California DUers: Where do you stand on Prop. 86?

[begin_within]

Prop 87 is obvious. But I have heard arguments back and forth on 86 and I'm pretty confused about that one. I know basically what it's about but I can't tell who it really favors. Vote one way, you favor HMOs and hospitals, vote the other way you favor tobacco companies. Can anyone shed some light?

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. I haven't looked into it yet myself

but HMOs/hospitals vs. big tobacco? Sounds simple to me. I always look to see who's endorsing it and who's against. It's usually very illuminatng

[1932]

2. Yeah. Maybe if the HMOs can get money from tobacco, they'll take less from

me.

In terms of who you want to empower, I think I'd lean towards hospitals. But it'd help to read the full text of the bill.

[MzNov]

3. Look closely at who drafted the language... nt

[fed-up]

4. I vote no for any Prop on the ballet that used paid signature gatherers to

qualify.

Prop 86 is just another ($3 BILLION) tax on poor smokers. Why don't they start taxing meat, or potato chips or ice cream or fast food? Over weight people are becoming more of a burden and costing more in terms of health care dollars than smokers.

http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2006nov/id/prop86.html


WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means that the state could impose an additional tax of $0.13 per cigarette distributed ($2.60/pack) to fund health services including emergency services in qualified hospitals, nursing education, health insurance for eligible children, support for tobacco use prevention programs, and support for the research, prevention and treatment of some cancers, heart disease, stroke asthma and obesity.

A NO vote means that the state could not impose an additional tax on cigarettes to fund a variety of health services.

SUPPORTERS SAY


Ninety percent of smokers start as teens. The tax increase alone would prevent more than 700,000 kids now under the age of 17 years from becoming adult smokers.

Low income communities already suffer disproportionately from smoking-caused disease, disability, death and social and economic costs. Raising cigarette tasks and encouraging more low-income smokers to quit reduces the negative health impacts of smoking.

Nearly $16.5 billion will be saved in healthcare costs because more than half a million smokers in California would quit smoking, consuming 312 million fewer packs of cigarettes each year.

Money will go exactly where voters intend. Proposition 86 includes tough financial safeguards, including annual detailed public reporting of the use of tax funds, independent audits, limits on administrative costs, and a strict prohibition against the Legislature raiding the trust funds for any other government program.

Research and purchase patterns prove that cigarette smuggling among individuals is a relatively small problem, not exacerbated by price increases.

About two-thirds of all cigarettes sold in the U.S. are sold by single pack

An estimated amount of $367 million will provide health care coverage for children with no insurance today. Healthier kids attend school more regularly and learn better.

OPPONENTS SAY


Less than ten percent of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting to smoke cigarettes.

Proposition 86 throws millions of dollars at new bureaucratic state programs without adequate legislative or governmental oversight. There are no guarantees on how the money will actually be spent, or assurances that money won't be wasted.

The largest share, almost 40 percent, goes to hospitals, many of which are funding the campaign for the new tax. Hospitals wrote Proposition 86 to give themselves an exemption to antitrust laws, giving them legal protection to divide up and limit medical services and then raise prices without worrying about competition.

Law enforcement groups oppose Proposition 86 because it will increase crime and smuggling. Stolen and smuggled cigarettes are already a big source of money for gangs and organized crime. If Proposition 86 passes, a single truckload of stolen cigarettes could be worth over $2 million.

Proposition 86 amends our Constitution and statutes. When problems and abuses are discovered, it will be nearly impossible for the Governor or the Legislature to fix them. The Constitution would not be changed for a special interest money-grab.

[REP]

5. Vote Yes, Screw The Poor

Aside from the few who will continue to smoke and get massively screwed by this tax, undoubtedly many will quit. There's already a .50/p/pack tax that funds some childrens' program; when the majority of smokers quit, who will be thinking of the children then? Where will the money come from then? How will the revenue be made up that's lost when smokers stop smoking?

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Either they'll quit or they'll start smoking roll-ups...

made with tobacco ordered cheaply online, if they have internet access to do so...and CA won't see dime one of tax revenue from that. In the UK and Europe, increased taxation of manufactured cigarettes has led to as many as 25-40% of smokers rolling their own. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see it start happening here; either that, or anyone who can afford to make the trip will drive to Arizona, or Oregon, or Nevada, where taxes are lower, to stock up periodically...either way, California's revenues go down.

[REP]

8. Me, I'll Probably Quit! Out of Spite!

Yeah yeah yeah it's bad for me, but who wants to live forever? But I'll be damned if I pay $2.30/pack in taxes to make HMOs richer!

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. I've already made the switch to rolling my own.

