As Governor Brown continues to fight to get some sort of revenue measure on the ballot, it is also very likely that we will also see a tobacco measure at the same time.  Former Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and cycling legend and anti-cancer activist Lance Armstrong are aiming to create a roughly billion dollar per year cancer research program.  

“When you walk through the institutions of this state, the potential there is tremendous,” the seven-time Tour de France winner said during a news conference at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. “Whatever happens and is created, or is invented, or changes in California, goes everywhere …. We will have more and more cancer survivors all over the world.”

The initiative, which would raise as much as $855 million in its first year of implementation, according to an analysis by the state’s legislative analyst, could be placed on the ballot as early as June if Gov. Jerry Brown succeeds in calling a special election to address the state’s budget gap. (LAT)

Of course, as we saw when the last tobacco tax was on the ballot, Big Tobacco is going to fight this voraciously. Last time they spent $66million to defeat it, and you’d expect at least $50 million for this measure.  Having the measure this June might change the voter demographic that the proponents were going for.  However, under state law, qualified measures (which this has done) must go on the next statewide ballot.

So, how will this interplay with Brown’s measures? Well it is tough to say exactly, but as the Times Maeve Reston points out, it will hardly be a good thing for a $50million anti-tax campaign to be occurring at the same time you are trying to pass the sales tax continuation.

Speaking of the tax continuation, it is rapidly becoming clear that the Legislature is actively looking for ways to get something on the ballot without 2/3. Don’t be shocked if the Republican votes never show up.

(No-Brainer Indeed – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

As a state, we face many tough choices in the coming months. However, increasing the state’s tobacco tax is not a tough choice-it’s a no-brainer.

California’s tobacco tax has not increased in more than a decade. Now is the time to increase the cost of cigarettes to protect our kids, their education, and their health.

To fill the current budget hole, the Governor has announced a series of cuts that would hit children and families hardest. Under his plan, our neighborhood schools would be slated for the biggest cuts since the Great Depression. One million low-income children would be left without health insurance. Just as our universities and state colleges would be hit with more cuts, our low and middle income kids would be left without the financial aid that has made college possible for generations of Californians.  

If these cuts were to go into effect, California would be the only state without a safety net for women and children. These cuts would devastate children and leave an imprint on our state that will be felt for years to come. Opportunities that were given to our generation simply wouldn’t be there for today’s kids. The termination of these cost effective and successful programs would also terminate billions in federal matching dollars.  

A tobacco tax is a revenue option that provides much more than just revenue. It blunts tobacco’s heavy toll on human lives by making smoking less accessible, especially among kids. Studies show that for every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, youth smoking rates decline by 7 percent and about 4 percent overall.

Cigarette taxes also ease the enormous economic burden to existing public health programs that treat tobacco related illnesses. In California, smoking related costs total more than $15 billion each year. Nationwide, smoking-caused health care costs total $10.28 per pack sold in the U.S.

An increase to our tobacco tax is long overdue. Thirty-three states tax their tobacco products at a higher rate than California. Since 2002, 44 other states and the District of Columbia have increased their cigarette taxes-California’s levels haven’t changed from 87 cents since 1998.  

When you propose a tax like the tobacco tax, you hear a lot of arguments against it.  And I’ve heard them all:

They say it won’t provide enough money to get us out of the hole. True. But for every $1 added to the tobacco tax, we could raise $1 billion in revenue. An increase could be enough to keep healthy families afloat and offset a large amount of cuts to education.  

They say this tax hurts the poor most. This may be the most deceptive argument used against the tax. Tobacco hurts the poor most already. Low income people, who have limited access to health care, have higher smoking rates, are more likely to suffer from tobacco related diseases and to die from those diseases.  

And, let’s be clear: this is a tax no one has to pay.  I know that smoking is addictive, that’s why I’ve added a clause to my legislative proposal that would have the state pay for cessation programs that help people kick the habit.

They say that, as fewer people give up smoking, the amount of tax revenue will decline. Well, I welcome that. I look forward to the day when we’ll again have to scramble for funds because so few people are smoking.

Finally, they say the public doesn’t support tobacco tax increases. Not so. Polls consistently demonstrate the opposite is true. A Field Poll conducted at the end of April showed 75 percent of Californians support raising the tobacco tax.  

It is true that even before we were in the current budget crisis, I’ve been working to increase California’s tobacco tax: my motive isn’t just to increase revenue. My motive is kids. Nearly 90 percent of every adult smoker took his or her first puff by the age of 18. The revenue is necessary, now more than ever. However, most importantly, if you have the ability to keep kids from making a major health decision that will impact their quality of life for years to come; it’s really a no-brainer.  

Tom Torlakson represents the 11th Assembly District.  He is author of Assembly Bill 89 which would increase the state’s tobacco tax.