 |
 |
Proponents are not conceding, but it does not look good for Proposition 29, the $1-a-pack tax on cigarettes to support cancer research. With all precincts reported, it was losing by about 63,000 votes. With nearly 1 million late absentees left to count, the results could still change. But it’s not promising.
What’s frustrating is that just three months ago, a statewide poll showed that two-thirds of California voters were inclined to support the tax. But then the tobacco industry jumped in, dumping $66 million into defeating it. Let me assure you, they did not do that because they’re concerned about your health or that, as their ads contend, they’re worried that you’re being over-regulated. They did it because raising taxes discourages kids from starting to smoke and encourages others to quit. And that, pure and simple, is bad for business.
The fact is that more than 60 percent of the states in the nation have a cigarette tax that is higher than California’s, which is just 87 cents a pack. Cigarette taxes have proven to be a very effective tool for encouraging people to quit smoking or, better yet, not to start at all.
From what I’ve heard, the argument that seemed to resonate with voters the most was that Proposition 29 was going to make a new “bureaucracy” and that California didn’t need any more government. It’s true that there was going to be a nine-member oversight committee that would oversee how the money would be spent. This is very similar to those committees that are established at the local level to oversee how tax measures and bond measures are spent. Why? Because if they didn’t create one, the opposition would be howling that there was no accountability for how the money would be spent. Big tobacco wins that argument either way.
And in the end, the companies that produce cigarettes such as Marlboro and Camel convinced nearly 2 million voters that it was better to maintain the status quo.
Too bad. They were just blowing smoke.
- Paul Gullixson
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Nicotine is only one substance associated with cancer. Are we going to tax all several hundred thousand other substances associated with cancer too?
the argument that cigarettes being more expensive will cause people to quit, or children not to start (i have NEVER seen a CHILD smoking, just for the record…) is a fallacy.
california has one of the lowest taxes on cigarettes in the nation. true.
california also has the second-lowest per capita rate of smokers in the nation.
if more taxes = less smokers, this failed proposition may have had a point.
but, calfornia as the example, this is simply not true.
if i went to sleep tonight and woke up to the price of coffee being doubled, i would grumble, sure, but i would still buy it.
addicts — whatever they’re addicted to — will just keep buying.
there are plenty of arguments to be made for an against taxes on cigarettes, but lets stop lying and saying it will force people to quit, or keep “children” from smoking.
(i’m assuming when people talk about children they’re really talking about high school students, who are most certainly not children. it’s hyperbolic to pretend otherwise. please say adolescents.)
So now we blame the “Big Bad Tobacco Industry” for the defeat of this “TAX” We seem so quick to blame everything but the real reason why this probably failed.
We the people of California are tired of seeing our tax dollars just wasted. Bullet train to nowhere, more pension for prison guards, state employees, legislators, etc, etc. But nothing for the tax payer.
Schools? Just another reason to rattle sabers and threaten further cuts to make us fork up more dollars.
Improved or even maintained roads? Forgetaboutit!!
Common sense in Sacramento?? When pigs fly and probably not even then.
When Sacramento realizes that we the taxpayers are reluctant to fork over any more dollars just to see them flushed down the toilet of the legislature and governor, perhaps change will occur.
But I don’t recommend any of you hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
It’s the same old same old. The losers will continue to whine, just like Smart, whine and throw tantrums till they get their way. Spoiled brats.
Paul,
Really, raising taxes discourages kids from beginning to smoke and encourages others to quit? Who says? I can honestly say that all that I read indicates that smokers are firmly in the minority and I have not read or heard any facts regarding the deterrent effect of tax on a legal (addictive) social habit, like smoking or drinking. This article is blatantly bias with no facts to back it up. Are we shocked that tobacco companies and other organizations spent millions on ads supporting their point of view. Your assumption is that the electorate was unable or unwilling to think for themselves and vote their own minds and hearts (a little insulting actually). I guess the voting process only works when the outcome is what you believe it should be, otherwise the outcome was purchased.
Tax wine 50%, tax junk food 80%, tax fast food 80%, tax green energy 80%, tax unions 50%, tax illegals 90%, and tax the liberal agenda 100%. Start taxing what the liberals and let them and let them see how it feels, they’d shut-up and start working for American’s just not their greed and select few they as they do now.
