It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Tobacco companies add $15 million to fight cigarette tax (California Prop 29 news)

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:59 PM
I am thinking that if big tobacco is against it I am for it. But I usually vote against propositions and this involves raising taxes, which I always vote against. I think John and Ken are about to discuss it on KFI so maybe that will help me decide.

Sourc e

Tobacco companies are stepping up their efforts to defeat Proposition 29, the June ballot measure that would hike cigarette taxes by $1 per pack.

On Friday, the parent companies of Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. reported giving more than $15 million in contributions to the opposition campaign, dubbed Californians Against Out of Control Taxes & Spending.

That gives the firms a war chest of nearly $40 million to fight the ballot measure, which is projected to raise more than $850 million a year to be used to fund cancer research, build research facilities and aid anti-smoking programs.

By comparison, supporters of the cigarette tax, including the American Heart Assn., the American Lung Assn., and the American Cancer Society, have raised about $3.5 million. They are expected to unveil their first ad Tuesday.

The opposition campaign has the support of the California Republican Party, which contributed $695,000 to the effort, according to state records.

Jennifer Kerns, a party spokeswoman, said the organization spent the money on mailers, email and "other forms of communication" to urge Republicans to vote against Proposition 29.

"It's not unusual to spend resources on member communications," she said. "We are the party of fiscal conservative principles. It’s not just about a tobacco tax. It's about a tax, period."

Kerns said the measure would also create "a huge new bureaucracy," referring to a new nine-member committee that would oversee the cigarette tax funds.

edit on 10-5-2012 by kawika because: fix title

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:07 PM
You should support the tobacco companies. The government are jerks. Tobacca Companies do not force people to smoke. Everyone is aware of the risks.

In Australia we pay crazy tax. We have had the offensive 'warnings' for years and now the government wants to force 'plain packaging'. Its insane. Plain packaging.

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Germanicus

Well, yes. Anytime they ask me, would you like to pay higher taxes, I always vote no. But my neighbors will outvote me.

I am thinking vote no on this one...

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:13 PM
Why does California hate sick children?

Raise taxes on tobacco and less people will buy it and it will bring in less revenue and sick children will die.

Save children stop Prop 29.

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by Carseller4

Ok, another no vote...

Looks like big tobacco will win this one.

John and Ken are suggesting no also. But they are getting all that advertising money from the tobacco company on KFI to stop prop 29. They seem pretty luke warm on this.

edit on 10-5-2012 by kawika because: added image

edit on 10-5-2012 by kawika because: added image

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:21 PM
It's your civic duty, your responsibility to smoke.
Without the money from smoking, cancer research will halt.

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by abecedarian

All the snarky comments...

Where are the CA natives?? Yes voters site here

Seriously, they have banned smoking outdoors in some places here and indoors in private homes if attached to other homes like condos or apartments.

I don't smoke, so I guess I don't care.
edit on 10-5-2012 by kawika because: add text

edit on 10-5-2012 by kawika because: added link

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:31 PM
I am feeling ill already,
this sounds more and more like,
second hand Vote!

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:47 PM
L folks

just support the people who gave us tobacco in the 1st place
buy it tax free from your nearest reservation
edit on 10-5-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:59 PM

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by RealSpoke

I have this sudden urge for a freedom torch, I mean a smoke...

Now that is marketing!

But, sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.
edit on 10-5-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:14 PM

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by abecedarian

All the snarky comments...

Where are the CA natives??


California native, born and raised here.

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by abecedarian

Been here only 2 years this time.

I was here before 1984 to 1990. Stockton and San Diego.

Nutty place. So you are ok with a no vote?

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by kawika

I'm a smoker, and am definitely against raising taxes particularly lopsided initiatives.
What contribution are non-smokers making to this cancer research tax?

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by abecedarian

Well, you make a good point.

Non-smokers get cancer too. Mostly from second hand smoke from smokers though.

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:27 PM
The problem with "sin" taxes is that you are effectively taxing the lowest income earners yet again. Another problem is when you increase the costs of these products so drastically you are decreasing your tax base. So in effect what these people are doing is only hurting themselves in the long run, and leading to the eventuality of taxing other unhealthy behaviors such as fast food in the future.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by KeliOnyx

Yup, Everyone in Sacramento seems genuinely surprised that revenue decreased after raising taxes.

They are never gunna get it...

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:07 PM
I feel torn.

i hate tobacco companies and would love to see them go out of business.

But I hate the government sin taxing everything in sight.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:22 PM
This law is so fraught with problems. Like all laws that try to forbid or restrict children from having access to something, the government tends to go into focusing on the sellers of such, rather than the actual problem and there in lies the issue and problem.

Tobacco is the new alcohol, it is bad for you, every one knows that, warning labels are all over it, and the message has been out there. It has been the target of many government and individuals out there, yet they fail to see the bigger problem with the same tactics that they are using, it never works. Reality is that if a child wants to try a cigarette, it is not always through the vendor that they get such from. And there in lies the ultimate problem. Having lived in San Diego, this is a useless law, as many people would either go to one of the native American Reservations or across the boarder to Mexico to gain access to such.

Having seen this issue come up over and over, the solution that the industry has often implemented, is that if a cashier sells to someone underage, the cashier is terminated, no repeals no questions asked, automatic termination, combined with the fact that there are often fines and possible jail time involved. Yet the children keep purchasing tobacco, and now the question is where are they getting such from? The answer is usually a lot closer to home than many people want to accept, that is from either the home or their friends.

There is usually, and in very few cities or states, laws that prohibit an older person from giving such to a minor. And when such does occur, the police do nothing to stop it. They tend to look the other way, or just ignore it. If they want to stop children and those underage from smoking, the solution has to be attack from 2 directions, the first is the vendors that are already being watched, and inspected, and the other is a more direct approach, take it to the children and their families. Bring the family in on such, give them the fines and head aches of having to go to court, that would more than fund the entire plan of theirs, and ultimately would cause the stopping of young people from getting a hold of tobacco products and using them.

But that is a common sense approach, something the government does not want to do, as it would mean that the police and other authorities would have to get involved in more of the community and actually doing something that they are charged with doing. Easier to take on a big cooperation, than the individual.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:43 PM
I t most likely will get past. Most people hate smoking anyway.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in