By Riley Heffernan
Reporter
Proposition 56 proposes an across-the-board $2 raise in tobacco tax that encompasses all things nicotine, except things like Nicorette gum and Nicotine patches- and it’s about time.
For too long Big Tobacco has profited off nicotine addiction with little regard for cigarettes’ known link to cancer, heart disease, lung disease, etc. It’s about time California put forth a plan to profit off of nicotine cessation.
I have smoked cigarettes for four years, and my instant reaction to this proposition is full support. Of course, we should tax cigarettes. Why wouldn’t we tax cigarettes? The only possible controversy has to do with how the tax revenue will be spent.
According to Section 4, the revenue will be allocated toward things that are impossible to oppose. For example treatment of smoking-related diseases, research into cures for such diseases, toward education and prevention programs, and toward a system of unbiased review which will assess the overall benefit (if any) that this measure has on Californians’ quality of life.
The opposition to Prop 56- that the tax money “could be allocated better,” or that it “doesn’t address all the issues,” (according to NoOnProposition56.com), is pathetic.
Even the opposition supports the idea of Prop 56 but says they’re voting “no” because it doesn’t go far enough.
The law isn’t as perfect as some would like it to be because some of the percentages in allocation don’t go as far as some would like.
So what?!
It’s still a step in the right direction, it still provides funding to things that are inherently good, and it is still legislation that openly discourages smoking.
“I’m all for it,” says 22-year-old CSUB Music major Jordan Espiritu. “The tax itself will deter people from smoking, and the money will go towards things that will actively do a lot of good.”
A more cred source of opposition comes from those who favor “vaping” to smoking as a healthier alternative.
The tax has specific provisions for e-Cigarette and vaporizer pens, a rapidly growing market that appeals to the under-21 age group in California.
As of right now neither vaporizer pens nor eJuice is regulated by the FDA.
Prop 56 allocates nearly $150 million of the expected tax revenue to the California Department of Public Health to bolster its Tobacco Control program; this includes provisions for funding into FDA research on eCig and vaporizer safety.
If “vaping” truly is a healthier alternative, why vote against legislation that works to prove that?
Without proper FDA approval, vaporizer pens have been occupying a dubious gray area in the eyes of the nation.
Most public places forbid the use of vaporizer pens on the principle that they are comparable to cigarettes since they contain nicotine.
With the added funding from Prop 56, we can finally get definitive answers on how safe vaping is relative to cigarettes.
If they are determined to be of help in smoking cessation, the $2 tax would have to be lifted from the vape pen market.
Still, such a verdict would have to pass through the slow process of legislative approval, and no doubt Big Tobacco won’t go down without a fight.
It’s debatable whether a $2 increase per pack of cigarettes will be as much of a deterrent as most voters hope but Prop 56 is an important step toward spreading education, prevention, and treatment of smoking and its related maladies.
And if you don’t like the tax, well, I suppose you’ll just have to quit.
Take it from a 4-year smoker, good riddance.
