I appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt words on this issue, and I can tell you care a lot about your mother, people like her, and their families.

As to your argument, Oregon already has a cigarette tax of $1.18 per pack. Despite this, Oregon's house, senate and governor all came together to create comprehensive new legislation banning smoking in all workplaces, including bars and clubs. This is not the action of a government overtaken by cynical greed, one that increases smoking just to profit off the tax revenue.

Indeed, Oregon loses money when people smoke. We lose money to the cost of treating cancer. We lose money to the cost of cardiopulmonary disease. We lose money to the early deaths of valued members of our society. And there's one powerful way to stop losing those lives: by getting smokers to quit.

And one of the most powerful ways to get smokers to quit is to raise the taxes on the products that kill them.

I don't understand why you object to raising tobacco taxes if you support cutting smoking rates. Higher tobacco taxes are the single most effective method of cutting smoking rates. Tobacco control organizations such as the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids all strongly support higher tobacco taxes. The main point of tobacco taxes is to make cigarettes more expensive since higher prices significantly cut smoking initiation, raise quitting rates, and decrease the number of cigarettes that smokers smoke. If tobacco taxes also fund health-care for children, then that is an added benefit, but if the state threw the added revenue into the ocean, it would still be worth it to raise tobacco taxes just for the tobacco control benefits. Please read this document to learn about the issue.

http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/

http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf

The following are all quotes from internal Big Tobacco documents released in the tobacco lawsuits where they admit (internally) what public health groups already know, that higher taxes cut smoking rates:

• Philip Morris: Of all the concerns, there is one - taxation - that alarms us the most. While marketing restrictions and public and passive smoking [restrictions] do depress volume, in our experience taxation depresses it much more severely. Our concern for taxation is, therefore, central to our thinking . . . .

• Philip Morris: When the tax goes up, industry loses volume and profits as many smokers cut back.

• RJ Reynolds: If prices were 10% higher, 12-17 incidence [the percentage of kids who smoke] would be 11.9% lower.

• Philip Morris: It is clear that price has a pronounced effect on the smoking prevalence of teenagers, and that the goals of reducing teenage smoking and balancing the budget would both be served by increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes.

• Philip Morris: Jeffrey Harris of MIT calculated…that the 1982-83 round of price increases caused two million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke…We don’t need to have that happen again.

• Philip Morris: A high cigarette price, more than any other cigarette attribute, has the most dramatic impact on the share of the quitting population…price, not tar level, is the main driving force for quitting.

T.A.,

I also don't understand your position. There is a big difference between the lottery and a tobacco tax. There would be no lottery if the state did not run it, as gambling [in most cases] is illegal. So, the state government is creating and operating the gambling enterprise that raises it money. Tobacco is legal. If there were no tax on tobacco, more people would smoke more cigarettes. This is a sin tax. One of its functions is to reduce the amount of the "sin" targeted.

The matter of putting this program into the Constitution is different. I can understand your objection to that.

Also, cigarette taxes always increase revenue, not that I buy the "states will try to keep people smoking to raise revenues" argument to begin with.

http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0098.pdf

FIRST OFF, MR. Barnhart, YOU HAVE MY DEEPEST SYMPHATHY FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR MOTHER. I LOST MY MOTHER LAST YEAR.

WHILE THE PRIMARY CAUSE FOR MY MOTHER'S DEATH WAS COMPLICATIONS CAUSED BY INFECTIONS I KNOW HER IMMUNE SYSTEM WAS NOT AS STRONG AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF SHE HAD NOT HAD TO ENDURE THE SECOND HAND SMOKE (BLUE AT TIMES) FOR OVER 20 YEARS WHILE WORKING TO SUPPORT OUR FAMILY AS A WAITRESS & LATER AS A BARTENDER. SHE NEVER SMOKED ANY TOBBACCO VOLUNTARILY; ONLY THE SECOND HAND VARIETY SHE HAD TO ENDURE TO MAKE A LIVING FOR OUR FAMILY OF SEVEN (MY DAD WAS UNABLE TO WORK PAST HIS 40TH BIRTHDAY BECAUSE OF A MAJOR BACK INJURY THAT AFFECTED HIM TILL HE DIED IN 2002).

