Yes on Prop 86 - Propaganda

Joined Aug 2004
2K Posts | 0+
Chicago Born/Raised. Hollywood CA Resident
More on pro prop 86:

• NARRATOR: Remember when tobacco executives testified to Congress that cigarettes and nicotine were not addictive? They lied. Now they are at it again. Big tobacco will say anything, do anything, and spend anything to defeat Prop. 86 because it reduces smoking by increasing cigarette taxes. Prop. 86 is sponsored by the American Cancer Society, Heart Association and Lung Association. It will reduce teen smoking, prevent premature deaths and save billions in health-care costs. Take a stand against big tobacco. Vote yes on Prop. 86.

ANALYSIS: Judging by the ads, both sides in this campaign are competing to tar each other without providing a complete picture of their own agendas.

This ad paints the tobacco companies as liars but doesn't explain what they are supposed to be lying about. And it leaves viewers with the mistaken impression that the measure would benefit only anti-smoking groups.

As the ad says, Proposition 86 is backed by health groups. About 8 percent of the $2.27 billion the measure raised each year would go to tobacco-control efforts, and an additional 13 percent would go to cancer, heart and asthma programs.

But a huge share -- more than a third -- of the funds would also go to hospitals to shore up their emergency departments, a fact never mentioned in the ad. The tax would also support universal health insurance for children and a variety of other health causes such as nursing education and community clinics.

While the health groups named in the ads are backing the measure with financial support, hospitals are by far the biggest funder of the Yes on 86 campaign.

About the writer:
The Bee's Clea Benson can be reached at (916) 326-5533 or [email protected].

I wrote a letter, but I doubt anything will come of it. They don't care about cigars!
 
It is a shame becuase people dont realize that this proposition will put nearly every smoke shop in California out of business.

By the way during my days as an economist, I actually did a great deal of research and economic quantitative analysis on the relationship between the price of cigarettes (taxes) and the smoking rate. There is no relationship that anyone has been able to proove. The amount that smoking is curved by tax increases is negligable and unsubstantial from a data analysis perspecitve.
 
I think it should be a law that people need to share or tell the whole story. Meaning, legally, they shouldn't be allowed to tell a half story of any proposition so it sounds better. They should HAVE to state the entire proposition and all of the consequences if it is passed, not just a couple of them....

If all these people also mentioned what this proposition will do to the cigar shops, not as many people would vote yes, hopefully. But surely most everyone will if they think it will only effect cigarettes.
 
I heard about this prop too. I can't believe it! :x They just need to make it a "cigarette" tax and NOT include cigars!
 
Our lobbyists don't really seem to do a good job differentiating that. There is no purpose for cigar shops to have smoking bans or excess tobacco tax.

I love it, people who would never step foot in a cigar shop will bitch about it still....
 
And can you imagine the fallout to someone that votes against this? Next election they will say that he voted against funding for hospitals, and every body will buy that!

What a bunch of garbage, why not raise this money other ways instead of holding smokers hostage!

I believe the last episode of "Cigar Nation" covers this in great detail!
 
This kind of garbage has been going on in California for years. Being a predominatly democratic state they feel that they need to make the decisions for us.
 
Alex Svenson said:
It is a shame becuase people dont realize that this proposition will put nearly every smoke shop in California out of business.

By the way during my days as an economist, I actually did a great deal of research and economic quantitative analysis on the relationship between the price of cigarettes (taxes) and the smoking rate. There is no relationship that anyone has been able to proove. The amount that smoking is curved by tax increases is negligable and unsubstantial from a data analysis perspecitve.

I conmpletely forgot about that statistic. How about the statistic that proves that any tax imposed on a society is dead weight loss to the econmic effiency of that socitey. Taxes bring down the viability of any economy; not propoganda; just mathmatical fact.