Taxing Tobacco: Clearing the Smoke May 17, 2012 Advocacy, CMA, SFMS Member California Cancer Research Act, Prop 29, CCRA 0 By Peter Curran, MD and Steve Heilig, MPH What is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the nation? Tobacco. What is one proven way to reduce that harm and mitigate associated economic costs? Taxing tobacco, and using the money for tobacco-related research and other health-oriented purposes. If only it were that simple. Actually, it is conclusively shown that higher tobacco taxes reduce use and provide funds for preventive and treatment efforts, but getting such taxes implemented is the complicated part. We call that “politics.” Last year, the SFMS brought a policy to the CMA in support of the California Cancer Research Act, under the authorship of CMA trustee and former SFMS president Robert Margolin, MD. This policy was adopted, and CMA is now in support of Proposition 29, along with a long list of health organizations. On the opposing side? The tobacco industry, of course, but in many guises. Here is just one example of one of its “front groups”: “Paid for by No on 29—Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending. Major funding by Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, with a coalition of taxpayers, small businesses, law enforcement, and labor.” The “coalition” mentioned consists of a variety of interests bought and paid for by tobacco funds—even associations like the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce have unfortunately been bribed with tobacco funds. Tobacco funds are paying for $15 million in television ads alone, and much more for anti-Proposition 29 propaganda, much of it recycled from previous specious arguments. California now ranks thirty-third among states in taxing tobacco. Clearing the tobacco-funded smoke to get California voters to see the wisdom of Proposition 29 will not be easy. But we agree with the Sacramento Bee, which recently editorialized that, despite some reluctance about the initiative process in general, “the potential benefits of raising the tobacco tax outweigh the uncertainties posed by Prop. 29 governance. And that’s the bottom line. To discourage smoking and save lives, California must again raise the tobacco tax. It must again overcome the specious arguments and hired guns of the tobacco barons.” Vote yes on Proposition 29. This article appeared in the May 2012 San Francisco Medicine President's Column. Comments are closed.
