SJR 4: The second-hand smoke of health care policy

T.A. Barnhart

Today is the 74th anniversary of my mother's birth. I put it that way because she died two years ago, on July 4th, just short of her 72nd birthday. She dropped dead in the checkout line of the Albertson's in Winter Haven, Florida. The emphesyma stopped her heart before the lung cancer could finish her off.

Should we fund children's health care with cigarette revenue?My mom smoked for 55 years. That's a mind-boggling number; I'm only 50. When she was pregnant with me, she was smoking non-filter Pall Malls (I'm guessing, because I seem to remember that's what she smoked when pregnant with my brother, who is ten years younger than me). She started as a teenager, got hooked and couldn't detach herself until it was too late. I grew up listening to her hack her lungs clear in the morning. Cigarette smoke was as much a part of my childhood as Bugs Bunny cartoons.

This is why I find it terribly difficult to support SJR 4. I am fully behind the effort to provide full healthcare to all children; it's an unconscionable national sin that we fail to do this. We can piss money away on the most obscene things, like war and tax breaks for Mel Gibson, but little kids seeing a doctor and being helped to grow up healthy and strong — suddenly we're out of money. This is wrong, and it must change.

But to fund the change here in Oregon through cigarettes? I find that morally, and personally, repugnant. (Not to mention politically obnoxious, dumping this in the Constitution, a tactic we've chastised the right for so often in the past.) We already fund important state programs via another destructive social practice, the lottery. That income source has been increased from its initial size, and the uses for lottery revenues have been widely diversified. Yet we know that gambling is a terrible disease. Still, because the money from lottery (and casinos, for that matter) is so lucrative, we have some pretend efforts at gambling-addiction assistance while we look to grow that golden goose even more.

We will do the same if start funding something so vital as healthcare through cigarette taxes. I'm not anti-tax, not by a long shot, but I do agree with the anti-tax screed that once a tax is in place, it's almost impossible to remove. And we should be doing everything humanly possible — and more — to eliminate tobacco from society. I'm all for making possession a felony; it can swap places with marijuana on the law books as far as I'm concerned. But if the only way we can find to pay for the health care of children is through cigarette taxes, who in Salem is going to seriously back any effort to curtail smoking?

Is it cool to fund childrens health care with cigarette taxes?I'm torn on this measure. I know smoking is not going to go away anytime soon; significant revenue is going to be available from tobacco taxes for many years to come, even with current trends in decreased smoking. But everytime I see a young woman light up a cigarette — there's a Paris Hilton wannabee who gets off the bus downtown as I wait for my transfer, and she alights with her cig already between her lips — I want to walk up to her and say, that's how my mother killed herself. And I'm supposed to vote for using cigarettes in a positive way? How?

Of all the disappointments from the 2007 Legislature (and they were far outnumbered by all the positive things they did accomplish), this SJR 4 tops my list. I understand why we have this measure instead of proper, and properly funded, health care legislation: because Wayne Scott and his lackies made noises about "responsible" funding and (ack, words I agree with) that it's wrong to fund health care with cigarette money — and then they turned around and fought to the death real health care reform. We know the leading Rs work on behalf of the "health-care" and big pharma corporations who fill their campaign coffers. In 2007, as in previous legislatures, they repaid their owners and forced the Democrats into this flawed solution. There was no way the Dems, and the few decent Republicans in the Legislature, could walk away from 2007 and not produce something for uninsured children. So, thanks to Scott and the rest of that gang of thugs that hate democracy and any part of the commonwealth they have to pay for, SJR 4 is what we got.

And it stinks like an old ashtray. It's as wrong as smoking in the car on a cross-country trip. We should be wiping out smoking, not making it a crucial revenue stream. SJR 4 is the wrong solution, and yet we may have no choice but to support it. I refuse, however, to actively support it. This may seem irrational to some, given how important I say childrens health care is to me, but the death of a parent takes you to places that are not rational. I'm half-hoping this measure is defeated and the state is forced to find a more sensible and humane way to meet its responsibility. I'll understand if it passes, but I won't like it. And I can only hope that if it does pass, the Legislature will bust its ass to replace this source of funding in the next session.

