Smoke Screen

oh come on.

I would guess most people see this for what it was: An attempt to address state budget problems by taxing "someone else".

There is no way any new taxes are going to help the states financial problems. These are due to the fact that politicians and voters have insisted on making promises that the state can't keep.

Robert Ramey

It was a punitive tax on poor people.
Signed,
Ex-smoker

"I would guess most people see this for what it was: An attempt to address state budget problems by taxing "someone else"."
-- ramey

That's incorrect. Prop 29 would not have put in place the kind of tax that goes into the state's general fund to "address state budget problems".

Rather, Prop 29 would have put in place an excise tax that could only be spent on certain things (e.g. cancer research, cessation programs, etc.).

California has not been able to pass any new cigarette taxes for a long time now. Our tobacco tax now ranks 33rd in the nation:

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120502_P...

That's no surprise given that the cigarette companies consistently outspend their opponents. On Prop 29, Big Tobacco spent $47M while the pro-side spent $12M.

Agreed, Ramey & Ken Volok.

I don't smoke; I hate the stench of cigarettes, and want nothing to do with it anywhere near me or mine.

That said...enough already of the sin taxes, the finger-wagging, and the general nanny-state nonsense.

These taxes don't force people to quit or discourage The Children from starting, they just punish poor people, make hand-wringers and busybodies feel more in control, and create a black market.

Prohibition doesn't work, but we never seem to learn that.