California State 2006 -Proposition 86 Tax on Cigarettes. - Constitutional Amendment.

Official Summary, Pros & Cons
Other Resources
Visitor's Comments
Join the Discussion!

Official Summary, Pros and Cons

Imposes additional $2.60 per pack excise tax on cigarettes and indirectly
increases taxes on other tobacco products. Provides funding for various health programs, children's health coverage, and tobacco-related programs. Fiscal Impact: Increase in excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually in 2007–08 spent for the specified purposes outlined above. Other potentially significant costs and savings for state and local governments due to program changes.

Proposition 86 Summary
Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 86 Analysis
Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 86 Arguments & Rebuttals
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

A YES vote on this measure means: The existing state excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products would increase by $2.60 per pack to support new or expanded programs for health services, children’s health coverage, and tobacco-related activities. Other existing programs supported with tobacco excise taxes would continue.

A NO vote on this measure means: State excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would remain at the current level of 87 cents per pack and would continue to be used for existing purposes, including childhood development programs and various health and tobacco-related programs.

Top of the page.

Other Resources

Follow the Money (for and against this proposition)
To find the information, first click on a "Committee Name" link,
and then select the radio button "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received."

Organizations & individuals FOR Proposition 86

List of sponsors and supporters
American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, California Hospital Association, PICO California, League of Women Voters, Greenlining Institute, Children NOW

Organizations & Individuals AGAINST Proposition 86

List in opposition
Major funding from Tobacco Industry: RJ Reynolds & Phillip Morris ($50 million so far)
Opposition coming from Chambers of Commerce, Retail Association, Law Enforcement, some NAACP and Black Chambers of Commerce

Physicians Against Proposition 86
(funded by Core-Mark International and Pacific Groservice, Inc )

Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports

Vote to Reduce Smoking
Proposition 86 Would Promote Health in Many Ways
Mercury News Editorial
October 12, 2006

No on 86
Cigarette Tax Not a Solution for Hospitals
Sacramento Bee Editorial
September 12, 2006

Responses to Misleading and Inaccurate Cigarette Company Arguments Against State Cigarette Tax Increases
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

NAACP Defends Its Tobacco Cash
Sac Bee, by Clea Benson
October 12, 2006

Phillip Morris USA's Detailed Opposition to Cigarette Excise Taxes
Phillip Morris, USA

Toll of Tobacco in California
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
October 16, 2006

Map of Cigarette Taxes By State
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Top of the page.

Visitor's Comment List

Visitor Name: Rev. Chris Schriner
Congregation: Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Fellowship - Fremont

I have detested smoking for many years, and in the past I have supported high taxes on cigarettes. But I oppose Proposition 86, which adds taxes of $2.60 per pack.

Cigarettes already cost so much that there is a growing under-the-table market in tobacco products. Such a huge price increase will vastly increase this illegal trade.

Products sold under the table are not well regulated. Smoking would be even deadlier if nicotine addicts had no way to know what “extra” chemicals happened to be present in their daily smokes.

And there’s another unintended but terrible consequence. Bootleg tobacco products will fill the pockets of organized crime. We should have learned that from Prohibition and our failed drug policies. Are we actually going to make the same mistake a third time?

Note that 86 is a constitutional amendment. Even if it turns out to be a disaster it will be extremely difficult to reverse. Far too many ballot propositions become enshrined in the California state constitution.

For further arguments against this measure, see Rev. Byron Williams’ editorial, “Too much legislating by ballot box:” http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_4515460

I admit that some people who now smoke will quit if the price goes up. But it is the nature of addiction that many will not quit even to save their own lives. They will just find cheaper tobacco sources, legal or not. I hate smoking, but I also deplore drug laws that backfire. I will vote No on Prop 86.

Rev. Chris Schriner

---

Visitor Name: Patricia Marr
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach - Long Beach

I want to let you know why I support Proposition 86.