But I won't be holding my breath on that. As my mom proved, addiction to cigarettes is deadly. That includes, I fear, addiction to cigarette tax revenues.

  • (Show?)

    As I recall, and an official press release verifies, the responsible party for this "solution" is Kulongoski, not Wayne Scott or his lackies.

    I'm no fan of Scott or his lackies, but how do you get away with pinning this all on them?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Bernard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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

  • GILL THOMAS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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

  • GILL THOMAS (unverified)
    (Show?)

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

  • Rep. Sara Gelser (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    T.A.... Let me understand something. You say you want to do everything you can to stop cigarette smoking, and yet you're concerned that we're funding something so important with the increased money.

    We will do the same if start funding something so vital as healthcare through cigarette taxes....

    Set aside, for a moment, what we're doing with the money. We know, without a doubt, that increasing the taxes on cigarettes causes less cigarettes to be purchased and consumed.

    So, if you hate tobacco consumption, why not support higher taxes on it?

    Would you support the increased cigarette tax if the state was simply then airlifting the money into the ocean?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

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

  • nutmeg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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!"

  • (Show?)

    My Father past away when I was 13 years old as a direct result of smoking 2 to 3 packs of cigarettes a day. I believe I was cheated out of 10 to 20 years of having a Father in my life. Screw the tobacco industry and please let's screw them at every possible opportunity. If cigarettes become to expensive for the poor -TOUGH! I know I shouldn't be vindictive but I am - So be it.

    One fact that everyone should keep in mind is the higher the price of cigarettes the less likely that young people will begin the smoking habit.

  • Scott Jorgensen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    Sara & Kari

    Arguing that increased prices reduces smoking is like saying higher speed limits reduce traffic fatalities: Yes, true, but the carnage is still horrific. Are you really arguing that as long as we have enough people willing to spend $5 a day on slow suicide it's ok to gouge them even more for a good cause? On that logic, we might as well legalize crack and then tax the bejeezus out of it. We'll keep the number of junkies down but still make a good pile of scratch.

    Yes, increasing prices does reduce smoking incrementally, but cigarettes are one of the most elastic of commodities. This will stop many teens from starting smoking (a good thing, of course), but it won't stop those who are hooked. They will feed their habit regardless. And if SJR 4 is now about reducing teen smoking -- find me a better program to do that, please. Like banning tobacco products. Anything short of that is insincere (at best).

    I don't recall the Dems heading into the 2007 session saying "Let's amend the state constitution to fund childrens health care with cigarette taxes." You had a much better set of proposals, didn't you? But after the Rs refused to stop playing politics with the health of children, the Dems and the Gov had to do something. I just don't know that this is the right something. Sara's doing a great job of standing up for her caucus, but this isn't something I can support -- or, as I said, be very rational about.

  • (Show?)

    James X: Tobacco taxes reduce tobacco consumption, especially among the young and the poor, literally saving their lives.

    If only that were actually the case, but the stats appear to reinforce Scott's observations.

    The stats on smokers, taken from virtually every possible angle, appear to show that the less educated and the poorest are the least likely to give up smoking due to rising prices.

    Robert: 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.

    If you're not covered by M50 then the odds that you'll actually have to step up to the table and take financial responsibility for solving the problem are vanishingly small.

    Why do we face a health care crisis in the first place? It's money, or the lack thereof. M50 neatly absolves the vast majority of those who could actually afford to spare a dime from having to actually walk the walk so many appear to be only to eager to talk about. It very much reminds me of the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan except that M50 was written by and supported by those who just kept on walking.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

    Bingo! I couldn't agree more. All of it.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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!

  • (Show?)

