Vote NO on 29

Slow day. Only 1,758 hits.

With California due to vote on Tuesday on Proposition 29, which will pretty much double the tax on tobacco, and rake in $730 million, I’ll take one last look over there.

Not content with screwing the New Yorkers he’s supposed to represent, NY mayor Michael Bloomberg also wants to screw Californians as well.

Mayor Bloomberg is taking on the tobacco industry again — only this time, in California.

Reaching across the country, the mayor yesterday [14 May 2012] pledged up to $500,000 to support a June 5 referendum to increase California’s tax on a pack of cigarettes from $1 to $1.87.

The mayor said he was putting up the money to help counter a $40 million ad campaign by tobacco companies to defeat the measure, Proposition 29.

“It’s time to level the playing field,” Bloomberg said.

Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said health groups supporting the ballot proposition have spent about $5 million.

Olympic bicycle champ Lance Armstrong, a pal of the mayor’s, is leading the effort. Bloomberg has offered to match new donations up to $500,000.

I wonder if tobacco companies are really spending that much? From what I hear from California, it’s wall-to-wall antismoking ads all day every day. But the predatory Tobacco Control Industry always likes to portray itself as underdog.

I wonder how much Bloomberg makes out of it? Is he really giving away money? Or is he making an investment? Only 60% (see below) of the $735 million the new tax is expected to wring out of Californians is earmarked for ‘research’. That leaves some $300 million that can leave the state and go anywhere. Where?

Best I can see is that it’s the little guys on the ground who are fighting the antismoking juggernaut. People like Matt Lanford, Marsha Kramer Keller, and Geoffrey Mogilner, all proprietors of California tobacco shops, and authors of Vote NO on 29. 

Lanford writes:

Californians face a $16 billion budget shortfall this year and more than $200 billion in long-term debt. Because you are not California residents and do not pay California income tax, you may not care that our state is slashing budgets for schools, parks, libraries, and programs for the poor and needy. Sales and income tax increases will be on the November ballot, in a state already known for high taxes.

In the midst of this dire situation, Prop. 29 imposes $735 million in new taxes on Californians. Yet it will do nothing to help our finances. The money raised by this tax does not even have to be spent in California or in the U.S. Mr. Bloomberg, you are a mayor of New York City. Mr. Armstrong, your Lance Armstrong Foundation is located in Austin, Texas. For your $500,000 and $1.5 million campaign contributions, are your states and associates going to receive the cancer research funding from Prop. 29 if it passes?

Furthermore, only 60% of the money raised by Prop. 29 is required to be spent on cancer research. Every year, $125 million will be spent on creating a new government bureaucracy, hiring more state employees, and buying buildings and real estate. Now we will have more state employees whose salary, health insurance and pension liability we have to worry about. This will then place yet another financial burden on California taxpayers, including non-smokers.

California has been suffering from 11% unemployment, one of the highest rates in the nation. California taxpayers’ money should be spent in California, not in New York or Texas. Why should Californians be responsible for cancer research for the whole nation, including New York and Texas, when our unemployment rate is 11%, our budget deficit is $16 billion, and our long-term debt is $200 billion? What is your real motive? Are you determined to bankrupt our golden state?

Well, my guess is that Bloomberg is trying to do just exactly that. It’s how the bloated TC theft-machine works, sucking money out of ordinary folks’ pockets, supposedly to fund cancer ‘research’ which seems to have made zero progress in the 60+ years since the ‘researchers’ supposedly discovered that smoking causes lung cancer. What kind of pickpockets ever hand back the wallet with a $10 bill still inside it? None. They take everything.

And since California seems to have had more smoking bans and tobacco taxes for longer than anywhere else in America, it may go a long way to explaining why the Golden State is flat broke – for the kind of reasons I set out here a while back. The last year the budget was balanced was back in 2007.

On April 3, 1987, the City of Beverly Hills, California, initiated an ordinance to restrict smoking in most restaurants, in retail stores and at public meetings. It exempted restaurants in hotels – City Council members reasoned that hotel restaurants catered to large numbers of visitors from abroad, where smoking is more acceptable than in the United States.

In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to restrict indoor smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants.[35]

In America, California’s 1998 smoking ban encouraged other states such as New York to implement similar regulations. California’s ban included a controversial restriction upon smoking in bars, extending the statewide ban enacted in 1994. As of April 2009 there were 37 states with some form of smoking ban.[36] Some areas in California began banning smoking across whole cities, including every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California enacted park and beach smoking restrictions.

