Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:12 AM
Lionel Mandrake (2,993 posts)
Lance Armstrong campaigns for California cigarette tax measureLast edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:17 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France champion and cancer survivor, gets behind California's Proposition 29, which would raise taxes on cigarettes to fund cancer research and other programs.
Lance Armstrong, seen in a 2011 file photo, plans to campaign for California's Proposition 29. The measure would tax a pack of cigarettes by $1 more to fund cancer research and other programs. Armstrong's Texas-based foundation has donated $1.5 million to the Yes on 29 campaign. (Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press / February 28, 2011) By Anthony York, Los Angeles Times
February 15, 2012, 8:44 p.m. Reporting from Sacramento— The proposal is simple: Raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for cancer research. The push for it is quintessentially Californian, melding celebrity salesmanship and the whims of state voters, who have increasingly been called on to decide key policy questions. The pitchman for Proposition 29, which will appear on the June ballot, is seven-time Tour de France champion and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong, who is asking voters to increase taxes on a pack of cigarettes by $1. On Wednesday, he announced a $1.5 million contribution from his Texas-based foundation to the Yes on 29 campaign. "We feel that Prop. 29 will save lives, stop kids from smoking and just may lead us to a cure," he told reporters in a conference call. Hooray for Lance Armstrong! Down with Philip Murderous and other companies in the teen-addiction business! Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lance-armstrong-20120216,0,1930495.story
|
17 replies, 2450 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Feb 2012 | OP | |
| xtraxritical | Feb 2012 | #1 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Feb 2012 | #5 | |
| xxqqqzme | Feb 2012 | #6 | |
| stevenleser | Feb 2012 | #2 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Feb 2012 | #16 | |
| LeftinOH | Feb 2012 | #3 | |
| progressoid | Feb 2012 | #10 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Feb 2012 | #11 | |
| expatriate2mex | Feb 2012 | #14 | |
| Bonhomme Richard | Feb 2012 | #4 | |
| stopbush | Feb 2012 | #7 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Feb 2012 | #17 | |
| SOS | Feb 2012 | #8 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Feb 2012 | #13 | |
| truebrit71 | Feb 2012 | #9 | |
| DJ13 | Feb 2012 | #12 | |
| Honeycombe8 | Feb 2012 | #15 |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:17 AM
xtraxritical (3,009 posts)
1. Lance Armstrong is looking for some free publicity
|
and as you see he's getting it. There are already plenty of taxes on cigarettes that go for this purpose. I'm an ex-smoker, nonsmoker.
The guy should find a real job and stop annoying everyone. |
Response to xtraxritical (Reply #1)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:37 AM
Lionel Mandrake (2,993 posts)
5. Plenty of taxes on cigarettes?
|
Tax Rates per 20 Pack vary from $0.17 in Missouri to $4.35 in New York. California was once a leader, but California's $0.87 per pack is now less than that of the majority of states. Whether this is "plenty" or not will be an issue we vote on in June.
For tax rates in the 50 states, read: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/2010-state-cigarette-excise-taxes.aspx |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Reply #5)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:52 AM
xxqqqzme (13,434 posts)
6. I don't know how it raises any significant
|
amounts. I don't know any smokers. I know many ex-smokers. Seeing/smelling a smoker is an oddity.
|
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:20 AM
stevenleser (13,292 posts)
2. OT, but everything you post is somehow better for your awesome handle
|
Always brings a smile to my face to see it.
|
Response to stevenleser (Reply #2)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 02:51 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,993 posts)
16. I'm glad you like it.
|
Peter George, Terry Southern, and Stanley Kubrick deserve all the credit, because they wrote the screenplay.