    So let me get this straight, your arguement is basically that would be morrally repugnent to fines and taxes on polluters that would pay for cleaning up the pollution, disuading them from polluting further, reducing the poollution and paying for improvments in vital services?

    Huh?

  • (Show?)

    Robert, we are in substantial agreement about the need for a progressive solution to the growing health care crisis. M50 isn't the least bit progressive, though. It's regressive. And I fail to understand how or why real progressives would even consider advocating such an in-your-face regressive funding scheme. 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?

  • (Show?)

    anyone who uses the term "moral failure" in connection with Sara Gelser is an know-nothing idiot, especially when they hide behind anonymity. 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. as a legislator, she had to help make something happen. and thanks to Wayne Scott et al, this was the best they could do. i'm probably going to vote for it, sucky as it is, but i'll be expecting Sara and the rest of the Leg, with an increased Dem majority (and no more Scott, Minnis and others) to make SJR 4 obsolete.

    the worst part about leaving Corvallis is that Sara is no longer my state representative. she's among the best people in Oregon; feel free to disagree with her but don't disparage her credentials as a moral and humane person. you'll be utterly wrong.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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!

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • janine (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    Todd, I share most of your history with smoking. My mother started when she was 18, stopped 2 years before she died at 80, from lung cancer that had spread to her spine. It was a long vigil at her hospital bed. When I was a kid I could always find her if we got separated, by listening for her cough. Also, when I was a kid, I had frequent colds and sinus infections. During and after every car trip I felt ill, not from motion sickness but from being drugged by second hand cigarette smoke. Smokers' peripheral circulation is poor; she wouldn't let us open the car windows because she felt cold. I also suffered from asthma for some time. Once, when I objected when she nearly burned my baby daughter's cheek with her cigarette when she picked her up, she said "Sue, you know I smoke; if you don't like it don't come." She was offended that I didn't leave my kids with her for babysitting, but her house was not a safe place for small children. Yes, addiction is thicker than blood.

    Okay, that's not the only reason I support the Healthy Kids measure, but it's right up there. Smoking is a contributor to health problems for kids and I don't have any problem with the idea that cigarette taxes could support health care for kids.

    Furthermore, the price of a pack of cigarettes is lower in Oregon than in surrounding states. The group that is most influenced by price is young, beginning smokers. Raising the price makes smoking at least a bit less attractive to those who are not yet addicted, and that's a worthwhile side effect of this measure.

    As to the constitutional issue, you know the legislative history of this measure. This is not the ideal way to do it but it's a lot better than not doing it at all. I've lived through too much of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's time to do the best we can, now.

  • (Show?)

    it was the only game in town!

    As vociferously as I disagree with conservatives on any number of issues, at least they have the courage of their convictions and fight to create the reality they want rather than passively throwing up their hands and blaming it all on "the only game in town."

    I'll admit that I do see some progressives who have the courage of their convictions. But they seem to be very few and very far between. As long as that continues to be the case, they will continue to dance to a conservative's tune.

  • kija (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Miles | Aug 16, 2007 11:26:15 AM 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.

    Yet you fail to grasp that smokers ARE polluters. There is not really much of a difference once you boil away all the surface trappings between someone polluting the environment and someone polluting their bodies and those around them. So if low-income people dump motor oil and other toxic chemicals in the Willamette, they get a pass because they are not "corporate" polluters and are just low-income people?

    Sorry, that is a bs argument. So please spare us all the label mongering about "corporate polluters" because it does nothing to address the core point I was raising.

    Smoking, like waste dumping, requires resources to clean-up, repair, discourage and mitigate the effects of it. In the case of the political prop the poor benighted "poor low-income smoker", that is the same person whose kids whose health they are damaging and whose coverage we are going to pick-up by taxing the cigarettes polluting their kids bodies. Smoking is the number one health problem affecting healthcare. Should smokers who cause the largest swath of health problems requiring healthcare resources be discouraged form smoking and help pay for the costs of the damage they do which our healthcare resources have to pay for? You bet. Particularly since it is targeted at those who need coverage the most, low-income children who are statistically most likely to be exposed to unhealthy conditions like parents who smoke!

