California Proposition 86: Opinions?

I'm curious as to Kossacks' opinions on Proposition 86, which quadruples the state cigarette tax, with much of the funding going for various types of health care programs.  I'm currently leaning against the proposition, but I want to see what everybody here thinks.

Let me start off by discussing my politicial philosophy: I am a "Libertarian Democrat".  I believe that the government shall not ban almost anything that doesn't harm others.  I also believe the government has a right, almost a duty, to provide goods and services that can not be provided adequately provided by the public sector, and to charge a reasonable level of taxation to pay for such goods and services.

I therefore am in favor of legalizing drugs.  However, I can see the state not wanting to be advocating the use of such drugs, however, and one way to show the state's displeasure for such is to charge high levels of taxation on such, provided such levels of taxation aren't so excessive to come close to defacto banning such.  I consider tobacco to be merely such a drug (it's use hurts nobody but the user if used in private).

So, my main question becomes, is raising the level of taxes on cigarettes from $8.70 a carton (plus Federal taxes of $3.90 per carton plus 7.25% state sales tax plus local sales tax in many areas) to $34.70 a carton (plus Federal taxes of $3.90 per carton plus 7.25% state sales tax plus local sales tax in many areas) constitute "excessive" high taxes?  This would be the highest cigarette tax in the nation, and the highest state wide tax by more than ten dollars a carton.  I probably would support "merely" doubling the tax, but quadrupling it strikes me as excessive.  Basically, they tried to shoot the moon, and they may have lost my vote because of it.

There is a related problem in that this would probably cause very high numbers of people to dodge the tax, either by buying thier cigarettes over the internet, or driving to an Indian reservation, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, or Mexico to buy thier cigarettes.

Another problem here is that the tax is so high, that the combination of people quitting or dodging the tax may actually result in lower tax revenue for the state of California.  Of course, part of the point of the proposition is to encourage people to quit.

Current cigarette taxes throughout the country: http://www.discount-cigarettes.org/...
Official ballot description of the proposition:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/...
Website in favor: http://www.yesprop86.com/
Website opposed: http://www.86facts.org/

•  My opinion is in a diary here....

  Smoke 'em if you've got 'em: a rant: http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:27:42 PM PDT

  •  Hmm, looks like we were working on diaries...

    ...on this at the same time.  (My computer ate it after I was 90% finished and I had to re-type it).  I did search, honestly. :-P

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:43:35 PM PDT

    •  Different diaries - you are addressing the

      economics that are causing me to vote against the proposition. I'm addressing the 'framing' of the debate and how I'm reacting as a smoker.

      Sidebar I'm trying to get people to look at their response - is it reality or is emotional.

      by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:42:47 PM PDT

      •  Well, one reponse here is the poll

        If it's losing here by about 3 to 2, I really can't imagine it passing overall (once you factor in knee-jerk anti-taxers in), although the Field Poll currently has it winning 53/40.

        by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:02:05 PM PDT

        •  I'm fuming

          at least until and if it passes....;)

          by sooner on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:15:47 PM PDT

      •  Fat Tax?

        So in general I tend to be for these types of taxes as they:

        1. tax a non-essential item that does cause harm to the user and those in the vicinity

        and

        2. provide funds to treat uninsured smokers who develop lung cancer, etc.

        BUT I do empathisize with your claim that obese people don't get a similar tax.  We need to acquire funds to treat uninsured Type II diabetics (probably the most common disease to result from obesity).  But what type of tax do we implement to address this?

        by Gibbo on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 03:42:31 PM PDT

      •  Fat Tax?

        So in general I tend to be for these types of taxes as they:

        1. tax a non-essential item that does cause harm to the user and those in the vicinity

        and

        2. provide funds to treat uninsured smokers who develop lung cancer, etc.

        BUT I do empathisize with your claim that obese people don't get a similar tax.  We need to acquire funds to treat uninsured Type II diabetics (probably the most common disease to result from obesity).  But what type of tax do we implement to address this?

        by Gibbo on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 03:42:37 PM PDT

      •  Fat Tax?

