Bummer. It really would have helped.

The Legislature can do that without an initiative. It's their JOB.

Yes, a 2/3 majority would be required. But why has NOBODY on either side of the aisle even proposed a bill that would simply crank up the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, and put the money into the General Fund where it's needed?

Oil companies have been extracting CA oil out of CA lands, and they're getting to do it for FREE. CA is one of the top three in oil producing states, but we get nothing for it except the highest gasoline prices, beating Hawaii and Alaska for chrissakes. Hawaii is understandable (they have to ship in gasoline) but Alaska, that taxes oil companies and gives Alaskans a piece of the pie of around $1000 a year, taxes oil companies, too.

By some estimates, should CA begin taxing oil companies we wouldn't be in this budget hole since it would produce billions of dollars a year of revenue. But CA oil is running out fast.

Alcohol. It's their turn. I'm tired of being the scapegoat for taxes. A 50 cent tax on a beer and a 2 dollar for hard liquor would have been nice. Besides, they poo poo at the thought of using Marijuana for cancer, so fuckem.

regardless of the ad campaign and the claims of creating another bureaucracy, it does not explain why adults would vote down a measure that presumptively does not affect 88% of the voters one way or the other, it leads me to 1 of 2 conclusions either a lot of people lie about whether or not they smoke or perhaps the voters looked at what happened in other states all it takes is a (usually)Republican win and the tax funds earmarked for healthcare and prevention programs will be whisked away to fund something else usually to pay down deficits, or lower taxes on the rich.

The additional tax would have raised hundreds of millions per year in new revenue for the state, i.e. the people of the state. All of us. We all deserve a say in how that revenue is used.

I'd like to see it applied to education, especially K-12 which is in deep trouble. To me that is a much higher and more urgent priority than what 29 would have dictated.

this down when indeed it would not have cost them a dime

To the General Fund, where it is badly needed.

There will be another election in two years, if our Legislature doesn't get its shit together on the issue.

There should be NO earmarking of the revenue from any additional taxes of any kind.

I voted against it because I don't believe in making one group pay for the benefit of all of us.

If cancer research is a good idea we should all pay for it.

...for themselves that 29 was a flawed measure, as I and millions of other Californians did?

"Anything to fuck 'em up" is OK as a basis for vengeance, but it's not always the best strategy for a voter to use when making an important decision such as a ballot proposition that promises to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. I think it's important for voters to also look carefully at the long-term consequences of a proposal.

If most or all of the additional revenue was to be simply put into the General Fund without creating a new bureaucracy, and if the measure had guarantees that the revenue wouldn't have been spent out of state, I would have voted Yes without hesitation.

It's the same as any other sales tax. I'm surprised when supposedly leftist people vote for this shit.