 29 folks spending to pass it? Who is coughing up the money for Yes on Prop 29. We know whom is funding the NO on Prop 29! How much money from Prop 29 if passed will be used for newspaper and TV ads over the next five or ten years? And whom does that benefit, the would-be smoker or the newspaper and TV stockholds. It remains to be seen.
It reminds me of the Ca lottery, that would fund public schools. Yeah, we sure saw how that is working, advertising, sales and marketing get 60%, when schools get less than 2%. I am a smoker just so you know. This may explain why I think this way. But what if I am right? If Medical cannabis becomes the norm every place or completely legal to grow, sell and smoke, will there be a Prop 29 tax on it? Just use the grey matter between your ears for once and think about it with no outside noise…..
If smoking Tobacco is so bad, why is it legal?
May 27, 2012 at 9:52 am
Mitch
The best solution would be to make it illegal to profit off the production, advertising, transport, or sale of tobacco products. The products should be legal, but allowing scum to profit off an addictive substance that kills its addicts should be illegal. I’d like to see tobacco executives and advertisers in prison, taking up the spots currently occupied by those who sell pot.
Unfortunately, our economic system does not, as far as I know, have any ability to classify a product as legal to consume but illegal to promote, so scum will continue to try to hook kids on highly addictive carcinogenic products.
If the profit were removed from tobacco, there’d be no need to tax its use in an attempt to reduce the number of people who get addicted.
Failing that, taxing the product is the best we can do. YES ON 29.
May 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Eric Kirk
It reminds me of the Ca lottery, that would fund public schools. Yeah, we sure saw how that is working, advertising, sales and marketing get 60%, when schools get less than 2%.
I’m not a fan of the lottery, but those numbers aren’t quite accurate.
May 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm
j67k
ICU- Are you serious? “If smoking Tobacco is so bad, why is it legal?”
… Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or Ecstacy), Valium, Benzedrine (Bennies), Cocaine, PCP, Morphine, Alpha-methylphenethylamine (Amphetamine or Speed) and many, many more very BAD things were very legal, until someone said “Hey! people are dying, let’s, maybe, restrict this shit!”
May 28, 2012 at 7:50 am
Mitch
“why is it legal”
The tobacco industry is worth $10 billion a year, and the health hazards were only discovered after the powerful industry had formed. A great deal of money from the tobacco industry goes straight into the advertising industry, which basically runs all the means of public opinion generation in today’s society. That’s why tobacco is legal.
Objectively, tobacco is a far more hazardous product than pot. It’s also far more hazardous than alcohol itself, at least for non-alcoholics — the difference is that the body can clear some amounts of alcohol, but the cancer causing materials in cigarettes raise the risk of cancer and other disease each time a cigarette is smoked.
In my opinion, consumption of all drugs should be legal, as should the formation of not-for-profit groups to produce drugs for people who desire to use them. The promotion of such products, or their sale for profit, should be illegal.
The pseudo-libertarian argument that there should be no intervention is truly bizarre. Yes, people should be free to use what they want, but NO, people should not be able to profit from convincing people to become addicted to a harmful product. No addict is ever making a free choice about feeding their addiction. In a world without tobacco promotion and the resulting profit, if people chose of their own free will to smoke tobacco, I think they should be more than welcome to do so, and society should make the process of quitting free and freely available.
YES ON 29. NO TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY WHORES.
May 28, 2012 at 7:53 am
ICU812
If you would get off your deadass and look it up, you will find all the answers. From the Ca lottery, state education gets 1.5% +- of its operating budget from the lottery. As for the 13% the lottery gets for operation cost, 68% is used for sales, marketing and advertising (newspaper & TV ads).
For example, last year, only 1.4% of the state’s $53 billion budget for K-12 education came from lottery funds.
Also remember this, the CA lottery funds other state education programs, not just public K-12, for example: Division of Juvenile Justice, California State University, the University of California and private sector Charter Schools as well.
Do the math Eric! Prop 29 is no different. There is no such think as a free lunch. If it came from our Government, corporations will be making a buck from it somewhere, if not right before our eyes!
May 28, 2012 at 9:22 am
tra
Mitch,
If this was a proposition to ban all advertising and promotion of tobacco products, and/or to tax tobacco company profits at a very high rate, I’d be all for it.
