Do you smoke tobacco

Do you Smoke?

  • Yes, I smoke

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Yes, I smoke and want to quit

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • No, I have never smoked

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • No, I quit.

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Total voters
    17
Here is the way I see it.

The primary funding of SCHIP is tobacco taxes.
Anybody that doesn't help fund SCHIP hates poor children.
If you are not using tobacco then you are not helping to fund medical care for poor children.
That makes you a hater of poor children.
Don't be a hater.
 
It might be called the Cancer Research act but it doesn't provide for any actual research, the money goes to feed the insatialble maw of funding social programs.
 
Do you smoke tobacco
Nope. Never have; never will. I find it rather disgusting.


On the California ballot is Prop. 29, an initiative titiled "The California Cancer Research Act" is on the ballot in this years primary election June 5dth.

See Yes on 29 here:

Prop 29 - The California Cancer Research Act

See No on 29 here:

Get the Facts - No on Prop 29 | No on Prop 29

Discuss

However, as anti-smoking as I am, I oppose tobacco taxes.

It grows government and becomes dependent on people to continue smoking to fund such government. If revenue falls due to fewer people paying into these taxes, somehow it will eventually come around to the rest of us to have to make up for the shortage. So ironically, they need to encourage smoking to fund such programs, and some of the insipid anti-smoking commercials like the "truth" campaign only antagonize people.

When Rob "Meathead" Reiner got his tobacco tax passed (1998's Proposition 10), it funded the First Five California campaign. Subsequently, this group (with Reiner as chairman) would illegally promote a new initiative (2006's Proposition 82) for "Universal Pre-school" (Reiner would eventually have to resign from FFC because of the obvious conflict). Luckily that initiative was defeated.

I will be voting against this Prop 29.

But let's flip things around. Say I put on an initiative promising to fund cancer research with a million-dollar a pack tax. How would that turn out? I could taunt people who vote against that as being insensitive toward people suffering from cancer (and I have friends who are going through that hell). But it’s not practical to have a million dollar tax on a pack of smokes. But even a dollar a pack on addicted smokers heavily burdens them already more than the existing taxes do now.

It would be easy for me to pick on smokers, as much as their habit has been a nuisance on my life, by putting an additional financial burden on them, but then the next tax increase idea will be on something I like (e.g., sugar). I am weary people targeting minorities.
 
Here is the way I see it.

The primary funding of SCHIP is tobacco taxes.
Anybody that doesn't help fund SCHIP hates poor children.
If you are not using tobacco then you are not helping to fund medical care for poor children.
That makes you a hater of poor children.
Don't be a hater.

Wry's a hater.

Why does he hate chillun?
 
It might be called the Cancer Research act but it doesn't provide for any actual research, the money goes to feed the insatialble maw of funding social programs.

The Chillun!!!

It's for the chillun!

Don't be a hater or Hate-a like Wry!
 
It might be called the Cancer Research act but it doesn't provide for any actual research, the money goes to feed the insatialble maw of funding social programs.
 

Forum List

Back
Top