49 and 50 looking good!

YES!

Awwww.

Shoot. I jinxed it.

Yeah, but they said the results so far are mostly Multnomah County.

Although Oregon is like Washington in that respect. Portland/Multnomah County like Seattle/King County has enough people/votes to basically swing the rest of the state.

I took Baby M to the library at 7PM for Pajama Story time and to turn in my ballot, there was a very steady stream of ballots coming in the whole time...it ain't over yet!

49 is passing and 50 is failing. I'm not happy about 49, but I'm ELATED that 50 did not pass! You want to tax something? Tax fast food, hydrogenated oils, and fancy coffee drinks. Let the gluttons and yuppies bear some of the tax burden from their purchases, instead of constantly singling out us smokers!

I smoke. I voted yes.

I'm absolutely elated that 49 is passing by a huge margin. It proves that Measure 37 was a sham of a measure, and after 3+ years of the voters seeing the RESULTS of Measure 37, the voters responded properly and said NO THANKS. I can't wait to hear the pro 37 crew spin the WILL OF THE VOTER!

As for 50, I wished it had passed. I want to tax the shit out of tobacco because tobacco users are a drain on society. I think the people that chose to vote no are no better than the employees of the tobacco companies. You are complicit with a merchant of death. Denying uninsured children the opportunity to have health care so tobacco companies can keep more of their profits is fucking pathetic.

Vit said>>>
Tobacco users are a drain on society.

And TAXPAYERS! We have to pay for them when they're on the 4th floor at St. Vincent's hooked up to the oxygen with half a lung.
They should tax the living crap out of Tabacco and come up with a HEALTH PLAN for smoker's that works as a savings account so when they need to be taken care of they don't have to suck us taxpayers dry!
$12.00 is a good start.

>>a HEALTH PLAN for smoker's that works as a savings account

Now THAT I could go for. Smokers should pay for their own damage, but not for all of society's other ills. Vitalogy, if you really cared more about helping children and less about spreading vengeful hatred on a message board, you would be proposing society as a whole support children, not just demanding a few select people underfund a good cause.

Measure 50 is/was an Orwellian "Some people are more equal than others" proposition that would not and could not adequately fund the system being created.

Drunk drivers and gambling addicts do as much (if not more) damage to themselves, their families, and complete strangers, but thank God they have the OLCC and Oregon Lottery for protection.
I am happy all of our beloved media outlets made the big advertising $, REALLY. I don't mind RJR and Morris paying through the nose. They deserve it. So do Jack Daniel's, Budweiser, etc.
Agree something needs to be done, don't think this was it.

"Vitalogy, if you really cared more about helping children and less about spreading vengeful hatred on a message board, you would be proposing society as a whole support children, not just demanding a few select people underfund a good cause."

Measure 50 was the best they could do. Obviously insuring children just isn't a priority for our state, which is sad and has more long term costs to all taxpayers. You fell for the tobacco company's well funded message. Hope you're proud!

>>insuring children just isn't a priority for our state

Admittedly you're probably right on that point. While the idea of a majority voting to tax a small minority rubs me the wrong way, I would venture to guess 50 would have been voted down by a wider margin if it were a proposed tax for everybody.

I'm hopeful that it was more about fair play. "One group singled out" was what resonated with most of the people I spoke with, and that wasn't in the well funded message. If passing this on to the voters was the best they could do, because they couldn't compromise and therefore took the easy way out (Let's get the smokers...Everybody hates THEM!) hopefully they get the message to go back to the drawing board. It should be funded by everybody if it affects everybody, IMHO.

Actually, a measure to fund children's health in Oregon might have passed by a wide margin. Unfortunately, the legislation I discussed with my Representative in Salem did not resemble the final bill. He too was disappointed in the outcome, but I pledged my support, so I did vote yes. However, it could not sustain itself, most voters saw through it, and it was rejected.

If we are to piss and moan about big corporate death makers, why not revisit the duping of voters by Enron when Trojan was closing? For you newcomers, this was one of the nuclear facilities that leak into our majestic Columbia. Unlike the others, it was downstream from Portland.