16 Reasons Why California Is The Next Greece

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Vote NO on 29

  1. California isn’t just “flat broke.” California is 360 billion dollars in debt (How does that compare to the UK or Greece btw?). See:

    One of the main counterarguments I’ve been using when I’ve posted about this is that the debt is large enough that Americans could conceivably be facing a new “Bail Out” proposal and thus the debt is a national concern. As a national concern it should be up for national voting. Just as Prop 29 is a vote by 85% of the population to impose a tax on the remaining 15%, so would a national vote on imposing a massive corrective sales tax (say about 25%) just on Californians be a vote by 85% to impose a tax on 15%.

    Fair IS fair after all, right?


    A certain unknown and completely unstated portion of the tax will be spent SPECIFICALLY to support raising it to a new and HIGHER tax level in the future. The Antis might try to deny that, however, raising tobacco taxes has ALWAYS been a fundamental part of their “Tobacco Prevention” efforts and “Tobacco Prevention” is indeed explicitly part of what the funding will be used for (probably directly, but, if not, then most certainly indirectly as other funds are diverted after this new input.)

    I don’t usually sign my “competing interest” here Frank, but given the tone of the Tobacco Tactics attack and the new readership I’ll make an exception here since some of the newer folks might not be aware.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

  2. waltc says:

    No, Bloomberg is just an egotistical tyrant who wants to impose his Visions on a “tomorrow, the world” basis. He’s also given money to promote fatwahs against smoking in the middle east and, along with Bill Gates (one reason I will always and forever own Apples) has also given millions to promote bans in China.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    We wonder why the Bilderbergs are having a high missiom meeting in Owebummers BACKYARD chicago!

  4. smokervoter says:

    Stanton Glantz launches his blitzkrieg.

    The puppetmeister has finally taken a bow. It’s Sunday morn and the Yes on 29 commercials are coming fast and hard. At last, they’re momentarily featuring the nutty professor looking like – a nutty professor. His beard looks like a paste on.

    His line is “Remember, if you don’t smoke, you don’t pay the tax”. I’m seeing that argument on the lengthy threads that are popping up all over the place.

    So, if you don’t smoke, you don’t get cancer? If you don’t smoke, you don’t die?

    And is it valid to compare the dynamic of the Poll Tax to what they’re suggesting here?

    Another theme in the threads I’m seeing when the inevitable Nazi comparisons start flying is that Gypsies, Jews and Blacks can’t quit being Gypsies, Jews and Blacks. Smokers can quit smoking.

    The message seems to be Capitulate and Thrive — don’t and be prepared to suffer the dire consequences.

    Anybody want to add anything here?

    • magnetic01 says:

      In absolute terms, the percentage of nonsmokers and smokers developing fatal cancer (all sites) is about the same – about 33% (see Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger). In other words, if we follow 100 smokers and 100 nonsmokers through to mortality, about 33 from each group will develop fatal cancer. Why, then, are smokers getting lumped with having to fund cancer research? It’s just more extortion.

      Here’s an idea that should set Stantonitis Glands’ beard falling out and whatever neurons he has left into hyperactivity: Why not take the hundreds of millions of dollars still sitting in funds already extorted (MSA) from smokers that are earmarked for antismoking propaganda (e.g., TRDRP, FAMRI) – this is the money that keeps a few of Stan’s antismoking buddies in comfortable, fraudulent employment – and put it into cancer research?

    • magnetic01 says:

      There is more lung cancer in the smoker group which means that in the nonsmoker group there is more fatal cancer originating at sites other than the lung (that will probably metastasize to other organs, including the lung).

    • magnetic01 says:

      And BTW, with a percentage of the tax going to the Tobacco Control Industry, why are smokers forced to fund their own persecution – again?

    • beobrigitte says:

      Another theme in the threads I’m seeing when the inevitable Nazi comparisons start flying is that Gypsies, Jews and Blacks can’t quit being Gypsies, Jews and Blacks. Smokers can quit smoking.

      What a curious argument…… Do Jews, Gypsies and Blacks WISH to stop being JEWS, GYPSIES and BLACKS? Do smokers WISH to quit smoking?

      If these people are offended by being compared to the Nazis they could not only stop using Nazi propaganda, they could also stop using Nazi methods, i.e. incitement of hate towards smokers.

