Skip to content
Subscribe

Proposition 29: Cons

Published:

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.

  • 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 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 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 from new discoveries."
  • There can be no changes made to the Act by the Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee for 15 years.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Proposition 29: Cons

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us