I SEE TAXES ON CIGARETTES IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VAIN THAN YOU SIR. FIRST OFF, I SEE THEM AS USER FEE AGAINST THE FUTURE HEALTH CARE COSTS SOCIETY WILL END UP CARRYING. IF I HAD MY WAY, I WOULD ALSO ADD A HEAVY DUTY INCREASE IN TAXES ON THE MANUFACTURES, AND MARKETING AGENTS ON THEIR PROFITS ON TOP OF ANY, AND ALL, USER FEES( TOBACCO TAXES ).

THE REVENUE FROM THESE SOURCES COULD NOT FIND A BETTER VENUE OF ANY KIND THAN TO HELP FINANCE THE INCREDIBLY WISE INVESTMENT OF HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN OF FAMILIES THAT CANNOT AFFORD THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE ON THEIR OWN.

THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE "THUGS" FROM THEIR "RESPONSIBILITIES".

I ALSO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE NOTION & OBSESSION WITH THOSE WHO EQUAATE LOTTERIES AS A "DISEASE". THE ONLY "DISEASE" INVOLVED IS THE "DISEASE" OF ADDICTION. I AM A RECOVERING MEMBER OF NARCOTICS ANYOMOUS (HOPING TO CELEBRATE MY 14TH NA BIRTHDAY LATER THIS YEAR.)AND THE FIRST LESSON I LEARNED IN MY RECOVERY IS THE NEED TO HOLD MYSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN ACTIONS. I DON'T DRINK & I NO LONGER USE DRUGS. WHILE I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ADDICTION; I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MY ACTIONS. THAT INCLUDES HOW I RESPOND TO THOSE ACTIONS I CHOOSE TO TAKE INVOLVING MY ADDIDCTION. THIS INCLUDES NOT JUDGING OTHERS WHO ARE ABLE TO USE PRODUCTS,SERVICES, OR ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSILBE WAYS EVEN THOUGH I KNOW I HAVE TO REFRAIN MY USAGE BECAUSE I KNOW I AM UNABLE TO USE THOSE SAME PRODUCTS,SERVICES, OR ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSILBE WAYS.

WHILE I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR ADDICTION TO THE COVERSATION. AGAIN MY DEEPEST EMPHATHY FOR YOUR LOSS.

RESPECTFULLY,

GILL THOMAS

I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THE TYPO IN THE LAST SENTENCE SIR. I MEANT TO SAY ADDITION; NOT ADDICTION. SORRY.

Two things happen when you raise the tobacco tax: fewer cigarettes are sold AND you increase revenue.

I worked very hard on this bill this session, and had the opportunity to study it in both the Health and Revenue Committees. Through hours of testimony in many committee hearings we learned that tens of millions fewer cigarettes will be smoked in Oregon as a result of this tax. The greatest decrease in smoking will be among younger people who aren't yet addicted, and who are most sensitive to the price increase. An increased tobacco tax is one of the best tobacco reduction measures we can take. This is why Measure 50, the Healthy Kids Plan, is supported by groups like the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. (Check out the campaign leadership at the campaign website)

During the hearings on these bills, it was the big tobacco companies and cigarette dealers who opposed the Healthy Kids Measure. Why? They knew that it would cause more people to quit and fewer cigarettes to be sold. While that's a win for the health of Oregonians, it's a loss to big tobacco.

If passed Measure 50 will DOUBLE our current tobacco use reduction efforts. This Legislature also showed its commitment to reducing tobacco use by passage of the statewide smoking ban, even though we knew it would reduce both tobacco and lottery revenues.

Over 100,000 Oregon kids are counting on the passage of Measure 50 so they can finally have access to the basic health care they need. Kids get sick, they struggle in school, and some face serious medical crises because they can't get to the doctor when they need to. That we have so many children in our communities lacking basic access to health care should be unconstitutional.

