Anyone else noticing the "No on 29" ads?

However, I am generally opposed to most initiatives. We've gotten some really bad laws because of them. They sound like a good idea but the devil is in the details.

I don't like regressive taxes in general. I don't like taxes that are aimed at poor people and minorities. More poor and minorities smoke than middle and upper class white people. I would like a tax just once to be aimed at people who can afford it without the pain that poor people feel when they have to pay extra for anything. But, really do they think that another agency will be created? Or is it more likely that the money is going to be handled by an already existing agency. I think the later is more likely. Since they want to use tea bagger language, I am inclined if I have a choice to vote Yes on 29.

maybe if they didn't literally "burn" their money by buying cigarettes ... maybe they wouldn't be as "poor" ...

Conservatives blame "evil government", "stupid science" and Democrats of all kinds for it. They have been saying it since the 1970s.

if they did that, they would probably lose the big $$$ from the Tobacco companies ...

I don't know what you are referring to.

They've taxed tobacco too often already.

Yes I know people who hate it find nothing wrong with more (and more.. and more) taxes on it, but hurting the poor because some hate the product is hardly a liberal stance.

Pack a day @ $5.00 = $1825.00 a year (health benefits aside). Plus the savings in health insurance premiums.

The price incentive helped me quit. Wish I would have done it years before (wish I had never started, actually). I'd be breathing normally today.

Better to add a surtax on tobacco, that is, subject it to a higher rate of sales tax. That way the tax on a pack of USA from Kwik-E-Mart is a lot less than on a pack of Gauloises from Snooty Tobacconists, Ltd. on Union Square.

edit: Same goes for liquor. The 5-cent-a-drink thing is bogus. And I say that as a huge supporter of the assemblymember (and hopefully senator soon) who sponsored it.

Lavishing funds on cancer research while people's basic health care needs, such as personal care attendants for people with disabilities, face more draconian cuts is just plain evil.

Is somebody's gravy train.

Because if they're looking for a "cure" that means they're creating more drugs that the drug companies will control and profit from.

Heaven forbid they look into prevention or causes...

It seemed to me the point of the poll was to find which arguments would get traction, that is it was not a push poll that I could tell.

(I'll have to read it, but I'll probably vote against it.)