Today's Orange County Register features this letter to the editor on another proposed tax for California (one of many).
IRVINE, Nathan D. Wong, Professor and Director Heart Disease Prevention Program at UC Irvine: The recent Register editorial “California hooked on tobacco taxes” [Feb. 22] missed the mark on Proposition 29. Prop. 29 is a responsible, scientifically based solution to saving lives. This proposed $1 tobacco tax – paid only by those who purchase tobacco products – will save 104,000 lives; stop 228,000 kids from smoking and generate more than $500 million every year to support advances in the prevention, detection and treatment of heart disease, cancer and other smoking-related illnesses.
Prop. 29 comes with important taxpayer safeguards and strict accountability. The money cannot go to politicians nor be used for their pet projects. The new funds will go directly to research physicians and scientists who work to find a cure for cancer, heart disease and other tobacco-related diseases.
While black-market smuggling and illicit tobacco sales were also mentioned in the editorial as being potential problems, Prop. 29 dedicates funds for enforcement of tobacco laws. Law enforcement across the state will have the resources to ensure that California’s tax laws are being enforced and that criminal drug smugglers are prosecuted.
I hope that you reconsider Prop. 29 for what it is – a reasonable, responsible solution to address America’s No. 1 preventable cause of death."
Our once and present governor, Jerry Brown, who ran on a campaign pledge of "no new taxes without voter approval" is trying to get multiple tax increases on the November ballot, so he can continue giving all those bennies to the government worker unions, who, in spite of a presentation I heard months ago in a UCI law class, is driving the state into fiscal ruin.
Now comes UC Irvine Professor Nathan Wong, who has come up with the precise formula and incontrovertible stats telling us what Prop 29 will bring. This sounds like that phony scientist that was hired by the California Air Resources Board to produce a study that found that over 100,000 deaths (or was it one hundred million) were directly caused by diesel gas fumes. Based on that, California now requires all vehicles with diesel engines to undergo revisions costing owners thousands of dollars apiece-or is it tens of thousands of dollars?
And don't forget "strict accountability".
Frankly, I haven't heard such a wild prediction since 2004, when vice-presidential candidate John Edwards told us that once he and John Kerry were elected, Superman hero Christopher Reeve was going to get up out of his wheelchair and walk again. We all know how that turned out. Superman is gone, and John Edwards is on trial in North Carolina for his own "strict accountability" with the people's money.
And don't forget this:
"Prop. 29 dedicates funds for enforcement of tobacco laws."
Can you say, "new government agency"? Of course, Brown could bring back the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE), the state drug agency he abolished when he took office (money-saving idea, you know).
What's just one more tax compared to saving 104,000 lives? Or was it 103,000 lives?
And don't forget this:
"Prop. 29 dedicates funds for enforcement of tobacco laws."
Can you say, "new government agency"? Of course, Brown could bring back the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE), the state drug agency he abolished when he took office (money-saving idea, you know).
What's just one more tax compared to saving 104,000 lives? Or was it 103,000 lives?
8 comments:
A increase of $1 will cause more people to seek out either "Indian" cigarettes or black market cigarettes. Both don't have taxes on them.
People will smoke and California will not get any new funds.
How about shutting down the DEA? That would save a lot of taxpayers' money. You don't think it is such a good idea? Maybe not, but if small government is your mantra...
...actually, I favor decriminalization, but it has to be done carefully, a kind of controlled decompression. In that late 19th century, known to conservatives as "the good old days," heroin could be purchased over the counter in any pharmacy in America. That had its problems, but our current drug regime is much worse. Over time, much of what the DEA does could be phased out, but not instantly. Like most money-saving ideas, the real benefits are long term, not on next year's taxes.
Siarlys--for starters, two questions.
Do you believe we currently have too many dope fiends in the U.S., too few, or just the right number??
Will decriminalization result in a greater or lesser number of dope fiends, or will the number remain static??
I would hope your answer to the first question is the first one. Unless you are prepared to have government-funded dope stores giving away free dope of all kinds to all comers on a 24/7/365 basis,
I believe the answer to the second question will also most likely be the first option.
Siarlys--for starters, two questions.
Do you believe we currently have too many dope fiends in the U.S., too few, or just the right number??
Will decriminalization result in a greater or lesser number of dope fiends, or will the number remain static??
I would hope your answer to the first question is the first one. Unless you are prepared to have government-funded dope stores giving away free dope of all kinds to all comers on a 24/7/365 basis,
I believe the answer to the second question will also most likely be the first option.
Siarlys--for starters, two questions.
Do you believe we currently have too many dope fiends in the U.S., too few, or just the right number??
Will decriminalization result in a greater or lesser number of dope fiends, or will the number remain static??
I would hope your answer to the first question is the first one. Unless you are prepared to have government-funded dope stores giving away free dope of all kinds to all comers on a 24/7/365 basis,
I believe the answer to the second question will also most likely be the first option.
37.36% of all statistics are made up on the spot!
.
the great recession has crimped the government's ability to support forms of medical research so use a flimsy argument to justify stealing money from those who work real hard to get it and call this theft a humanitarian tax.
elwood, you asked me the same questions three times, but to avoid overusing the available supply of bytes, I'm only going to answer once.
1) I believe there are far too many dope fiends in the United States.
2) I believe that in the long run, decriminialization will neither increase nor decrease the number of dope fiends.
The short term worries me a bit, which is why I believe we need a kind of controlled decompression. There is considerable hazard that if the laws are all suddenly removed, all kinds of people will scream, "It's legal, try some any time!"
We need to be well prepared to get the message out, yeah, you won't go to jail any more. The only restraint is your own knowledge that it will do serious damage to your mind and body, possibly permanent damage. Leave it alone.
Also, we need laws that restrict flagrant public displays, sale or shipment of large quantities, and authorizing employers to maintain drug free policies, especially in such fields as medicine and transportation.
Decriminalization would recognize a broken strategy, but it doesn't need to mean open approbation. And yeah, the current California marijuana laws are an example of why more thought and precision are required.
Post a Comment