    • Tony says:

      “Anybody want to add anything here?“ – yes:
      The Nazis also persecuted homosexuals.

  5. smokervoter says:

    The timing on Bloomberg’s 16 0z soda edict is beneficial to our efforts. LA radio talk show hosts John & Ken, with a huge audience, are tearing him from limb to limb. People are absolutely feed up with Nanny. They’re No on 29 as well.

    If we had snap elections here and Bloomberg ran tomorrow it would be all over, rover, and let Jimi take over.

  6. smokervoter says:

    …why are smokers forced to fund their own persecution – again?

    Although I realize this will sound melodramatic to those who don’t understand why anyone would enjoy a smoke to relax and enhance concentration with but, paying to be castigated on radio, television and the internet feels a bit like buying white linen for the Klan.

    Granted there are no smoker lynchings and in all likelihood there are no prospects of this happening in the near future. This is especially so if some of the extreme antismoking evangelists are eventually discredited.

    But it would be hard for anyone with any kind of awareness to deny that we are approaching a new sort of caste system zeitgeist towards smokers in the name of tobacco control. Read up on the Untouchables and put your thinking cap on. Thirdhand smoke (clothing and hair and hands). First ‘discovered’ with cancer research funds thanks to Prop 99.

    No smokers need apply: For jobs, for housing, on campus, etc., etc.

    Might not be all that melodramatic in the long run. People have a long history of getting carried away by crusades.

  7. waltc says:

    LA Times editorial “Vote No on Prop 29” comes with the subhead of With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies? Still if they get their readers to vote No…a No is a No any whichway you can.,0,5387779.story

  8. Smokingoutflatearthers says:

    Slow day. Only 1,758 hits…..Come on frank you do better than that.
    more threats, more hits, more publicity


    • Rose says:

      We do realise that all that interest was only generated because of remarks used deliberately out of context in a malicious newspaper article purely designed to stir up trouble.

      Still, look on the bright side, hopefully people may find that post, read the remarks in context and that clumsy attempt at a smear will end up having exactly the opposite effect.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Slow day. Only 1,758 hits…..Come on frank you do better than that.
      more threats, more hits, more publicity

      Perhaps your feeble attempt to lead smokers into reacting with threats is not working?

  9. Congratulations for making the Tobacco Tactics Naughty List!

  10. Rose says:

    WOW! Gold Dust!

    I was looking through my notes to make a comment On Topic, really I was.

    Creative Epidemiology

    Numbers That “Sing”
    “Tobacco control advocates can develop motivating messages by presenting statistics in ways that convey scientific truths and also move an audience emotionally. This technique has been called “creative epidemiology” or “social math”—mathematics applied for a social purpose”

    Don’t bother clicking the link it now diverts to the National Heart Forum


    They had used that same paragraph in this –

    FCTC Ratification Planning Worksheet

    1. Describe your advocacy objective as specifically as possible.

    Get your country to ratify the FCTC by December 31st 2004

    2. Who has the direct authority to make it happen [identify the target audience]

    4. What do they need to hear to persuade/cause/force them to make it happen?

    Click to access rat_wrksht.pdf

    persuade/cause/FORCE sovereign states ???

    • Rose says:

      Right on time.

      16th December, 2004


      “On the same day as these statistics were published, the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.”

      6. Who are the most effective messengers for our target audience? Who will the authorities most trust or listen to?

      Perhaps the Prime Minister, or a member of her family, has had successful surgery from a prominent heart or cancer surgeon. Perhaps the Health minister is particularly ambitious to be recognized and appreciated by the WHO Director General. Perhaps the Finance Minister was trained as an economist at a university abroad — he or she might be most open to the message that the FCTC will bring economic benefits, not harm, delivered by a former professor.
      It may be a World Bank colleague.”
      “You might even find that the President listens to his spouse. Find out as much as you can and be creative!”

      So I have to ask,who did they “persuade/cause/force” into trashing the social cohesion of the country and becoming a “legally obliged” salesman for the Pharmaceutical companies?

      17 Mar 2011
      “In an effort to reduce tobacco use, the EU and its Member States have signed up to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

      The FCTC’s Article 14, through its recently adopted guidelines, demands action to promote cessation of tobacco use and provide adequate treatment for tobacco dependence.

      Countries who have signed up to the FCTC therefore have a legal obligation to implement the recommendations of Article 14.

