Features narration from Mayor Villaraigosa and Lance Armstrong
by Brian Leubitz
The Yes on 29 campaign released a video today taking the fight to the tobacco companies. The measure would increase the tobacco tax in order to pay for cancer research.
3 thoughts on “Yes on 29 (Tobacco Tax) Releases Video”
Comments are closed.
What other propositions are in the works ?
I suspect this one will muddle up the tax props already heading for the ballot
If the tobacco companies come in big time, they could just go ‘Anti Tax’ and push voters against all new taxes
Be careful what you wish for
(an ex-smoker)
Just saw an article in today’s SF Chronicle
They’re talking about a soda tax (or sweetened drink tax)
To fund anti-obesity programs for youth
Nothing inherently wrong with this, but you keep adding taxes to a ballot and things are gonna get sticky
We’ll see
I am surprised that Prop 29 is getting so little review here. There are several aspects of this proposition that do not sit well with me. Take a read and tell me if I have it wrong-
1) This is a regressive tax and therefore progressives should reject this. Research in 2011 from the Cal. Dept. of Public Health identified that smoking is most prevalent among African-American men and women and Hispanic men (26% to 38% higher than for whites of the same sex).
2) This is NOT the most effective way to reduce smoking in our State. In the 10 years, per capita cigarette consumption in California has dropped by 36%. No tax increases did that- education programs, restrictions on where one could smoke, availability of smoking cessation products and programs did it.
3) This proposition is not primarily about keeping kids from smoking. It is primarily about institutionalizing funding for cancer research (60% of the $ raised) and research facilities (another 15%). The vast majority of the $ will go not to reducing smoking or preventing cancer… it goes to treating cancer. Maybe the goal should be to reduce the occurrence of cancer?
4) This is not a fight against protecting our youth. Again according to the Cal. Dept. of Public Health, the incidence of high schoolers smoking is down 25% in the last decade (and down almost 50% in 8th graders).
Look, smoking is a disgusting habit, it kills you and hurts those around you. No one should smoke (except Timmy Lincecum should be allowed his). But taking $700 million a year from smokers (who tend to be lower income and African-American and Hispanic) is wrong. And then to spend it not on prevention programs or to offer free or subsidized cessation programs is also wrong. Ask yourself this… why are the Am. Lung, Heart and Cancer Societies taking their precious donated funds and giving it to Yes on 29 to make slick ads?… Because they get it all back times 500 in $ from this new tax. It’s close to a con and I don’t like it. Would you support a “fat tax” for type II diabetes research or a “soda tax” for dental research? I wouldn’t. Prevention and education, yes, but research, no. I’d rather prevent disease than cure it.
This is bad public policy hiding behind an emotional appeal. We can do better. So sez I, what sez you?