LA Times Article About Tobacco Tax Raises Questions

I posted a link to a Los Angeles Times article earlier today because the topic of the article is SB 600 (Padilla), a bill that would increase the tax on tobacco by $1.50. The Los Angeles County Young Democrats support SB 600 because it would raise money for the state at a time when California desperately needs the cash. The bill would raise this money by taxing smoking- something that is literally killing people. If the additional financial burden provides any further incentive for anyone to quit smoking, than the bill is working. This bill will raise money in the short term (through the tax), it will save money in the long term (healthy populations cost the state less money in health care costs and people will be healthier if they are financially forced to choose to quit smoking) and it will save lives. All and all, SB 600 is a good bill that LACYD is proud to support.

Along with shining a spotlight on this important legislation, the Times article was interesting because of the quotes in the piece from representatives of the tobacco industry and other opponents of the bill. The most prevalent message I could see being pushed by the opponents of this bill was that taxing tobacco disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities because these are the people that buy tobacco products.

"There are more smokers among people of color, and they will have to pay the extra tax."

So what opponents of the bill are saying is that cigarettes, which have been repeatedly scientifically proven to kill people, are being disproportionately used by low-income and minority communities. And that this is a reason NOT to create incentive for people to stop using this harmful product? To some degree, I get the Libertarian "it is your right to slowly poison yourself" argument (I don't see the logic in it, but I get that the argument exists) but this is just crazy. Spokespeople for the cancer lobby and their allies in this effort are arguing that we should not tax a (miraculously legal) poison because it may convince a targeted population of low-income and minority groups to stop harming themselves. I am glad to see the spokespeople aren't stupid, they are just Kaiser Soze-level evil.


There was one other part of the article that captured my attention. I was surprised to read the following quote from the piece:

[Frank Lester, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc.] also said California voters are "dubious" about how past tobacco taxes have been spent. He cited media reports about the use of Proposition 10 tobacco proceeds, approved by voters in 1998 for childhood development programs, to pay for political ads promoting another ballot measure.

My question is this- where was this information when we were trying to get 1D passed in the May 19 Special Election? (For those of you with short memories and who have not frequented this blog, Proposition 1D would have allowed the legislature to take money that was raised by Proposition 10 to help reduce the state's budget deficit and prevent cuts to services across the board. Prop. 1D would only have taken surplus money that is not being used and would not have affected any existing programs. The measure failed miserably last Tuesday.)

If this is true, than money raised for First Five Commissions was being spent, not on the programs and children it was intended to be spent on, but on political ads. This would mean that the opponents of 1D that were steadfast in their efforts to block an attempt to use unused Prop. 10 money to help prevent catastrophic cuts to other services, did so with motives not articulated during the public debate. They opposed Prop. 1D in order to ensure that every Prop. 10 dime went to the programs helping children for which the money was intended. Oh, and political ads- you can't forget the political ads that were apparently bought and paid for with Prop. 10 money.

Why did we not hear of this during the campaign? Apparently there were "reports" about this- why were those headlines not appearing in television ads or mailers? Was this done and I missed it entirely or was this an oversight by the strange bedfellows assembled to pitch these doomed measures to the public? I know it doesn't matter now, I am just honestly curious.

Feel free to contribute to the comments section and let me know if you saw any ads or even a single mention of the way Prop. 10 funds were being used during the Prop. 1D campaign.