The Other Side: What Proponents of a Yes Vote Say About Prop 29

This post is written by Heather Gonzales, whose work can also be found on CNN, the Harvard Health Blog, and Dominion.

California’s Proposition 29 is trying to make a new law about public health. It wants to put a new tax on tobacco products and use the money to pay for cancer research, stop smoking programs, and other health things. People are arguing about this proposition because of how it might affect public health, get money and change how people act about tobacco and voting Yes on Proposition 29 means you’re okay with extra taxes on tobacco to try to make public health better.

 

If it passes, there would be an extra $1 tax on each pack of cigarettes in California. That would make the total state tax $1. 87 per pack. They think the tax would bring in around $735 million every year. Most of the money would go to research cancer and diseases from tobacco. Some of the money would also help programs to stop smoking, pay for administration costs, and help law enforcement stop underage tobacco sales and people avoiding the tax.

The biggest impact of voting Yes on Prop 29 would probably be better public health because of funding more research and less smoking. The extra tax would make cigarettes more expensive especially for younger people who are more sensitive to price. That could mean fewer tobacco-related diseases and less burden on the healthcare system.

Nurturing Wellness in Society

Advocating for the halt of tobacco usage and supporting prevention strategies, a thumbs-up for Prop 29 is essentially a nod towards fostering healthier living and choices among Californians. It’s this proposition’s goal to put a damper on tobacco usage by tweaking societal perceptions and standards about smoking, chiefly among the young folk. It plans to offer a helping hand with resources to those endeavoring to kick the smoking habit.

Societal and Economic Ripple Effects

The roll-out of Prop 29 is not just about health — not by a country mile. It’s without a doubt going to shake the economic tree too. Naysayers are — because of course they are — quick to point out that taxing tobacco more means we might see fewer jobs in the tobacco and allied industries. But those who are all for the proposition make the intelligent retort that the economy will, in the long run, see more greens, thanks to slashed healthcare expenditures and a boost in productivity, as people are healthier and happier, and overall just in better shape. The temporary economic pinch is the smallest of prices to pay.

Let’s conjure up a hypothetical situation where Jane, a worker in the tobacco sector, finds her job on the line due to this proposition. However, as the air clears of tobacco smoke, she finds a more rewarding role in a sector promoting wellness and, voila, she’s part of a movement fostering societal health.

Furthermore, channeling funds towards law enforcement is bound to reinforce the crackdown on tobacco sales and the illegal tobacco trade, paving the way for a more secure and law-respecting society.

Wrapping It Up

Proponents state that giving the metaphorical green light to California’s Proposition 29 means we’re leaping way forward in the crusade against diseases tied to tobacco and advocating stronger public health. This proposed tobacco tax is not just about filling the coffers, not at all; it’s a comprehensive strategy to cut down smoking, funnel funds into vital public health research, inspire healthier and more wholesome living, and lock in long-term economic and societal perks.

But for all this to unfold smoothly and without a hitch, the proposition needs to be rolled out fairly and efficiently, assuring the revenue is put where it’s meant to be, and the advantages are felt across the board. If Prop 29 does see the light of day and get passed, it could set the benchmark for other states and nations wanting to tackle the health complications brought to light by tobacco, reshaping the terrain of health policy and research.…

California’s Proposition 29: A Successful Public Health Funding Story

Currently, a pack of cigarettes is taxed at 87 cents. This money has been used to sponsor research. In 2012-13, a total of $870 million in revenue was raised from cigarette and tobacco products. The money collected from the tax also helps fund children’s health insurance program that subsidizes health insurance for children from low-income families. 

Two organizations in California have greatly benefitted: 

  • The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) seeks to fund and research the nervous system and minimize the burden of disease. In 2013, about $285 million out of a total of $1.6 billion was allocated to California-based organizations for research. 90% of the total amount is used for research, leading to new treatment strategies and medicines aimed at improving patient outcomes.
  • National Institute of Aging (NIA): NIA is mandated to scientifically understand aging. Through the Neuroscience Division, NIA investigates how aging affects behavior and the CNS. Since tobacco use and smoking is a behavior that also affects the CNS, NIA is supported by a budget of $1.1 billion annually, 40% of which goes to the neuroscience division. In 2013, California-based institutes gained over $170 million from NIA to support research. 

Why California’s Proposition 29 Failed

Eventually, the proposition was shot down at the vote despite its good proposals. The majority of the voters thought the additional taxes would be punitive and too heavy to bear. Opponents did not even consider the positive research breakthroughs that have since been enabled by the revenues collected. 

Opponents opine that the additional costs are added taxes on the taxpayer, when in the real sense that is not the case. Moreover, they suggested the government was in a financial crisis and that was not an area of priority for government to spend heavily on. They also claimed the lack of oversight from external agencies, suggesting a lack of accountability. 

The narrow margin in the votes meant that Prop 29 was defeated and the proposed changes were not effected. It also meant that tobacco control in California was dealt a huge blow. 

Conclusion

California’s Proposition 29 sought to introduce new taxes on tobacco products and cigarettes to help fund public health initiatives that could result in reduced smoking rates and related diseases. 