    That you can't see that it is really not different is 9/10ths the problem.

  • (Show?)

    < blockquote>Posted by: Miles | Aug 16, 2007 11:26:15 AM

    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?

    Oh my fraken sky-pixie! 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).

    Nope. We don't want to get more low-income people to stop smoking and get their kids healthcare because. Nope. That is bad. We want their smokes to be affordable so she can keep smoking and not cover her kids healthcare.

    Heysus on a fricken crutch!!

  • (Show?)

    There isn't much of a difference between corporations polluting by choice because it improves their bottom line and under-educated poor folks (far and away the largest demographic being targeted) caught in the grips of an addiction that science tells us is one of the most insideous, powerful addictions known to humanity???

    I can tell you this much... I used to be a meth and coke addict. I've got the rehab records to prove it. I'm also a long-time smoker who wishes like hell taht I'd never started. Both cocaine and meth were vastly easier to kick than nicoteen. And for what it's worth, my doctor happens to agree based on her medical experience and observations. But hey... don't let that get in the way of rationalizing a patently regressive tax scheme to yourself. Whatever it takes to get you through another night...

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • MCT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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....

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Miles | Aug 16, 2007 3:48:43 PM What if her kids are already on OHP? Or she has private insurance? This program does nothing for her kids.

    And as I said it will help her and all of us indirectly by helping offset and mitigate the cost to the healthcare system her smoking (and all other smokers) cause on the system.

    And no matter how many times you say it, higher cigarette taxes do not cause all smokers to stop, or even a majority.

    Strawman alert. I never said what you claim once. let alone repeatedly. So please stop making shit up.

    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?

    More bullshit made-up shit. I am all for helping smoker quite. Getting all kids coverage helps overall healthcare costs which allows more funding for smoke diversion programs.

    Those single moms were too weak to avoid addiction in the first place, so why should we feel sorry for them?

    More strawman bullshit.

    You lack compassion and heart. You are neither liberal nor progressive.

    You forgot I dress funny and eat babies. Your entire unhinged screed made up of totally phantom projected horseshit is laughably stupid.

    And why did you avoid talking about the lack of smoking cessation programs for the poor?

    Because that is not the issue being discussed. I am all for them. Put together a policy program and a funding mechanism for it and we can discuss it and I would most likely support it.

    The Democrats failure to make sure all smokers have access to such programs is what makes this policy bad.

    So if we had a policy which funded comprehensive smoking diversion programs but didn't provide comprehensive dental programs for he elderly, that would make the smoking diversion programs bad policy?

    So ensuring all kids in Oregon have healthcare coverage but not addressing global warming, that makes covering kids bad policy?

    Your unhinged.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    A parallel piece is actually over at Think Progress on this issue at the Federal level:

    Bush’s Veto Threat Rejected By His Own Experts; Cancer Panel Calls For Higher Tobacco Taxes When the Congress passed legislation this month raising tobacco taxes to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), President Bush threatened a veto. Defending the health insurance and tobacco industries, Bush said, “If Congress continues to insist upon expanding healthcare through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill.” But in a direct rebuke, the President’s Cancer Panel today recommended that Bush no longer “acquiesce to the demands of the industries that encourage” the “disease and death caused by tobacco use.” Specifically, the panel recommended that the federal government raise taxes on tobacco and more heavily regulate the tobacco industry to “weaken” its influence. CQ reports (sub. req’d):
    In its report to President Bush, the panel said that “policymakers at all levels of government have an obligation to enact legislation to eliminate disease and death caused by tobacco use and environmental tobacco smoke exposure. The panel recommends foremost that the influence of the tobacco industry — particularly on America’s children — be weakened through strict federal regulation of tobacco product sales and marketing.” […] The cancer panel pointedly noted that all “the issues discussed in this report have suffered to varying degrees from politicization that continues to derail or limit progress toward a healthier population that is less burdened by cancer. We cannot continue to fund tobacco- and obesity-related research, thinking it will solve the problems caused by cancer risk-promoting behaviors and products, and also acquiesce to the demands of the industries that encourage those behaviors and produce those products.

