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

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

This really doesn't surprise me. It's kind of like caffeine, which comes from the beans from a plant. I suppose the same could be said for cocaine, which comes from a plant, and if used appropriately.

Tobacco, after all, is just a plant.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by janellen

It's not the nicotine that's bad for you; it's the tar and rat poison in a tobacco cig that's harmful.

I don't think so.

NOVA Online | Search for a Safe Cigarette | The Dope on Nicotine

Can it be bad if it's natural? https://teens.drugabuse.gov/blog/pos...if-its-natural

[CA4Now]

The tobacco industry knows that sin taxes work to reduce smoking, too. It has spent about $71 million so far to defeat the measure — the most ever spent to fight a tobacco tax increase in the state. If the proposition passes, and it should, then one day soon, California may challenge Utah for last place in the smoking rate competition.

One more reason to hike California's tobacco tax: Cigarettes really are cancer sticks - LA Times

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

The tobacco industry knows that sin taxes work to reduce smoking, too. It has spent about $71 million so far to defeat the measure — the most ever spent to fight a tobacco tax increase in the state. If the proposition passes, and it should, then one day soon, California may challenge Utah for last place in the smoking rate competition.

One more reason to hike California's tobacco tax: Cigarettes really are cancer sticks - LA Times

Blah blah blah. I voted no.

The problem with this initiative, and others, is the way it's written - in how the funds will be distributed.

Just because it's a tax on tobacco, doesn't make it a good and fair tax.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, same here. I don't buy the argument that poor people have to be disproportionately affected. Just poor people who make bad decisions. I'm not even talking about being a bad decision for health reasons (although it is) -- but if you can barely afford anything, then it's a bad decision to spend money on anything you don't need, period. BTDT, didn't buy anything I didn't need. Cigarettes, craft beer, fancy dinners, toys, Funko Pop figures, etc. None of these are necessary.

I don't have any issues with the distribution of funds. It's not a 100% correlation, but I support tax dollars going to training physicians. All tax has to come from--and go to--somewhere. I actually feel better when it goes to a specific purpose than when it goes into the general fund.

Whether voting yes or no though, I'm glad that people are making informed decisions.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Radical347

I don't have any issues with the distribution of funds.

Me, either. Just hoping that if it passes, the cost will cause people to think twice about buying a pack of cigarettes, especially those who haven't started smoking.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Me, either. Just hoping that if it passes, the cost will cause people to think twice about buying a pack of cigarettes, especially those who haven't started smoking.

The cost of a cigarette never influences someone's decision to try their first cigarette. Did you ever smoke? Do you remember when and what the circumstances were? Was anyone discussing the cost of cigarettes?

Nope.

The cost won't stop someone from starting to smoke. It might help some quit. But, just like people who can't afford to gamble won't quit because it's something they can't afford - the cost won't likely stop most people who want to smoke from smoking.

And the funny thing is - or I should say sad - is that once we get used to the money that comes in, and we accomplish our task of stopping smokers, then we lose the revenue we got used to - which is part of the problem we're facing here.

You just send smokers to the reservations, and guess what, they're everywhere.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Me, either. Just hoping that if it passes, the cost will cause people to think twice about buying a pack of cigarettes, especially those who haven't started smoking.

Why not let people make a decision for themselves about what they put into their body without the government influencing the decision?

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Why not let people make a decision for themselves about what they put into their body without the government influencing the decision?

Exactly. I had a mid-life crisis and moved to Mexico for a year in my late 40's, thinking I would live there forever. Changed my mind and came back lol.

But, one of the things I noticed and really liked about Mexico, is that people there are allowed to made their own decisions, even if others might think they're stupid. In Mexico, you have the right to be stupid, if you so choose.

For instance, I saw lots of trucks with tons of people piled into the back of the truck in a way that they'd get a ticket for in the U.S. But, in Mexico, if you all want to pile into the back of a pickup and take the chance of falling out, that's on you.

And I liked that.

Taxing people who choose to smoke because it's bad for them, would be like taxing people who choose to pile into the bed of a pickup truck.

I mean, heck, I eat too much butter and butter can cause high cholesterol, so maybe we should put a $2/pound tax on butter.

The thinking is just flawed. It's just too convenient to tax smokers. Just like prohibition didn't work. It will just force the smokers to go underground - like to the Indian casinos/reservations, or to other states.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Why not let people make a decision for themselves about what they put into their body without the government influencing the decision?

Because when they get cancer from it, they're going to come demanding health care and invariably pass on costs to the rest of society.