Another Tax brought to you by Rob Reiner

As a nation our failure to learn from our historical mistakes dooms us to repeat the same mistakes. This premise could not be more evident in the proposed tax hike from 37 cents to 87 cents by the state of California. The complete failure of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution and its ultimate repeal by the 21st Amendment. Or the Boston Tea Party, should have taught us something.

Even as a smoker I would not argue that our population would be a healthier one if no one smoked. However we could say the very same thing about drinks containing caffeine, Fast Foods with high fat counts, and even alcohol for that matter.

The leading proponent of this initiative (prop 82)is none other than the liberal activist Rob Reiner

If as Rob Reiner and the proponents of this ballot initiative have as their root motive a significant decrease in the number of smokers in the state of California; then even I see it as a noble cause. The litmus test for the nobility of their cause would be to take 100% of the tax generated by the initiative and invest it in free and fully funded smoking cessation programs for smokers. As the number of smokers declined so would the generation of revenues.

However this is not the intent of the initiative at all. Even the name of his previously sponsered initiative the “California Children and Families First Act of 1998.”, clearly defines the aim and intent of the new tax. The first three paragraphs indicate the motive for this tax:

(a) There is a compelling need in California to create and implement a comprehensive, collaborative, and integrated system of information and services to promote, support, and optimize early childhood development from the prenatal stage to five years of age.
(b) There is a further compelling need in California to ensure that early childhood development programs and services are universally and continuously available for children until the beginning of kindergarten. Proper parenting, nurturing, and health care during these early years will provide the means for California’s children to enter school in good health, ready and able to learn, and emotionally well developed.
(c) It has been determined that a child’s first three years are the most critical in brain development, yet these crucial years have inadvertently been neglected. Experiences that fill the child’s first three years have a direct and substantial impact not only on brain development but on subsequent intellectual, social, emotional, and physical growth.

The Proposition 10 initiative Section 5 calls for additions to the Health and Safety Code.

chairman of the California Children and Families First Commission

SEC. 5. Division 108 (commencing with Section 130100) is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: Section 130100 paragraph (b) reads:
  (b) The programs authorized by this act shall be administered by the California Children and Families First Commission and by county children and families first commissions. In administering this act, the state and county commissions shall use outcome-based accountability to determine future expenditures.
  This section places in the hands of the “California Children and Families First Commission” the administration of funds resulting from this tax. The chairman is none other than Rob Reiner.
Allocation of revenues generated by this tax provide no funding for smoking cessation programs for smokers.
The revenue generated by this tax if applied to California’s 2004 cigarette sales would be over a Billion Dollars. This revenue being allocated to a variety of children’s welfare programs. Thereby making the smokers of this state primarily responsible for the children’s welfare programs of the state. Let us assume for the moment the shrouded motive for this tax were truly a desire to significantly reduce the number of smokers in California and this goal succeeded. Where would the funds for these children’s welfare programs come from? Would the need for these programs simply evaporate with the smokers? Perhaps we could tax the patrons of Mc Donald’s. Or levy another tax on alcohol? Perhaps a tax on bald people? How about a tax on viewers of  Rob Reiner movies?
Smoking has clearly been defined as an addiction, if we want to tax smoker’s again use the funds on that addiction.
The same Rob Reiner who while he claims to want to ban smoking would be out of business were that objective accomplished. How interesting that to further his own agenda he uses the same tactics Hitler used on Jews, to create a common enemy to bind the masses in support of the real hidden agendas. The same Rob Reiner who believes cigarette smoking is bad but smoking marijuana is acceptable.
Before I pay a tax to support Rob Reiner’s liberal political agenda I will as our forefathers did during the Boston Tea Party dump my cigarettes in the bay!