How many people will admit they were stupid enough to have voted against closing it, voted against insuring it was cleaned up properly, and voted against making sure the money came from PGE and not taxpayers? Yeah, I see you squirming back there... :0)

Cars kill and maim Oregonians every single day. Ladders, rifles and space heaters kill and maim every year. Taxing them to cover the injuries makes little sense. This was a ruse with a noble front, much like the "lottery funding for education" lie. Someday, I hope kids will be a priority, and not merely a pawn for rhetoric and politics.

==================================================

"I want to tax the shit out of tobacco because tobacco users are a drain on society."

This from Vitalogy who no doubt drives a car that takes fossil fuel. American kids die every day to protect the supply at your precious lemonade stands for terrorists. Check yourself.

Would you propose a tax on old age?

It will be the single most draining cause of tax expenditures on healthcare for years to come. I can see it now. The Gramma tax.

My wife and I struggled on 50. Since we don't watch much TV or listen to the radio we were not influenced by any of the advertising.

We read the arguments for and against it in the voter’s pamphlet and saw who supported and didn't support the measure. We truly broke it down into nuggets we could understand and ultimately voted no on 50 because it simply wasn't going to do enough.

We tried to look at it from the bigger picture, which is where we made our decision.

I'm not a smoker and neither is my wife, but this measure was much more than an issue of who smokes and who doesn't.

I wanted the tax --I think anything to limit smoking is a good thing.

However, I didn't like the approach, so it was a NO from my family.

If 50 had of been what it was advertised, a tax to pay for insurance for chldren, it might have passed. But it was a big lie, very little would have been for children, the rest would have gone to other groups, like illegal immigrants, alcoholics, etc.

The Oregon Legislature made efforts to insure children, unfortunately, the GOP portion of our legislature wouldn't allow that to happen. So, the next best thing was to refer a plan to the voters. Shame on anyone who voted to keep children uninsured whilst keeping the profits flowing for the tobacco companies. The millions of dollars big tobacco spent will have much return on investment thanks to those that voted no.

This had nothing to do with childrens insurance, that is already in place, and there are tens of thousands already eligibly that the state can't get enrolled. This was all about extra taxes to pay for insurance for illegals, and alcoholics and others that don't work.

Want to stop smoking, simply pass a law outlawing smoking.

"This was all about extra taxes to pay for insurance for illegals, and alcoholics and others that don't work."

Really? Not according to the ballot language. May I suggest you educate yourself before spewing such BS?

The ballot language was totally BS, they already have money for the children, they cant even get them enrolled, this was about a slush fund, they could use any way they wanted!

Vitalogy-I really hear your passion for kids and your disgust with tobacco. Baby I am on your side when it comes to those things.

But as we read the voters pamphlet it became clear to us this wasn't going to be what it was intended. We did educate ourselves and our best educated decision was no on 50.

Believe me I really wanted to vote yes on 50, but upon further review....

"The ballot language was totally BS, they already have money for the children, they cant even get them enrolled, this was about a slush fund, they could use any way they wanted!"

That may be your opinion, but it is not fact. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass at this point. Here are the facts, but I'm sure you'll still think you're entitled to your own set of facts: http://www.healthykids-oregon.org/get-the-facts/

That site is lying, Revenues from the taxes imposed under subsection (1) of this section are dedicated to providing health care to children, low-income adults and other medically underserved Oregonians .


http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov62007/guide/m50_text.html

If you could point out the part that says the revenue would be used for illegals, alcoholics, and others that don't work, that would be great. I must have missed it. Also, about the slush fund that "they" can use for anything they want, I must have missed that part too.

What do you think "other medically underserved Oregonians" are?

Medically underserved Oregonians are all alcoholics, illegals, and those that don't want to work?

No, but alcoholics and illegals come under that definition.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think since you can't vote here.

Just stay in Vantucky and don't work or shop over here.

Na I work over here, but I have a very good tax advisor, which keeps my taxes to a minimum.

I think he graduated from the Jethro Bodine Clampet school of accounting.

"Denying uninsured children the opportunity to have health care so tobacco companies can keep more of their profits is fucking pathetic."

I'm actually concerned about keeping the money in MY POCKET. If we need money to fund children's health care, let's put it first in the sate budget, and figure out ways to fund things like the OLCC last. I'd say abolish the OLCC, and use taxes on booze to fund kid's health care. That'd be a start.

