Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:19 AM
pinto (97,893 posts)
Prop. 29: Dollar-per-pack cigarette tax passing (SF Chron)
Prop. 29: Dollar-per-pack cigarette tax passing
Marisa Lagos Wednesday, June 6, 2012 . Tobacco companies poured nearly $47 million into defeating Proposition 29, a $1-a-pack tax hike on cigarettes, but the measure was narrowly leading in early returns Tuesday despite the hard-fought campaign. The tax increase would raise $810 million a year for cancer research and smoking cessation programs, and it would give California - which currently has a lower tobacco tax than 32 other states - the 16th-highest cigarette tax in the nation. It is the second time in six years that voters were asked to increase the state's current 87-cent-a-pack tax; in 2006, a similar hike was defeated at the ballot box. The vote would be a huge win for the public health groups that sponsored the measure, including the American Cancer Society. They have repeatedly tried - and failed - to persuade lawmakers to raise the tax on tobacco products, said the group's California vice president, Jim Knox. Those groups raised about $11.2 million for the campaign. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/06/MNET1OO2HT.DTL
|
15 replies, 1744 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| pinto | Jun 2012 | OP | |
| bupkus | Jun 2012 | #1 | |
| Warren Stupidity | Jun 2012 | #2 | |
| bupkus | Jun 2012 | #5 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Jun 2012 | #7 | |
| bupkus | Jun 2012 | #8 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Jun 2012 | #10 | |
| bupkus | Jun 2012 | #11 | |
| Lionel Mandrake | Jun 2012 | #12 | |
| bupkus | Jun 2012 | #13 | |
| pinboy3niner | Jun 2012 | #3 | |
| pipoman | Jun 2012 | #4 | |
| IndyJones | Jun 2012 | #6 | |
| bemildred | Jun 2012 | #9 | |
| pinto | Jun 2012 | #14 | |
| IndyJones | Jun 2012 | #15 |
Response to pinto (Original post)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bupkus (Reply #1)
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:41 AM
Warren Stupidity (31,939 posts)
2. Neither should be illegal.
|
Both should be available for sale to adults with appropriate health warnings.
|
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bupkus (Reply #1)
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 07:23 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,992 posts)
7. Maybe because tobacco has been with us since 1492.
|
Columbus noticed that some of his sailors had taken up the habit and were unable to stop.
Tobacco was the cash crop that saved the Virginia colony. The US Capitol building is decorated with a tobacco-leaf motif. It's practically un-American to be against tobacco! |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Reply #7)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bupkus (Reply #8)
Sat Jun 16, 2012, 12:02 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,992 posts)
10. But tobacco has been prevalent in North America
|
for hundreds of years, whereas cannabis has never been as popular as tobacco in this country.
What is really recent is the criminalization of drugs. This started as an anti-Chinese policy in California in the early 20th century. Before that, opium, cocaine, cannabis, etc. were perfectly legal. |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Reply #10)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bupkus (Reply #11)
Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:38 PM
Lionel Mandrake (2,992 posts)
12. Tobacco was prevalent before the 1930s.
|
It wasn't just smoking. People also used snuff, chewing tobacco, and many other tobacco products.
Referring to the Civil War, "a historian of the American South in the late 1860s reported on typical usage in the region where it was grown:
A History of the United States since the Civil War Volume: 1. by Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer; 1917. P 93, as quoted in a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco I might add that spitoons, snuff boxes, and other tobacco paraphernalia were ubiquitous. Fresh snuff was supplied to the U.S. Senate every day. All of which suggests that tobacco was the more commonly used drug long before 1930. |
Response to Lionel Mandrake (Reply #12)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to pinto (Original post)
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:42 AM
pinboy3niner (27,548 posts)
3. The cig tax is losing now, with most returns in, 49.2% Yes to 50.8% No
|
With 100% of precincts partially or fully reporting as of June 6, 2012, 3:39 a.m.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/29/ |
Response to pinto (Original post)
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:52 AM
pipoman (10,400 posts)
4. As the number of smokers decreases
|
it will be interesting which minority group gets saddled with the lost revenue of the declining tobacco taxes. Maybe unhealthy foods, or booze, or maybe legalized MJ..
|
Response to pinto (Original post)
Wed Jun 6, 2012, 02:05 PM
IndyJones (1,061 posts)
6. This one was a nail biter all night. It flipped from yes to no a few times, finally landing on no.
|
I think that the idea is a noble one, but Californians do not want any new taxes, period. Part of the argument was, if you don't smoke, this isn't a tax for you - which may have worked if people felt the money was staying in California.
This should concern Jerry Brown with the taxes he's asking voters to approve in November. If Californians wouldn't easily pass even a smokers' tax, I highly doubt they will pass the taxes he's proposing. |
Response to IndyJones (Reply #6)
Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:17 AM
bemildred (67,514 posts)
9. I voted against it, it had nothing to do with opposing new taxes.
|
I support much higher taxation rates, but not this sort of nickle and dime sin-tax approach, we need an inheritance tax and higher income and property taxes, not more "fees" and sales tax and what not, that is what got us in this mess. Creating another big pot of public money for nebulous medical research is not the way.
|
Response to bemildred (Reply #9)
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:16 PM
pinto (97,893 posts)
14. Tend to agree. We need a fairer tax code / enforcement overall. And in the best of circumstances
|
a rewrite of Prop 13 to close the loopholes or a complete repeal of the proposition.
|
Response to bemildred (Reply #9)
Thu Jun 21, 2012, 05:04 PM
IndyJones (1,061 posts)
15. That's interesting. I and most everyone I know voted against it because we do not want new taxes.
|
Last edited Thu Jun 21, 2012, 05:07 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) I would not support higher property taxes, either. We already pay a lot and more taxes would hurt us.
I do support closing loopholes and as a CPA, I am tired of seeing corporations paying very little to nothing. Get rid of loopholes and let them pay their fair share. I just don't agree with new taxes. Make it fair by closing loopholes and revenues would greatly increase. And get rid of the property tax deals made with big corporations like Walmart. Many big businesses pay no property taxes. They made sweet deals with the state. So in addition to paying little or no income taxes, they also pay zero property taxes. It's just not fair to the state. |