        So in general I tend to be for these types of taxes as they:

        1. tax a non-essential item that does cause harm to the user and those in the vicinity

        and

        2. provide funds to treat uninsured smokers who develop lung cancer, etc.

        BUT I do empathisize with your claim that obese people don't get a similar tax.  We need to acquire funds to treat uninsured Type II diabetics (probably the most common disease to result from obesity).  But what type of tax do we implement to address this?

        by Gibbo on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 03:42:42 PM PDT

      •  Fat Tax?

        So in general I tend to be for these types of taxes as they:

        1. tax a non-essential item that does cause harm to the user and those in the vicinity

        and

        2. provide funds to treat uninsured smokers who develop lung cancer, etc.

        BUT I do empathisize with your claim that obese people don't get a similar tax.  We need to acquire funds to treat uninsured Type II diabetics (probably the most common disease to result from obesity).  But what type of tax do we implement to address this?

        by Gibbo on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 03:43:20 PM PDT

  •  Also, how did you manage to post...

    ...37 seconds before I wrote the diary?  Hehehe...  That's a weird glitch-I wonder if the two times are generated from different computers who's server clocks aren't synced.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:46:06 PM PDT

    •  Computers are weird that way n/t

      by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:41:27 PM PDT

•  i'm majorly in favor of it

  The data show that people quit when the price goes high enough.

  Of course, too high and you create a black market.  But there's no indication of that for now.

  In my opinion, cigarettes should be increasingly taxed until a significant black market starts to develop.  Then stamp out the beginnings of that market, reduce the tax slightly, and you have perfect policy.

  by thereisnospoon on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:30:03 PM PDT

  •  why should the gov't

    care if people smoke or don't smoke?

    What people want to do with tobacco is their own business, their own private business.  The government should stay out of it.

    by theyrereal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:35:42 PM PDT

    •  Generally Agreed

      A tax sufficient to cover the cost to government of people who come down with cancer and other diseases from smoking and end up depending on government should be all that is included in the tax, IMHO.

      by LoganFerree on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:59:06 PM PDT

    •  Typical libertarianism

      The concept of "public health" and "shared costs" are lost on you morons, who simply want to play and pretend the economic law of externalized costs does not exist.

      Tell me, is it really as much fun as it looks to live in the la-la land that you inhabit?

      by eugene on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:22:01 PM PDT

      •  Troll ratings, eh?

        Looks like some libertarians can't stand the heat of light being shone on their beliefs.

        by eugene on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:37:31 AM PDT

    •  not true

      Two reasons:

      1. when people smoke, it affects the people they smoke around.  My neighbors in my apartment complex used to smoke incessantly and it would waft through my open windows, irritating my allergies.  I thank my lucky stars every day that they moved out.

      2. the state has to pay for many of the healthcare costs that smokers incur.

      by thereisnospoon on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:22:47 PM PDT

      •  While you are right

        Good luck trying to convince some of these people here of those facts - they seem to busy pretending society  exists.

        by eugene on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:25:12 PM PDT

      •  then we should tax

        corn syrup, alcohol, soft drinks, fireplaces, grills, leaf blowers, diesel engines .....

        The list goes on and on.

        Where does it start?  Where does it stop?

        Well some people don't like smokers, so they focus on that.

        I don't wear a bike helmet either, when I ride my bike.

        So sue me.

        I believe everybody has the divine right to be self destructive.   I sure don't want the government interfering in my personal life, which is what this is about.

        by theyrereal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:47:23 PM PDT

        •  cigarettes are FAR more destructive to health

          than any of the things you mentioned.

          And those things don't cause health problems in others.

          by thereisnospoon on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:03:39 PM PDT

          •  of course those things do

            You ever live near a major highway?  

            Ever wonder where tires go when the treads disappear?

            All that rubber (or whatever it is) goes somewhere -- it goes into the air.   It turns into a fine particulate matter that goes into your lungs and will cover everything in your house if you live near a highway.