  11. smokervoter says:

    Yet another reason for smokers to avoid Apple products. Anyone remember the voiding of warranties on computers owned by smokers?

    “The Yes on Prop. 29 campaign has raised slightly more than $11 million. Supporters of the initiative include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Steve Jobs’ widow, Laurene Powell Jobs, as well as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association.”

    Steve Jobs didn’t smoke did he? Why all the hate, Laurene?

    Lance Armstrong, never smoked and his cancer had nothing to do with smoking. Why all the vitriol Lance? In the political ads you really seem angry with smokers for your bout with cancer. If looks could kill. We respected your comeback just like everyone else. Now, not so much.

    Try taxing Lycra. Tight cycling wear was suspected of causing testicular cancer. How about steroids? OK, strike that, none of the charges ever stuck. Completely exonerated. False accusations are a bitch, eh Lance? False associations as well.

    How about the smell. Stay at least 25 feet away from a Lycra-clad cyclist for at least a hour after a 4-hour ride in the summer sun.

  12. Rose says:

    This is what I was looking for.

    Strategic Thinking on State Tobacco Tax Increases – 2003

    “For the most part, this unprecedented success can be attributed to state fiscal crises resulting from the downturn in the national economy.
    State policymakers were desperate to find new revenues to plug growing deficits in state budgets.
    In many states, public health advocates were ready and able to partner with policymakers in
    developing tobacco tax strategies that advanced public health goals and filled budget holes.”

    This document is designed to assist public health advocates in recognizing and weighing the strategic decisions that must be made before beginning a campaign to increase tobacco taxes at the state level.”

    “After answering the questions above and examining polling data,choose the highest increase that is politically viable”

    “From a strictly economic standpoint, tobacco taxes fall under this definition because the same amount of tax is charged to all individuals regardless of income.
    This means the tax is a greater percentage of the income of low-income persons than those with more income.

    Critics charge that regressive taxes are easiest to raise because they place the heaviest burden on those without a political voice”

    Click to access SLSTobaccoTax.pdf

  13. smokingdenial says:

    Congratulations to Ukraine on banning smoking during the European football championships and also to Bulgaria for their brand new smoking ban.

    Why has the smoking ban been accepted and adhered to in so many countries?…guess what its because the public have agreed and accepted it.

    pro smoking extremist trolls forget about harassing health campaigners in this country , it won’t work , it’s against the law.

    Your cause is lost and corrupt.

    Smoking Bans are the peoples choice worldwide and has nothing to do with obscure health workers that you bully in this country.

    • Rose says:


      Bulgarian Nightlife Reported at Standstill after Smoking Ban

      “Empty tables, grumpy customers, and worried owners were the common picture in nightclubs and bars during the first weekend of the full smoking ban in public spaces in Bulgaria.

      According to the Cross news agency, lines of people smoking outside were seen near some of the most popular establishments in the capital Sofia with some of them having no more than 7-8 visitors inside during what was previously known as their peak hours.

      “If this remains the same, we will soon go bankrupt,” terrified owners are quoted saying.

      Cross further reports that a number of owners of bars and nightclubs in the second largest city of Plovdiv have allowed their customers to smoke despite the steep fines. Their boldness is grounded in the fact that there are only four teams of health inspectors with two people each checking more than 4 000 night establishments in the city.

      “We were waiting for you and thought you would never come,” the owners have joked upon the arrival of the inspectors.

      Many establishments in the Black Sea city of Burgas have stayed closed over the weekend over the lack of customers. Some of the most popular ones that remained open had only one visit in 12 hours while in others the staff, left without anything to do, organized karaoke parties for themselves.”

    • magnetic01 says:

      Smokingdenial, I could tell from your first sentence that you’re a person that believes you’re on the “cutting edge”; you know what’s happening, man (woman, it); you have your finger on the pulse of the universe. Really, you’re a predictable dill. And I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve been referred to as a nitwit…… and probably not the last. But far be it for me to pop your delusional bubble. I say, pay no attention to Rose: She’s only quoting facts. Who needs facts? Certainly not you. Facts are over-rated. You hold on to your baseless, fanciful thinking: Swim recklessly in that multi-faceted fantasy world you’ve concocted. I’m sure you’ll be an entertainment hit at many a party. Maybe you could even go round to some of the affected businesses and let them know that the absence of customers and cash in the till is just an illusion. There. Now you have something to do.