Measure 50 will lead thousands of Oregonians to give up their smoking habit and prevent thousands of young people from taking up smoking. At the same time it extends critical health services to kids who desperately need them. I hope you can join in supporting the Healthy Kids Plan.

Kari: It seems like Sara Gelser might make a good "notable comment."

I couldn't agree more with T.A.

Most of the replies, while heartfelt make the argument of how senseless it is to base the funding of an important program like healthcare for children on a tobacco tax.

There are two addictions at work here. First the nicotine addiction, second the government addiction to tax dollars raised by tobacco cultivation, manufacruer, distribution and use.

The costs of providing healthcare will only go up. Consumption will drop and tax revenue with it. This proposed funding base is a zero sum game and poorly thought out.

Most who support this move forget that the feds are also going to raise thir taxes significantly for the same purpose.

Measure 50 is a stopgap effort to take care of the least responsible for the fact that we have a lousy health care system in America - kids are not responsible for our failure.

Yeah it's being enacted in a crummy way - what do you expect from a bunch of idiots too stupid to govern? If Americans were smart enough to put in place a decent health care system, then we wouldn't have to take such idiotic measures to make up for our incompetence.

So let's pass Measure 50, then get busy designing a health care system with the goal of perfect health for everyone. Only when we've got that done can we lift our heads and say, "Yeah, we know how to govern a democracy!"

T.A.-

This is probably the best post I've ever read of yours on this site, and I think you articulated your position very well. It must have been hard to objectively convey your feelings about this issue, especially since it so closely involves your family. Nonetheless, great job. I've been smoking for over a decade now, and started at the ripe age of 16. I almost wish more of our current laws had been in place back then, including stricter enforcement of age restrictions. I shudder to think how much I've spent on cigarettes over the years...probably enough for a substantial down payment on a house. Everyone agrees that health care for kids is important, but taxing cigarettes to provide it is another form of class warfare. Wealthy smokers won't care, but most of the people I see smoking aren't wealthy or even close (the same goes for gambling, by the way). I think between this and the indoor smoking ban, the state is almost acting like it's legislating morality, something that the national Republicans have done that always bothers me. I'll be done smoking by the time this even comes up for a vote, so the tax won't affect me. However, there should be a better way to fund health care for kids that doesn't punish a poor (and increasingly repressed) segment of society just because they do something other people don't like.

Scott, it's legislating health, not morality, and it is certainly not class warfare. Tobacco taxes reduce tobacco consumption, especially among the young and the poor, literally saving their lives. I fail to see how this is to the detriment of the poor.

The CDC estimates the social cost of smoking at $7.18/pack ($3.45 for medical/$3.73 for lost economic productivity). Healthy Kids would raise the state tax to $2.025 (the federal tax on cigs remains at $0.39 per pack). So if the voters pass Measure 50 in November, total cigarette taxes in Oregon would be $2.415 and Oregonians would only be subsidizing the effects of smoking at $4.765 per pack.

I see Healthy Kids as a cost recovery initiative. Also, increasing the tax on cigarettes decreases consumption and as a result reduces health care costs. Also a plus.

So let's recap: less people smoking (especially kids), lower health care costs, and universal health insurance for kids. Yeah, I’ll actively support that (even as a smoker). And I don't see any problem with the federal government raising the tax at the same time. There isn't any reason that cigarettes shouldn't cost $8-10/pack.

However, there should be a better way to fund health care for kids that doesn't punish a poor (and increasingly repressed) segment of society just because they do something other people don't like.

In the last legislative session Senate Bill 27 proposed the assumption that we are currently paying enough to fund a better health care system than currently in place. So long as this "poor segment" of society are among those called "Oregonians" they would be covered.

But AARP thwarted attempts to pass SB27 in favor of Senate Bill 329 - which does not comprehensively approach the problems with our health care system.