What they fail to realize is that but not for our taxes, them and their lazy pathetic minions wouldn’t exist.
Prop 29 deserved to lose. Stop trying to legislate personal habits. It’s my own damn business what I eat or smoke. This is one area where the progressives need to understand that they alienate working class voters. No one likes a busy-body.
If the state needs more revenue, close a corporate tax loophole. We could put the state in the black if we closed all of them.
Why is it the liberal party, who is supposed to be in support of peoples rights, are so quick to try and take them away? Gun control, Taxes, Doing away with God, Rewarding those who do not work by taking from those who do. It is time to support our freedoms as individuals by moving these democrats to the garbage pile. Maybe then California can regain is proper position economicly.
For extra points, name the well known Sonoma County resident who modeled for cigarette billboards in the late 70′s. The ads were even in national magazines.
I think it was Winston if I recall correctly?
“Cigarette taxes have proven to be a very effective tool for encouraging people to quit smoking…” Signed: Paul “one party, one media” Gullixson. Okay, Pauly boy, cite the specific scientific studies or papers that prove this. Rigged polls do not count. Do it now, or you’re just another Bloomburg blowing smoke.
“Cigarette taxes have proven to be a very effective tool for encouraging people to quit smoking…” Signed: Paul “one party, one media” Gullixson. Okay, Pauly boy, cite the specific scientific studies or papers that prove this. Rigged polls do not count. Do it now, or you’re just Bloomburg blowing smoke.
Unfortunately modern science has been corrupted by zealots. Given enough time and sufficient exposure, second-hand smoke probably is harmful. At least there are some credible studies to suggest so.
But that isn’t good enough for zealots. We’ve now taken sound science and extrapolated it into silliness–even infrequent and casual exposure is deadly.
Let me see, if exposure to 100 molecules per day causes one extra cancer per 1,000 people, then exposure to even 1 molecule per month will generate one additional cancer per 3,000,000. Rubbish.
Graeme-those that worked in smoke filled bars and restaurants before the laws were changed have COPD or died of cancer by now.
Chris, I’ll start minding my own business when I start seeing no piles of cigarette butts all over the place. People who would never think of littering think nothing of throwing their butts down and leaving them. Those butts are harmfull to my eyes and creatures in the environment.
Piles and piles and piles surround the building in work in downtown. Disgusting.
@Paul Gullixson
Did you look at your sample ballot? Prop 29 reads like a typical government program: 810M projected tax revenue, 441M actually spent on the promised research. 147M for “prevention and cessation” programs (that probably makes TV stations and publishers salivate for the guaranteed ad revenue).
The rest is earmarked for waste and to line pockets.
And you can’t have this much revenue coming in without asking: How long before our astute legislature figured out a way to borrow from the fund to fill budget gaps like they have done with the recycling fund.
I do agree somewhat it would have some effect on the numbers of smokers or decrease in sales. But how can you support a tax where 40% directly off the top goes straight to waste and bureaucracy.
If you could just produce a single victim of second hand smoke, I might be convinced.
No new taxes. Quit spending so much!
The pros of 29:
* Added $1 per pack of smokes to the state coffers.
The cons:
* Used those dollars to create new bureaucracies, with more government employees, to administer research grants to…. whomever.
* Did nothing apparent to get people to stop smoking… after all you can’t cut off the revenue stream intended to fund and enrich government workers and researchers, somewhere.
* Would have stimulated the already burgeoning black market in cigarettes, and further enriched Indian tribes running tax free smoke shops.
Prop 29 was yet another exercise in leftist logic. By placing a confiscatory tax on a “sin” product they run a false flag operation essentially telling us that their goal is to get people to stop smoking, without thinking for a moment that if they acheive their lofty goal the revenue stream that would fund the appartchik would end.
No new taxes, on anything, in California.
The point is that Californians have already been taxed so much the well is running dry!
How about a tax on the PD for every story it refuses to print?
Let’s tax high caloric foods and soda pop for diabetes research. Let’s tax alcohol for liver research. Let’s tax gas and diesel separately for research on respiratory issues. I do smoke but I’m not overweight and I don’t drink-don’t tax my vice unless you’re willing to tax yours as well.
Its unfortunate that the editorial staff at the Press Democrat believes a higher tax will fix every problem in society. They have be preaching this for years and look what has happened. Businesses driven from Sonoma County and the state and taking good jobs with them.
