http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/10/joel_davisthe_oregonianlisa_ga.h tml

A tax to raise money for a childrens health plan, is going to spend 70% of the money on adults, and to shore up the general health plan.

Where is Oregons truth in ballots>

I'm voting yes to stick it to the smokers.

I have a question, cities and states are raising tobacco tax to cover all kinds of things, what happens, when the price of tobacco actually starts to decrease tobacco sales?

Then we will have accomplished something pretty good, and we figure out new ways of funding those things.

IMHO, tobacco should be a you grow your own kind of thing. Legal, but difficult to sell.

Part of the reasoning behind taxing tobacco is to lower use of tobacco. And anything that lowers the use of tobacco is a good thing in my opinion.

Yes on 50.

If we could actually reduce smoking by reducing sales of tobacco, then the state's health care costs are reduced, too, eventually. Lower smoking-related health care costs.

Andrew

Representative Ben Cannon approached me on this subject many months ago. I told him, as a smoker, I was behind his efforts one hundred percent. Granted, I roll my own European blends and already fill the coffers of the folks in Salem with a tax. Still, given a choice at the checkout stand, I would rather take care of my neighbors, the people of the Netherlands or Denmark and Oregon's kids. I wish it weren't a Constitutional amendment, but I know why it was designed that way. It makes it that much more difficult for big tobacco to overturn. I also will be voting yes.

LS, which is it?

a) I enjoy smoking too much to give it up.
b) It's a social thing
c) It's a habit/something I've always done
d) I'm addicted
e) It's either this vice or XYZ, which is worse.
f) When the tobacco tax really hurts, then I'll quit
g) some combo of the above
H) Other

Disclaimer: I have never smoked once. And I am leaning in favor of 50 (though I *hate* dinking with the Constitution, even for a good cause)

That is a valid question.

a, d and h - I hate the taste of the city. I smoke very little in the wilderness.

Hmmm...All the Newport cigarette ads make smoking look clean and natural, just like sucking in a lungful of mountain freshness. Well, as long as it beats breathing city air.

The Newport cigs are the worst. Most addictive, probably the worst for you.

(adh for me too

Absolutely yes on 50.

Hey! Same with all the feminine hygiene, jock itch and herpes product ads! It's all sporty fun with swimming, rafting, climbing Everest, biking, surfing, hiking, rock climbing, skiing, it's all just so much better with clean sanitized genitals!

blah, blah, Milhouse

So if the government is so against smoking why do they subsidize the tobacco farmers?

The first thing that needs to be done is the subsidies need to stop.

It may almost sound democratic (heaven forbid), but I'd even say that the Government could give the farmers a low interest loan to switch crops.

Then they need to tax the crap out of cigarette purchases. $5 - $10 a pack would be a good tax. This money should go directly into the healthcare funds that the government pays out.

If you continue to smoke then no health care for you. You pay all your medical bills yourself.

This would also lower insurance premiums for the rest of us. We don’t have to subsidize all the smoking related illnesses.

Lastly, if you smoke with a child in your car, you should be arrested for child abuse.

Cigarettes killed both of my parents. So yes, anything to screw the tobacco industry is OK in my book.

They do it because the tobacco lobby is very effective. This is an issue that causes all of us a lot of grief.

People need to be more important than dollars are.

100% agree.

But I also think that as long as there are lobbyists with money and career politicians the politicians will always be for sale.

It's a non partisan issue. Money can buy either species. Democrat or Republican.

There needs to be a very low limit on campaign contributions, say maybe $100 per person per year per candidate. Also, there should be NO corporate campaign contributions allowed.

There should be no such thing as a career politician. Term limits are the way to go. 8 years and out you go. Back to the public sector.

Also a politicians pay should be very minimal. Cover modest living expenses and maybe a small stipend but that’s it. It should be a job that people want to do to serve the country (thus the term Public Servant) not a career.