> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://ivn.us/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Proposition 29: Cons
- URL: https://ivn.us/proposition-29-cons-2/
- Published: 2012-05-02T05:03:15.000Z
- Updated: 2026-06-22T19:24:19.000Z
- Author: Kymberly Bays
- Tags: News

*No on Prop. 29 (or Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending) Proponents/Funders: Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds, and more. Complete list can be [found here](http://www.noon29.com/about-us?ref=ivn.us).*

- Proposition 29 would raise tax on cigarettes sold in California by $1 a pack.
- Proposition 29 uses new tax revenues for a narrow purpose.
- If passed, Proposition 29 could allow tax dollars to fund out-of-state research.
- The revenues from the increase in cigarette tax would be used to create a new bureaucracy in the state.
- The new state agency would replicate functions and funding of the federal entity *National Institutes of Health*.
- Proposition 29 creates a large new medical research program, *California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund*.
- Potential for lack of accountability with the new agency's *Cancer Reseach Citizens Oversight Committee*, a 9-member board consisting of three University of California chancellors, three from state's cancer centers, physician from a California Academic Medical Center and two members from advocacy groups.
- The [Sacramento Bee Editorial Board is against Proposition 29](http://www.modbee.com/2012/05/03/2185423/no-on-prop-29-bad-governance.html?ref=ivn.us#storylink=cpy) specifically due to accountability questions, citing: "There would be an annual audit of the agency, but no clear way for the state — the Legislature, the governor or anyone — to fix any flaws or problems that became evident."
- California's Legislative Analyst's Office predicts the tax would raise $735 million a year, but this figure would likely decline in future years.
- 25 cents per pack of cigarettes under the state's current cigarette tax already goes to tobacco education programs.
- The [Los Angeles Times](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/27/opinion/la-ed-prop29-20120427?ref=ivn.us) does not support the measure, claiming: "It just doesn't make sense for the state to get into the medical research business to the tune of half a billion dollars a year when it has so many other important unmet needs."
- While modeled after Proposition 71, which created a stem-cell agency with $3 billion in bond funding eight years ago, the older initiative provided a defined amount of money for research. Proposition 29 would spend more. In contrast, as the LA Times points out, Proposition 71 also "created a structure under which the state and its taxpayers could [share in royalties and licenses](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/27/opinion/la-ed-prop29-20120427?ref=ivn.us) from new discoveries."
- There can be no changes made to the Act by the Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee for 15 years.