    • “pro smoking extremist trolls”
      Either this is the same person using this phrase under different names or this is the current preferred descriptor for bloggers and their commenters who oppose deranged anti-smoking policies. In either case, it is continuing the same misuse of the word ‘troll’ we’ve seen in the MSM for people who send nasty messages to slebs and politicians. The only troll here is, of course, the author(s) of these messages. I guess we’re all supposed to threaten retribution and violence against the grammar-dysfunctional stooge. I think they’d be better off having a fag and a cup of tea, should calm them down nicely.

  14. beobrigitte says:

    Smoking Bans are the peoples choice worldwide and has nothing to do with obscure health workers that you bully in this country.

    How many peoples’ “choice”?

    This claim nothing to do with obscure health workers that you bully in this country.
    is somewhat strange, considering that anti-smokers incite others to not only bully smokers.

    With respect to health workers: is it true that the health workers working in “smoking cessation clinics” receive an additional £45 for EVERY PERSON they persuade to stop smoking for 3 weeks?

    • Rose says:

      4 weeks apparently.

      Government targets fostered £90,000 NHS fraud – 2008

      “Harry Singer, 54, took advantage of the Government’s smoking cessation programme which pays doctors, pharmacists and community groups £45 for every patient they convince to give up for four weeks.”

      “Stop Smoking Counsellor Singer received £89,505 from the NHS for signing people up to programmes to kick the habit. But many of the ‘registrants’ details were taken from other surveys or were friends who either did not smoke at all or had no intention of giving up.

      Jailing Singer for 18-months, judge John Hillen said the antismoking scheme was “amateurish” and “cavalier” and blamed the Government’s target-driven culture.

      “To pay lay people, albeit briefly trained, as stop smoking counsellors for recruiting and spending a few sessions with smokers is an astonishing way to spend public money,” said the judge.”

      But in 2006

      NHS suspects fraud in £61m stop smoking programme

      “Counter-fraud specialists are investigating claims that pharmacists are stealing money from the NHS by fiddling figures on the number of people they have helped to give up smoking.

      The Guardian has learned of inquiries in five primary care trusts in London into allegations that chemists have fraudulently claimed thousands of pounds, claiming cash rewards of up to £85 for each patient they help to stop smoking for at least four weeks.”

      I should really be out in the garden on such a nice day, but this weekend I managed to strain my back in a day long bout of extreme topiary.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Thank you for correcting me!!! It was 4 weeks, not 3 weeks.

        The Guardian has learned of inquiries in five primary care trusts in London into allegations that chemists have fraudulently claimed thousands of pounds, claiming cash rewards of up to £85 for each patient they help to stop smoking for at least four weeks.”

        Thanks again, I did not know that the £45 were “stretchable”.

  15. smokervoter says:

    It looks like Yes on 29 have settled in on the mantra “If you don’t smoke, you dont pay the tax”.

    Let that one sink in for just a minute. At least they could have gone creative and rhymed it. “Do as we say or pay, pay pay!” We being the elite health authorities, we being the mob, we being the benevolent state, we being the enlightened Politburo.

    Okay, how’s about:

    “If you’re not fat, you don’t pay the tax.” “If you don’t gain weight, you don’t pay the freight”. Whoops, that won’t work, 60% are allegedly over the Ideal BMI. Let’s try that again with a little ethnic minority demographic thrown to increase the odds for passage.

    Okay let’s go with:

    “If you don’t eat tortillas, you don’t pay the tax.”

    “Si no comen tortillas, no pagan el impuesto”

    There, that’s more like it.

    If you’re absolutely perfect, you don’t pay the tax.

    Obey, obey and you won’t have to pay!

  16. james101 says:

    @Smokingdenial “Smoking bans are the peoples choice worldwide” Really ???

    ONS surveys questioned people in 2006,2007 and 2008 in UK whether they would prefer a choice of indoor smoking and non smoking areas or a total indoor smoking ban. On each survey at least 63% of respondents said they would prefer a choice of indoor areas.
    They don’t ask the choice question now, because they know what the answer will be. They ask a question they can be sure will be answered no, like should we allow smoking back in pubs?
    Adults still prefer to be given a choice over a ban which clearly means no choice at all, any day.

