Vote NO On 56

It’s been nearly four and a half years since I got involved in (successfully) campaigning against California’s Proposition 29, which was a scheme to slap a $1 tax on every cigarette pack sold in California.

But the bastards never give up. And they’re back this year with their latest variant of it: Proposition 56.

Status of the tobacco tax in California

California has a tobacco excise tax of $0.87 per pack of cigarettes. The mean or average state tobacco tax is $1.65. Fourteen states have lower tobacco taxes than California, while 34 states and D.C. have higher taxes. The federal government levies a $1.01 tobacco tax in 2016.[2]

Revenue from the current state tax on tobacco goes to the General Fund, tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income persons, environmental protection, breast cancer screenings and research, and early childhood development programs.[3]

Changes to state law

Proposition 56 would increase the tobacco tax by $2.00, bringing the total tobacco tax up to $2.87 per pack of cigarettes. The tobacco tax would be levied on other tobacco products and e-cigarettes as well. Revenue from the additional $2.00 tax would be allocated to physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention, research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction.[3]

So this time, instead of asking for just $1, they’re asking for a $2 tax to be slapped on every pack of cigarettes.

It’s just straight theft. That’s all it is. Find some defenceless minority, and rob them.

I hope these guys are back out there campaigning against it:

Here’s a comment from Tom in California from a few days back:

That onerous tobacco tax of a year or two ago in the California election, USA, is back with a vengeance, and this time is $2 a pack, all to go to anti-smoking groups in California, meaning Stanton Glantz – and that translates into more fake-studies from Glantz and other liars – that go out into the world as proof positive of blah, blah, blah and as a result, more bans, more taxes, more onerous government crack downs on smokers, not just in California, but worldwide.

Not surprising (to me), at the same time more money is being taxed onto smokers to fund more anti-smoking hatred and division, another California proposition at the same time will be voted to legalize marijuana – thus setting the stage to eventually replacing tobacco altogether with marijuana, which like grape and wines, is a MAJOR California industry these days, with some counties relying nearly entirely on marijuana revenue as the sole source of economy they have left.

So as marijuana plantations of the West Coast replace tobacco farms of the Southeastern US, the votes will be cast in another two weeks in California to set the stage for just such an outcome.

And another comment from him:

Yes, the tax applies to vapers too, not just smokers – so vapers who support anti-smoking are soon to be back under the bus along with the smokers. The ads pro-Prop 56 are MANY and yes, it is all “for the children” – which liberals from SF to LA will gladly vote Yes. So it is almost a given, this WILL be the new source of funding anti-smoking “experts” such as Stanton Glantz and cohorts will be using to fund more “studies” that will again “prove” smokers and vapers deserve hateful contempt – AND, THEN THESE SAME STUDIES WILL BE APPLIED WORLDWIDE – So, everyone, please get ready for it since there is nothing going to stop this nightmare from California from coming true, in less than 10 days from now.

And it’s brought Smokervoter out of the California backwoods:

The guy who bankrolled this effort is named Tom Steyer. He’s a San Francisco Bay Area billionaire who made his fortune financing coal-powered power plants in Asia (this is from memory) and then had a guilt epiphany and became a raging environmental loony tune.

He obviously fancies himself another George Soros, he’s the biggest Democratic party funder there is, if I’m not mistaken. He eventually wants to become governor of California. God forbid. He’s stark raving mad. You can tell from the ads he runs on TV and the internet. The guy is an angry, ranting lunatic. He’s dangerous. It doesn’t surprise me that he’s a bigtime antismoker. I’d love to go ten rounds with him in a boxing match.

In other US news, I thought this cartoon from ZeroHedge got Hillary Clinton about right.


She was asking yesterday: “Can you imagine Donald Trump in the oval office of the White House?” Funny that she should ask, because I’ve been imagining exactly that for the past 18 months. And I’m very comfortable with the idea. I just find it very hard to imagine her in the oval office of the White House.

I wonder why she’s started imagining Donald in the White House?

About the archivist

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

24 Responses to Vote NO On 56

  1. smokervoter says:

    I’m doing some stream-of-consciousness typing here on my big, bad, accommodating old school General Electric keyboard:

    If you think that you can stroll into the voting booth and with a mere stroke of the pen tax smoking out of existence, think again.

    The prevalence of smokers to the adult population has trended down from a high of 42% in 1965 to about 20% today. That’s a 50-year timeline. That amounts to a rate of about 1.5% per year who quit.

    Consequently it can be said that roughly 98 out of 100 smokers will continue to smoke in any given year despite the levying of ever increasing sin taxes over this past half century of tobacco prohibition attempts to socially engineer this population.

    If you vote to subject this over $1,000/year tax upon your fellow Californians, the vast, vast majority of them will continue to pay it and the bulk of these will be low income individuals.

