Measure 50 gets smoked [Oregon, Tobacco is big winner]

Source: portland tribune



Measure 50 gets smoked
Voters defeat cigarette tax

LocalNewsDaily.com, Nov 6, 2007, Updated 8.9 hours ago (5 Reader comments)

...........

State Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, D-Gresham, who sponsored the bill that later became Measure 50, said Tuesday night that she was disappointed in the election results.

“Big tobacco is the big winner and kids in the state of Oregon are the big losers,” Monnes Anderson said. “The fight isn’t over. We definitely are going to look at what we can do to make sure that children in Oregon get the access to health care that they need.”

Measure 50, which was dubbed the Healthy Kids Plan, would have raised cigarette taxes by 84.5 cents per pack and used the proceeds to provide health coverage to more than 100,000 uninsured children.

However, opponents of the measure, led by tobacco companies that spent a record $12 million on the campaign, argued that the tax should not be placed in the Oregon Constitution and that it was unfair for smokers to be targeted to pay for a program that benefits others.

Read more: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=119441385738711400

In early returns, Measure 50 was being rejected by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent, with 54 percent of the expected vote counted. The tax was passing in Multnomah County, but lost in most of the rest of the state.

was that a tax was being written into the constitution on a product; That is the only thing the TV ads said about it.

no Democrats elected in Oregon for a very long time. We need a new revenue source for health care.

I'm not (nor have I ever been) a smoker, but funding poor children's medical needs off of somebody else's addiction means that we need a steady supply of addicts to accomplish a worthwhile goal. I'd like to see the states wean themselves off of tobacco taxes, so that they can get about the business of really wanting people to quit using the stuff, and taking the appropriate measures to further discourage usage.

That would seems the most logical approach to me.

Raise money and give smokers more reason to quit.

Though the percentage of those that will bother to do so is, I'm guessing, likely small.

Of course it should be taxed out of existence. Any fucking god damned economist worth his weight in dogshit could tell you that.

Was this made clear in their campaign?

for the problems that the vices create.

So the man who drinks 12 cans' of coke a day has a vice, correct?

Legalize the leaf if you want to tax something.
How does the drug war make kids healthier?
The drug war is a failure. End it and DO SOMETHING REAL for America.

They can find $12 million to run relentless ads all over Oregon to fight against a tax that won't affect them directly. It is a wonder, is it not?

But by all means, let the perfect be the enemy of the good. After all, if we can't come up with a funding mechanism that is 100% equitable that everyone agrees is the perfect solution, then let's just let some more kids die. Better that than get a start on the problem because it's unfair to a specific segment of the population that would be, in effect, volunteering to pay more in taxes. Because it's a choice to smoke, right? Big Tobacco has been selling that line for 50 years, too.

Meanwhile, more kids will get sick and die from entirely preventable causes. More smokers will continue to burden the health care system, requiring expensive care for the devastating health consequences of their addiction. But Big Tobacco will continue to market its deadly and addictive product to kids, manipulate nicotine levels to keep a certain percentage of smokers smoking, and keep pulling in huge profits to be used against the day when it is in danger of actually paying for some of the damage it causes to our society. Hope you don't mind covering Alicia's desk today; seems she has another cold.

and put that towards education, i am sure we would have more than enough funds...

exit the store, stacked with boxes of soda pop, pillow sized bags of potato chips, 2 for 1 boxes of super-fat-laden after school snacks, etc., and the bigger the cartload the bigger the person shoving it out the door. I generally do not diss someone for the size or shape of their body, but there is some truth to what you say. No, we cannot force anyone to eat healtier, nor can we force someone to stop smoking cigs.
But to attack & overtax one group of people for their unhealthy legal habit, seems moot.
If they want to increase the funds for children's health care/education programs, perhaps the States should be looking also at who contributes to the unhealthy condition of America's youth. ONE of many areas to garner taxes to fund the program shows that your suggestion would seem an obvious start.

Can we write a junk food tax?

rather unfairly in one direction. I'm ok w/taxing cigs. But until people correct what they put in their kid's mouths, doesn't it seem a futile effort?
Lots of info out there for people to be more aware of calorie laden foods and the effects on children's health.
But some people really don't care.
I think its more a game played by one big corp against the other. Big Boys & big money, & somewhere in the center of it all is "profit".
The ball being kicked back & forth is the subject of children.
They are a commodity. If the big business power hitters truely had the health/education of children as their concern, we'd have passed SCHIPS, havev a cleaner environment, and the FDA would be on fire for allowing toxic foods & toys into our supermarkets.
Oh, ya, and Bush's brother would have had his bogus school software discontinued long ago. No child left behind would be living up to its name.

I guess it all goes back to corp profit and who their target is this week.
Its a sickness.

Why should only one vice be affected?

The tobacco guys were saying this was a sweetheart deal for the insurance industry.

the bill says 70% of the money was to go to the Healthy Kids program (which is also backed by the insurance co's). How much of that 70% would actually go to medical care, and how much of it would end up in industry co's pockets? I'd tell you, but I couldn't find any numbers on that, let alone anyone bringing that question into the discussion.

That would be a thing of beauty.

I'd have more faith in the honesty and integrity of big tobacco than I would big insurance.

. . . on your shit sandwich?

I voted for 50. It wasn't perfect, but we have to start somewhere.

At least Measure 49 passed, which would reform the pro-developer horror that was Measure 37, which passed a few years ago.

Measure 50 lost by a wide margin, and I forgot to turn my ballot in this time :hi:

I will be out tonight for our weekly Iraq/Bush protest 630pm-730pm across from the Beaverton Libree.....

:hi:

Thanks for doing the protest so faithfully! :hi:

I'm taking my kid to his basketball practice during that time ... :hide:

If we think providing health care to children is a good thing, let's all pay for it, not try to make it the responsibility of the hated minority du jour.

That's why I didn't cry too many tears over SCHIP, either.

Sure... some smokers would have quit. Others would have simply started buying their smokes online, pick-up a few cartons while traveling out of state (or have an out of state friend or relative ship them some), purchase them at an Indian reservation, etc... there's always a way to beat the system. I live in MA about 20 minutes from the NH border (no sales or "sin tax"),... guess where I buy my cigs :smoke:?

This almost sounds worthy of *. Since the poor and minorities in the inner cities make up disproportionate number of smokers. They would be the ones paying the cost of health care for kids of people who can't afford insurance.

So what is the real difference between this and making poor inner city parents pay for their kids healthcare themselves?