Hmm.... P-C's link is swaying me a little, but whenever I see sites like that, I want to know who is behind the "facts" site. Props 1a through 1e are about raising taxes to pay for things like schools, roads, infrastructure stuff. My position that I'm in favor of all those things is only strengthened by the fact that the people who are against them in the voters booklet are a group called the Taxpayer Protection Something or Other, which basically sounds like a group of Republicans who just don't want to pay for the things these bills are supposed to pay for.

I'm almost automatically in favor of anything that group is against.

I went no on the 2.60 tax - even though I am haveing a harder and harder time being near smokers. I though it was a heavy tax on an end user. Esp. since the addictive powers of smokeing are huge. I had the easiest time quitting of anyone I know - because I limited my smokeing pretty severly from the beginning. Not sure I ever had a physical addiction. And once again - everything was so decptively worded that who what where the benifit was seemed lost.

If as a smoker, I am asked to pay this huge tax on my habit, then why aren't knitters and quilters and drinkers taxed this big as well?

Probably because those hobbies don't aggravate some kid's asthma or give non-smokers cancer.

Yes. Smoking (and drinking) puts a huge, unpaid burden on the public health system, which is why smoking gets disproportionately taxed.

Yes, maybe you as a smoker don't put that burden on the system yourself, but you also get taxed to pay for roads in Eureka, which you will never, ever drive on, as well as the roads here in LA that you drive on every day. Either way, you drive, and the taxes to raise the money needed to pay for road repairs around the state gets applied across the board. You smoke, and while you don't necessarily require public health care because of your smoking, the tax burden needs to be applied evenly anyway.

Is there a "penalty" tax on alcohol? I wouldn't mind paying a little more tax on alcohol to fund detox programs.

I'm not sure, but there should be, the way cigarettes are taxed. I have no idea what the numbers are, statistically speaking, between how much smoking costs in health care $$$ and alcohol does, but it has to be up there. Plus, drunk driving accidents, deaths, court costs, etc.

My co-worker got a call from Bill Clinton.

I got one of those today too.

I though it was a heavy tax on an end user.

It is a huge tax on the end user, and the people who should really be getting the shaft are the tobacco companies. I may get swayed at the last minute on this one.

Also won't get into the smoking thing. Most bans don't bother me, but I do know of one resturaunt it killed (It's one of those tierred ones, so because that place had more than 75% revenue from food- good steaks and stuff- they couldn't have smoking while the bars around it could so no one hung out after dinner, and then people just stopped going), and I know of a couple that do the whole slide a half cup of water your way.

I voted! I voted for Democrats, Libraries, low to moderate income housing and parks. I voted against moving some poor people so the city can have their land and court facilities.

I wish there had been more about the election and less about fucking buckeye football.

Isn't that true of everything in our fair city?

It's also a pretty regressive tax, which I'm against on principle.

Hmm.... P-C's link is swaying me a little, but whenever I see sites like that, I want to know who is behind the "facts" site.

Granted, there are questionable people with obvious agendas (of course small businesses oppose the tax, because they don't actually get any of that extra money they have to charge their customers!), but the fact that law enforcement, educators, and healthcare folks are up there is a stronger argument.

Props 1a through 1e are about raising taxes to pay for things like schools, roads, infrastructure stuff. My position that I'm in favor of all those things is only strengthened by the fact that the people who are against them in the voters booklet are a group called the Taxpayer Protection Something or Other, which basically sounds like a group of Republicans who just don't want to pay for the things these bills are supposed to pay for.

Yeah, that's a little weird, and basically, I understand that all the bills probably suck, so I chose my battles. I also took a look at The League's assessments, which are pretty interesting and easy to understand. They have a good argument against 1A, which I didn't really get from the booklet, even though it did sort of make the same case.