I do not presume to be so smart that my opinion ought to determine how everyone should vote; however, I would like to advance a couple of thoughts with respect to the propositions now appearing on the June Primary Ballot.
Propositions 28.
Proposition 28 proposes the existing term limits be revised to a simple twelve year period all of which could occur in either branch of the State Legislature. If you feel the extra years of service spent in a single branch of State government is too much, then a no vote is appropriate here.
Proposition 29.
This cigarette tax is not new; in fact, California began taxing cigarettes in 1959 at ten cents a pack. Today, California gets 87 cents a pack plus there is a Federal Excise tax of $1.01. Proposition 29 would add another $1.00 per pack; bringing the total tax on a carton of cigarettes to $28.88 not counting sales tax.
The cigarette tax could be termed prejudicial in that it is directed at a specific class of people and not shared across the board by all citizens of our state even though, theoretically, it provides for cancer research to benefit everyone. Because we do not particularly care to be around smokers and many medical geniuses have proclaimed smoking to be harmful to one's health, we have concluded it is o.k. to levy a special tax on a particular group of individuals. Nor do we feel any guilt with the many prohibitions against smoking in public places thus forcing a class of people out into the street to partake of their habit for which we will benefit from the taxes they paid for the privilege.
Incredibly, a portion of this tax is used as advertisement against smoking; however, if our society is benefitting from the cancer research paid for by this targeted class of people, it would seem logical to do the opposite and promote additional sales to increase the research fund as well as encourage more smoking by allocating a privileged place for these special tax payers to partake of their habit.
I am fascinated with the intellect involved in that "no smoking" ad showing a cloud of smoke settling down upon a helpless child in a crib - yes, it is that nasty second hand smoke! And yet, you could put ten chain-smokers in a small room and no one would die, but if you added one automobile with its engine running, they would all die in less than an hour. Even so, no one seems to be all that concerned that we are literally poisoning ourselves every time we start up our car.
I am voting "NO" on this proposition and not because of its prejudicial nature or the apparent lack of concern for those who are contributing such a huge tax burden for our benefit. Cancer research gets a mere 60 percent from this new tax and even that could be reduced. A portion of this tax goes to law enforcement, the Attorney General and the Board of equalization as if administering this legislation would require a whole new set of rules. As previously mentioned, California has been taxing cigarettes since 1959; enforcement and the necessary administration of this tax is already in place. Whatever happened to the idea that criminal fines would pay for much of the law enforcement?
And yes, just like the advertisement on t.v. indicates, there is a nine member oversight committee and all members are appointed by various agencies with no targeted deadlines for performance in exchange for all this money. And even if the research resulted in some form of cure, there is no provision to limit a successor drug company or medical provider from charging excessive fees in the application of this research which cost them nothing because the smokers paid for it. Simply stated, this is very poor legislation!