    Anti smoking groups should have no rights to introduce total indoor smoking bans in adult only venues, at all. Greece and The Netherlands amended their smoking bans to permit smoking inside and Germany never made the mistake in the first place.France allows smoking lounges in hotels and Spain smoking clubs.
    Things will change here and people won’t be intimidated into not blogging. Clearly TC and tobaccotactics aim is to intimidate and silence bloggers, but that won’t happen. It is them that are corrupt to the bone and smokers that remain persecuted standing outside public buildings in the rain like second class citizens its either this, or that they are left with little or no social life at all.
    How can the likes of ASH expect ANY public support when their UK smoking ban has ruined the social lives of thousands if not millions of people.
    There is no justification for abuse, however if any of whats reported is true, I’m not in the least bit surprised.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Anti smoking groups should have no rights to introduce total indoor smoking bans in adult only venues, at all. Greece and The Netherlands amended their smoking bans to permit smoking inside and Germany never made the mistake in the first place.

      Unfortunately one Bundesland in Germany has made the mistake of listening to Anti-smokers. There is a total smoking-ban just like in England in Bavaria since 2010 and the anti-smokers target further Bundeslaender; having so far lost the first attempts in Hamburg and Berlin. The Bavarian pub death rate matches England’s. There is only one difference; the German anti-smokers are not as gentle as the English in their choice of smoker bullying methods. I am looking forward to the day when these anti-smokers will be held accountable for their smoker-hate incitement.
      One German anti-smoker group published (48 pages long) instruction on how to deal with smokers as neigbours.

      Anti-smoking groups may well lobby any government but they ARE NOT the government!

  17. smokervoter says:

    Frank, any chance of fixing that damned typo “If you don’t gain weight, so don’t pay the freight” to read “If you don’t gain weight, you don’t pay the freight”

  18. garyk30 says:

    Antis will always justify their actions by this:
    “they roll out the “for the children” argument.”

    However, they never do get around to saying why being a smoker would harm a child.

    There are NO DEATHS from the smoking ’caused’ diseases that happen below the age of 35. At least none are claimed by the American CDC.

    The average age of death for smokers from the smoking ’caused’ diseases is about 73 years of age. According to the American CDC.

    If they are going to die from a disease ’caused’ by their smoking, those poor cheeeeldren smokers will have to smoke for over 50 years before it will probably happen!!!

    That is not what one would call a ‘clear and present danger’.

    When our esteemed friends go on the radio and TV, they should ask the antis about this obvious fact.

    Gary K.

    • garyk30 says:

      How about those poor cheeeldren and asthma?

      AudreySilk at 2:26 AM May 17, 2012
      The last paragraph is illustrative of one of two things. Either willful prejudicial blindness or like the thing you’re looking for staring you in the face and you fail to see it.

      “Smoke and second-hand smoke can also trigger asthma. In fact, smoking can cause asthma which is another reason why experts are surprised the number of asthma sufferers continues to rise while the number of smokers falls.”

      Good grief. If the opposite was reported — that asthma cases rise as smoking rises — we’d be receiving the sermon “see the link!” But asthma cases rise as smoking drops and the silence is deafening about the possibility that there’s NO link between asthma and smoking. Stop being “surprised” and be honest instead!

      Founder, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

    • garyk30 says:

      “For the cheeeeldren!!!!”

      “‘Think of the septuagenarians’ doesn’t have quite the emotive ring to it.”
      (NOTE: I wish I could take credit for that line!!!!)

      Gary K.

  19. beobrigitte says:

    Rose, this is priceless!!

    Click to access rat_wrksht.pdf

    4. What do they need to hear to persuade/cause/force them to make it happen?

    ….In others it may be necessary to challenge government leaders who seem deliberately to be delaying action, e.g., “[Neighboring countries] have already ratified the FCTC.

    Can we call this “bullying the politicians”?

    The global community is wondering why our government is delaying action – especially since X thousands of our citizens have died of tobacco-caused disease since the FCTC was negotiated!”

    Whilst the real causes of how many of these X-thousand deaths remain undetected… ?
    (quoted from Prof. Romano Grieshaber: “Passivrauchen – Götterdämmerung der Wissenschaft ” )

    (Frank, I could not post this, so I removed the link to your post “the unwavering Professor. Please add this link. Thank you.)

  20. smokervoter says:

    A controversial and somewhat popular L.A. morning commute time radio presenter named Bill Handel just flipped from the No camp to the Yes camp. Handel is basically a ‘Howard Stern wannabe’, a bargain basement west coast version. Unlike the beanpole Stern, prior to stomach stapling surgery, Handel was known for his serial obesity. He’s also a lawyer.

