at least we would be getting them to spend their money.

reportage on this issue. I wish she had shown some of the ads. I have been saying for years that there is no other electorate in the industrial world as stupid and easily influenced as the American electorate.

how do we undo this treasonous ruling by the SCOTUS?

Quite an inauspicious start, Laughatyou.

There would be some radical changes in the Constitution.

Fact is, whether anyone likes it or not, the First and Fourteenth Amendments are the Achilles' heel that keeps our “Pretend Democracy" from becoming a "Real Democracy".

These two amendments are the perfect loopholes for the pathological lairs and frauds that are misleading the masses, and destroying this Country from the inside out.

And they won’t stop even after America becomes a Third World Banana Republic, and they won’t stop until the human race becomes extinct.

And I know it's a dammed if do and a dammed if you don't paradox, but if someone does not find a way to take away the Constitutional Red Carpet from predators, the whole human race can kiss its ass goodbye.

And the Jury hides the post because Laughatyou, dared to use the first amendment to say something about the 1st and 14th amendments. It’s not as though his comment was without merit.

Great way to welcome someone who shows some sign of having a clue.

Creating another $2 trillion for the .01%'ers.

The big corps rely on the media for ads and talking heads - but what if the media closed for a while

so where's some damn Robin Hood outlaws to break the chain???

Obama got 1,561,290 votes in Ca and Rmoney got 1,151,275 with 5 other Repukes on the ballot.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/

Spend $50 million to make sure you don't lose over $1 billion? That's a no-brainer. And that's what Citizens United is in a nutshell: corporations spending money to make a shitload more money. (And the media is the beneficiary of all that corporate spending, so do you think they're going to be even slightly critical of it? Hell no!) Game over.

of the people,
by the people,
for the people.

So is Citizen's United kind of like The Law of Attraction for corporations?

I feel it is a shrinking universe... pretty soon it'll hit the local level. We already have corruption here, but at least you could run a campaign by going to the people and trying to represent them the best way you could. Guess the money will infiltrate here and already is getting ready to as concerns ROI on the gas and oil industry.

So, how do we get back to the Tsongas Concord Coalition and Campaign Finance Reform. My better half says it'll never happen.

I say it has to.

tobacco taxes are already above 100 or 200%. Children's health care in CAlifornia is funded by us already. I don't understand why you non smokers have the right to even vote on a tax for 10% of people (supposedly we are 12%.) This is not to refute anything you are saying, but the idea that the tax was going to pass BECAUSE we are a minority sucks. And that is the only reason it was going ot pass, because we are in a minority position. ?
tax bread an extra 1.00 per loaf?
I don't think so.
tax wine or beer an extra 1.00 per bottle?
Some people drink beer. Some don't. Just as some people smoke and some don't. On is just as legal as the other.
they are equally harmful if you want to look at it from that perspective.

I am not for citizens united in any way shape or form.

but I do not like that all of you guys get to decide that I have to pay a tax which you do not have to pay.
because your pleasures are in the majority, and therefore not taxed.

In reality people here voted against for other reasons anyway. If the money were going to schools or hospitals, it would have passed.
(And I also wouldn't resent the very idea this much if the money were for schools.)

There I said it.

taxing people who wear red shirts.

But if you keep smoking, you eventually will. (But hey, I don't have a problem with taxing junk food and processed food, either. People who eat that stuff will also eventually burden the healthcare system, too.)

It is nearly universal, has no upper limit, and can effectively drain all but the very largest estates. The last few months of life in America can easily ensure that your family will not get into an ugly estate fight.

the elderly. Again, I am not burdening your healthcare system. Nor do I even have the right to use public health care! but I do pay into it every year.
And I am not selfish enough to think that some people deserve health care and others do not......

How about the illegal immigrants are burdening our healthcare system?
Like that one?

I never advocated taxing the sick or the elderly. Everyone gets old. And many people get sick through no fault of their own, like lung cancer from second-hand smoke exposure. There's no way to tax anyone out of that. But people do consume things that make them unhealthy and everyone else does end up paying for it, in one way or another. So yes, I am advocating taxing those things that make people unhealthy. Is that not personal responsibility?

is people having children. I think it is really bad for the planet. There are already too many people for the world's resources.
So should I put a tax on children? It would have to be much higher than the cigarette tax of course, which is currently at over 200%.

if your argument is tax smokers because they use public resources than you have to tax people for getting old, of course! And children also use more resources, so let's tax them.
I have never used any public health resources of any kind and I am 54 years old, and I pay my taxes happily so others can have resources .
I do not begrudge others the right to health care. But you think you should be allowed to make my choices? which do not affect you in any way at all.

You like leaving that part out. There are a lot of things I don't like, but I don't advocate taxing all of them. Just the ones that wind up costing me (and you) in the long run. And again, the things that happen to everyone, the things that are beyond anyone's control, I do not advocate taxing. Got it?

not leaving it out. These are much worse problems than smoking for the health of the population.

So many of us old people and so few ice floes.

get sick and you don't have insurance, you either die or go bankrupt (or both). And often those fates await you even if you have insurance.

That's some 'system' all right. Why in the fuck should smokers have to pay a puntiive tax to keep such a dysfunctional clusterfuck operating?

to simply die on away-missions rather than come back all messed up requiring extensive medical care.

We need more redshirts.

in need of saying.

I normally agree with Manny, but not on this. Enough taxing the poor, let's get squeeze some money out of the wealthy, who probably get their cigarettes tax free anyhow.

This is not a popular issue on the left or the right. People don't like being 'punished' so I am not surprised it did not pass.

as a 'regressive tax,' one that hits those least able to pay it the hardest. We don't need any more regressive taxes, we need progressive taxes.