Again, Measure 50 is a stopgap approach to taking care of kids, the folks not responsible for our failure to put in place a sensible health care system. If you're not covered by Measure 50 then you're one of those responsible for the fact that we don't have a sensible health care system in place. No doubt you can find a mirror handy to bellyache in front for as long as it take to get that off your chest, then let's get busy and design a health care system that seeks to insure perfect health for everyone.

I fail to see how this is to the detriment of the poor.

Because it's an obscenely regressive tax. As someone up above said, this tax will have little impact on the lives of middle and upper class people, but it will have a big impact on the lives of the poor. And you can't just whisk away the moral implications of a policy that punishes the poor by saying that some of them will stop smoking and thus be better off. Sure, some will, and the rest? Well, f**k them, they're idiots for smoking.

I love cigarette taxes. I fully support increasing them. But that money -- all of it -- needs to be plowed back into smoking cessation programs until all smokers have access, free of charge (since they've already paid for the programs through their taxes). Once you've accomplished that, if you still have money left over, feel free to spend it on kid's health. Absent that, this bill violates a fundamental liberal principle by disproportionately going after those least able to pay and those least able to stop smoking, in order to fund something that benefits all of us.

Question to Rep. Gelser: By making life harder for the poor, why is this something you are proud of? Do you really believe that just because someone smokes, society has a right to treat them unfairly?

A very well written piece T.J. The comments by people like Bernard, and sadly Rep. Sara Gelser, illustrate exactly the serious problem we face in this state. Please be clear that in what follows, I'm addressing Rep. Gelser's comments as being representative of the viewpoint to which I'm referring, and not her personal views.

The position Rep. Gelser articulates in representing a segment of our Democratic Party demonstrates to well the fundamental moral failure we face within our Party. It is the opportunistic linking and rationalization of linking two issues that should not be linking, and which linking in this way actually damages efforts toward real health care reform, as well as the utter inability to comprehend the moral and leadership failure in even making that linkage, that is symptomatic of the moral and leadership crisis facing our Party. Just on a superficial level, the argument shows the primary value being furthered by this agenda is anti-tobacco. Those voting in support of SB3, which in fact cynically and explicitly states that the health care coverage for children provided for in SB3 will not be provided by faithless legislators UNLESS the voters enable their attempt to take the short-term, easy way out by endorsing a misguided anti-tobacco agenda, are doing nothing more than using children, and particularly poor children, as a tool to further that agenda.

In view of the demographics that smoking tends to be more common down the economic ladder, something many including Rep. Gelser personally acknowledged in the floor debate, SJR4 stands for the proposition --- contrary to everything we true Democrats believe in --- that poorer people should pay for their own children's health care. Pay for their own children, that is, only after those in the smug, privileged, anti-tobacco lobby take their cut out of the taxes to run their political campaigns and pay the salaries of the anti-tobacco zealots who make it their careers to push their zealotry. Honesty demands the argument include the actual dollar figures on the table that demonstrate the merits of this bill, something proponents have not done. Instead, they always play a game of claiming most or EVERY health care expense of someone who smokes is attributable to smoking. (By the way, for reasons that remain unclear, it is widely known that smoking is statistically correlated with decreased incidence of Alzheimer's, meaning that by the same arguments are unaccounted for health care savings associated with savings.)

The argument also misrepresents by omission the fact that SJR4 provides that 55.4% of the revenues would go to anti-tobacco enforcement. The remaining 44.6% would not go to providing health care for children, but instead would actually be split between children, low-income adults, and other special needs individuals. Also, the argument is dishonest by omission when it doesn't clearly spell out, with numbers, the fact that the supposed benefit of the paltry 44.6% of the revenuces devoted by SJR4 to children and others depends on federal funds still being available. Even according to the arguments and stats from Tobacco Free Kids Bernard cites with no apparent shame or understanding, the same devil's bargain between anti-tobacco interests and beholden Democrats in SCHIP at the Federal level will raise Federal cigarette taxes, thereby decreasing the state taxes collected under SJR4. No one has put numbers on the table demonstrating the net effect of a combined increase in taxes under SCHIP and SJR4 on the dollars being made available for health care for children, low-income adults, and special needs individuals.

