Prop 29 California election June 5 Cancer research

[shawnrohrbach]

Prop 29 increases taxes for a variety of things. Proponents are claiming it is for things like cancer research, et al. Perhaps it is, but in the flood of television advertising we are getting on this the tail end of the ad features no less than Mr. Lance Armstrong telling us to vote yes. One of the main points made by the opposition against Prop 29 is the money collected in California from California tax payers can be used out of state. Is there a connection between Mr. Armstrong punching for this proposition and the claim the money can be used outside of the state? Would he be so eager if the money could be spent only in California where it is collected? I was on the fence on this until I saw the ad. No more.

 

[mikeNphilly]

Read the law here...
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/primary/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf#nameddest=prop29

To make an educated choice on the matter, don't listen to the pro-29er, or the anti-29ers, read the law. The one section that looks to me to mean that money can go out of state, is the research fund.

"Sixty percent shall be deposited into the HOPE 2010 Research Fund for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco-related diseases, including, but not limited to, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease, which shall be awarded on the basis of scientific merit as determined by an open, competitive peer review process that assures objectivity, consistency, and high quality. All qualified investigators, regardless of institutional affiliation, shall have equal access and opportunity to compete for the funds in this act. The peer review process for the selection of grants awarded under this program shall be modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health in its grantmaking process..the rest of the money seems to be earmarked for your state.

If the money coming out of smokers pockets, and people selling cigs means more research is done on fighting cancer...real research and that money can go to the best institutions, in Cali or out..I myself would have no problem voting for it, if this was a PA law up for vote.

I can see your argument that the money should stay in Cali, but if there are better places for research throughout the county, why not help them out.

 

[usedtobefast]

i went yes. major sponsor of no are big tobacco. f that.

 

[Race Radio]

Big tobacco has done their best to flood the airwaves with garbage

Prop 29’s language is clear: tobacco tax revenue must be spent in California.

Section Two, paragraph one of the Act states: “Grants and loans for biomedical epidemiological, behavioral, health services and other research IN CALIFORNIA..."

Section Two, paragraph two of the Act states: "Creation, staffing and equipping of CALIFORNIA research facilities…"

Section Two, paragraph three of the Act states. "Increased efforts to reduce tobacco use IN THE STATE..."

it looks like it will pass but support is dropping.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

"I can see your argument that the money should stay in Cali, but if there are better places for research throughout the county, why not help them out. "

Then let's do a federal tax on smoking and spread the money where the best anti smoking campaigns are working and the best cancer research is being conducted. No problem with that at all.

 

[Polish]

"I can see your argument that the money should stay in Cali, but if there are better places for research throughout the county, why not help them out. "

Then let's do a federal tax on smoking and spread the money where the best anti smoking campaigns are working and the best cancer research is being conducted. No problem with that at all.

There can be a Federal Tax too. Smokers need as much of a disincentive to quit as possible.

And most of the funds from a Fed Tax would end up going to Texas and hopefully California - the places with the best anti-smoking campaigns.

Lance could lead the Fed Campaign too?
"Winners always Quit, Smokers always Lose"
Livestrong.

 

[Polish]

Ok, I thought of another slogan Lance could use in the Smokers Tax commercials....

"Smoking is Toxic, just like me"

Beat you to it RR.

 

[Polish]

Wow, the money being spent by Big Tobbacco on misleading ads to defeat the Smokers Tax out here in Ca is ASTOUNDING. It would be ok if the ads were truthful, but they are not. Very dissapointing.

Since this has shaped up to be a Lance vs Big Tobbacco ballot battle - would it be possible that Big Tobbacco has made donations to the USADA? They would LOVE to see Lance smeared for sure. I could imagine Big Tobbacco doing something like that. Is there a way to check to see who has made donations to the USADA?

 

[ElChingon]

If the money coming out of smokers pockets, and people selling cigs means more research is done on fighting cancer...real research and that money can go to the best institutions, in Cali or out..I myself would have no problem voting for it, if this was a PA law up for vote.

The smokers paying for it is the issue I have with it, not that they shouldn't pay for it but how it relies on it. If they're dying then the funding gets reduced. As it is smokers are being more and more limited where they can smoke so a reduction in smoking overall, which equates to less funding. Sure some of you will say its the leading cause of cancer(s) and all that but if you want a steady flow of funds you need to extract them more effectively, which boils down to everyone paying, we do already.

In the end they can cut everyone's losses and just ban smoking altogether, that's what its coming to anyway so just nip it in the bud now and quit side stepping the matter. Every year another law limiting/restricting/confining it so that is now becoming the waste of it all.

 

[aphronesis]

Big tobacco has done their best to flood the airwaves with garbage

Prop 29’s language is clear: tobacco tax revenue must be spent in California.

Section Two, paragraph one of the Act states: “Grants and loans for biomedical epidemiological, behavioral, health services and other research IN CALIFORNIA..."

Section Two, paragraph two of the Act states: "Creation, staffing and equipping of CALIFORNIA research facilities…"

Section Two, paragraph three of the Act states. "Increased efforts to reduce tobacco use IN THE STATE..."

it looks like it will pass but support is dropping.

An excerpt from an article summarizing the increasing prevalence of lung cancer as a modern disease and its direct link to the coincident rise of big tobacco. All of which is taken from a recent book on the history of Big Tobacco, "Golden Holocaust" by Robert Proctor as referenced in the link below


"Part of the ease of cigarette manufacturing stems from the ubiquity of high-speed cigarette making machines, which crank out 20 000 cigarettes per min. Cigarette makers make about a penny in profit for every cigarette sold, which means that the value of a life to a cigarette maker is about US$10 000"

http://retort.ludd.net/msg01711.html