Something that bugs me about Prop 56 (Tobacco/E-cigarette tax) (San Francisco: sales, buy)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Okay, I'm going through the massive data to figure out what I'm going to vote for or against. I never believe any of the ads, etc., and I don't just vote the party recommendations. For the record, I'm a registered Democrat, and I no longer smoke.

I always read the full text of the propositions, because it really irritates me when weird things get piggy-backed into a proposition in a sneaky way - something that ends up funded or de-funded, that's not advertised.

So, I'm reading all of the data on Prop 56, and I find something that's irritating me. It's the inclusion that 48 million dollars will go to the University of CA system, to train physicians in CA.

But, that's all it says. It says, to increase the number of physicians trained in CA. Not the number of physicians who will actually STAY in CA and work in our Medi-Cal funded county hospitals. There's no distinction at all.

So, 48 million dollars gets piggy-backed to go to not the entire community college system, and not even the entire UC system - but directly to the medical training programs only. And there's no requirement that I see in this proposition that requires these medical students to stay in CA and work here for a minimum number of years.

And it doesn't say anything about using the money for grants for low-income students who want to become doctors. It just looks like a 48 million dollar windfall for the UC medical programs. So, what can or can't they do with that money? There aren't any restrictions in the proposition. Hire more secretaries? Pay the director more money?

This irritates me. A lot.

I already don't like the idea of taxing only a certain group of people. I actually vote no on taxes that only tax the wealthy. Even as a Democrat, I don't think that's fair. I believe an across the board tax would be fair - say 10%. Everybody pays a percentage of their income. I'm really poor, and I would be fine with that.

So, even though I'm on Medi-Cal, and this proposition would help fund Medi-Cal, I'm seriously leaning toward voting no. I just don't think these types of taxes are fair. And just because other states do it, doesn't make it right, in my opinion.

Plus, the day will come, when nobody smokes anymore. We already have been so successful in getting people to quit smoking, that more funding is needed because less people are smoking and paying the current tobacco tax. So, continuing to increase the tax on the dwindling number of tax payers, seems like a losing battle.

I'm curious as to whether or not this has been noticed by anyone else ( the sneaky inclusion of a windfall to the UC medical schools) and if it bothers you.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Plus, the day will come, when nobody smokes anymore. We already have been so successful in getting people to quit smoking, that more funding is needed because less people are smoking and paying the current tobacco tax. So, continuing to increase the tax on the dwindling number of tax payers, seems like a losing battle.

But we haven't eradicated smoking yet. Anything to keep young people from picking up the habit. And anything the tobacco industry is against, I'm for.

"Proposition 56 would get us within spitting distance of wiping out smoking in California completely."
— Anti-smoking expert Stanton A. Glantz, UC San Francisco

The tobacco industry's deceitful Prop 56 campaign takes a page from its old playbook - LA Times

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Okay, in case anyone is interested, I did some research on what a resident is (medical residency). My thinking was that they weren't doctors yet, but they are:

The length of residency training varies depending on the medical specialty chosen: family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics, for example, require 3 years of training; general surgery requires 5 years. (Some refer to the first year of residency as an "internship"; the AMA no longer uses this term.)

Requirements for Becoming a Physician - American Medical Association

https://www.ama-assn.org/.../becomin....page?American Medical Association

So, I can see now why having medical graduates do their residency in CA would increase the number of doctors in CA. Apparently the problem is that there supposedly aren't enough options for graduates to do residencies in CA.

But, the text says these residency programs that will get funds from this tax, must be in low-income areas. So, I guess the UC system would create satellite residency programs around the state? In northern CA, the only UC medical hospital I know of is the one in Sacramento.

I'm still not sure how this will work in reality. And if they're going to create new satellite residency programs around the state, then 48 million probably isn't enough money for that. I still dunno about this.

But, I guess overall, it's not horrific. I still don't like the idea of slamming tobacco users with this huge tax to fund the state programs. And really, most smokers can't even afford their cigarettes. It just seems wrong to target this low-income (mainly) population to fund the state's Medi-Cal system.

And this is not just revenue for smoking-related problems or education.

I foresee the Indian reservations' non-taxed cigarette sales soaring. That's what smokers here do. They just go buy them on the reservations. I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of the drop in revenues with the current tax.

[shooting4life]

I will vote no, I am against all new taxes until the state can figure out a better way to spend the money they already take from me and many others.

I also don't appreciate the government using the tax code to control groups it doesn't approve of.