    His lengthy soliloquy boiled down to the medical cost to society of smoking argument.

    So Bill, if you sent your daughters down to the supermarket with cash for brown rice and organic veggies and they got sidetracked at the chi-chi shopping mall and instead bought some frilly bling
    and came home empty-handed and pleading for more money to be fed with, what would you then do?

    And what if they came back with “What money? You didn’t give us any, don’t you remember Dad?”

    As a lawyer you must be familiar with the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between the states and the tobacco companies to recover MedicAid costs associated with smoking

    And prior to that there was Prop 99 back in 1988 wherein a portion of the money was to go toward treating uninsured indigent smokers.

    “From 1998 through 2010, California collected nearly $22 billion from a lawsuit settlement with tobacco companies and from cigarette taxes, according to the federal report.

    In the 13 years that ended in 2010, states collected nearly $244 billion in cigarette taxes and settlement cash and appropriated just $8 billion for tobacco control programs, less than one-third the $29 billion the CDC says should have been spent.

    California lawmakers in 2003 used the tobacco industry payments as collateral on bonds to help close the state’s general fund deficit.”

    On the private side of things. Bill, why do you suppose health insurers ask whether you smoke or not? Just out of curiosity? Would there exist a viable health insurance industry if smokers were getting away without paying all these years?

    I think you know better.

  21. smokervoter says:

    Under normal circumstances the payor of a tax expects to receive some sort of benefit in return for foregoing some of their hard earned income.

    With Prop 29 we get into the “Tax not you, tax not me, tax that fellow behind the tree” dynamic and you can kiss that principle goodbye. It becomes dueling mobs sloughing their tax burdens off onto any and every convenient minority. The payors receives nothing for their tax contributions. Indeed, sometimes they get nothing in return but scorn.

    Just what do taxpaying smokers get for $735 million per year and better yet, what might they want?

    Juliette covered this aspect very nicely over at Jredheadgirl Blog. You’ve got to click on the ‘6 comments’ button accompanying her lead article entitled “It’s time to end the drug war” and read her comment that begins with “Thanks for the link. Prop 29 is nothing more than a money grab for special interests…” It’s the 5th one down from the top.

    West Side LA progressives (and you know who you are) stumbling upon this blog should definitely read this.

  22. cherie79 says:

    I was planning to take the family to New York and California next year but if I can’t smoke anywhere forget it. I was last in California 30 years ago and it was great fun, doesn’t sound much fun now. If they are really so concerned ban smoking and do without the taxes, it will just go underground like other illegal drugs, lot of success they have had with stopping these.

    • smokervoter says:

      Cherie, save your money. Try Kentucky. I’ve never been there but I hear it’s great. Whiskey, tobacco and they elected Rand Paul!

      I’m not surprised you had a good time 30 years ago. Ohio native Stanton Glantz and his dismal band of killjoys were only four years into their cultural damage around then.

      It was still nice for a decade after that. It’s hard to place my finger on the exact turnaround date, I was having such a good time, but I’ll say 1993. The motorcycle helmet law started it all.

      I used to jump into a swimming pool on a hot summer day, start up my Yamaha while still dripping wet, and drive around till I dried off. What a delightful rush that was.

      • garyk30 says:

        Dear smokervoter,
        This is OT and I beg your understanding; but, you have some flawed data on your website.

        When you speak of smoking mortality and make a comparison to the number of never-smokers that also would die from those diseases, you have made a flawed assumption.

        The CDC’s 393,000 smoking ’caused’ deaths are NOT just to current smokers; but, include deaths to the 48 million ex-smokers.
        (See the lung cancer deaths)

        Doll’s 50 year Doctor study shows that 84% of the never-smoker deaths were from smoking ’caused’ diseases.

        The study shows that 85% of the ex-smoker deaths and 86% of the current smoker deaths were from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

        Since 84 is 98% of 86, at least 98% of those 393,000 deaths would still have occurred had the smokers(current+ex) never smokerd.

        Another way of looking at this to is note that the CDC lists a total of about 1.3 million deaths from the smoking ‘ caused’ diseases.

        Ever-smokers account for 339,000 and the never-smokers account for the other 907,000.

        393,000/ 94 million = a death rate of 42/10,000 (4.2/1,000)

        There are about 230 million adults in the USA, 230 million – 94 million leaves about 136 million never-smokers.