I am well aware that the progressive/socialists who work at the editorial desk will not alter their world or social view because of the citizens and taxpayers who express a different view on this site, but they could at least acknowledge that we have a point.
Higher taxes have not led to budget resolutions at the state or local level. In fact, the opposite has happened. More taxes, more spending, more debt.
It is time something novel was tried. Lower taxes and stop the excessive spending on government generally.
Government money is viewed by politicans as nobody’s money and that is the problem. It is not treated with the respect it deserves to be spent wisely.
It is long past time for progressive to wake up and get real about how our tax money is spent.
The message I kept hearing over the airwaves was “out of control state taxes and spending.”
It is easy to vote against the Tax Monster–only 12% of the electorate smokes, so if the measure passed 88% of the electorate would’ve passed a tax on the other 12%–and that’s what the voters did.
Stop crying Paul,the people have voted and you and your statist side lost! Its called democracy! Just like honesty its a foreign word to you and your ilk!
stop treating smoking like the black plague. If you do it you know its not good for yourself and if you don’t well then like so many other things mid your own business.
Big Tobacco v. Big Taxers. Tough to decide who to root against.
Bottom line, how about those who want a government program step forward and pay for it? The idea that cigarette smokers should pay for things because smoking is unhealthy is a non sequitur and, simply, unfair.
And some point, singling out unpopular behavior for high taxes will be resisted in the form of tax evasion, black markets and smuggling.
Common sense dictates that with price increases, smokers would be deterred from smoking. Instead, the increase in prices has been a boost for illicit tobacco trading. “What happened was that the market size did not shrink, but instead there was a heavy increase in the illicit trade of tobacco because there weren’t enough measures in place to safeguard the market from infiltration by illicit traders,” says Karim Refaat, Head of Corporate Affairs for North Africa at British American Tobacco (BAT).
According to Refaat, the illicit tobacco trade accounted for a mere 0.01% of Egypt’s 81 billion stick market in the first quarter of 2010 and now jumped to 7%, with the possibility of moving toward the 10% mark. Refaat blames pricing dynamics for allowing illegal brands to gain a wider market share. bt
http://businesstodayegypt.com/news/display/article/artId:256/Tobacco-Taxes-A-Smuggler-s-Boon/secId:3
Illegal tobacco burns a hole in profits for licensed traders
BENIDORM TOBACCONISTS are alarmed over what they consider to be “a new wave of trafficking contraband” in the city. A high incidence of contraband tobacco has been detected over recent months; business mostly conducted within the British community. Certain establishments are selling the smuggled tobacco well below the market price offered in licensed premises. And some English bars and restaurants are also involved in selling under the counter tobacco amongst other illegal merchandise.
The Guardia Civil has launched an investigation into black market tobacco, concentrating on premises retaining an overlarge stock and checking on supply source documentation. It is suggested that in some instances the tobacco being sold is of inferior quality and contains unacceptable levels of tar, nicotine and manure mixtures. The illegal tobacco comes mainly from China.
http://www.roundtownnews.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32367&Itemid=32
Actually big tobacco was more worried about blackmarket tobacco taking the market place over legal cigarette sales. In effect Big Tobacco saved thestate from losing revenues from tobacco taxes and kept the organized crime element from getting an even bigger foothold in the tobacco market than what they already have.
The links below show just what Im talking about:
9 indicted for cigarette smuggling
They’re the tip of the iceberg,” Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot said. “There is an explosion of cigarette smuggling going on.”
Comptroller’s Supervisory Agent Mike Madison peered through his binoculars, eyeing the black Toyota Camry as it pulled up to the Woodbridge tobacco shop. A man in a polo shirt got out, laid down a mat in his trunk and went inside. He emerged carrying several grocery bags — 10 to 12 cartons of cigarettes, Madison guessed — and drove away.
It sounds innocuous. But tobacco smugglers like these, officials say, are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenue to Maryland each year. On Thursday, Prince George’s County prosecutors announced that they had indicted nine people — allegedly responsible for nearly $30,000 in lost tax revenue — on criminal charges of transporting and conspiring to transport unstamped cigarettes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/9-indicted-for-cigarette-smuggling/2011/09/22/gIQAhvsBoK_story.html
Just like during alcohol prohibition:
Trade In Black-Market Cigarettes: Hot, Dangerous
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561