dayman Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 According to the Rachael Maddow show: California is surprisingly the state with the second lowest smoking rate in the nation. Additionally, they have some of the lowest taxes on cigarettes in the nation in part b/c they haven't raised it since the late 90s (tax there is less than 90c a pack national average is $1.5). So they have this vote they just took...$1 and the profits go to cancer research...not the general funds...cancer research. Interestingly enough...it polled (for what it's worth) at 67% FOR the bill in MARCH...MARCH of THIS YEAR. Now here's the interesting part...think a lot of money went into the Wisconsin recall? Scott Walker had a formidable $30Mish breaking state records etc etc...fair enough...hell it was a huge deal for the state after all. Now here's where it gets interesting...Big Tobacco (right after the March poll) rolled out their campaign dropping $46.8M to oppose this bill!!! How did the vote go last night? 49.2% Yes...50.8% No. It's not official yet...but it seems the bill was voted down. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Thoughts? One of the key points brought up (by the tobacco lobby or whomever) is that the taxes paid for in California would go to other states. You have to be a massive dumbass to create a bill like that and expect it to pass when the state of California is in such a financial mess. In fact, you could have told people that $1 a pack was going to pay for state pensions and it would have passe overwhelmingly. But no. While blaming someone else is the way the progressive like to sound off these days, start by blaming the people who wrote the bill, not the people who voted it down. California? Voting down a cigarette tax? Think about it, wouldcha? And stop listening to Maddow. She as useless as Hannity. Edited June 7, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Say what you want about Maddow she's no where near as useless as Hannity...Ed is as useless as Hannity. I pulled the story off her show and could easily inform myself more than I am now but "cancer research" is "cancer research." Are you saying the argument was that not all of the research was based in California and that was the winning argument? And this is what multi-national tobacco companies were truly concerned about when they gave nearly $50M to defeat the bill? Edited June 7, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Say what you want about Maddow she's no where near as useless as Hannity...Ed is as useless as Hannity. I pulled the story off her show and could easily inform myself more than I am now but "cancer research" is "cancer research." Are you saying the argument was that not all of the research was based in California and that was the winning argument? And this is what multi-national tobacco companies were truly concerned about when they gave nearly $50M to defeat the bill? I've flushed stuff down the toilet that's more useful than Maddow and Hannity combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) 2 things I never understood about the tax cigarettes movement. OK, it's actually one thing but with 2 conflicting parts Smoking is baaaad, mmmkay. You shouldn't smoke. So lets tax it and less people will smoke We can use the tax revenue and fund some awesome new program. Like health care for puppies or recharging Unicorn fart machines To be fair, smoking rates have gone down. That was successful. But now the state isn't drawing as much tax revenue from smokers but still has to fund their super duper gubmint program I've flushed stuff down the toilet that's more useful than Maddow and Hannity combined. I've never flushed anything down the toilet that was as nutty as either Edited June 7, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 ...but "cancer research" is "cancer research." If all cancer research is the same, why not do it in all in one place? And make that one place Calfifornia? Oh, wait. That's because "cancer research" is not "cancer research" any more than "global warming research" is "global warming research." Are you saying the argument was that not all of the research was based in California and that was the winning argument? And this is what multi-national tobacco companies were truly concerned about when they gave nearly $50M to defeat the bill? What I'm saying is that for the past few weeks, the commercials on TV showed countless "authoritative voices" such as doctors, nurses, LA Times, etc. yelling "NO ON 29" while pointing to a big map of the US showing big arrows pointing to all the big places NOT in Calfornia where the money was going and saying things like "You'd think as a doctor, I'd be thrilled to see a $1 cigarette tax, but I'm not." You expect an uber-progressive state like California wants to see a glorious tax...a cigarette tax...get sent somewhere else? Not on your life. It wasn't until the last minute that the "YES on 29" ads came out with a quick peak of Lance Armstrong at the end. The "Yes" campaign was only slightly more pathetic than the Wisconsin union campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Say what you want about Maddow she's no where near as useless as Hannity...Ed is as useless as Hannity. I pulled the story off her show and could easily inform myself more than I am now but "cancer research" is "cancer research." Are you saying the argument was that not all of the research was based in California and that was the winning argument? And this is what multi-national tobacco companies were truly concerned about when they gave nearly $50M to defeat the bill? We voted it down because it would not go 100% to cancer research. It would also go to create a government "agency" (read Black Hole) that would then funnel the money to cancer research. We may be crazy out here but we're not dumb. I think the message was we're sick of how !