            And that's just one tiny example.   Should we tax tires out of existence?
            

            by theyrereal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:08:05 PM PDT

            •  Stop with the ratings abuse

              I am not a troll and Eugene is not a troll either. Cut it out.

              by Chamonix on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:13:59 PM PDT

              •  wah wah wah

                you act like a ten year old asshole who doesn't know his manners, you get troll rated.

                This is a site for grownups.

                by theyrereal on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:21:43 AM PDT

            •  Tires

              Were not on your list above. How about using them for your argument.

              And, by the way, we DO tax some of those items already. Alcohol, diesel fuel (not engines), etc.

              Your argument is the, "We can't have Gay marriage because then people will marry farm animals" argument. It doesn't deal with the very real costs incurred by society to deal with the well documented risks of smoking.

              by SeattleLiberal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:38:04 PM PDT

        •  But when you fall off your bike

          we should pick up the tab to take care of your brain-injured self though, huh?

          THAT is the problem. More tax money is spent dealing with the outcome of self-destructive people. The Government doesn't WANT to pick up the tab. If you were the only one affected I'd be all for you damaging yourself.

          But it isn't just about you, is it? Do you have any idea how much money is spent to deal with the heart disease and cancer caused by crappy lifestyle choices? Much of this cost dealing with smoker's health issues is the loss of productivity (cost to businesses), covering the uninsured (cost to government).

          This is a bit old from the CDC:

          Cigarette smoking continues to be the principal cause of premature death in the United States and imposes substantial costs on society. For each of the approximately 22 billion packs sold in the U.S. in 1999, $3.45 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking, and $3.73 in productivity losses were incurred, for a total cost of $7.18 per pack.

          If only the health of the smoker was the problem that would be one thing - but it isn't. Asthma and health effects on children and adults living with and around smokers need to be taken into effect.

          Smoke if you want but you need to take care of the costs and pay for the problems of your habit. You know - personal responsibility.

          I smoke, by the way, so you can save your breath on that aspect of the argument.

          by SeattleLiberal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:18:18 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure that's practical

    Especially the "reduce taxes slightly" bit at the end, especially if the taxes are raised via proposition as this is (you would need another proposition to do so).

    Raising taxes this high, as compared to neighboring states (and Indian Reservations), will absolutely create a black market.  Whether that will merely be individuals dodging the tax, or organized criminals trafficing in them, remains to be seen, although the second is probably likely.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:36:19 PM PDT

  •  Just like it worked for prohibition?

    Just like we control the black market of cocaine and marijuana and other illegal substances...

    by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:37:11 PM PDT

    •  Hmm

      I didn't notice anywhere where Prop 86 prohibited cigarettes.  Your comparisons are way off the mark.

      by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:46:49 PM PDT

      •  correct

        n/t

        by thereisnospoon on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:23:14 PM PDT

      •  The commenter's argument was to create

        a black market...

        I was just following it to the logical conclusion. And based on the tenor of the comments here and in my diary...lots of people would like cigarettes outlawed as well.

        by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:46:04 PM PDT

  •  Maybe, maybe not.

    No one in my immediate family has smoked long term.  But I have a non-blood relative who smoked for more than 30 years (with one brief cessation period of about a year.)  The ever increasing price of cigarettes never thwarted them.  What finally got that person to quit for good was seeing both their parents die within a year of each other from illnesses caused by their life long smoking habit.

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:41:22 PM PDT

  •  No indication of a black market???

    You're obviously not a smoker (or only hang out in rich neighborhoods).

    Smuggled, counterfeit and Indian casino cigarettes are already readily available in scuzzy gas stations and independent cornerstores around the state.

    It's not the black market, it's a gray market. And it's a ubiquitious as illegal employment in California.

    by opendna on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:58:24 PM PDT

•  absolutely OPPOSED.

  by michael1104 on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:31:12 PM PDT

•  it's a terrible idea

  and will put many small businesses -- i.e. my local cigar shop which has been a neighborhood fixture for years and years -- out of business.

