LOS ANGELES – The age-old battle over smoking and its health effects will be in the hands of voters on Nov. 8, when California residents decide on a proposed $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund health care, tobacco-use prevention and other programs.
Proposition 56, dubbed the “California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016,” would also place an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine.
Passage of the initiative would result in a net increase in tax revenues in the range of $1 billion to $1.4 billion annually by 2017-18, with revenues decreasing slightly in subsequent years, according to an analysis conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Department of Finance.
Tax revenues generated from passage of the measure would primarily be allocated to increase funding for existing health care programs, tobacco use prevention and control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs and administration.
If the tax increases cause decreased tobacco consumption, tax revenues would be transferred to offset decreases to existing tobacco-funded programs and sales tax revenues.
A similar measure was defeated in 2012.
Proponents of the measure — most notably the American Heart Association, American Lung Association and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network — argue that tobacco use results in 40,000 deaths in California every year, with tobacco-related health-care costs to taxpayers of about $3.58 billion.
“Prop 56 is a simple matter of fairness — it works like a user fee on tobacco products to reduce smoking and ensure smokers help pay for health-care costs,” supporters contend in their ballot argument in favor of the measure.
Opponents, however, contend only 13 percent of the money generated by the tax would actually go toward treating smokers or smoking-prevention programs for children, while 82 percent would go to insurance companies and health care providers.
“… Health insurance companies and wealthy special interests wrote Prop 56 and are spending millions to pass it so that they can get paid as much as $1 billion more for treating the very same Medi-Cal patients they already treat today,” according to opponents. “… Instead of treating more patients, insurance companies can increase their bottom line and more richly reward their CEOs and senior executives.”
Read more about Proposition 56 at: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/56/.
–
xtal says
I totally agree with you, David.
Jim Knox says
The simple fact is that 47 states have raised their tobacco tax rates a combined 130 times since California last increased its tax back in 1998. In every case the increased tax resulted in a reduction in the smoking rate. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General. the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization all agree that increasing the cost of tobacco is the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS TO REDUCE SMOKING. That is why tobacco companies have spent $71 million on deceptive and misleading ads to try to trick California voters into voting against Prop 56 and why the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association all strongly support it. It is time to stand up to the tobacco companies. Vote Yes on Prop 56!
Jim Knox, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
david says
In the state of CA they are saying that the $2.00 tax would “force” people to smoke less or stop smoking entirely. Lets just say thats true, and lets say this is true: because the min. age to buy is now 21 instead of 18, the state now has nobody under 21 smoking, and because someone age 21 is more mature to not start smoking, but that same person would have at 18. Again assume all of this was to be true, do the math: all these people that are not smoking or smoking less = no tax $’s. So if no tax $’s are coming in, this would not be in the best interest for the state, which means this is bull crap.
VOTE– NO — NO — NO –on 56
Here is my truthful opinion: A gallon of gas can be $2.00 or $5.00 and we will still fill our tanks and we will still drive the same and we will still not go buy a Geo Metro, a meth user will pay $20.00 or $100.00 for that fix, a beer drinker will pay $3.00 or $6.00 for that 40 oz., a compulsive eater will pay $6.00 or $10.00 for that Whopper combo, and that guy that cashes his check at lunch time every Friday will cash his payroll check for lottery tickets at $1.00ea or $5.00ea with the same identical pay outs, so I am sure a smoker will do the same. Here is an interesting thing I noticed from people who ride the bus: maybe 5 years ago people would light up, and here comes the bus, so they would toss the cig. on the ground or ash tray. Today Nobody throw the cig. on the ground, and ash trays are empty, why because the smoker re lights the cig. later. In fact I have seen people not board a bus and wait for the next one just to finish the entire cigarette.
I will also say one more thing: if a person does not have enough money for a pack, they will either steal for a pack or simply just not take the kids to Disneyland this year for cigarettes instead.
VOTE– NO — NO — NO –on 56
VOTE– NO — NO — NO –on 56
A Voter says
Ty, you are right! Why not apply such taxes on alcohol! Alcohol kills and harm a lot of people every year too.
William says
It’s funny when someone pretends to be a logical thinker and puts forth all those hypotheticals (“Let’s say blah, blah, blah.” and then pulls conclusions out of his behind.
So much for david, our resident expert.
Patriot says
Historic! The citizens of the United States have spoken.now lets all come together and get this country back on the right path.we have been divided for the past 8 years.time to stop being a victim, stop hating, start showing that we still are the greatest country.
Patriot says
David,you are right.libs have a raise taxes attitude.which is why bussiness leave california.if you lower the price,you get more tax money.libs are like socialists.but eventually they run out of other people’s money.