Also, why fund children's health care by taxing a product that the state also spends money trying to get people to quit? That makes the State work against itself! Let's wean ourselves off of a dependence on tobacco taxes. Only then can we afford to have people quit smoking. I just don't understand our tendency to blame everyone else; I don't mind the tobacco companies at all. They provide a product that I use. If they went away I'd have to procure and roll my own smoke. They've got a product to sell just like any other company. The law now "protects" us from second-hand smoke, so why don't we focus on other things that kill people, like trans-fatty oils in our food.

Abolish the OLCC?! Where are all the Rex Putnam kids gonna drink late at night without that big parking lot?

LOL

I'm just glad we got to vote on it. I'm fine with the results. I don't agree or hoped for the outcome on 50, but hey, it's as fair as we could have ever gotten.

The tobacco companies profits would have stayed the same, this was a consumer tax, the proce of a pack would have gone up 80c, that would have gone to the state. The tobacco companies would have lost some profit as smoking would have dropped some.

...then that really means their overall revenue would drop, and that does lower profit.

If, truly, their profit remained the same, they would not have spent so damn much opposing this bill.

New sales are the key. Raising the barrier to entry hits them huge and they know it.

Profit from existing sales would be less as overall consumption, addictive or not, would drop as the cost rises. Additionally, markups on premium products are more profitable than for bottom feeder ones.

There is an impact on profit there too.

"The tobacco companies profits would have stayed the same."

More BS from the resident BS artist. Do you think for a second that Big Tobacco would have spent $12 million dollars defeating this measure if they didn't think they had anything to lose? Big Tobacco must secure new smokers every single day to replace the ones they kill, and higher taxes would be a barrier to addicting those new smokers.

The proposed tax increase was set at 84.5¢ per pack so that Oregon's cigarette tax would be equal to Washington's. Perhaps, the makers of brand-name cigarettes, such as Marlboro, Camel, etc. worried that increased prices might prompt some people to switch to budget brands, such as Broncos. Smokers of Broncos tell me that these cigarettes taste very similar to Marlboros. Broncos are made by a company that has no affiliation with RJ Reynolds or Philip Morris.

I think that the best solution for keeping minors from smoking is effective enforcement of the laws that ban sales of cigarettes to minors. Now that cigarette vending machines are a thing of the past, this shouldn't be that hard to do.

Big Tabacco spent $12 million as an investment to deter anyone from considering cigarettes as an additional source of revenue in the future as well.

Who wants to spend the time, $$$ and energy to fight Big Tabacco again?

On the flip side, they've made themselves more hated than ever. If an opportunity arises to shove it to Big Tabacco, they'll get it up their butts from more people than ever. (pun intended)

You know, there are people who don't believe cigarettes should be singled out and taxed. That was my stance long before measure 50 was even conceived.

"there are people who don't believe cigarettes should be singled out and taxed."

Are these the same people clogging our hospitals and medical facilities with lung cancer and other tabacco-related diseases rasing the health cost for ALL of us?

I made my decision on both measures by reading the information on the Secretary of State's website well before even the printed Voters' Pamphlets were distributed, and I voted against 50 because I feel if they are going to give health insurance to children, it should be paid for by everyone, via currently collected tax sources at currently collected amounts. IMO, the legislature could've done that by determining what other state-funded programs were less important than funding children's health care, and diverted funding from those less-important programs to fund it. Even if it was referred or petitioned for public vote, it might've turned out differently. Additionally, I feel they used "children" as a ploy, just like with most of the others - especially the Portland School District. That's a different tirade altogether.

Anyone else notice the Oregonian tried to claim that the only reason 49 passed and 50 went down was because those campaigns spent the most money? I really doubt that was the case.

Finally, I also think the discussion of the entire campaign acted as one big advertisement - to get kids thinking of using and eventually purchasing tobacco products! Add that to the ones that get into high school wondering 'hey, my parents smoke everyday and they're not dead,' and the current mentality of 'if it doesn't happen immediately than it isn't doing anything at all.'

I should probably finish by mentioning that I never was, am not now, nor do I ever want to be a tobacco user. I think they're dirty, disgusting, and I'd really like it if they all went away entirely.

So, in the pseudo-words of another infamous PDXradio participant, 'what y'all tink 'bout dat?'