  Because it's not just cigarettes, it's all tobacco products that will be taxed right out of existence.

  by theyrereal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

  •  Taxed out of existence?

    The main point of Prop 86 is to reduce smoking rates by increasing the price of tobacco.  The data shows that higher tax do reduce smoking rates, in particular youth smoking rates.  I have a little trouble shedding a tear over some disadvantaged tobacconists if hundreds of thousands of lives are saved.

    by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:50:37 PM PDT

    •  So . . .

      You're assuming that those people who want to smoke are too stupid to make their own choices?

      by LoganFerree on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:59:55 PM PDT

      •  Choices?

        Smokers are addicted to nicotine.  According to the CDC, 70% of smokers want to quit.  If that's the case, doesn't it really honor people's choices more if we help that 70% of smokers to live the way they want to live.

        by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:07:46 PM PDT

        •  You think cost will stop people?

          Does cost really stop people from using cocaine or any other addictive substance?

          That's just a crock...and who made you or the CDC or any other government agency my conscience or nanny this week?

          by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:47:47 PM PDT

          •  exactly

            where does the government get off telling people "we want to help you quit smoking, so we're gonna tax the hell out of your addiction."

            I don't think that's the government's role in people's private and personal business.

            I don't smoke cigarettes.  But I do enjoy a cigar now and then.  If a five dollar cigar is gonna be twelve bucks because of this tax, I'll still buy them, I'll just buy them from outside of California, thus depriving the state its tax that it thinks its getting by raising this.

            It's stupid, it will put local merchants out of business, and it will have absolutely no affect on tobacco use.

            by theyrereal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:50:51 PM PDT

•  for it

  While I have no problems with drugs being legalized, I think the gov't should tax them.

  Here's where I'm coming from. My dad was a two-pay a day smoker. He had a heart attack when I was 5 and died when I was 9.

  I have an aunt and a step uncle (sort of) who are both dying of lung cancer.

  My in-laws gave up smoking when the UK raised the taxes so high they realized they'd be spending thousands of dollars on cigarettes each year.

  I do have some reservations on the spending here, but I think the gov't already pays heavily for the health problems that smokers endure.

  (BTW, I'd support taxes for other products, like sugar and fat-filled foods.)

  by Kelly A H on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:39:29 PM PDT

  •  I disagree 100%

    but I respect you because you're consistent. Sugar and fat-filled foods too? Well, ok then. +4

    by opendna on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:54:29 PM PDT

•  Cigs in LA, CA right now are about

  $4.50 a pack, in NYC they are about $7.50. I am voting Yes, perhaps they will become so expensive that the kids will do without. Smoking kills to many people. People die way to soon. Our health insurance is way to high. Something has to be done. I may not be with the majority of Kossacks on this one but I will vote Yes and hopefully it will save lives.

  by Chamonix on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:43:56 PM PDT

  •  NYC currently has the highest taxes in the nation

    $30.00 a carton ($15 of that is NYC only; so the rest of the state is only $15 total (plus Federal cigarette taxes and sales taxes, of course, with CA sales taxes being much higher than New York's).

    So cigs would probably end up being $8-10 a pack, or eighty to a hundred dollars a carton.  That's really expensive, and probably will result in a large criminal trade of such.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:52:10 PM PDT

  •  And about $2.75 a pack in Idaho

    So....maybe they need a few more liberals in the Gem State.

    by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:48:51 PM PDT

  •  By the way - are you going to charge

    other people for health costs...see my diary...and let me know when you increase the cost of Big Macs and all other fast foods by 50% to subsidize health care as well.

    You do them both at the same time and I'll vote for the Proposition.

    by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:50:44 PM PDT

    •  I don't eat fast food, but I support getting rid

      of all trans fats and that is a step in the right direction.

      by Chamonix on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:26:34 PM PDT

•  Yes on 86 - Higher Taxes Reduce Smoking

  Making cigarettes more expensive cuts smoking youth smoking rates.  

  http://www.yesprop86.com/...

  Higher taxes also reduce adult smoking rates and reduce the number of cigarettes that smokers smoke.  The tobacco companies know that Prop 86 will cut smoking.  That's why they're spending tens of millions working against it.  To me that is justification enough for the Proposition.  The fact that the revenue from the tax goes for Emergency-Room Care, Children's Healthcare and Tobacco Control Programs just makes it more worthwhile.

  by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:44:39 PM PDT

•  Let me first preface my comment..

  with the statement that I believe the entire proposition process in CA is idiotic... Why we have decided to enshrine policy decisions to the electorate is beyond me...

  That said, I think the right question to ask is how much does cigarette smoking cost the state?  I don't see any reason why I as a non-smoker should shoulder the state's costs associated with smoking caused disease and healthcare, lost productivity, etc. any more than I feel that I should shoulder the state's costs of pollution clean up for privately owned companies...  and I think its the state's responsiblity to properly account for those costs and pass them to the users through a use based tax.

  If that's 8 bucks a carton then that's the right tax...  I could care less if people smoke but I'll be damned if I pay for them to do so...

  by mlangner on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:44:48 PM PDT

  •  Reasonable

    I think that's the most reasonable approach.  

    by LoganFerree on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:00:41 PM PDT

    •  It does seem reasonable

      Of course, determining this figure is probably difficult, and nobody has seemed to try in this particular case.

      by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:12:20 PM PDT

•  People without health insurance are charged

  a lot more than insured people for the same healthcare services.  If I am not mistaken, that bill contains language that would remove any cap of charges to the uninsured.  It requires a closer look.

  by Friend of the court on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:55:12 PM PDT

  •  The anti-tax folks...

    ...(that is, the cigarette companies' proxies) make some claims about such, and also note that that hospitals get an exemption to anti-trust laws.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:58:41 PM PDT

•  i'm leaning against

  because it is a regressive tax. i'd be far happier with an increased income or property or corporate tax that paid for the same health care. taxing addictive substances strikes me as dirty pool, especially in a regressive sense.

  i'd be far more comfortable with a corporate tax on tobacco companies themselves, akin to prop 87 that goes after the oil companies.

  by wu ming on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:57:00 PM PDT

•  Default position: no

  I tend to vote no on most CA propositions.  That's because each time I try to read them, it turns out that they are really long, have all kinds of legalese about amending section 39 of clause 57 of some-act-or-other, regulation 93 section 13 paragraph 3, blah, blah, blah.  Who knows what's hidden in there??

  Like a gambling prop an election or two ago: somebody wanted to legalize some limited form of gambling, there was a strong campaign against it ("immoral!  feeds addiction!  adds to crime!!")...but guess what, some Indian tribes who already had gambling on their reservations nearby were behind the campaign!

  So unless there's a short, easy to understand, and worthy prop, I just vote against.  First do no harm.

  On cigarettes: yes, we want to discourage it.  It causes a lot of preventable illness, costs a lot to take care of those sick people, has human costs beyond that, hooks kids at an early age, etc.  No, we don't want to make taxes the only means of achieving this, look at prohibition.  

  Someone upthread suggested hiking taxes until smuggling started, then dropping them down to a more acceptable level.  An endearingly naive idea!

  When you have a tax, a prohibition, a law that people just don't accept, then you engender contempt for the law.  If the law in question is fundamentally just (slave emancipation, say, or civil rights, desegregation, etc.), then you brave popular opposition and stand firm.  When it is a sin tax, you wisely keep it off the books.

  In this case, I say the answer is obvious: NO!

  by amitxjoshi on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:59:57 PM PDT

  •  I think a lot of people vote like you do

    Default for most people seems to be no, especially on taxes.  I suspect this proposition will fail.

    Hmm...lemme check the polling on this...

    http://www.field.com/...