Well, making my own (with "filter tubes"--like a filtered cigarette minus the tobacco--and an injection machine). Better tobacco (I smoke additive-free straight Turkish, which is wonderfully mild and aromatic--better than any American cigarette I've ever had and the equal of imported cigarettes that cost eight bucks a pack); cheaper (minus the one-time expenses of the machine and a decent cigarette case, it comes to something like $10-12 a carton); and I find that I smoke less (down to 5-10 a day from a pack to a pack and a half).

[REP]

11. I Used To Roll My Own

Back when I smoked straights, I'd sit down and roll a carton. Then I bowed to familial pressure and started smoking crap with filters (and god help me, I smoke "ultra lights" now - I don't believe they're "ultra light" on the carcinogens, but filtered regulars irritate my throat). Now my dominate arm is FUBAR and I'm not sure if I could roll fast enough to keep up ... might just be easier to quit, dammit, if the tax goes into effect.

If I were rich - REAL rich - I'd be shipping in Sherman MCDs from somewhere. That's a mighty fine butt! Every now and then, I'll treat myself to a lungful of $6.00 a box of lung candy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Never liked Shermans all that much.

Can't recall having the MCD's, but Sherman Turkish Ovals were absolutely horrible and tasted NOTHING like a Turkish smoke ought to. My preferred tobacco indulgence was Turkish Specials when I could find them, and now that they seem to've disappeared I occasionally have a box of Dimitrino Botschafters or Shepheard's Hotel (I'm all about the Turkish tobacco).

And the machine makes it pretty easy to do (even one-handed, I imagine); I manage about a pack in 5 minutes or so. It's crank-operated, no actual rolling involved. And they actually make light tobacco and what I suppose would be the equivalent of ultra-light filter tubes--charcoal-filtered (and you can even get 100mm, if you prefer those). And if you smoke ultra-lights, you'd probably be able to tolerate Turkish; you can't feel it at all in your lungs or throat when you inhale. It's not at all harsh, even unfiltered. (Most of the harshness in a typical American cigarette comes from the burley tobacco and, to a lesser extent, the Virginia).

[REP]

13. You a Tobacco Exec???

One of my friends just moved to Turkey yesterday. Yes, I know the wonders of Turkish tobacco, and with any luck, I'll be getting some in care package! I have many Turkish friends ... I'll have to start pestering them for cigs from home, but being new Americans, they all like Marlboros. Go figger.

The MCDs are a million times better than Turkish Ovals, which blow. Turkish Specials are delicious, but as you mention, hard to find. If you're feeling flush, try MCDs - they're sweet, like Turkish cigarettes (but no additives) plus they look slightly more elegant than the average butt.

Okay - were do you buy your loose tobacco? Where'd you get your machine? And are you part of the Tobacco Conspiracy? Or is it just our shared Virginia ancestry?

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Haha.

Well, my family WERE in the business of tobacco-growing, upon a time (but then so was pretty much everyone else in Virginia and Maryland). But, since you're apparently one of those smokers who actually derives some enjoyment from it (as am I), I thought I'd recommend a better and cheaper alternative. (Seriously, if you can have pure Turkish smokes for the equivalent of roughly a dollar a pack, why smoke overpriced, overtaxed cigarettes made out of processed stems and floor-sweepings flavoured with who knows what?)

I was just at the local tobacco shop the other day and sprung for a pack of Botschafters; I'll probably give the MCD's a try next time I'm in there.

I usually order my tobacco from here: http://cigarettetobacco.com/cigtob.htm#14
The Turkish is called "Ramback"; $18.95 for a 14 oz. bag (which you can get about two cartons out of). They also have a blend of 60% Turkish and 40% Virginia ("Ramback Gold") that's pretty tasty. Oh, and if you go there's an all-in-one kit that comes with the machine, tobacco, and cigarette tubes. (The Premier Supermatic is the machine I'd recommend, since it's not made of plastic and you can switch between kings and 100's.)

They also have cigarette tubes, including charcoal filters: http://cigarettetobacco.com/stuffy3.htm

Best price on a machine seems to be here (if you just want to get it separately): http://www.rollyourown.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=204

[Cleita]

7. In the past with confusing California propositions, I have

voted against them just out of principle. They usually pop up again with clearer language, which gives you a better understanding of which way to vote. On Prop. 86, most of the left leaning and Democratic interests are advising Democrats to vote against it.

[Oeditpus Rex]

9. Even if I didn't smoke

I'd vote against tobacco tax measures because they propose taxation without representation.

Indeed, why don't they slap such taxes on other things that are bad for us? It's always "Let's get the smokers," because we have so little recourse. No one speaks for us.

Yeah, go ahead. I've got my flame suit on. :eyes: