Californians for a Cure introduced Proposition 29, which will be voted on the June 5 presidential primary ballot and aims to increase taxes by $1 per pack, raising the total to $1.87 per pack of cigarettes.

The extra revenue collected from these taxes would go to fund further cancer research and programs that seek to reduce smoking among children, as well as create a nine-member committee to administer the funds known as the California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee.

In 2006, California narrowly failed to pass Proposition 86, which sought to tax cigarettes an additional $2.60 per pack. Proposition 86 planned to use the additional tax revenue for various services in hospital care and anti-smoking campaigns.

“The main difference is that 100 percent of the money from Proposition 29 goes to fighting cancer and other tobacco related diseases,” said Timothy Gibbs, who spoke on behalf of Californians for a Cure. “Proposition 86 funded a lot of other programs and worthy healthcare initiatives, but this one is much simpler leaving less for big tobacco companies to skew voters.”

The initiative is projected to generate about $735 million a year in new tax revenue, but tobacco companies raise concerns about where extra tax revenue will go. The initiative does not require any of the money to be spent in California, and the opposition points out that none of it will go to fixing California’s budget deficit.

The “No on 29” campaign could not be reached for interview, but their press release expressed concerns with the new nine-member committee that would be created. They explained the budget break down which would allow $15 million, about two percent, to be used by the new committee to cover “overhead” costs which includes pensions.

The press release explains how Proposition 29 will be exempt from Proposition 98, which was passed in 1998. Proposition 98 requires 40 percent of all new General Fund revenues to K-14 education.

This means the schools would be losing out on $294 million a year because Proposition 29 works through a loophole.

Tobacco companies have thrown nearly $40 million to support the opposition while only $5.5 million in campaign money has gone to support the initiative. Most of the opposition money has come from Altria, a parent company of Philip Morris.

Supporters of Proposition 29 include the American Cancer Society, Lance Armstrong Foundation, American Heart Association, as well as the American Lung Association.

Even if the initiative passes, big tobacco is likely to challenge the initiative in court, but Californians for a Cure believe there is nothing big tobacco will have a legitimate chance to challenge.
“There is no expectation that it will end up in courts because the initiative is well written,” said Gibbs. “If they do, we’ll defend it, and we’ll win.”

The dollar increase in cigarette taxes is projected to decrease youth smoking by 13.7 percent as well as helping 118,300 adult smokers quit after a year. Over a five-year period, Proposition 29 is expected to save $37.9 million from fewer smoking-affected pregnancies and births, and $43 million from fewer smoking related heart attacks and strokes.

The revenue breakdown puts 60 percent into research for tobacco-related disease and cancer, 15 percent into facilities and equipment for research, 20 percent into tobacco prevention programs, 3 percent into tobacco law enforcement and 2 percent for the administration committee.

“Proposition 29 is critically important because it will save lives by keeping kids from smoking and fund much needed cancer research,” said Gibbs. “In fact, it will save more than 100,000 lives and it will keep 28,000 children from ever starting to smoke.”