    The scary-accurate Field Poll says it's ahead, 53/40, but that was down from 63/32 in July.  Also, people with "No prior awareness" scored ten points higher than those who had heard of the proposition previously, which indicates to me that the anti-prop 86 TV ads are working, but need to continue en masse to defeat the proposition.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:19:51 PM PDT

    •  I also

      default to no on propositions because I think it is, generally speaking, a lousy way to create legislation.  

      I wonder whether the effect of the proposed law won't be to simply create a profitable black market for smuggled cigarettes.

      by GeoGrl on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:55:32 PM PDT

•  Someone expalin the anti-trust exemption?

  Why are hospitals given an anti-trust exemption in this bill, and what does it apply to? It doesn't seem related to the cig tax hike.

  by ripzaw on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:19:59 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    http://www.yesprop86.com/...

    by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:24:06 PM PDT

    •  Hmm...that doesn't sound that bad

      Of course the anti-prop 86 folks are playing up the whole "anti-trust exemption" angle fairly loudly.

      by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:29:54 PM PDT

      •  Read the proposition very carefully

        and all the legalese. It is just bad legislation and still doesn't address the lack of universal health care in California.

        by SallyCat on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:53:08 PM PDT

    •  I wish they'd seperated the two issues

      Even if the antitrust exemption is a good idea, I wish we could vote on that in one place and a tax hike in another.

      by ripzaw on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:14:54 PM PDT

•  Definitely in favor

  Smoking needs to be curtailed, and the state could surely use more money. It's not a tax anybody is being forced to pay. Don't want to pay it - don't smoke it. Not that difficult.

  by eugene on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:23:30 PM PDT

•  No, for several reasons...

  You only have to read the proposition to see it's poorly written and, in parts, ambiguous.
  http://www.ss.ca.gov/...

  First, in the first paragraph of the law:
  "Exempts recipient hospitals from anti-trust laws in various circumstances." One of the deals is that hospitals would get money to cover expenses from giving care to the uninsured, and that the hospitals would have to lower what they charge the uninsured. While this sounds good in theory, there is nothing in stone - i.e. the wording is vague. It does not say "Since the hospitals will get money, they will charge the uninsured 30% less" or "10% less." It's arbitrary. Hospitals could price rig things, and the patients would have no recourse.

  Second, one of the things that will be funded is the "General Fund" of the state. So, it's not like * all * the money goes to health programs, some of it is diverted to some fund. (see page 5) A fund that the state controls, but never says what the use will be - i.e. will the money go for new roads? What's the General Fund for??

  In addition, states are bad when it comes to living up to their end of the bargain. For example - once states started getting their tobacco lawsuit settlements, very little money went to smoking cessation programs, but went for things like road construction. And we're dealing with Ah-nold here... he'd probably spend the funds on another special ballot vote.

  Last, it would be taxing people who do not need to be taxed: people from lower socio-economical households. The CDC reports:"Current smoking prevalence also was higher among adults living below the poverty level* (32.9%) than among those at or above the poverty level (22.2%)." So, we'd be taking money from those people - the same ones that probably can't afford Zyban, or Nicorette, or what have you.

  So, there. If people feel the need to pass it, that's fine. I live close to the borders of Nevada and Arizona. It won't be a problem for me to drive a couple hours to get my cigarettes...

  (sorry for the snark - I'm tiring of the "smokers are evil, let's tax them because they are bad" laws....)

  by chainsaw mary on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:28:31 PM PDT

  •  There's a very detailed chart...

    ...on page 65 of the printed voters guide that shows where all the money goes.  None seems to go to the "general fund", for instance-it all seems to be health-related.

    The chart is at the bottom of this page:

    http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/...

    Like I said, if they were merely doubling the tax rate, I would probably be in favor of this.  I am in favor of increasing funding in most of those programs.  But quadrupling is too much, IMHO.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:34:48 PM PDT

    •  pfft

      I guess the "general fund" allocation was from the original tobacco tax hike. My bad.

      Funny tho how just a tiny amount goes for smoking prevention/cessation.

      by chainsaw mary on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:39:02 PM PDT

      •  Well, I prefer it that way...

