You voted yes because you thought that would help? How about the clean option of medical donations compared to the cancerous bureaucracy of tax. If you have not donated or ever thought of such, you probably are somebody that would vote yes on the tax no matter if you smoke or not. If you are into agricultural topics, like me, you have seen right through this proposition's bureaucracy and know that it is more about control of plant tax than it is about cancer or such care.
I know the proposition states tobacco. As I looked at my hemp paper, I know it is only the matter of time before we pay one dollar more for these alternatives (if it passes). I realized that those in favor of Proposition 29 missed out on any possible donation of pharmaceuticals to care facilities. For once, I sided with the tobacco companies because I think we reached that wall of what taxes represent us and which ones have no such basis unless twisted like under proposition 29. Is there anything in proposition 29 that limits itself only to tobacco? When the News compared “fruits” in their discussion of proposition 29... you caught that... you know food tax is illegal and unconstitutional.
Proposition 29 is food tax hidden under smoke and mirrors. They say people that smoke pay more for their care later on in life. If that is true, then why do the proponents of the proposition need their cut of that pay for its bureaucracy? If you eat an apple, do you need apple tax for what it does to you later in life? Okay, so why do you need apple tax on oranges? You need orange tax on oranges. Proposition 29 creates that kind of bureaucracy under tobacco tax despite their real aim (on other pharmaceuticals).
My preference is Ag-Biotech over Big Pharma. Even so, I know we both can grows crops and donate them, like food. Proposition 29 steps in the way much like the action we saw on “Occupy The Farm” in Albany, California. Despite their attempts for harvests on academic-land, the crops were ruined by the bureaucracy. Despite the camps, it was quite the political example. Why not make Occupy finish the farm and donate the food? Of course, likewise donations make Proposition 29 look bad.
What exactly does that tax on tobacco pay for? Big Pharma. It also paid for child care, yet that has been on the hush-hush. You can show your receipts, especially those made from hemp. Proposition 29 bureaucracy wants that wedge in between those two, Big Pharma and child care, without any mention of them, or other select crops, except when and where they say tobacco cessation and cancer research.
Of course we cannot tax food here, yet we can tax the service of food. Why not impose further taxes on the income of the harvesters instead of the smoker? That has been called too legit to quit.
Let's see proponents of proposition 29 compare farm worker unions to Occupy The Farm. The smoke cleared in that mirror. Health care workers got fired when they looked into that mirror with their said “no” vote.
California imports its tobacco, so any further tobacco tax is not really any more income for the State. After California legalized plant tax, exports from California are now more wise than anything like Proposition 29. Even Full Court Press knows that, especially without argument over donations; it was more than any tax could afford. Notice that many organizations that support the proposition are national and not only statewide.