I did not vote this way because the pro-tobacco lobby influenced my vote. I voted this way because a couple left-wing periodicals and writers whom I respect brought to my attention the deeply regressive nature of this tax.

As my wife put it, when you're poor and stressed out, you will often seek comfort in inexpensive things like a cigarette. Making those cigarettes more expensive attacks the poor but doesn't even scratch the rich or the middle class.

My wife and I are both ex-smokers, each tobacco-free for about 2 years. But that doesn't mean I'm going to approve of taxes that hit poor people the hardest.

Kind of difficult to bitch about paying taxes on something that is medically harmful and doesn't give a very good high.

Want to be poor and not pay the cig tax, then don't smoke, tada, you just raised your income by .50$/hr (assuming you work full time and spend 1k/yr on cigarettes, which one study I found said 998.23$/yr so close enough).

tax every gas-guzzling SUV $20,000/year tax, the proceeds to be used to combat asthma and other respiratory illnesses? Now that's a tax that might actually target those most able to pay it.

Don't like that tax? Simple, just don't drive that gas-guzzling planet-destroying SUV. Ta-da.

Sorry to put things in perspective.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

into the atmosphere isn't 'necessary,' by any standard.

Here's another idea for a tax: let's put a 100% tax on the wealth of anyone with a net worth greater than $500,000, the proceeds of said tax to go towards funding universal healthcare for all regardless of net worth, income, or employment status. No one needs a net worth higher than $500,000, speaking of 'necessary.'

Then again maybe that's a good thing. Considering that the wealth was gained on the work of others I have little issue redistributing it back to the workers who created it.

Should I have you pay a tax to do it?

are poor and doing something I don't approve of. Really absurd and mean-spirited on a supposedly progressive site like this one.

Dare to suggest a luxury tax on that gas-guzzling, pollution emitting BMW or Lexus SUV they drive and watch their defenses come up. Because, you see, they drive one of those gas guzzlers and so, of course, it's not appropriate to tax SUVs. WTF???

That's pretty much all there is to it. You don't need to smoke. You also don't need to drink booze. Both of them cost society money. I drink occasionally, I pay the taxes on that, I don't pretend like it's some sort of thing that needs special protection or should somehow be exempt from taxes.

the poor would be better off without processed foods. Cokes, beer, televisions, cell phones, and so on.

The big difference is that processed food is cheap, and everyone needs food. Television CAN be used to communicate things of importance, though it's not used that way typically. Cell phones enable communication, which is valuable.

those god awful "grills" some people like, and so on.

People may be able to survive without all those things.

That's the point. Smoking causes active harm, not just to the end user, but to everyone around them. So while you and everyone else here can bring up 80 different things that aren't smoking, it's all just red herrings. The question is smoking, not fast food, SUV's, or spinning rims.

they make you a more likely target of theft and potentially violence.

People get killed over shoes in some parts of this country. Not pretty but it happens.

They'd be safer dressed in overalls and worn out work boots.

the addiction factor? The targeted young through ads?

Something perverted about a legalized substance, a filthy-rich
industry, addicted and sickened population, who are then taxed
for their sin.

How crazy is that?

Seriously, it likely would have passed if it was on the general election. Timing is key folks.

but I bet many people never made it to the polls.

Turn-out was 24%.

I'm guessing they came out in much larger numbers than non-smokers.

So yeah, this result makes sense.

I see this as more of a special interest vote motivating only a small and extremely interested portion of society to get results that contradict the majority view than some perilous threat to democracy posed by big tobacco.

For far less return on their investment?

They are amateurs next to Big Tobacco.

. . . since it was in today's headlines.

And most of the thread comments are about tobacco and the wisdom of the now-defeated bill.

This thread was *not* about tobacco. It was about Big Money. And how it gets spent without it ever changing ownership. And how spending it is counter to the public good.

automatically thought Prop 29 was a good idea.

According to a lot of California voters here, they voted against the measure in spite of the $50 million the tobacco companies spent, not because of it.

I hadn't been paying much attention to ballot initiatives outside of education funding. I'm a promiscuous petition signer (and in Berkeley, there are petition gatherers for various liberal causes camped out on the streets every day of the week), but I never saw anything about cigarettes. I passingly saw the commercials by the tobacco companies, but I didn't pay much attention to what they were about.

Come election day, I saw the $1 increase. This was, despite all the advertising, despite the fact I read quite a bit about politics, the first time I saw the actual increase amount.

On the ballot was my first clear piece of information.

I voted no. I then went home and persuaded my partner, his mom, and two of her friends to vote no. I cited the regressive nature of the tax.

The problem with advertising is that it must be clear, concise, and to the point. How do five politically aware people (and that's just my experience) not know exactly what the initiative was until entering the voting booth? The tobacco companies' ads yammered on about money going out of state, but nowhere in those ads did I put cigarette tax together with their message.

It was a weird campaign.

many, many "anti-corp" initiatives all over the place. Reinstitute corporate taxes (here), minimum wage hikes, card check unionism, global warming, environmental protection, whatever, bunches and bunches of them, anything the Corps and the Chamber would oppose, some of it in as many places as possible, all on the same ballot for the same election day. Make them pick or bleed them dry.

The RW has done this with same sex marriage and more. It is well past time to fire back.

I think the tax would have pass only if money is going to hospitals or schools.

But it appears that too many voters are a dumb bunch, willing to believe whatever propaganda is thrown at them. That's what makes me so hopeless. That the sheep don't bother to seek out the facts, only what's shoved in their faces by big money. They continue to vote against their own interests because they don't know better. And they get what they deserve.

Unfortunately, the rest of us are also forced to deal with the consequences.

Geez. Glad I don't live in Cali.




Bake