As You See It, Election 2012: June 3, 2012: Proposition 29 will save lives

Jun 3, 2012 Full story: Santa Cruz Sentinel 33

The main value of Proposition 29 is not the money it raises through taxes, but rather the tobacco-related injuries and deaths it prevents.

Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
DBS

Foster City, CA

#1 Jun 3, 2012
Thank goodness they are finally outlawing smoking while driving! I will feel much safer on the streets when this passes!!!!!!
Need A Light

London, Canada

#2 Jun 3, 2012
DBS wrote:
Thank goodness they are finally outlawing smoking while driving! I will feel much safer on the streets when this passes!!!!!!
http://www.thereporter.com/letters/ci_2077261...
Mary

Santa Cruz, CA

#3 Jun 3, 2012
Using a Vacaville newspaper to sway public opinion is lame. I might be persuaded if a real newspaper — like the L.A. Times — came out against Prop. 29, but you couldn't find one.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#4 Jun 3, 2012
I'm against Prop 29 as well. And I don't smoke tobacco. First, tobacco taxes are already pretty high. So high, in fact, that smuggling is becoming a problem. At some point, if the tax is too high, it will generate problems like shoplifting, robbery, and a black market. Second, "cancer research" is pretty darn open-ended. While the link between smoking tobacco and cancer is well-established, the link between cancer research and progress against cancer is not. Despite decades of funding, cancer rates remain rather flat. Finally, there are plenty of suspected "causes" of cancer: automobile exhaust, outgassing from particle board, new carpeting, and vinyl, cosmetics made from coal tar, paints, plastics, and even too much sunshine. But somehow ONLY tobacco smokers are going to have to pay this tax. It just doesn't seem fair. The tobacco industry obviously has a financial horse in this race, but then, so do the HUGE pharmaceutical corporations.
Drivebyfruiter

Sunnyvale, CA

#5 Jun 3, 2012
Hey BJ, heard any FAT jokes lately?
another_voice

Santa Cruz, CA

#6 Jun 3, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
I'm against Prop 29 as well. And I don't smoke tobacco. First, tobacco taxes are already pretty high. So high, in fact, that smuggling is becoming a problem. At some point, if the tax is too high, it will generate problems like shoplifting, robbery, and a black market. Second, "cancer research" is pretty darn open-ended. While the link between smoking tobacco and cancer is well-established, the link between cancer research and progress against cancer is not. Despite decades of funding, cancer rates remain rather flat. Finally, there are plenty of suspected "causes" of cancer: automobile exhaust, outgassing from particle board, new carpeting, and vinyl, cosmetics made from coal tar, paints, plastics, and even too much sunshine. But somehow ONLY tobacco smokers are going to have to pay this tax. It just doesn't seem fair. The tobacco industry obviously has a financial horse in this race, but then, so do the HUGE pharmaceutical corporations.
What evidence do yo have that "smuggling is becoming a problem" and can you show how that is directly attributable to tobacco taxes?

How do you suggest the link between smoking tobacco and cancer has become so well established, if not because of cancer research?
Need A Light

London, Canada

#7 Jun 3, 2012
Mary wrote:
Using a Vacaville newspaper to sway public opinion is lame. I might be persuaded if a real newspaper — like the L.A. Times — came out against Prop. 29, but you couldn't find one.
The LA Times are people who helped get you into problems in the first place.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#8 Jun 3, 2012
The ATF says that cigarette smuggling is a problem. See: http://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco/

And this:“The tax rate on a carton or a pack of cigarettes is significantly less (in North Carolina) than the rest of the country,” said ATF Supervisory Special Agent Earl Woodham.

source: http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investiga...

As for a smoking/cancer link, one need only look at the mortality rates for smokers vs non-smokers. It's common sense. Yes, cancer research is a good thing---but not if it's done by product manufacturers with the sole purpose of making profits.
Drivebyfruiter

Sunnyvale, CA

#9 Jun 3, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
As for a smoking/cancer link, one need only look at the mortality rates for smokers vs non-smokers. It's common sense.
Now go look at the mortality rate between FAT people, and normal-sized ones.

So put the pies and dope down, and do some jogging and calisthenics.

