Santa Cruz City Council to consider tobacco retail licence fee: Funds would be used to fight unde...

Following in Watsonville's footsteps, the Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday will weigh the creation of an tobacco retail license fee to fund programs designed to reduce access to cigarettes by minors. Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
5genSC

Santa Cruz, CA

#1 Nov 21, 2010
"I don't have a problem if you drive the tobacco industry out of business," Rotkin said. "They are selling death and I don't see that we need to support them."

And how many businesses and industries profit from "death"? I dont have enough room here... we COULD start with the pharmecutical companies that sell dangerous drugs (read the label) Oil companies, vendors of high-fructose corn syrup, trans-fat, Alcohol, on and on... best to educate the kids and stop glamorizing smoking in movies and such than continuing a tax to death approach of our local businesses that are selling products to adults who are willingly choosing to use these products. Also, how are these dollars actually being used? What are the admin costs? I hear a pig and a vacuum.
Gateway - Floodgate

San Francisco, CA

#2 Nov 21, 2010
It's about time some one at the County had a good idea. People think marijuana is the "gateway drug." WRONG! Cigarettes are the gateway drug. That's where the addictive synapse are first stimulated. Marijuana also does that, but introduces loss of control. That's why I say that marijuna is a "floodgate drug, tobacco is a gateway drug!"
Whotookmywallet

Santa Cruz, CA

#3 Nov 21, 2010
More "staff time to study the problem"? Does this mean city employees at taxpayers expence? Prop.H money? Who will ultimately pay for our mayors proposed study? Will we hire a smoke cop? The smoking ban on Pacific Ave.doesen't seem to be working all that well.Let's buy another study and another public employee to work on this. Heck,I need a job. Are you ready to pony up Santa Cruz for another study?

Since: May 08

Pacifica, CA

#4 Nov 21, 2010
Do they collect this tax from the marijuana dispensaries ? Inhaling marijuana smoke carries more tar than cigarettes...I bet they don't, that would be non-PC.
Reason24

Brentwood, CA

#5 Nov 21, 2010
I think the good citizens who use tobacco products have paid enough over the last twenty years. Perhaps this county should look into the use of teens smoking pot, which is running rampant, more harmful to lungs, and mind alerting. Hmmmm...
rswartz in santa cruz

Concord, CA

#6 Nov 21, 2010
It seems by observation, there are as many cars as there are cigarettes running free. Hit the car owners HARD with taxations: THEN SIT BACK AND HAVE A SMOKE..talk about responsibilty in POLLUTION! ABSURDITY! HYPOCRACY! get real!
nonsense

Gillette, WY

#7 Nov 21, 2010
Are we really gullible enough to believe that the license "FEE" (TAX) will really be used "exclusively" to fight underage smoking?
Here For Now

Vallejo, CA

#8 Nov 21, 2010
Schools already address this topic. They have mandatory health classes in middle school, in HS they have more advances classes like psychology that goes into addiction and the mind.
Everyone knows its bad for you but so are a lot of things, and people do them anyways.
A non smoker opinion

Menlo Park, CA

#9 Nov 21, 2010
Such suspense...wondering if the ,city council will support another fee. It's like waiting to see if a starved coyote will snatch up a pork tenderloin.

This fee would eventually be passed on to smokers, and with only around 20% of voters smoking, will naturally be supported by the majority. That's why we have the phrase "tyranny of the majority." Government is the huge hypocrite here, talking about how terrible smoking is and reducing smokers to the status of despised 2nd class citizens, but still raking in all the taxes and fees. Just look at the county First 5 agency which is funded with tobacco taxes, but uses them to fund pet non-profits having little or no connection to smoking.
Guv here to help

Santa Cruz, CA

#10 Nov 21, 2010
The $3 dollar plus tax per pack has already been levied and raised several times for this same purpose.

The government will find the industry or group with the fewest voices and literally tax it out of existance.