    It’s no stretch of the imagination to assume that there are 35,000 homeless smokers in the state and 98 out of 100 of them will be hit with this levy and will end up paying it. Collectively that’s about $38 million/year in California sin taxes from the homeless. That’ll show those ne’er-do-wells !!!

    If you don’t smoke you might not be aware that there currently is a $1.00/pack Federal tax which funds the Children’s Healthcare program. When this is combined with this Prop 56-induced newly formulated state tax of $2.87/pack, a California minimum-wage-earning smoker might well end up paying out $1,400/year. And more than 9 out of 10 will be hit with this regressive toll.

    A 50 year trend is hard to dismiss.

  2. smokervoter says:

    Interestingly enough, a rich One-Percenter by the name of Tom Steyer is behind Proposition 56.

    So here we have a billionaire upper One-Percenter exhorting the mob to tax the lowest One-Percenters (35,000 homeless smokers or roughly 1% of the smoking population) to the tune of $38,000,000 annually.

    What a guy, he’s all heart that’s for sure.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m listening to Michael Savage right now. He mentions Tom Steyer about 53 minutes into

      • smokervoter says:

        I too listen to Michael Savage quite often, usually in catchup mode. For example I’m at his Oct 26 broadcast right now. I like to have some of his stuff in reserve. At first I couldn’t stand him but I’ve gradually warmed up to him.

        He’s a bit conflicted on smoking. He repeatedly calls Obama “the thin smoker in the White House” rather derisively. His father smoked Phillip Morris’ and he says he liked the smell of his secondhand smoke. I don’t think he buys into the secondhand smoke myth. He mentioned the other day that if he had an airline he would allow smoking aboard, like in the good old days. He, of course, hates marijuana smoke.

        On the other hand he’s a nutritional health nut of sorts. He goes along with the You Are What You Eat fantasy a little bit too much for my appetite. He’s basically all over the place. But that is what makes him compelling.

        Has he taken an on-air stand on Proposition 56? That could be critical to the vote. The Bay Area went 75%-25% in favor of Prop 29. If he comes out strongly against it, perhaps he could sway that to 65%-35%. That would be decisive. If the L.A. and San Diego vote goes 50-50 like last time and Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside crush it to the tune of 60%-40% NO like last time, we can defeat this.

    • beobrigitte says:

      So here we have a billionaire upper One-Percenter exhorting the mob to tax the lowest One-Percenters (35,000 homeless smokers or roughly 1% of the smoking population) to the tune of $38,000,000 annually.

      What a guy, he’s all heart that’s for sure.

      You only mentioned the homeless. How about all the others (I did meet quite a few when in the States) who struggle to meet their living expenses. A Tom Steyer will tell them to give up smoking. The last thing that conveys the FREEDOM my generation grew up in. And tobacco control will crawl into Tom Steyer’s a**se because it can get even more cash out of him to treat the people Tom Steyer has no idea of to more degradation and humiliation.

      No wonder people begin to resent the bought dictatorship.

  3. smokervoter says:

    Not only is Tom Steyer a One-Percenter, but he’s a filthy rich One-Percenter.

  4. beobrigitte says:

    Yes, the tax applies to vapers too, not just smokers – so vapers who support anti-smoking are soon to be back under the bus along with the smokers.
    They already are. And some are aware of it. A lot more aren’t, so they continue to sing the tobacco control hymn. I must admit, I’m looking forward to telling them: “I told you so”.

    As for Trump: I’m sorry, I’m still not convinced that he won’t through us smokers in front of a train.
    As for Hilary: We know she’s going to throw us in front of a train.

    Both might be as bad as each other. Sex scandals and an urge to rule. Great. Not what I have in mind to respect. Not that I’m against sex; it’s more the time sexing etc. takes up – and THAT ‘lost’ time does interfere with running a country successfully. What once was Lewinski is now Wiener… And Trump not being able to resist beautiful (???) women.

    Getting tired of hearing about sexual incursions – I want to hear what is planned for us, the people!

  5. Smoking Lamp says:

    Prop 56 is an outright raid on smokers to fund special interests. The beneficiaries of this regressive tax include insurance companies and the health care racket. Of course they claim it will prevent children from smoking. Supporters include former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg. This tax grab is is bad public policy and as noted by others targets papers as well as smokers to support Medi-Cal and increase profits for the insurance industry under the guise of a smoking prevention measure.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Of course they claim it will prevent children from smoking.

      The chiiiildren!!!! Save them!!!!! No wonder the kids nowadays are screwed up:
      By law you’re an adult when you reach the age of 18. You would think that applies to all areas of life. However, in the US an 18 year old cannot buy alcohol. Explain. Because these youngsters can drive a car at the age of 17.
      However, they cannot buy a packet of cigarettes. (I lost my younger sibling on Sunday, 11.09.77 when he was 17 due to a road traffic accident – he was on a little motorbike when the car rammed him – I believe he’d still be happily alive despite me smoking around him)
      Are you an adult at the age of 18 or not? It’s ok then, if you, at the age of 17 ram your car (unintended) into people but you can’t buy cigarettes to help you when this happens?

