No matter how you vote, just don't go out afterwards and trash and vandalize lawn signs. Whoever did that in Tigard was really stupid.

Me - Just like Kevin, only I cherish the constitution and would rather have that than have healthy kids and a gutted constitution for them to rely on in the future.

I have a friend who has lived out of state (in Ohio) for the past 6 years. He claims he still receives an absentee ballot and votes in every election. He considers it humorous.

Can this be true or is he BSing me? Why is someone who resides outside Oregon for years allowed to vote in Oregon elections?

Especially on Tax measures that he won't be paying if they pass?

What is the election law on this? Anyone know?

Sounds like Fraud to me. But fear not.....he's a staunch Progressive so he's voting our way.

Come on - don't do it!

The only argument that big tobacco has is that Oregon's constitution shouldn't be changed - but that just shows that they don't understand Oregon.

Our constitution was created to be a living breathing document, and if there is anything more important than health care for Oregon's kids, and a mechanism for funding it - I can't think of it.

Tobacco is betting on this weak - don't mess with the constitution argument - will muddy the waters. It was the only strategy that they could use. Tracking the comments here on Blue Oregon - it looks like they are having some success.

If I'm going to be a pawn - I am going to be played by the 100,000 kids who lack Health care - not Philip Morris.

Frankly, I don't know how you could sleep at night knowing that you played a role in preventing health care for kids.

Apparently Bush can manage - but little that he does makes much sense to me.

I'm voting yes on Measure 49 for its use as a stop-gap measure, but feel it falls way short of the concerns of many property owners in the area of development potential and speculative gain relative to perceived rights associated with properties they own. Because it falls short in this way, this area of property rights is going to be in our face until the issue is addressed more thoroughly.

Without the protection of something like Measure 49, I think we're going to be in deep trouble. For example, those anxious developers mentioned in the Oregonian yesterday that are hastily dumping lots of money into preparation development of their properties in the hopes of getting "vested", should M49 pass.

I actually made my decision before the tobacco goonies came into it because any initiative that messes with the constituion is a no vote. I have voted that way for years. The constitution is a guideline to interperet the law - not be the law. This 'living and breathing' crap is just ubiquitous propaganda to advance not very concrete idealism.

I guess we didn't learn any lessons with the Volsted act that became the 18th amendment.

Is it true?.....that less than 45% of the estimated dollars that will come in from the enhanced tobacco tax will actually reach any form of Children's healthcare???? I have a copy of M50 and I've made a valiant attempt to read the measure (never an easy thing with anything coming out of the legislature)and I see a couple of huge holes that will hemmorage money to places in State government totally unrelated to the healthcare of children.

I'm voting for the tax but I'm very very disappointed if Ted and our friends in the legislature have let us down with what has to be called outright deception.

I'm going to get with Rep Monnes and let her explain to me exactly what I'm reading.....but it looks ugly to me.

Yes on 49, no on 50 for me. There's too much garbage in the state constitution already, and while I approve of the policy underlying Measure 50, I'm unwilling to contribute to further damage to the state constitution. (And no, this has nothing to do with the tobacco company ads; I made up my mind on this back when the legislature first sent this to the ballot.)

Now, if the legislature were to start sending out measures to strip improper clutter from the constitution, I'd vote for those in a heartbeat. And if they were to ask us to repeal the 3/5th supermajority rule on tax questions, I'd vote yes.

When Hillary becomes President and institutes national health care for all, we will no longer need the smoker tax to pay for the kids healthcare as they'll already be covered.

Will any of you work to remove this from the Constitution at that point, or will this be just one more revenue source for the State of Oregon?

If you say you'd leave it in, your concern for "the children" is just a farce.

Sounds like Oregon needs a Constitutional Convention to eradicate the clutter that is gutting the document.

No need for a constitutional convention. The legislature can clean up a lot of stuff with a revision. 2/3 of both houses need to support the revision, and then a simple majority of voters to approve it.

A fairly non-political way to do that is to put all the stuff that should be in a statute (like the prison labor program or the kicker) into statutes, and then strip all that stuff out of the constitution at once. There are things in the constitution that I disagree with as policy (like the 3/5th supermajority on tax increases) that really are properly constitutional questions. So leave those alone.

I imagine a panel of constitutional scholars could sort out what's properly constitutional from what really is the business of a statute.

And maybe move some stuff around. How the hell does "selling alcoholic drinks by the glass" or a prison labor program wind up in the Bill of Rights?

And then add a 3/5ths supermajority requirement to amend the constitution in the future, so we don't have this problem so much down the line.

For anyone new, pdxskip is a concern troll. Here's the breakdown of where cigarette taxes go:

68% to the Healthy Kids program 18% to the Oregon Health Plan 10% to tobacco prevention 3% to the Healthy Kids safety net 1% to rural health clinics

...and 100% constitutional cluttering.

...and Phil, is it really necessary to make comments like that in bold text? Snarky, bold texted catch phrases like that make me even more suspiscious of the measure. Do you really think that or are you just writing it in as an ubiquitous propaganda tool?

Kevin: Cigarettes directly kill half their consumers, the disproportionate amount being relatively poor. And the poor are the least likely to have quality health care, not that that would make cancer and cardiopulminary disease a happier lifestyle. In this way, cigarette consumption is the more critical regressive condition to consider, rather than 85 cents on a pack of cigarettes.

The 85 cents goes toward remedying the situation, as those with less means are most likely to cut back and quit when the price goes up. In addition, youth are much less likely ever to start.

Oregon provides free smoking cessation products and in-person counseling via the Oregon Quit Line at 1-800-QUIT-NOW. Any poor person who wants to quit has an ally.

Kevin, my source is the CDC, what's yours? "Lower-income, minority, and younger populations would be more likely to reduce or quit smoking in response to a price increase in cigarettes." You can go there to read the stats.

"Over 60% of Oregonians who smoke (AKA those who will be funding the aforementioned protecting of children) earn $24K per year or less, with nearly half of those earning $15K per year or less."

my question is, why are they smoking then? Buying a pack of smokes is regressive with or without the tax.

I have no idea what a "concern troll" is but I do know what a misinformed under researched clown James X seems to be

Those figures are in no way matching up with what I'm reading in the M50 verbage sitting here in front of me.

Wild eyed radicals like James who seem to want to avoid discussion and just go forward with their own poorly thought out agendas hurt the movement. We don't need them.

Plain and simple:

If Big Tobacco is for says vote "No", I am going to vote "YES!!!"

They could give a flying #$%^%^ about our constitution.

They already have proven they give a flying @$%#$% about human life, so why listen to them now?

If Big Tobacco thinks the Oregon Constitution is so sacred, why didn't they spend $9 million when writing discrimination against 10% of Oregonians into the Constitution was at stake?

Follow the money! Come on wake up folks!

The constitution issue is a SMOKESCREEN and they are manufacturing the smoke!

Of course Big Tobacco doesn't give a damn about the constitution. They're just using that argument because it's the best argument against the measure.

Hell, it's the ONLY argument against the measure.

But they happen to be right. For completely the wrong reasons, and they're despicable opportunists for making it, but, just this once, they're right.

Now, put this law in Oregon Revised Statutes where it belongs, I'll completely and unconditionally support it. But I will NOT vote to put this thing in the constitution. It's wrong. All the other junk that was pushed in there was wrong, and this one is wrong, and no amount of virtue to the underlying policy makes it right.

Sorry Dude, but like...I'll be voting down both of those measures when my silly, "Only in Oregon" mail-in ballot arrives.

To everyone who "made up their mind" when this was referred as a constitutional amendment...err...why was it referred?

Who was investing tens of thousands of dollars to have Wayne Scott and the GOP shuck and give around the house chambers like boss hog in April?

Well, I'll be darned if it wasn't the (drum roll) tobacco lobby!

See, they could count on folks to balk at the amendment...certainly wouldn't have been much of a problem to pass a simple referrendum something like nearly-everyone-in-the-state (that is an official term)was jumping up and down for a chance to get kids health care with the tobacco tax.

As I said before...come on...

Should this have been an up and down vote in the Legislature - heck yes. Does money talk - amen.

Hopefully enough Oregonians will listen to their heart and minds in the next few weeks to drown out the din of big tobacco.

Man...all this talk about about tobacco is really making me jones for some of that chocolate flavored Snus.

<h2>What do you have against dead tweeker's, Mitch?</h2>