This has nothing to do with the "children" and everything to do with the bloated Rotkins at the trough!
Whatever

San Jose, CA

#11 Nov 21, 2010
I no longer smoke so I don't have a dog in this fight except an ideological one. Progressives are attempting to raise money under the guise of 'healthy social policy' and thus attempting to extort citizens for their acts of personal freedom. Let's face it Rotkin could care less if anyone smoked but he sees an avenue to extort money from a group of people the Health Nazis sees as pariahs so it's a win win for him and the council. The real issue here is when do they stop or will they as expected go after drinkers, motorists, model plane enthusiasts, insert name of group here, etc. that they haven't already extorted money from. They will come for you next it's guaranteed since they've dug such a hole for themselves they cannot admit their failure of policy and ideology so they will make someone else suffer for their failed leadership and hope that you don't notice the elephant in the room. Maybe it's just me but Santa Cruz is becoming more like SF in that it's intolerant, expensive, failed, smelly, and aggrieved over it's incompetence but hell or high water SC will not take on the issues that matter and instead will focus on the trivial matters in order to hide it's failure at playing Government.
Another Fee

Berkeley, CA

#12 Nov 21, 2010
Liars!

Just another way to raise money for the general fund.
yougotstogetdown

Santa Cruz, CA

#13 Nov 21, 2010
Last I heard tobacco was a legal product irrespective of all the hype about causing death which is highly exaggerated.Yes you will probably die sooner if you smoke but this obsession with controlling it is insane! It is simply a CASH COW on the backs of a small group of people who get outvoted by control freaks! Why don't you control freaks just make it illegal? Huh? Rotgut? Earth to Rotgut? First you demonize it-then you tax the f out of it since your position has now been justified. right little Marxist?
Good Grief

San Bruno, CA

#14 Nov 21, 2010
In a city where minors need to be concerned about getting stabbed, shot, or addicted to serious drugs, why in the name of heaven is the moronic city council wasting time on this?

Un-freakin-believable.

Santa Cruz clearly has the record for setting the bar low for city council members. And I mean "limbo" low.
Orchard

Pacifica, CA

#15 Nov 21, 2010
I can't stand cigarettes BUT I don't want to give the government another piece of OUR pockets. Learn how to deal with less, just like the rest of Americans. What don't you fools in government understand about position of Americans with regards to taxation. This is just another tax to pad their coffers. Don't believe any other explanation they try to give us. Arrogant fools
nonsense

Gillette, WY

#16 Nov 21, 2010
Good Grief wrote:
In a city where minors need to be concerned about getting stabbed, shot, or addicted to serious drugs, why in the name of heaven is the moronic city council wasting time on this?
Un-freakin-believable.
Santa Cruz clearly has the record for setting the bar low for city council members. And I mean "limbo" low.
when will enough good people get off their behinds and vote these idiots out...the most precious thing we have is the ballot box and yet election after election nothing changes...go figure...
wildman

Oakland, CA

#17 Nov 21, 2010
A fee for everything and for everything a fee. Nothing is for free, and if it's for free we will attach a fee.
wildman

Oakland, CA

#18 Nov 21, 2010
"I don't have a problem if you drive the tobacco industry out of business," Rotkin said. "They are selling death and I don't see that we need to support them."

Mr Rotkin, you're selling stupid and no one's putting you out of business.
Steve Hartman

AOL

#19 Nov 21, 2010
Selling death? Well OK - local progressives have been selling death since 1981. Yep, like cancer, the slow tortuous death of a community.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#20 Nov 21, 2010
FROM THE ARTICLE: "I don't have a problem if you drive the tobacco industry out of business," Rotkin said. "They are selling death and I don't see that we need to support them."

BECKY: Hmmmm. So are all alcohol retail outlets next? They're selling "death" too. How about cars? Cars kill people all the time through blunt trauma and through air pollution. How about prescription drugs? More people die of an overdose of prescription drugs than from illegal drug overdoses (zero from marijuana, BTW). How about guns? Guns are built for death. Shall we drive all the guns out of Santa Cruz? How will our City Council get around the 2nd amendment? How about burger joints? Obesity kills! Diabetes, heart disease, stroke.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Teens left Westside park when gang members show... (Apr '10) 15 hr Donny B 427
Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09) 17 hr homeless person 338
Rip Curl signs lease for Rittenhouse Building i... Thu Donny B 3
Is the person who wrote this nuts? Wed John Colby 11
Archive for Jim Spring posts (Dec '13) Wed John Colby 877
cfabsc (Jan '14) Wed John Colby 585
Cyberbullying to sexting: Santa Cruz class an '... Wed DBS 29
Santa Cruz Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Santa Cruz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Santa Cruz News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Santa Cruz

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:14 pm PST