      My point being: if you are an adult at the age of 18, ALL has to be open to you. Just as it is to me as an “oldie”. 17 is under age. Therefore, what are you doing driving a car? Wait a year.

  6. waltc says:

    OT in specific but not in general. Mayor of Turin wants a “meat-free” city, of course claiming this is voluntary and mainly about “education.”

  7. jameshigham says:

    ‘But the bastards never give up.’

    No, they don’t.

  8. kin_free says:

    O/T. No one seems to have picked this up;

    “The latest prison safety figures show that assaults on staff and inmates had risen 40% in the past year to 65 a day, while there are record levels of prison suicides and self-harm”

    “In the 12 months to 16 September, there were 107 self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales – almost double that for 2012, when 57 people took their lives, and nearly seven times the 16 suicides in 1978, when the current recording system began.” … “the head of the POA, Mike Rolfe, said jails have been engulfed by a “bloodbath”… “It’s a bloodbath in prisons at this minute in time…”

    What happened a year ago?
    Oct 2015;

    The alleged reason for this inmate violence and suicide ‘epidemic’ is ALL supposed to be about lack of staff – there is no mention of the smoke ban whatsoever now – is there an Orwellian media black-out re smoking bans in prisons?

    There was a legal case heard and rejected in March 2016 ‘by an inmate who wanted quicker implementation’ but; “The government says it means it can carry on with its plans to roll out a ban gradually “in a safe and secure way” rather than rushing it through.” “Welsh prisons began to go completely smoke-free in January and the government says all of those in England will eventually follow suit”.

    Does anyone have any up-to-date knowledge of what is happening with prison smoke bans today?
    Could these suicides qualify for the ‘smokers graveyard’?

  9. kin_free says:

    I’ve got a comment in moderation Frank.

  10. William Blair says:

    Welcome to the war, smokers are just cannon fodder. Its about the vestment of power and a restructuring of society by the string pulling oligarchy. Hitler did and ‘O’/cronies are using the same playbook under the delusion of ‘greater good’. This begs the question of WHOSE greater good? The campaign is – hate smokers but love their money. All in the name of the children, BS – really interesting how liars work. The AMA’s inside man, Coop of surgeon general fame, rolled this out shortly before his exist. So how did this benefit the AMA; money lots and lots of money with a side order of power including all the debased US citizen lab rats any butcher with a sharp scalpel, a licensed radiation cell and overpriced pharm provided chemical cocktails one can hope to experiment with. Add some ‘O’-care financiers for the really big gambling table bets and sleight the house odds so that the boo-hoo faux tears will flow while jacking premiums skyhigh so any potential employer will dismiss any extension of employment and blame it on the disgusting smokers. Hence, illegal immigrants. Sound familiar; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mengele did it.
    There is a lab report floating around about E85/Diesel combustion out of a prominent national lab; some of the very same carcinogens are produced. What is the difference one may quip, considering none of the ‘right’ kind of people bring their carcinogenic pumpers in the house or office.
    Side note – Many cities and towns are ordinancing no smoking with 20 feet of doorways of municipal building or open air public parks (out of sight, out of mind just like concentration camps – beside must keep the money pumps rolling with tickets and fines). But seeing how, homeless are non people, it is OK to drive through their living area on the street. Talk about secondhand smoke, especially considering the glaring absence of AMA condemnation but it is not in the cause of the ‘greater’ good or national interest.
    Mandatory drug testing (the camel’s nose); strictly prohibited by the Constitution except under probable cause is relegate to the government’s partner in crime, Corporate America, act as agents of the government. They are afforded the illegal means and plausible deniability of subordinate the Constitutional rights of ones own person or be refused consideration of employment; so it is be a slave or be denied the means of survival. All condoned by Judges (bought and paid for, not subject to the same abuse of power) throughout the land, up for sell to any foreign power willing to pay a bribe.
    Electronic Funds transfer act strictly prohibits non voluntary forced use. Within in the same act the bankers through FBR where charged with writing the regulation to enforce the law. They did not and ‘O’ refused to fix it when notified and he was notified. Well, that gives an employers access to private and personal bank accounts of employees. Federal department of Labor regulates that an employer can hold employee responsible for loss – Ok for pushing a dollar pen across a pad all day, but what of a $30,000 vehicle? Does a company anymore for the requirement to drive their vehicle – no when one can pay an illegal to do so illegally, in some case, below minimum wage.
    Starting to get the drift?

  11. Pingback: VOTE NO ON PROP 56 | Frank Davis

  12. Pingback: Thanksgiving | 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.