You have probably seen lots of commercials on television which are trying to confuse and scare people into voting against this important measure. These commercials are funded by the tobacco companies, which will lose millions in profits if the measure passes. I support Prop 86 because it will fund programs to reduce smoking among our young people, will fund health coverage for all children in our state, and will help keep hospital emergency rooms open. Every dollar generated by the tax will be audited each year.

I am a founding member of and work on the staff of Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization (ICO), a PICO National Network affiliate, which is one of the sponsors of Prop 86, along with the American Cancer Society and hundreds of health organizations.

ICO helped gather signatures to get this initiative on the ballot. As we gathered signatures earlier this year, we repeatedly heard stories from smokers, their families, and their friends, about the significant health problems they have suffered from, how difficult it is to stop smoking, and how this tax will make it harder for them to continue to smoke. Help us defeat the tobacco companies by voting yes on Prop 86.

For a lot more information on the toll tobacco has taken on us, there is a great website with all kinds of information called tobaccofreekids.org. You can find the impact smoking has had on California by going to the home page and under “The Tobacco Toll: Find Out What Smoking Has Done To Your State, insert “California.”

Here is a sample:
"Smoking-Caused Monetary Costs in California
Annual health care costs in California directly caused by smoking
$9.1 billion

Portion covered by the state Medicaid program
$2.90 billion

Residents' state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures
$630 per household

Smoking-caused productivity losses in California
$8.58 billion

Amounts do not include health costs caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, smoking-caused fires, spit tobacco use, or cigar and pipe smoking. Other non-health costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires (more than $500 million per year nationwide); extra cleaning and maintenance costs made necessary by tobacco smoke and litter (about $4+ billion nationwide for commercial establishments alone); and additional productivity losses from smoking-caused work absences, smoking breaks, and on-the-job performance declines and early termination of employment caused by smoking-caused disability or illness (dollar amount listed above is just from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death)."
I URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON PROP 86.

---

Visitor Name: Sandra Kroll
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach - Long Beach

ike Patricia Marr, I helped to gather signatures for this proposition, together
with scores of members from other congregations in our interfaith group, as
well as hundreds from other PICO-related organizations across the state.

I find myself in agreement with Chris Schreiner on two points. One of those is
that I, too, dislike smoking. As a former nicotine addict, I sympathize with
those individuals whom the tobacco industry has "hooked" into using their
product. But I, like Ms. Marr, have spoken with individuals who see hope in
the possibility that raising tobacco prices will furnish them with the final
incentive they need in order to break away, and I sympathize with them, in
particular. Those are not people who will seek out a contact with organized
crime in order to feed their addiction!

The frightening warning that this proposition will somehow strengthen
organized crime in California is only a remote possibility, unsupported by any
facts or other evidence. When weighed against the certainty of health care
coverage being extended to all of California's children, there's no doubt as to
which side my principles favor and where my vote lies.

The second point of agreement between myself and Chris Schreiner is that,
indeed, too much legislating is left in the hands of voters. In this case,
however, the legislative process has continually failed millions of California's
children, despite long and hard efforts to extend health care coverage to
those vulnerable individuals. In addition, this proposition will help to
eliminate the emergency room gap that continues to worsen, and it will
finance programs aimed at reducing smoking among our youth. No wonder
the tobacco companies hate this proposition. All Californians will benefit from
these outcomes. And once again, we may lead the country with this kind of legislation.

And that's why I'll vote unhesitatingly in favor of Prop. 86.

---

Visitor Name: Edie Keating
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto - Palo Alto

I have a teenager who smoked for six months, and then quit. The cost of smoking was a significant part of his decision to quit. (He's voting yes on 86) The state of CA estimates prop 86 will cut teen smoking by 43%

Secondly, I would love to see affordable health insurance for all California children. Prop 86 dedicates funds to make this possible for the 800,000 children in California who lack health insurance.

When these goals are possible now, I don't want to wait. Yes on 86.

---

Top of the page.