        ...that is, more going to hospitals than smoking prevention. "Smoking prevention" mostly means anti-smoking ads on TV, and we already see enough of those, IMHO.

        by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:44:36 PM PDT

      •  General Fund changes

        Prop 86 would lead to increased General Fund revenues simply because the state sales tax is a percentage of the after-excise-tax price of the cigarettes.  So, there would be increased sales tax revenue.

        by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:15:08 PM PDT

    •  Prop 86 is a merger of two propositions

      Originally there were two propositions, each of which proposed ~$1.50/pack increases.  One was proposed by the hospitals and contained the funding for emergency rooms and nursing education, etc...  The other was proposed by the American Lung Association and funded Healthy Families, tobacco control efforts, etc...  Both initiatives were slated to be on the same ballot.  If they were both on the same ballot, then if they both passed, then the one with the greater number of votes would go into effect.  That meant that the American Lung Association would have to tell people to not vote for the other initiative and vice versa.  Neither group wanted to do that since they thought that would be very confusing.  The hospitals also have deeper pockets than the ALA, so they would have likely outspent them.  So, they decided to get together and the two groups made one initiative out of two.  So, that is why the tax increase is larger than originally planned and why the programs funded by the revenue are so diverse.  I support Prop 86 though.  The route by which it was drafted is peculiar, but it is very needed legislation.  

      by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:26:29 PM PDT

•  Second-hand smoke harms others

  so a "libertarian" approach is inappropriate.

  If we were talking about marijuana, I'd say legalize and tax.  But smokers harm others unless they're far away from them.  

  I'd support a ban on tobacco.  Although I enjoy a smoke with a drink now and then.

  by Dracowyrm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:30:34 PM PDT

  •  One has to look at the relative risks

    That is, second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer, but the increases seem to be pretty low.

    Besides, one can ban smoking in public and allow it in private, which is what California state law pretty much does already.

    by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:37:14 PM PDT

    •  Define "pretty low" risk of cancer

      from second hand smoke.  
       At my first "career" job i ended up working with several people who were constant smokers (this was before smoking in office buildings was banned.)  Several years ago I was diagnosed with asthma.  I can't say for certain whether the second hand smoke I inhaled at work and other places contributed to that, any more than I can say that my exposure to the sun definitely contributed to my developing melanoma 7 years ago.

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:49:14 PM PDT

      •  That can be argued about forever

        In any case, the solution is to just ban smoking in public places, which has already occured.

        by Geotpf on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:54:50 PM PDT

  •  so does walking into

    a parking garage.

    The signs are posted everywhere.

    Do you stop walking into parking garages?

    Do you tax parking garages?

    Where do you draw the line?

    Hell, just living in Pasadena is like smoking several cigarettes a day for most of the year.  The air there is godawful.  The whole San Gabriel valley.   And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    So what?
    

    by theyrereal on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:53:17 PM PDT

•  Prop 89: Good for smugglers & gray marketeers

  bad for pretty much everyone else.

  Anyone who thinks that smokers will pay $8/pack when there are Indian casinos all over the place is, frankly, smoking crack (which, incidentally, retails for about $5 a rock around here).

  Honestly, how badly do you have to fail high school economics to think Prop 89 is a good idea?

  Drug smugglers have already re-tooled to smuggle counterfeit cigarettes because the mark-up is greater than any other drug. Better profits from running tobacco than cocaine or heroin, and lower penalties!

  (sigh) And they say crime doesn't pay.

  by opendna on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:52:30 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure why...

    a clean-money election initiative is good for smugglers, but I'm sure you can tell us.

    by ortcutt on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:27:47 PM PDT

    •  Doh!

      Prop 89: clean money
      Prop 86: cigarette tax.

      I fugged that title. (sorry) The nurses convinced me to vote yes on 89.

      I'm actually tempted to vote yes on 86, for my own perverse reasons.

      by opendna on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:10:33 PM PDT