Should There Be An Extra Tax On Cigarettes? – Survey of the Day

It has been proven that smoking can cause cancer, but it has also been promised to us as Americans that we can do what we want for the most part. So, is it far to add an additional tax to a pack of cigarettes to basically try and differ people from smoking?

The debate on this subject is the hottest in California where Proposition 29 will appear on the ballet. Prop 29 imposes additional $1.00 per pack tax on cigarettes and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products. Revenues fund research for cancer and tobacco-related diseases. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in cigarette excise tax revenues of about $735 million annually by 2013–14 for certain research and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Other state and local revenue increases amounting to tens of millions of dollars annually.

A YES vote on this measure means: State excise taxes on cigarettes would increase by $1 per pack to a total of $1.87 per pack. These additional revenues would be dedicated to fund cancer and tobacco-related disease research and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association wrote Prop. 29 to save lives, stop kids from smoking, and fund cancer research. Big Tobacco opposes Prop. 29 because they know it will reduce smoking in California. Prop. 29 saves lives, but only with a YES vote.

A NO vote on this measure means: State excise taxes on cigarettes would remain at the current level of 87 cents per pack and would continue to be used for existing purposes, including childhood development programs and various health and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Everyone supports cancer research, but Prop. 29 is flawed: $735 million annually in new taxes but doesn’t require revenue be spent in California to create jobs or fund schools. Creates new government spending bureaucracy with political appointees, duplicating existing programs. More waste, no accountability to taxpayers. No on 29. ReadForYourself.org