T.J. is also right on why we as Democrats don't put this kind of statutory material in our Constitution. Not to mention that we don't endorse the anti-social, judgemental attitude of the zealots in the anti-tobacco movement to which T.J. is personally testifying (and that I personally condemn truly low-character Democrats for doing). Instead of supporting this we should be demanding our legislators represent us responsibly by fixing this mess in the legislator, or elect people who can if the ones we have now won't do anything but bellyache and play games like this to advance other agendas. We can go along way by holding up to public shame those who would oppose providing health care for everyone, much less children, AND those enablers in our own Party who won't do that and instead give us SB3/SJR4.

We know what actually happened in the legislature this year under Kulongoski abysmal executive leadership and Merkley's feckless caculations about his prospects for higher office: HB-3558, your bill which was the real "Healthy Kids" measure that many of us true Democrats support despite it's terribly mis-constructed link to tobacco taxes as a dedicated funding source nothwithstanding, failed in no small part because Merkley is not nearly the leader that some of his supporters of his Senate bid are trying to mislead us into believing he is. At the same time, HB-2967 to raise the tobacco taxes pushed by the anti-tobacco lobby also failed. Largely because our current crop of Democratic leaders and functionaries are not capable of standing up to irresponsible constituency groups like the anti-tobacco lobby who do not have the best interests of our Party, and defending Democratic Party values at heart, Merkley, Monnes, Courtney, Westlund, Bates, Brown, took the low-road out: They and many more insulted us as voters and besmirched our Democratic Party by introducing SB3 --- stealing the name "Healthy Kids" --- that attempts to coerce us into trashing our Constitution by withholding action and support for health care coverage for children unless we pass SJR4.

Our leadership made two terrible mistakes that we the Democratic voters can only correct by voting against SJR4: First, they should have not cynically attempted to coerce us into passing SJR4 by putting Section 51 in SB3. Second, they should have made SJR4 a statutory referral to the people, Merkley and Courtney should have used their power as leaders in their respective chambers to declared it "Passed" on majority vote (rather than showing no backbone and agreeing with the untested claim it required a super-majority vote), and let the voters and the courts sort out the result. While the latter was happening if the people had passed a statutory increase in tobacco taxes, Merkley and Courtney should have held the legislator in session until the courts act, and worked to fund Healthy Kids responsibly.

SJR4 is wrong for the state and for actually furthering health care reform on so many levels. Because it is failed leaders in our own Democratic Party who put us in this position, starting with Kulongoski and Merkley, it is our moral duty as Democrats to lead the way in repudiating and defeating this Constitutional amendment. When and if we hold the irresponsible in our own Party and their enablers accountable, we will be well situated to lead and bring about substantive health care reform. If the DPO leadership and our elected officials do not want to take that responsible path, than maybe it is time responsible Democrats either kick them out, or we leave the Party and leave the morally corrupted shell to them.

Why do we face a health care crisis in the first place? It's money, or the lack thereof.

If you take the money we currently spend on health care, and reallocate it wisely, then we can fund a fairly decent health care system that cares for everyone. Money like what we spend on Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax credit, plus other government sources.

But let's not stop there - let's get there, then continue working for something better. A health care system that seeks perfect health for everyone. A health care system that takes care of kids, old folks, and all who fall between. We can do it, all we have to do is get busy. Go to WeCanDoBetter.org and get to work!

feel free to disagree with her but don't disparage her credentials as a moral and humane person. you'll be utterly wrong.

Worse than wrong, you'll be providing evidence that you're a brainless, worthless, twit!

Sara may be the most morally steadfast person i know. i don't think she's thrilled about how this whole thing ended up, but she's knows the desperate need to get health-care to children in Oregon who have none.

I believe in judging people by their actions. Sara pushed for a policy that will harm the worst off among us, and used the "end" of health care for kids to justify her means. Does the 25 year-old single mom who has been addicted to nicotine since she was 16 have access to a robust smoking cessation program in this state? Absent that, how can we morally defend increasing her taxes in order to pay for another kid's health care, possibly one in a family making up to $60,000? They did have another choice, it was to organize an initiative drive to put a statutory change on the ballot that would have used a broad-based tax to fund kid's health.

Lestatdelc: If you can't see the difference between a corporate polluter and a low-income smoker, then we're unlikely to be able to have a serious conversation about this.

While Wayne Scott et al may not have come up with the idea, I fully understand their manipulating the process to insure that it's the only egg in the basket. He and his allies love regressive schemes. What's Kulongoski et al's excuse?

Not intending to speak for the gov, or anybody else but myself - the answer seems obvious: it was the only game in town!

Anyone who doesn't like it can bellyache all the want, so long as they are one of those covered by Measure 50. All anybody else has worth saying is how they plan to successfully put in place a health care system that seeks perfect health for everyone. Get that system in place before we can vote on Measure 50, and that question becomes moot. It's time to quit screwing around with this.

I totally agree with T.A. on this.

I'm no fan of smoking, but I believe that as long as tobacco is a legal product then people have the right to buy and use it. I generally support laws to protect the rest of us from their second hand smoke, but I do not think it is government's business to tax the crap out of tobacco products with the excuse that we're saving people from themselves. Make it harder to buy, make it illegal - I think arguments could be made for something along those lines. But in my opnion this is just government taking advantage of people's addiction. If they really thought that people would cut down on smoking because of the price going up, they wouldn't be counting on the money to fund a big program like this.

The fact that it ends up being mostly poor people who pay the tax makes it even worse, but I would feel this way even if it was mostly rich people who smoked.

What better way to fund health care than through a tax whose cost may well reduce the number of smokers, as a few decide that it just costs too much to smoke.

T.A.,

I agree with you that you are not being very rational on this issue.

Bedfellows can be strange at times for good reasons, but in this case, I believe they are telling. On Measure 50, on one side are people who want children to have healthcare and people who want to use taxation to decrease smoking. On the other side are T.A, people who don't want to pay more for their smokes, and the tobacco industry.

Folks who believe the most significant attribute of tobacco tax is that it hurts low income smokers should be screaming for the legalization of meth. That habit is also overrepresented in the low income population, but we don't just tax them, we throw them in jail, seize their assets sometimes, and make them ineligible for scholarships and many jobs and licenses. How regressive is that?

I'm sure meth users would gladly pay tax on their drug of choice if the current penalties were removed. Sound like a good idea to you?

IT IS THIS HYPOTHETICAL MOTHER'S KID which is being covered under this plan BECAUSE of the tax on her smokes. Even if she already has coverage, the effect of raising the cost of her cigs means that her or other smokers WILL stop smoking (or cutitng back) which will reduce the cost of her and her kid's coverage (not to mention lowering the cost for you and me as well).

What if her kids are already on OHP? Or she has private insurance? This program does nothing for her kids. And no matter how many times you say it, higher cigarette taxes do not cause all smokers to stop, or even a majority. They cause some smokers to stop. And your view, lestatdelc, is that anyone who doesn't stop is not worthy of our help. Fuck them, right? Those single moms were too weak to avoid addiction in the first place, so why should we feel sorry for them?

You lack compassion and heart. You are neither liberal nor progressive. And why did you avoid talking about the lack of smoking cessation programs for the poor? The Democrats failure to make sure all smokers have access to such programs is what makes this policy bad.

Why not tax everything that is bad for the environment and thereby, as an end result, our health? Why single out one substance? Let's place a tax on all non-biodegradable products that end up in landfills. And make it against the rules to throw away anything that can be composted...for every household and business. Let's tax the manufacturers who insist in packaging products in layers of really unnecessary paper and plastic and styrofoam. (Doesn't ink cartridge packaging drive you insane? The packaging negates any benefits of recycling the cartridge itself!) Let's tax any entity large or small who spews toxic waste into the air we breath (or our water)....whether it is a poorly tuned SUV, a tree farmer spraying pesticide or a huge paper mill.

