How I’m voting for the environment on Nov. 7, 2006.
My vote on Prop 86: Yes
Some stores that sell cigarettes’ve been sporting “no on 86″ signs. Their reason? It’s an “unfair” tax.
I disagree. Basically, the prop would tax each pack of cigarretes an extra $2.60. At the moment, state taxes amount to only 87 cents a pack.
The money’d go to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs. The League of Women Voters provides a handy breakdown chart of how the moolah would be used.
Sponsors of 86 include lotsa health orgs, including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association of California, and the American Heart Association.
Here’s the Yes on 86 website :)
I will be voting no on this one, as I dont see it as fair to tax only one set of people to pay for others problems. Are we to tax on fast food to pay for Weight Watchers? A tax on booze to pay for rehab? Yes, cigarettes are bad, but we shouldnt be making smokers pay for anything other than their own health problems. SUV drivers pay the same for their gas as I do…and I drive a car the size of a Matchbox car. It just does not make sense to pick out only smokers for what they do. If we go after them, we should go after everyone that does something that someone else does not like.
Comment by David — October 20, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
I like this debate so far - I’ll be tracking both of you here: http://improvethevote.blogspot.com/search/label/Prop86
I’ve gotta say, so far I’m still leaning toward a “Yes on 86″…
Comment by Chris — October 24, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
David — Smoking, as I’m sure you know, causes a HUGE number of VERY COSTLY ailments. Taxpayers have been paying for smokers’ habits for a long, LONG time — It’s only fair that smokers start contributing more to the health fund that’ll help take care of the consequences of their actions in the future.
I say this as an ex-smoker. In general, I think if cigarettes cost $6+ a pack, instead of the less than $2 it cost when I went to college in Indiana, we’d all be better off.
Comment by Siel — October 24, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
I’ll be voting Yes on 86. David’s point on fast food’
s consequences on public heath are huge as well (maybe there’s a creative way to tackle that later).
The difference to me is that smoking is something that harms the smoker, other people and the environment. Second hand smoking is devastating.
Siel, you rock dude for all the research and links. How in the WORLD do you even find time for grad school I’ll never know!
Comment by Steph Z. — November 6, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Well, I haven’t been working on the grad school stuff so much lately –
Comment by Siel — November 6, 2006 @ 6:38 pm