But this one is a little less clear cut, at least to me. It taxes the addict, not the addiction profiteers, and does nothing to reduce tobacco advertising and promotion.
I’d like to hear your response to my 4:33 comment.
This is literally the only thing I have not yet filled out on my mail-in ballot. I am really struggling with this one.
I recognize that it may help prevent some young people from taking up smoking, which is why I’d like to support it. But I’m afraid that the good it would do in that area may be partially or perhaps even wholly canceled out by the harm it will do by taking money out of poor peoples’ pockets, and by the possibility that if it passes it may decrease the chances of passing desperately needed general fund revenue increases in the fall — which would mean even deeper cuts to education, healthcare, and social services, again harming the general public, and especially the poor. How do you respond to those concerns?
May 28, 2012 at 9:33 am
tra
Tobacco advertising is banned from TV (with, of course a massive loophole still there in the area of tobacco advertisements shown on signs at sproting events, etc.) . Is there any legal impediment to just banning all tobacco advertising and promotion from the internet, magazines, billboards, sporting events sponsorships, etc.?
If not, then if your main concern is that the industry is able to use it’s wealth to increase the number of people who are addicted to its products through the purchase of advertising and promotion, wouldn’t it make more sense to prohibit the advertising and promotion, rather than taxing the end-user (the addict)?
May 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
Eric Kirk
ICU – I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers for the allocation of funds, I know that a law was just passed within the past couple of years which limited administrative costs to 13 percent (lowered from 16 percent), with the rest either going to education or “returned to the public” in the form of prizes – I believe 50 percent going to prizes. That leaves 37 percent going to education projects. Now maybe they’ve strayed from those mandates, but I’m pretty sure a 2% return to education would have made headlines for mismanagement.
May 28, 2012 at 10:32 am
Mitch
tra,
I wish it were possible to ban the advertising of tobacco products entirely. I can’t imagine that would survive a court freedom of speech challenge, not with the current supreme court.
The industry has probably discovered that $1 of advertising gets roughly equal results whether spent on TV or on Joe Camel giveaways. Isn’t that what anyone who believes in the free market could have predicted?
I agree that were it possible to remove the profit from Big Tobacco, that would be a far better approach than taxing cigarettes. But, given the realities of our political system, I don’t see that approach as possible.
Nobody likes any tax. But if you’re going to have a tax, it might as well be a tax that is imposed on causing one’s self damage, with revenues allocated to remediating the damage.
(Now that I think about it, it would be a great idea to refund $500 of these taxes to anyone who can prove that they are a former smoker who has quit and remained nicotine-free for a year. Maybe that could become part of a tobacco cessation program, funded from the tax.)
May 28, 2012 at 11:18 am
pathetic actually
ICU’s figures are kind of mixed up. The less than 2% she/he mentions is the 1.5 to 1.7% of the State’s education budget that comes from lottery funds, not the % of lottery money going to the schools. The 2009 annual report off the lottery breaks down each dollar you spent to buy a ticket like this
52.38 cents towards prizes
34.29 cents towards public education
7 cents towards retailer bonuses and commissions
4.62 cents towards operating expenses
1.71 cents towards game costs
The people at the Lottery like to brag in their brochures and on their website, that they “return 94% of revenues to the community, with only 6% going to admin.” Of course, that’s lumping the schools, prize winners and ticket sellers together as “the community.”
The 1984 Lottery Act mandated the formula that at least 34% go to schools, 50 percent to prizes, and a max of 16 percent to administrative costs. In 2010, the law was amended to lower the admin limit to 13%. I haven’t seen reports yet from after that law, but I imagine you can find them on-line.
One of the major, and perhaps valid, criticisms I hear of the lottery funds is that school districts are apparently not spending their lottery bucks to provide direct services to students–not for teachers or classroom expenses, but for school district admin costs. Lottery money probably also allows the legislature to spend less general state revenues on education.
May 28, 2012 at 11:53 am
tra
“Lottery money probably also allows the legislature to spend less general state revenues on education.”
I think that’s the core problem with the claim that the lottery “benefits” education. There’s no way to guarantee that the lottery actually helps the schools any more than they’d be helped without the lottery — but it definitely soaks the poor, the desperate, and those with a poor understanding of the laws of probability.