    According to the American Medical Association, “for each 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, youth smoking is reduced by 7 percent, and overall consumption by 4 percent.” Furthermore, the public overwhelmingly supports raising tobacco taxes, by a margin of 67 percent to 28 percent.

    The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee recently approved a bill “that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco.” Today, Chairman Ted Kennedy (D-MA) welcomed the panel’s recommendations.

    The recommendations eloquently reaffirm what is widely recognized throughout the public health community; that giving the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products is the most important step Congress can take to reduce smoking and the immense toll of illness and death it causes. It is absolutely essential to reduce smoking, especially among the nation’s youth.

    In addition to top medical scientists, the three-member panel includes Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong

    So Miles, is Ted Kennedy and all those progressives supporting increasing taxes on tobacco to fund SCHIP also a heartless evil people who are not a liberals or progressive because they want to fund children's healthcare, and reduce smoking, particularly among young people?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Miles | Aug 16, 2007 4:45:03 PM You have said, repeatedly, that higher cigarette taxes cause people to stop smoking, and you have used that to justify the tax.

    Actually I said raising taxes on cigarettes get more people to stop smoking once and I say that because it is a fact. As study after study after study shows. It reduces the number of young people smoking even more dramatically.

    What about the other 85-90% for whom you've just made life more difficult?

    What abut them?

    Since these are disproportionately low-income drug addicts, what is it about this policy that you believe is compassionate?

    Insuring those same low-income families kids for one thing is kind of a big one.

    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?

    Because I think covering all kids is more important than assuring that drug-addicts have cheap smokes.

    Coverage for kids costs money,

    Yep. Which is why we need to increase taxes on cigarette to pay for it.

    and will do very little to reduce overall health care costs. Funding will not magically appear for smoking cessation programs.

    Actually,it will do a lot about it. Getting a reduction in the number of kids who start smoking in the first place will reduce healthcare cost long term substantially, while those taxes cover all kids in the short-term. Smoking related health issues are the largest segment of healthcare problems. Certainly enough to fund stop-smoking programs. However numerous studies show that raising the price of cigarettes is has the highest impact in reducing smoking.

    Better go back to playing the "you are no liberal" canard. At least it is amusing if nothing else.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: James X. | Aug 16, 2007 5:11:12 PM 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.

    Sssssshhhhh.

    Don't let miles know that, because he needs his "low-income drug addicts need cheap smokes" martyr in order to keep all Oregon kids from having health coverage and as a way to prove I am a bad person for wanting that.

  • (Show?)

    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." Referring a constitutional provision that would raise revenues did not have to meet that anti-democratic (power to the minority) provision. Oregonians Are Hostage to the Fractions Faction.

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 17, 2007 9:15:20 AM

    (scroll)

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    First of all, I'd like to share my story. My father died 4 years ago this summer of a stroke. He was a life long smoker and no matter how many times we prodded him about quitting he never did. It killed him. Both of my parents smoked when I was growing up and my mom quit about 13 years ago (thankgod!) and has maintained good health.

    I can very much relate to TA's experience and I have some of the same reservations as he does. I am a proud non-smoker and would rather not be around people who smoke in my presence.

    This measure does seem very much like a stop gap. While it will provide healthcare to children, I have to wonder if this is the best way to do it. I also understand that because of such a narrow majority in the Oregon Legislature that it was difficult to get anything else though.

    I have no problem with cigarrette taxes, but I feel the legislature should take another crack at this. My gut feeling is to vote no on measure 50, although that could change between now and election day.

  • Robert G. Gourley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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!

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon