Love it! Great work.

The Associated Press has an article on Spending by tobacco companies paying off in Oregon campaign and a related article "Tobacco casts constitution as pristine, but reality is otherwise" on Measure 50.

to frame (tobacco's) participation as the totality of the opposing "side" of M50 is simply not truthful.

That's a somewhat fair critique, Kevin.

I say "somewhat" because I suppose the same could be said of the first panel, where Lance Armstrong's endorsement of Measure 50 is framed as the totality of the pro-measure 50 "side."

So in my wholly biased opinion, I think the cartoon is "fair," if not reflecting the full range of debate on the issue.

On the issue of truthiness, the only honest commercial the tobacco companies could run would be to say: "Raising taxes on our product could hurt our bottom line, please vote no."

I can see why they choose deception instead.

So, what you're saying in effect is that, since our constitution is full of so much crap already, it doesn't matter if we muck it up any further? Not trying to make light of the seriousness of providing health care for children, but where does the slippery slope end? Why not discount bus passes for war widows? I support that too, let's write it into the constitution! Sorry, I don't buy that. As much as I love what measure 50 is trying to do, I absolutely reject the argument that since our constitution isn't 'pristine,' it doesn't matter that this is an egregiously wrong way to go about funding healthcare for children. The tobacco company ads sicken me with their slick pandering, but the simple fact of the matter is that the a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to go about dealing with this problem. Let's tackle this issue some other way (and no, I don't have the answer right off the top of my head.)

That sad truth about the Oregon Constitution, the U.S. Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance is that for most politicians and the majority of people who support them these documents and the Pledge are meaningless, unless some element in them can be used to put spin on an argument.

So, what you're saying in effect is...

No, what I said in actuality is "the only honest commercial the tobacco companies could run would be to say: "Raising taxes on our product could hurt our bottom line, please vote no."

Because if you think Carolina tobacco companies give a flying feather about the integrity of the Oregon Constitution or whether a new tax is regressive, I've got a condo to sell you in the Pearl (with a great sub-prime mortgage).

If Oregonians who are concerned about these issues raised a bunch of money to run ads to argue against measure 50, that would be an honest campaign.

But out-of-state tobacco companies are spending $9 million to raise these issues because of the affect Measure 50 will indirectly have on their bottom line.

The measure's main opponents (the tobacco companies) don't talk about why they're really opposed to this Measure, and that's dishonest.

So any ad they run which brings up they're strawmen arguments without mentioning why they are actually opposed, is inherently deceptive. And that's what I said.

Lance Armstrong said a plan like Measure 50/Healthy Kids can save children's lives. And he thinks that's a good thing. The difference is, his motivation is kids' health, not his own financial gain.

As for the first panel of your cartoon, it fails to meet the most basic definition of a Strawman because it's self-evidently your own argument rather than the opponent's argument.

It's a cartoon, dude.

Why exactly do we need another entitlement program? That seems to me to be the biggest problem with M50. Why add more people sucking on the taxpayer teat? I've yet to see a decent argument on why exactly I should hand out more money to someone else. If fact, nobody has even shown exactly what this new hand out is or who controls it.

Listen, I think health care, especially for children that cannot afford it is great, but where we are looking to get the money is a poor place. First off, there are plenty of other sin taxes that can be raised instead of just tobacco. Secondly, statistics have shown that people in lower incomes tend to smoke more than people with higher incomes. So by making the tobacco tax increase and putting that revenue into the Healthy Kids Fund, lower income families are going to be paying, in a indirect way, for their own childs health care. But my question is really this: if raising taxes is to create a health care fund, and this revenue is also to be spent towards stopping people from smoking, what happens to the kids health fund when people start smoking less, and less and less, thus decreasing the amount of revenue for the program? The money for the kids is predicated on people smoking, so in essense, we need to have people smoking in order to have healthy kids in lower incomes. And eventually get more people smoking when more kids without health insurance become citizens of Oregon. Raising the sin tax on beer, luxury cars, imported Asian rugs, and yes, even tobacco, would make a great combination to receive revenue for the Healthy Kids Fund, where as increasing the tobacco tax and only the tobacco tax is myopic. Please feel free to email me if you wish to discuss this issue further.

is there anything in the measure ensuring that the state will even use these funds for children's health care? considering the fact that oregon is ranked next to last (33) in states using the old "tobacco settlement plan" funds for it's intended purpose, i seriously doubt it.

it is so easy for everyone to let the smokers pay. how about everyone paying their fair share for children's health care?

This is the 4th time in the past 10 y. "milking" smokesrs. I have not notise any equal push for alcohol. The health, and domestic tragedy 30% larger in alcohol related incidents in United States, how ever it is not been more "difficult" to by alcohol in the past 10 - 15 years. HOW COME ????? no measure for alcohol?! This is an obvius political hypocrite desperation. They can't touch that for deep pocket reason. So much for the constitution, what made tis country so gorgeous a long time ago. I think the right name sould be: desperate measure, try 50. I like to metion to Mr Pat Malach, that this M50 not going to hurt tabaco co, but do al the smokers. I don't think 84.5 cents per pack, inspire allot of smokerst to stop smoking. Read the fine line......... it is a cry for money game.

Mr Jake

<h2>I like you logic, well written.</h2>