May 28, 2012 at 11:55 am
tra
In case there’s anyone (beside me) here who hasn’t already made up their mind on Prop 29, my discussion with Mitch continues on the thread over at the Humboldt Herald:
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/yes-on-prop-29/#comment-171991
May 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Anonymous
As tempting as it is to vote “yes” just to spite tobacco interests and whining libertarians I just do not want put any more burdens on the bottom economic classes. I can’t vote for it.
May 28, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Mitch
Actually, tra, it appears I’ve gone over some limit on the Herald thread, because none of my posts are going up.
tobaccofreekids.org is a good site for relevant information. As for Anonymous 3:11, he or she might want to go there and look up the public health savings associated with reduced smoking levels.
New York State puts a $4.35 tax on each pack, and New York City adds something like another buck.
Medi-Cal would save tons of money were Prop 29 to pass. As it is, our tax dollars have to be spent to respond to the damage caused by Big Tobacco. That’s not as significant as the lives ruined as a result of Big Tobacco’s greed, but if that’s all people can hear it becomes worth mentioning. California spends, North Carolina profits.
May 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Mitch
As far as I can tell, I’ve tripped some limit at the Herald, because my posts haven’t been going up there for hours.
If the lives saved aren’t a sufficient argument, it’s worth noting that Medi-Cal will save a large amount of money if the number of cigarettes smoked in California goes down. One source estimates the public health costs of each pack of cigarettes at between $10 and $11.
New York State has a $4.35 tax on cigarettes. New York City adds another buck or so.
The tobaccofreekids.org web site is a good source for information.
May 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm
ICU812
pathetic actually and Eric, yes, the “34.29 cents towards public education” from every dollar spent only makes up less that 2% of the state education budget. And by the time it gets to public K-12, its a drop in the bucket. How can you say its funding public education, which part don’t you understand? Sure its better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but nothing to hang your hat on.
And Eric, why did you name this thread “Yes on Prop 29″, wny not Yes or No on Prop 29? You made it seem like a no brainer, what form of propaganda is that?
May 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I named the thread for how I intend to vote. As for what percentage the lottery is of the state budget, I’m not getting your point. You said that only 2 percent of the lottery proceeds go to education. That was false. You obviously jumbled your facts, and now you’re testy about it because I pointed it out.
The lottery doesn’t actually “fund education.” It can’t be used to hire teachers for instance. It can only be used for special projects, usually involving construction. And yes, it’s a drop in the bucket. And yes, it’s a regressive tax.
May 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm
ICU812
No Eric, I am doing anything different than you about my facts, I am just using my point like a lawyer, you need to read what I said again. Remember what you said:
“But when government is regulating private conduct, I think it should be based on something and I’m not ready to just accept on faith that the regulation is rational”
May 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Mitch
If you aren’t certain of the connection between smoking and cancer, check out this graph from the Surgeon General’s report on women and smoking:
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0749208103001037-gr2.jpg
The relatively stable line is breast cancer; the one that rises is lung cancer. Women started smoking in the 20s and 30s, and the frequency rose substantially in the 60s. There’s a time lag of a couple of decades between the increases in smoking among women and the increases in lung cancer in women.
May 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm
ICU812
Mitch, is this the study your graph came from ~
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44303/
May 28, 2012 at 11:26 pm
j67k
ICU- Pathetic actually explained clearly how you completely misunderstood the numbers. Now you are just bitching that it is not enough? Go buy a lottery ticket, that will at least contribute 34 cents to our schools. Which is 34 more cents than your math-illiterate whining.
May 29, 2012 at 4:51 am
Mitch
ICU812,
Yes, it’s figure 3-6 from Chapter 3 of the report.
May 29, 2012 at 9:02 am
ICU812
Mitch, we are on the same page about smoking and cancer (just to name one) its the tax and where does the money go? We are talking about our trusted Government, that has always been trusted to run our lives to impose yet another tax? But its OK, because only the bad dirty smokers, that have been a burden and cost the tax payers billions of dollars will be paying their fair share for once? What’s next? Have you ever figured out where all the “Bed Tax” goes in Humboldt County?