There are plenty of non-smokers out there with carbon footprints as big as sasquatch's. It's a friggin' witch-hunt to target and tax one group of offenders, however much we wish we didn't have to ever catch a small whiff of that nasty smell, or even catch a glimpse of those addicted idiots sucking on those cancer sticks. Because that's what it comes down to for most people who feign concern over public health....it's really just a personal dislike of smokers doing something that is perfectly within their rights to do, as long as it isn't in public. Even if they are killing themselves. I find folks who don't bathe, who spit, talk on their cell phones, or play their car stereos too loud in public offensive too...but it won't make me ill or put me at risk, any more than one little scent of tobacco smoke will. We've already banned smoking in any areas where others might have to breath it in an amount that might be putting them at risk.

And don't give me the argument that we are all paying for smokers' health problems....believe me, if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, your health insurance premiums would not decrease, and your access to health care would not improve. But the insurance companies' profits might.

But I agree that it really is inconvenient for a large majority to still have to exist in a world where a minority is doing something they just plain don't like. So let's tax them out of existence....make them bow to our will.

You can be as self-righteous about the issue as you want, but it's still a witch-hunt.

MCT is on to something. All products and behaviors should be taxed equal to the portion of their cost that is socialized. So polluters, wasters of energy, and creators of safety hazards would pay dearly. And since tobacco use has a dreadfully high socialized cost....

Well, I'll let other readers decide which of us is unhinged.

You have said, repeatedly, that higher cigarette taxes cause people to stop smoking, and you have used that to justify the tax. But taxes at best reduce smoking by, what, 10-15%? So my point, which is not a strawman, is this: What about the other 85-90% for whom you've just made life more difficult? Since these are disproportionately low-income drug addicts, what is it about this policy that you believe is compassionate?

Put together a policy program and a funding mechanism for [smoking cessation programs] and we can discuss it and I would most likely support it.

I already did -- it's called a tobacco tax. But you've decided that money can be better spent insuring children, while keeping smokers addicted. Why?

Getting all kids coverage helps overall healthcare costs which allows more funding for smoke diversion programs.

Um, no. Coverage for kids costs money, and will do very little to reduce overall health care costs. Funding will not magically appear for smoking cessation programs.

At the risk of repeating myself, what makes this bad public policy is that it's taxing a vulnerable segment of society that doesn't have adequate access to the addiction services they need, in order to fund an unrelated program to provide kids health care. It violates pretty important liberal tenets, and I think we should be principled enough to acknowledge that.

Lesta: Low-income people do have access to a comprehensive quit program. Call 1-800-QUIT-NOW and get free patches and free in-person counseling.

M50 is putting the tax in the Oregon Constitution because the asinine provision in our Constitution requiring a 3/5 majority to enact "bills for raising revenue."

Actually Chuck you are intentionally misleading here, dare I say lying. As I've already noted above, the fact is the majority chose the low road on this issue by not ignoring an untested, unofficial opinion and declared a statutory referral to the voters passed by a simple majority vote. They could have also referred a constitutional measure to change what I agree is an asinine provision but similarly chose the coward's route by not doing that, adding further disrepute to the SB3/SJR4 extortion. They did that in part because they obviously have dishonest hacks like you to spread misinformation for them. Finally, they were lazy and irresponsible in sacrificing the goal of actually reforming health care in deference to an obnoxious, irrational, anti-tobacco lobby.

On Measure 50, on one side are people who want children to have healthcare and people who want to use taxation to decrease smoking. On the other side are T.A, people who don't want to pay more for their smokes, and the tobacco industry.