        907,000/136 million = a death rate of 66.7/10,000 (6.7/1,000)

        Obviously, the CDC data shows that never-smokers are more apt to die from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking.

        Antis will claim that the 393,000 are extra deaths; but, do not hold your breath waiting for them to tell you what number they are in excess of!!!!

        Gary K.


        • smokervoter says:

          What would be the correct numbers for the two datasets of 46 million adults by your calculations, using simply current smokers vs. current non-smokers? I will gladly change the website content.

          I’ll bet an insurance actuary has the simple answer at the tip of his tongue.

        • garyk30 says:

          Based on there being 46 million smokers,you say:
          “Thus the mortality rate for smokers works out to 8.5 deaths per thousand.”

          Indeed, 393,000 deaths/ 46 million = 8.5/1,000

          But, there are 94 million ever-smokers and your rate per 1,000 is probably two times too high. CDC deaths are for both current and ex smokers.

          393,000 deaths/94 million = 4.2/1,000.

          I do not see how you get your numbers for the never-smoker death rate.

          Gary K.

  23. Frank, this is not relevant to Prop 29 (vote No, everyone, keep more of your money), but the message thread on the TobaccoTactics wiki seems to have stalled, so I’m putting it here. I found this sentence on the Abuse of Linda Bauld page in relation to your ‘Letter to Linda’:

    “The letter was also delivered to Bauld’s house, which was reported to the Police. ”

    The implication, but not the explicit meaning, is that you did that. Assuming you didn’t schlep all the way from Devon to Stirling (and why would you?), someone out there is using that blog posting for their own purposes. Could just as easily be Bauld as anyone else, of course. Forewarned is forearmed, eh?

    • beobrigitte says:

      I found this sentence on the Abuse of Linda Bauld page in relation to your ‘Letter to Linda’: “The letter was also delivered to Bauld’s house, which was reported to the Police. ”

      Aren’t we all aware of the anti-smoking brigade reading every popular smoker’s blog? Why sending this letter to Linda Bauld?
      This is a waste of police resources which could be put to better use. Talking about this; aren’t there anti-smoking groups inciting hatred towards law abiding citizen?

  24. beobrigitte says:

    It looks like Yes on 29 have settled in on the mantra “If you don’t smoke, you dont pay the tax”.

    Have they forgotten to add that lost revenue by this increased tax due to the “black market” will be retrieved via rises in other taxes? In short, if you don’t smoke and vote “yes on 29” you still will end up having to open your purse…

  25. Pingback: How To Build An Army | Frank Davis

  26. waltc says:

    Unfortunately, I think you’re wrong about KY. There are bans in Louisville and Lexington, among other cities/ counties. And IIRC, the MSM there is as anti as it is everywhere. Quite a coup considering it’s a tobacco-growing state.

  27. Pingback: How To Build An Army | Frank Davis | The Cancers Enemy Site

  28. If anyone over there is awake and wondering… :>

    lets you see how we’re doing on P29. I’ve been watching it for the last couple of hours and our numbers are slowly but very steadily improving. We’re currently at:

    49.3 vs. 50.7%

    and we’re improving by about .1% for every .8% or so of the votes counted over the last two hours.

    *IF* that keeps up (which it may: the trend has been VERY steady!) we could win comfortably.

    HOWEVER… there was a vote like this about 25 years ago in California where it looked like we’d won and then MYSTERIOUSLY there supposedly came a whole flood of votes from military folks overseas in absentee ballots who SUPPOSEDLY voted overwhelmingly to increase taxes on smokers back at home. I find it hard to imagine that the tobacco industry didn’t investigate that for all it was worth, but it was accepted and it formed the core of the first big bankroll to Glantz et al to push for bans. Without that influx of tax money the antismoking ban movement might never have gotten off the ground.

    Sad, eh?


  29. 66% of the vote is now in and we are WINNING with 50.3% vs 49.7% … maintaining our steady four hour climb!

    • Dave says:

      Thanks for the update will check back later. Was not the least bit surprised that Bloomberg the master of the nanny state kicked in 500k of his own money for Prop 29. Bad enough his nanny/nazi tactics have ruined and punished New Yorkers. He clearly has no problem stealing from New York citizens so why not help screw over those in California.

  30. Pingback: SB 45 | Frank Davis

  31. Pingback: Vote NO On 56 | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.