On second thought, keep overeating.
another_voice

Santa Cruz, CA

#10 Jun 3, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
The ATF says that cigarette smuggling is a problem. See: http://www.atf.gov/alcohol-tobacco/
And this:“The tax rate on a carton or a pack of cigarettes is significantly less (in North Carolina) than the rest of the country,” said ATF Supervisory Special Agent Earl Woodham.
source: http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investiga...
As for a smoking/cancer link, one need only look at the mortality rates for smokers vs non-smokers. It's common sense. Yes, cancer research is a good thing---but not if it's done by product manufacturers with the sole purpose of making profits.
The link you provided does nothing to bolster your claim that cigarette smuggling is "becoming a problem". In fact, the page reports on a two-year-old piece of legislation aimed at increasing the penalties for smuggling. Show me proof that smuggling is on the rise ("becoming a problem") and that tobacco taxes are the reason. That's the claim you made.

Give me one example of a product manufacturer who is conducting cancer research for the sole purpose of making a profit, then show me how you can unequivocally discern that profit is their sole motive.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#11 Jun 3, 2012
DBS a.k.a. "DRIVE BY FRUITER" is obsessed with my body. Why ELSE does he continually make rude comments about my physical body? He writes: "Now go look at the mortality rate between FAT people, and normal-sized ones."

BECKY: Does DAN actually CARE about anyone's health (other than his own, presumably)? The claim that overweight people are at risk for early death has been misstated. Here is a NYT article on a fairly comprehensive study: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fa...
Drivebyfruiter

Sunnyvale, CA

#12 Jun 3, 2012
Did the FBI solve the drive-by-fruiting yet?

Or is the criminal mastermind still on the loose?
Donny B

Falls Church, VA

#13 Jun 3, 2012
Becky Pancakes Johnson wrote:
DBS a.k.a. "DRIVE BY FRUITER" is obsessed with my body. Why ELSE does he continually make rude comments about my physical body? He writes: "Now go look at the mortality rate between FAT people, and normal-sized ones."
BECKY: Does DAN actually CARE about anyone's health (other than his own, presumably)? The claim that overweight people are at risk for early death has been misstated. Here is a NYT article on a fairly comprehensive study: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fa...
BJ... Do everyone a big favor and add a single element of truth to what you post by beginning them with:

"Once upon a time..."
Dumb Hump Colby

San Jose, CA

#14 Jun 3, 2012
Drivebyfruiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Now go look at the mortality rate between FAT people, and normal-sized ones.
So put the pies and dope down, and do some jogging and calisthenics.
On second thought, keep overeating.
Bulls-eye!
DBS

United States

#15 Jun 4, 2012
"Money Shot" is a better term!
DBS

United States

#16 Jun 4, 2012
....on another note, that theory that Becky isn't posting anymore was incorrect. I wonder what fool thought that one up/spread that lie?
For anyone who wonders

Scotts Valley, CA

#17 Jun 11, 2012
..why I question Becky's sanity. A picture speaks a thousand words.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2012/06/08/gab...
Buzz

United States

#18 Jun 11, 2012
For anyone who wonders wrote:
..why I question Becky's sanity. A picture speaks a thousand words.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2012/06/08/gab...
That proves nothing? Or that you have an unhealthy attitude towards women?
Buzz

San Jose, CA

#19 Jun 11, 2012
BuzzColbyLoser wrote:
<quoted text>
That proves nothing? Or that you have an unhealthy attitude towards women?
The proposition was a loser as are you, John. Why are the kids in your apartment complex afraid of you and why did over 30 residents there petition to have you thrown out?
DBS

United States

#20 Jun 11, 2012
Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
The proposition was a loser as are you, John. Why are the kids in your apartment complex afraid of you and why did over 30 residents there petition to have you thrown out?
Sober up, dude. This is getting repetitious.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Scotts Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Robert Kahnjob is getting trashed on the Sentin... 3 hr Reality Check 11
News Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09) 3 hr RICKY RAT 414
Phat Pat should look for a job at Chubbyland 4 hr Witness 4
News Santa Cruz commission floats Pacific one-way tr... 6 hr ANON 1
News Families of Santa Cruz police sign petition for... 8 hr Donny B 17
Cougar Dating in Santa Cruz 10 hr Reality Check 12
News Public disruption over armored vehicle ends San... 12 hr WOOF 25
Scotts Valley Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Scotts Valley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]