Actually, Tom Civiletti and those who argue this couldn't be more wrong. The reality is that in one corner are anti-tax nuts and tobacco industry interests. In a second corner are miserably soldout Democrats, anti-tobacco nutjobs, and a cynical irresponsible, almost anti-social, anti-tax lobby, complete with smug but relatively dumb career professionals. In the third corner are those of us who actually defend core Democratic Party values, real health care reform that includes affordable health care for all that doesn't put the burden for providing health care for their children on those who can least afford it. Those of us in that third corner recognize SJR4 is a cynical, irresponsible step in the 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and that those in the second corner are more of an obstacle to achieving progress on health care reform because of their support for SJR4 as those in the first corner. Democratic SJR4 supporters apparently have chosen to be in the second corner, and that makes them a huge part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

This:

In a second corner are miserably soldout Democrats, anti-tobacco nutjobs, and a cynical irresponsible, almost anti-social, anti-tax lobby, complete with smug but relatively dumb career professionals.

should have read

In a second corner are miserably soldout Democrats, anti-tobacco nutjobs, and a cynical irresponsible, almost anti-social, anti-TOBACCO lobby, complete with smug but relatively dumb career professionals.

Lesta: Low-income people do have access to a comprehensive quit program. Call 1-800-QUIT-NOW and get free patches and free in-person counseling.

Hmmmm. . .I wonder why the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids ranks Oregon 33rd in spending on tobacco prevention. We currently spend only 16% of the CDC's recommended minimum for our state. That's abysmal. So should I believe you and Lestatdelc that our tobacco prevention spending is just peachy? Or the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids?

Lestatdelc, you seem to be under the impression that I oppose tobacco taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I stated in my first post. I'm opposed to taking money from that tax, which is regressive and disproportionately impacts the poor, and spending it on anything else until we've adequately funded programs to help those people quit their addictions. You're happy with 16% of the CDC's recommendation. I want 100%. One can only conclude that either you want to keep the poor from quitting smoking, or you just believe we should attack those who can least fight back simply because they had the misfortune to become addicts.

Which is it?

At least through this we learned that Jefferson Smith and the Bus Project are not even close to progressive, but they are deceitful. Today at 8:40AM on the KPOJ morning show what the two dumb stumps Carl and Heidi, Smith repeated the "big lie" that SJR4/Measure 50 is "Healthy Kids".

Get this fact straight: SB3 is "Healthy Kids". SJR4/Measure 50 is a referral to the people to trash our state Constitution with issues and language that belong in the legislative arena, and that do nothing to deal with the real health care issues we face including those due to tobacco. Our morally vacuous legislative leadership chose to extort us the voters by saying that unless we passed the unrelated measure SJR4/Measure 50, they would not do the hard work we support that is required to provide the health care coverage in the "Healthy Kids" act they passed.

Smith then went on to paint a propagandistic and deceitful picture of how the opposition to SJR4/Measure 50 was the tobacco industry. In fact, as this thread shows it is the true progressive Democratic core and our commonsense allies across the political spectrum who are the real opposition to this regressive, anti-health-care-reform, ballot measure because it is some of the worst policy and political action to come down the pipe in a long, long time.

He also went on to make another telling statement that he is in effect trying to build a corp of career politicians? What about the frequent vehement support amongst Blue Oregonians for a citizen legislator specifically not composed of career politicians?

It's not suprising Carl and Heidi were sucked in, they have proved over and over they really are two very dull-witted people. It is quite amusing, though, how many of you who protest so loudly about how smart you are, and how you stand for such progressive values, are so easily suckered by the obvious destructive cult-leader qualities of this guy demonstrated by this example.

Anonymous,

I find the intensity of your opposition to M50 positively comedic. It would provide more children with health care, and it would increase our tobacco tax, which is now below that of neighboring states. I can understand that you don't like the coupling of these issues, but really, if you are so full of progressive fervor, why not aim it at some of the many outrageous problems we face.

You may be a progressive Democrat, but you sound like a professional tobacco lobbyist.

This measure does seem very much like a stop gap.

It won't be, if we don't make it so. What will make is so is our getting our arses in gear and putting in place a health care systeme designed to secure perfect health for everyone as soon as possible - Yesterday would not be too soon!