May 29, 2012 at 9:07 am
grouchy
I would support Prop 29 if the money went directly to medical care; for example, for people ill from second-hand smoke, especially children — and a lesser amount to anti-tobacco education is fine. But not for research. I don’t think any amount of research is going to find a “cure” for lung cancer, emphysema, etc. Likewise the “fizz tax” and other sin taxes. I don’t object to taxes if they provide benefit to the public. This tax will principally support research that will do little because the only thing that cures smoking- and obesity-related diseases is to quit smoking and eating junk food. That requires a mighty effort on the part of each individual. Motivation to make that effort comes from a belief that life can be good, so good that it’s worth making the effort to give up the simple, quick pleasure of a smoke or a sweet drink. And to provide that we need a society that offers everyone the likelihood of a good life. Which brings me back around to putting the tax money towards medical care. I’m a socialist, but a selective socialist.
May 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Eric Kirk
They haven’t found new cures, but they’ve fine-tuned the old cures and increased survivability. They’ve established protocols which have resulted in mitigated side effects, so that chemo and radiation don’t just give you another decade before you have to deal with those problems. My mother-in-law for instance passed away due to complications from her chemo-therapy in the 1990s. I’ve been told that had she been treated as similar patients are today, it probably would not have happened. A client of mine had a husband who died in 2009. He received radiation merely at a pallative treatment, but since then, and that was only a few years ago, they’ve developed some procedures which might actually extend the life considerably and possibly even clear the body of the cancer. That’s due to research developments within the past three years.
There will probably never be an absolute cure. That’s not the point.
May 29, 2012 at 2:33 pm
grouchy
That’s good info, and thanks, Eric, and it does make me look differently at the usefulness of the tax. On the other hand, it’s a pretty stiff tax, $1.00 a pack, and it’s terribly regressive and, thus, I think, discriminatory to the poor. It does have the usefulness of being a deterrent, and I know the numbers of smokers have gone down because of the cost, but I’m still wondering if this is the right way to go about deterring smoking. Maybe, as the cost of tobacco products goes up, there will be a black market, or a larger more powerful black market than there is now, which will lead to violent crime, etc. Maybe tobacco will become a “gateway drug.” Maybe that’s a silly thought. Maybe I should change my handle to “Dubious” or “Confused” rather than “Grouchy.”
May 29, 2012 at 2:37 pm
grouchy
On second thought, nah. I just get more grouchy when I’m confused and dubious.
I wouldn’t have a problem if the money went to medical care. I still have a problem, and now it’s worse. Grrrrrrrrr.
May 29, 2012 at 8:55 pm
j67k
@Mitch I agree with most of what you say, but I have to bring up that the studies that analyze the “cost” to medi-care of smokers don’t factor in increased mortality. The problem is it’s almost impossible to figure exactly how long they should have lived.
But, the morbid truth is that if you add the 5, 10 or more years of life and how much that “costs” on average you find that, by dying so early, smokers actually save the state money. And that doesn’t even include the savings to Social Security and/or pension funds…
So, we should thank smokers. Their gruesome, painful, and relatively quick deaths help us to keep the tax cuts for the very rich that are, apparently, vital to our country.
[Sorry, I should have said "job creators" not "the very rich". My bad.]
May 30, 2012 at 6:55 am
Mitch
j67k,
I think your argument should be used by Big Tobacco: “By causing smokers to die early deaths from horrible disease, we reduce health care costs for the non-smokers.”
I’m not sure it’s true, but when has Big Tobacco ever worried about truth?
When people who are retired or unemployed die early, yes, there’s a savings on long-term health care costs that counterbalances the costs of hospitalization for emphysema, lung cancer, etc… But when people who are still working get sick, that’s considered lost productivity. I believe (I haven’t checked) the peer-reviewed studies try their best to take all of that into proper cold-blooded account.
I also think I recall (I haven’t double-checked) that with lung cancer it’s people’s final disease, treatment, and hospitalization that accounts for a huge portion of their lifetime health care costs.
May 30, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Unk John
Going way back to something Fred said early on in this thread about how the only people he knows who died of lung cancer did not smoke. Although almost everything he said has been debunked, there is one thing I haven’t seen asked, unless I missed it in a post.
I wonder if those non-smokers lived with a smoker or perhaps worked with smokers. The old second hand smoke is known to be deadly. Just wondering.