@#$ed up the CA government is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Funny that the money from this stuff goes to cancer research...and that research paid in taxes now will help the smokers who will need it later. Who cares what you tax smokers or alcoholics. Neither are necessary for life but they sure do make it more fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Funny that the money from this stuff goes to cancer research...and that research paid in taxes now will help the smokers who will need it later. Who cares what you tax smokers or alcoholics. Neither are necessary for life but they sure do make it more fun! Yeah but that money doesn't go exclusively to cancer research. I know it's a nice sound byte to say it funds cancer research but it's not 100% accurate. Cigarette tax money is funneled to other programs. As cigarette use wanes the tax so does the tax revenue. However the government programs persist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 If all cancer research is the same, why not do it in all in one place? And make that one place Calfifornia? Oh, wait. That's because "cancer research" is not "cancer research" any more than "global warming research" is "global warming research." What I'm saying is that for the past few weeks, the commercials on TV showed countless "authoritative voices" such as doctors, nurses, LA Times, etc. yelling "NO ON 29" while pointing to a big map of the US showing big arrows pointing to all the big places NOT in Calfornia where the money was going and saying things like "You'd think as a doctor, I'd be thrilled to see a $1 cigarette tax, but I'm not." You expect an uber-progressive state like California wants to see a glorious tax...a cigarette tax...get sent somewhere else? Not on your life. It wasn't until the last minute that the "YES on 29" ads came out with a quick peak of Lance Armstrong at the end. The "Yes" campaign was only slightly more pathetic than the Wisconsin union campaign. That's the point really about this post though...$50M worth of advertising flipped the vote easily.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Yeah but that money doesn't go exclusively to cancer research. I know it's a nice sound byte to say it funds cancer research but it's not 100% accurate. Cigarette tax money is funneled to other programs. As cigarette use wanes the tax so does the tax revenue. However the government programs persist Well, sure you say that, but it helps all those poor children. Wont you just think of the children? You probably think the education lottery ia bad, too! How cruel! Im not as stupid I this you am. The sad thing is that to the lament cig and alcohol taxing makes perfect sensem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 That's the point really about this post though...$50M worth of advertising flipped the vote easily.... Or did it take $50M in advertising to point out how poorly the law was written? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Im not as stupid I this you am. The sad thing is that to the lament cig and alcohol taxing makes perfect sensem ALRIGHT, PULL OVER!! What the hell does that mean??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Or did it take $50M in advertising to point out how poorly the law was written? Took $50M for Tabacco industry to crush a $1 that would have potentially cost them more than $50M very quickly if imposed....basically as simple as that. If it was $50M v. $50M ... who is to say. The role of money is clear...you can defend the voting down of the tax b/c all cancer research doesn't take place in California if you like and I'm not hear to argue with you over the bill....this wasn't the motive of Big Tabacco...people will find reasons and there are reasons on both sides of all issues...but the money is the money is the money...and that's what the point here is...the side with the most money will always end up with the better "argument" communicated to the people Edited June 7, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Took $50M for Tabacco industry to crush a $1 that would have potentially cost them more than $50M very quickly if imposed....basically as simple as that. If it was $50M v. $50M ... who is to say. The role of money is clear...you can defend the voting down of the tax b/c all cancer research doesn't take place in California if you like and I'm not hear to argue with you over the bill....this wasn't the motive of Big Tabacco...people will find reasons and there are reasons on both sides of all issues...but the money is the money is the money...and that's what the point here is...the side with the most money will always end up with the better "argument" communicated to the people So what? Whose fault is this? And what should be done to fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Im not as stupid I this you am. ALRIGHT, PULL OVER!! What the hell does that mean??? I had to read that one a couple times. I kind of hope he was trying to be sarcastic but I'm kind of afraid he wasn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I had to read that one a couple times. I kind of hope he was trying to be sarcastic but I'm kind of afraid he wasn't Channeling Yoda?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Channeling Yoda?? I enjoy touch screens. They and my flat sausage finger thumbs are enemies. Well, sure you say that, but it helps all those poor children. Wont you just think of the children? You probably think the education lottery ia bad, too! How cruel! Im not as stupid I think you am. The sad thing is that to the public (aurocorrected to laments?) cig and alcohol taxing makes perfect sensem Edited June 7, 2012 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I enjoy touch screens. They and my flat sausage finger thumbs are enemies. Just busting stones, jboy. I knew what you said. Oh, and maybe your fingers need to go on a diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Oh, and maybe your fingers need to go on a diet. Why? They're already flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts