California tobacco tax initiative backers still hope for narrow win

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

California tobacco tax initiative backers still hope for narrow win

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES | Fri Jun 8, 2012 8:19pm EDT

(Reuters) - Campaigns for and against a proposed dollar-per-pack cigarette tax hike in California held their breath on Friday, each hoping to eke out a slim victory by the time voters' final ballots are tallied in a race still too close to call.

Voters were widely reported to have narrowly rejected the ballot question, known as Proposition 29, on Tuesday, a result observers largely attributed to a $47 million advertising blitz mounted against the measure by big tobacco companies.

But as of Friday, backers of the initiative were refusing to concede defeat, pointing to the opposition's shrinking lead as election officials reported nearly 1 million ballots still left to count.

Both sides in the Prop 29 campaign say it will probably be another week or two before the outcome of the race is settled.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/09/us-usa-campaign-tobaccotax-idUSBRE85800R20120609

[brewens]

1. I can't see making smokers poorer than they already are. I can see

taxing tobacco enough to pay for health care costs you can legitimately blame on smoking. I'm not convinced it amounts to quite as much as the anti-smokers would like us to believe. It's possible the tobacco taxes could already be covering those expenses but haven't been applied there.

As far as funding cancer research, if it's worth funding, tax everyone to fund it, not just smokers. The research will also benefit non-smokers.

[russspeakeasy]

2. Well put. If this "sin tax" passes, can others be far behind ?

[brewens]

3. In my state they masterminded tying the lottery to public school funding.

I was for both that and tribal gaming when it came up, but would vote against both if I had it to do over again. It's nice to think you can stick gamblers with paying for something like public schools if you thing you come out ahead. In the long run, I don't think we do.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. I completely agree with you.

How about taxing corporate gross polluters? Like the oil companies that have never been levied a severance tax? They extract oil from our land and our waters, refine the stuff IN California, and then get to sell it nationally and internationally for mega profits giving nothing back to Californians.

Democrats in our Legislature can do better.

So, how about taxing oil companies FIRST before adding a whole dollar tax to a pack of cigarettes?

That's why we voted NO on Prop 29. Not because we cared about any Big Tobacco commercials.

[msongs]

5. smokers ARE "gross polluters". toxic smoke and fumes + cigarette butts by the billions everywhere so

glad to see you aree with taxing them

[BlueCaliDem]

6. Man! You had to twist yourself thoroughly to come to that conclusion

didn't you?

As I've clearly stated in my post, until the state taxes oil companies I refuse to put more taxes on a few to benefit more corporations that will take all those billions, pay their CEOs and IF they find a chemical cure for cancer, turn around and make people who suffer the disease pay exuberant prices for help while not informing them that a proven cure for cancer, even the HIV virus, is already widely available.

I'm sad you don't see that bigger picture.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. You won't want to come to my house...

...and I'll be quite happy not to see you.

[Politicalboi]

7. I hope it still loses

Tax the fucking alcohol for a change. If they don't use Marijuana to help with their cancer research, they don't deserve shit from me.

[EFerrari]

9. Well, one side sure knows how to insist on a hard count.

Too bad it's never our side.