![]() |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:26 AM
LeftinOH (4,467 posts)
3. At some point, cheaper black-market smokes will become the norm..
|
because cigarettes are already expensive and heavily taxed. Is that we want?
|
Response to LeftinOH (Reply #3)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:50 PM
progressoid (27,342 posts)
10. It already is a big problem.
Response to LeftinOH (Reply #3)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:51 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,993 posts)
11. According to the LA Times story, part of the money raised by Prop. 29
|
"would go to the state attorney general and local law enforcement agencies to fight black-market cigarette sales and crack down on retailers who sell tobacco to minors."
IMO greater uniformity from state to state would also tend to discourage the black market. |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Reply #11)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:05 PM
expatriate2mex (148 posts)
14. Or give narcos here sometning else to smuggle.
|
I don't see those taxes happening here.
|
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:36 AM
Bonhomme Richard (7,835 posts)
4. Maybe a special tax on the chemical industry.
|
That's where most of it comes from anyway.
|
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:57 AM
stopbush (11,358 posts)
7. CA needs to chuck our referendum system and force our legislators to do their elected jobs.
|
I'm for taxing cigs more, but c'mon people! Is everything in this state subject to a referendum? All those do is reward the side with the deepest pockets, and that's almost never the side that has the well being of the public in mind.
|
Response to stopbush (Reply #7)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 03:24 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,993 posts)
17. Yes, our referendum system sucks.
|
Complex issues which should be settled by legislators tend to be decided by voters who hardly understand them. Legislators get termed out too soon. It's requires a supermajority for legislators to raise taxes.
But the deep pockets don't always succeed in buying the election. the good guys won in 1998 and again in 2000. California Proposition 10 (1998) ... put a $.50 tax on cigarettes, ... The tax went into effect January 1, 1999.
There was an intense opposition to the proposition by the tobacco industry but even with the huge opposing campaign the proposition still passed with just over fifty percent of the California vote. In March 2000 California voters were asked to repeal but there was a seventy percent opposition which reflected a strong anti-tobacco bias and support of early childhood education. To read more, copy the ff. and paste it into your browser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_10_(1998) |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:42 PM
SOS (7,047 posts)
8. OK...
|
But there is a tipping point in tobacco taxation.
Since politicians no longer accept graft from tobacco companies, tobacco can be taxed at no political cost. When they go to this well too often, as has happened in NY, you get an explosion of organized crime. In NYC cigarettes cost $13 a pack. Estimates are that 50% of cigarettes sold in NYC are now bootleg. This costs the state $20 a million a month. Taxes were raised through the roof and tax revenue plummeted. Certainly tobacco should be taxed. But CA should be careful not to get into the $10-$15 a pack range as NYC has done. It will backfire. |
Response to SOS (Reply #8)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:00 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,993 posts)
13. I agree.
|
California should not follow the example of New York.
As far as the cigarette tax rate is concerned, California should stay somewhere in the middle of the (ahem) pack. |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:49 PM
truebrit71 (16,912 posts)
9. Totally on board with this...
|
I think that the tobacco companies should have to pay it, not the consumer, but if folks just quit, it might have the same effect. Either way, way to go Lance!!
|
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 12:58 PM
DJ13 (21,346 posts)
12. Why do these tax schemes always try and increase the taxes by such a huge amount?
|
If they would increase it by a small amount it wouldnt have much opposition, but an increase of $1 on a product that sells for $5 is far too much.
|
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Original post)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:15 PM
Honeycombe8 (18,012 posts)
15. And then let's tax abortions to fund depression research on women, and then....
|
Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 01:17 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) let's tax office building owners a special tax to fund research on respiratory ailments of office workers, and then let's tax city property ownes a special tax to fund treatment of joggers' injuries (since they run on city-owned paved streets), and then let's tax BEEF with a special tax to fund research on cancer (beef has been linked as a cause of cancer), and THEN....
well, heck let's just tax EVERYTHING with a special tax to fund research and/or treatment of something that's related to it in some way, since EVERYTHING has something bad associated with it. Or we could just call this measure what it is: an effort to make people stop doing something which is legal but which some people don't want others to do. Like abortion, or eat beef, or....(insert just about anything here). |