[V8 Vega]

This tax will increase the cost of cigarettes so much that no one will buy any so very little tax money will be realized.
And any money will just go to bloated government bureaucracies. The money will just be squandered.
Democrats are the height of hypocrisy, They hate cigarette smoking but marijuana smoking thats just fine.
Its a shame to tax something so much and for nothing.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I have to agree, although I do think the state needs more money. I just don't think this is the way to go about it. It's an easy emotional target, going after the big bad tobacco companies.

But, then they get greedy and crazy, trying to use it for all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with smokers.

I'll probably also vote no on this one. I might have voted for it, if the money was used just to help smokers. But, taxing tobacco users to fund UC hospitals? To fund the state healthcare system - and not just for tobacco-related care? I just don't like it.

[semispherical]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

In northern CA, the only UC medical hospital I know of is the one in Sacramento.

Just FYI, UCSF is pretty much just one big medical school.

But that quibble out of the way, I agree with you NoMoreSnow. I'm non-smoking and pretty liberal. No love for tobacco companies, but my first thought was that if this initiative passes it will be a windfall for the reservations and rancherias. Smokers will run on down to the casino to stock up and do a little gambling while they're there. Nothing wrong with that either, but it is an illustration of the principle of unintended consequences.

[2sleepy]

I voted no on it, I hate cigarette smoking but this bill directly impacts the poor who as a rule smoke more than other people, nothing about this bill will help them quit smoking and I believe that they will keep smoking and will just have less money to spend on things they really need. And what I find really troublesome is that they are also trying to tax e-cigs out of existence. E-cigs are much safer than smoking traditional tobacco products and it's been much cheaper. I know several ex-smokers who were only able to quit when they switched to e-cigs, they were able to reduce the nicotine content of their e-cig over time until it reached zero at which time they quit e-cigs and have remained smoke free for years afterwards.

For the state to try to claim that they are protecting children from e-cigs in absolute nonsense, if that were the case - then why not double the price of alcohol to keep kids from having adults buy it for them? Most of the studies in the US showing that smoking e-cigs is dangerous were sponsored or paid for by big pharma because they want to make e-cigs available only by prescription. Look at the the UK Royal College of Physicians had to say about them: Promote e-cigarettes widely as substitute for smoking says new RCP report

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Okay, I'm going through the massive data to figure out what I'm going to vote for or against. I never believe any of the ads, etc., and I don't just vote the party recommendations. For the record, I'm a registered Democrat, and I no longer smoke.

I always read the full text of the propositions, because it really irritates me when weird things get piggy-backed into a proposition in a sneaky way - something that ends up funded or de-funded, that's not advertised.

So, I'm reading all of the data on Prop 56, and I find something that's irritating me. It's the inclusion that 48 million dollars will go to the University of CA system, to train physicians in CA.

But, that's all it says. It says, to increase the number of physicians trained in CA. Not the number of physicians who will actually STAY in CA and work in our Medi-Cal funded county hospitals. There's no distinction at all.

So, 48 million dollars gets piggy-backed to go to not the entire community college system, and not even the entire UC system - but directly to the medical training programs only. And there's no requirement that I see in this proposition that requires these medical students to stay in CA and work here for a minimum number of years.

And it doesn't say anything about using the money for grants for low-income students who want to become doctors. It just looks like a 48 million dollar windfall for the UC medical programs. So, what can or can't they do with that money? There aren't any restrictions in the proposition. Hire more secretaries? Pay the director more money?

This irritates me. A lot.

I already don't like the idea of taxing only a certain group of people. I actually vote no on taxes that only tax the wealthy. Even as a Democrat, I don't think that's fair. I believe an across the board tax would be fair - say 10%. Everybody pays a percentage of their income. I'm really poor, and I would be fine with that.

So, even though I'm on Medi-Cal, and this proposition would help fund Medi-Cal, I'm seriously leaning toward voting no. I just don't think these types of taxes are fair. And just because other states do it, doesn't make it right, in my opinion.

Plus, the day will come, when nobody smokes anymore. We already have been so successful in getting people to quit smoking, that more funding is needed because less people are smoking and paying the current tobacco tax. So, continuing to increase the tax on the dwindling number of tax payers, seems like a losing battle.

I'm curious as to whether or not this has been noticed by anyone else ( the sneaky inclusion of a windfall to the UC medical schools) and if it bothers you.

Based on just this post, I don't think you're really a democrat (at least what that party has morphed into today). You come off as more left leaning libertarian.

Good for you for actually thinking before you vote.

[Phrogg]

Yes, good for you for reading and researching! I wish more people would do that.

I'm voting yes on this one. Targets the poor? No, only the poor (and rich) who smoke.