Even without the increased taxes, the fund from the taxes has helped conduct research on cancer through NINDS and also on aging and behavior via NIS. The program has supported children from low-income families through school and engaged in public education awareness to help people know the health effects of smoking and tobacco use. 

The fund has also eased people going to the hospital through insurance plans. Had the proposition succeeded, a lot of revenue would have been collected and used to run more campaigns, conduct research, create employment opportunities, and improve the living standards of people in California. 

Overall, proposition 29 enhanced public health funding in California. With a reduction in the number of teen smokers, the initiative succeeded in raising more money that was put into other research activities to enhance healthcare and public health education. 

Whether the proposition will come back for a vote in the future remains likely.

Key Issues Raised: What it Means to Public Health Funding

California’s Proposition 29 raised key issues that are critical for public health funding. These include:

  • All money raised from Proposition 29 should be used in California.
  • 60% (about $441 million yearly would be used for cancer and tobacco-related disease research to offer grants and loans in supporting research for “prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco-related diseases, including but not limited to coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease.”
  • An annual fee of $110 million (about 15%) would be used to give loans and grants to enhance equipment and facilities for furthering biomedical, health, and epidemiological services to enhance the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of cancer and cardiovascular disease patients resulting from tobacco use. 
  • $147 million annual fee, which is about 20% to be used in the state tobacco cessation and prevention program. 80% of these funds would go to the California Department of Public Health while 20% to the California Department of Education for reducing and preventing tobacco use programs and initiatives. 
  • An annual fee of $22 million, which is about 3% would go to tobacco law enforcement. The money would be used to strengthen law enforcement by preventing tobacco smuggling, counterfeit tobacco products, cigarette smuggling, tax evasion, and minimizing illegal tobacco products, and providing technical assistance and law enforcement training for tobacco-related activities. 
  • On a yearly basis, $15 million, which is about 2% would be used for administrative purposes on tobacco-related activities in California. 

Another study suggests that Prop 29 would have not only saved lives, invested in cancer research, and protected kids, but also saved over %80 million spent on healthcare costs in five years. It could also have saved over $5 billion in the long term through the reduction in young and adult smoking. 

Moreover, 12,000 new jobs could have been created in research and California would benefit from $1.9 billion in new economic activities. The $800 million that is always taken out of the state to tobacco companies would be channeled back into the economy to improve California’s economy.

California’s Proposition 29: Analyzing the Impact on Public Health Funding

Every year, taxpayers in California spend $9 billion on healthcare while most of this money is lost in productivity. In each pack of cigarettes, there is a $15 cost charged. California has the lowest level of tax on cigarettes and tobacco with only 87 cents per pack. 

In 2012, a proposition was put on the ballot in California that would have had a significant impact on public health funding. Proposition 29 aimed at increasing taxes on tobacco products to get more money that could fund public health initiatives and programs. The proposition’s intention was to reduce tobacco consumption, which would reduce the health problems associated with it, and enhance health in California. 

This article seeks to understand how California’s Proposition 29’s impact on public health funding. 

A win for State and Local Governments: Reduced Healthcare Costs

Currently, State and local governments are struggling with healthcare costs, especially in dealing with issues related to tobacco use and associated diseases. What Proposition 29 brought was increased taxes on tobacco, generating billions of dollars to fund public health initiatives and programs to reduce tobacco consumption. 

The high taxes were meant to increase the cost of cigarettes and discourage people from smoking or using tobacco products. As a result, there would be reduced tobacco-related deaths and diseases. 

The following organizations supported Prop 29:

  • American Heart Association
  • American Cancer Association
  • Californians for a Cure 
  • American Lung Association of California

In California, state and local governments spend money providing health insurance to state and local government employees, and healthcare for uninsured persons and low-income earners. This places a huge burden on the government for sure. With Proposition 29’s recommendations, the governments will not shoulder this burden since public funding costs would be taken care of by the monies raised from the initiative and the taxes. Low-income earners and people without insurance would hugely benefit. 

The initiative is expected to reduce tobacco product consumption by a large margin. Studies demonstrate that the use of tobacco products is associated with many health effects. Therefore, Proposition 29 sought to reduce the state and local government’s total spending on tobacco-related illnesses. 

Moreover, Proposition 29 would have fiscal effects that would save more costs. For instance, fewer costs would be incurred by state and local governments in providing social services and healthcare. 

The High Costs Would Reduce Smokers and Enhance Better Health

California’s Proposition 29 intended to raise $737 billion annually in new tax revenues. According to Ray Durazo, had the proposition been passed, it would have saved 104, 000 lives and saved up to 228, 000 kids from dropping out of school. That means there will be a significant drop in the number of children that will start smoking when new taxes take effect. 

Besides, Prop 29 intended to triple the funding by the state for smoking cessation programs, leading to fewer teen smokers while increasing funds for cessation and tobacco control could help smokers quit because of increased costs. This would have resulted in less profits for big tobacco and fewer smokers and a healthy society. 

One of the key aspects of the fund was to fund research to find cures for cancer and offer better treatment to patients of tobacco-related infections and diseases. These funds are mostly used in unaccountable ways. However, these funds would have been managed by a committee of 9 members to enhance accountability. The funds would not be used for the general fund but only for purposes of research and enhancing medical equipment and facilities to treat cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other diseases resulting from smoking and the use of tobacco products.