California Nonsmokers Poised to Vote Their Own Tax Increase
By Norman E.
Kjono
October 2, 2006
California citizens,
about 86 percent of whom are reportedly nonsmokers, will soon
vote on the Coalition for a Healthy California’s Tobacco
Tax Act of 2006 (Proposition 86). A September 27, 2006 San Francisco
Bay Area CBS 5 poll that surveyed 900 California adults reports
56 percent of voters will vote “Yes” on Proposition
86. The poll raises an important perspective: judging by the percentage
of nonsmokers in California, it appears that about 30 percent
of those who do not smoke already understand Proposition 86 to
be a seriously flawed ballot measure. What might those voters
understand about California’s proposed tobacco tax increase
that 70 percent of their fellow nonsmokers apparently do not?
Is it possible that 30 percent of California’s nonsmokers
can see beyond the expedience of shifting the tax burden to a
politically unpopular minority, to comprehend important facts?
Close examination of Proposition 86 indicates that California
nonsmokers who reportedly would vote “No” on Proposition
86 may be the more astute, indeed prescient, voters. Many important
arguments against this new tax have been presented by several
“No on 86” groups and Web sites. This article focuses
on additional information that has not been discussed to date,
but which is central to the fiscal responsibility aspects of Proposition
86. The additional information also concerns facts that tobacco
control advocates aware of, but have not disclosed in their advocacy
to pass $2.1 billion in new taxes. Information that is not disclosed
raises the possibility that the 70 percent of nonsmokers who would
vote “Yes” are ultimately voting for a $2.1 billion
per year in tax increases on themselves. I explain why below,
in context of what we citizens in Washington have experienced
after passing a similar cigarette tax ballot measure, Initiative
to the People 773, in November 2001. The costly experience of
taxpayers in other states may provide constructive guidance for
California voters.
I approach this subject in three short sections. First, we take
a look at the new revenues that Proposition 86 will allegedly
raise in the near term and the fixed, long term state expenses
that it will create. Second, information concerning tobacco control’s
long term nicotine policy as recently published in a national
journal is discussed. Third that information is summarized in
terms of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Parity Pricing. Finally,
a brief summary of those facts will show that Proposition 86 could
be the largest state tax revenue give-away to corporate special-interests
in the history of the state. Those who would vote “Yes”
in Proposition 86 can then decide if they want to fund from their
pockets and in perpetuity $2.1 billion in taxpayer subsidies for
the biggest of Big Drugs.
Next
