Comments on: Big Tobacco pouring in the cash in No on 29 campaign

By: Common Tater

Common Tater — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:35:18 +0000

Why bother with this proposition (or any proposition, for that matter). The activist judiciary will decide that Californians are too stupid to understand the issues and reverse a “No Vote.” They will say, “No, you moron California voters. You really wanted to pass this proposition and so we are changing the outcome.

Wait, watch, and see…

By: RR, Senile Columnist

RR, Senile Columnist — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:42:10 +0000

I miss smoking sections on aeroplanes and smoking cars on trains. The smell of tobacco is marvelous! Oh, btw, I grew up in a house filled with smokers. The 2nd-hand stuff may have affected my thought processes, as do-gooders are sure to assert, but so far nothing on the chest X-rays. Maybe I am just lucky, huh?

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:59:14 +0000

I wonder if you could use the Stand Your Ground defense in the states that have it if you shot somebody for blowing smoke in your face.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:57:16 +0000

Re: 12

Right on! Enough of the Big Brotherism! Let people start smoking on planes again, or on BART. We could help out with the funding of public schools by letting cigarette companies advertise on school busses. And we could reduce long-term obligations for Social Security and Medicare by encouraging people to take up the habit, featuring Herman Cain’s campaign manager as the spokesperson. I’d say bring back the Marlboro Man, but he did himself in with the smokes.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 00:32:19 +0000

@ RR

Resistance is futile!

Big Brother knows what’s best for you!

Big Sis, too!

By: RR, Senile Columnist

RR, Senile Columnist — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:31:30 +0000

California seems determined to tax cigarettes, and eventually all tobacco products, out of existence. Smoking isn’t good for you but it does not lead to many violent crimes or car crash injuries; alcohol and hard drugs do. The impact of those occurrences is far worse than second- hand smoke. As for the complaint that smokers get sick and die earlier than non-smokers, so do drug addicts. But legislators have done nothing about narcotics other than punish users and complain about foreign suppliers. I am not a cigarette smoker but I am sick and tired of the State trying to regulate behavior as if every action an individual takes is everybody’s business.

By: calwatch

calwatch — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:42:32 +0000

It’s smart for the no side to get on the air early, since voters are generally inclined to vote no before they vote yes.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:36:13 +0000

Re” #7 and 8

Good point about the bootlegging. The anti-29 ads should mention that.

One of the selling points for the Stem Cell initiative, besides getting around the stupid Bush policy, was an economic argument — making CA a hub for cutting edge medical research. Prop. 29 doesn’t include that selling point, since there is plenty of other cancer research activity around the country, and some of the grants may go to out-of-state cancer research efforts.

By: Owenby

Owenby — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:00:20 +0000

Calwatch is right. Awareness is low and polling numbers don’t mean much at this stage. When voters learn about the problems with the measure, support will drop. Revenues from the tax would be spent by a board modeled on the stem cell board, and we’re still waiting for that investment to pay off. But with only 15% of Californians smoking and services cut at every level of govt, it could go either way.

By: Bruce R. Peterson, Lafayette

Bruce R. Peterson, Lafayette — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:13:04 +0000

I’m anti smoker & an anti tax person. This extra tax should be good for cigarette bootleggers. Media people will love the extra advertising money.