So I didn't mention anything about this before the election, because I was on the fence about it, and I didn't want to unduly influence anyone to vote a certain way when I wasn't sure that I was completely comfortable with my own position. But I voted against Measure 50, which would have modified the Oregon constitution to add about $0.80 in taxes to each pack of cigarettes sold in the state. The proceeds were to be spent on the Children's Health Fund, to expand medical coverage to Oregon kids who didn't have it and whose families couldn't afford it.
I wasn't even going to write about it, until I read this story this morning, in which supporters of the measure blamed its defeat on an advertising blitz paid for by tobacco companies. And that pissed me off, because it makes it sound as if those of us who voted against the measure (and it seems like there were a lot of us) are just ignorant tools of Big Tobacco.
For the record, I hate smoking. I smoked a pack and a half a day for seven years and quit cold turkey four and a half years ago. The closest I've come to having a cigarette since then was when I accidentally took a swig out of a beer bottle that my brother had been using as an ashtray, which was as unpleasant as it sounds. Now that I've got a sense of smell again, I hate leaving a bar or club at the end of the night and smelling like a chimney, and if I have my druthers, I'll choose to go to night spots where smoking is not allowed (although I don't believe in legislating this, but that's another rant for another day). The vast majority of my friends are not smokers, and I wish that the ones that still do smoke would wake up tomorrow and never take another drag again. And finally, I believe that the tobacco companies are drug pushers and cancer merchants who murdered their most loyal customers by misleading entire generations of smokers into believing that the health risks associated with smoking were insignificant.
Hopefully my non-smoker credentials are in order now. So why do I side with Big Tobacco over poor sick kids?
Well, I don't. I side with smokers, because I used to be one. And from a smoker's perspective, anti-smoking rhetoric is shrill, condescending, often poorly-informed and occasionally downright hostile. It's practically fundamentalist. There's no room for argument or questioning the science behind their conclusions, because to do so means that you are pro-cancer and a dupe of Big Tobacco. It's as if everyone with pink lungs and a big mouth thinks that smoking is the sole reason that humans don't live forever. In today's society, there are basically three groups of people that it's okay to talk shit about: fat people, Nazis and smokers. And the fat people are forming advocacy groups.
This whole measure was conceptually flawed and relied on emotional rather than rational arguments. It played upon the existing dislike of smoking (and, by extension, smokers) by saying that we can take care of sick kids by taxing something that you already don't like. All you have to do is take money away from filthy smokers, and we can have healthy children! It's a double feel-good!
Well, here's the thing: smokers are addicts, and a lot of them tend to be found on the lower end of the income scale. What good is expanding health care for poor kids if their single mother--who's just barely not getting by as it is--now has to come up with an additional $40 a month for her habit? And please don't use the excuse that higher-priced cigarettes will convince smokers to quit. That's the sort of logic that non-addicts come up with. Addiction isn't logical. When you're in the grip of it, it's your top priority. You will do what it takes to feed it. You will not quit until you are ready to quit. I smoked for years when I couldn't afford it. I quit because I was ready to quit, and while it was nice to have the extra money in my pocket, it wasn't the reason I did it. I don't know anyone who quit smoking for purely financial reasons. My brother claims to have done just that, but I think the fact that he quit right about the time he started living with a non-smoker who would play with his weenie had just as much, if not more, to do with it.
And even if the price of cigarettes did affect their consumption, financially punishing a specific class of people for their lifestyle choices is insulting and should be recognized for the bigotry that it is. Everyone has vices that reduce their quality of life. Unless you slavishly adhere to a healthy and balanced diet, avoid alcohol and trans fats, regularly exercise, eschew a stressful career and lifestyle, avoid a sedentary life, don't engage in activities that carry a disproportionate risk of injury and abstain from sex (which always carries some risk of STD transmission, no matter how you do it), please don't try to force other people to lead a healthier life. Of course, you can always make the innocent-victim-of-second-hand-smoke argument, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the dangers of second-hand smoke to healthy adults are dramatically overstated.
Finally, although I'm sure that some kids who would have qualified for this expanded health care would have needed it because White Trash Mom and Deadbeat Dad insist on smoking two packs a day inside their double-wide with all of the windows closed, cigarette smoke is not the only reason that kids get sick and need health care! Childhood obesity is supposed to be an epidemic, so why didn't this measure include a tax on potato chips and McDonald's? I might work in the video game industry, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not the healthiest thing in the world for a kid to sit on his ass for five hours a day playing video games, so how about a $10 surcharge for every video game sold in Oregon? There's ample evidence that a vegan diet can be extremely unhealthy for children. How about a tax on all foods that aren't meat or animal-derived? (If this is too broad, we can just tax patchouli oil and hacky sacks, or start kicking hippies in the nuts so they can't reproduce.)
Here's the reason why: because the Oregon legislators who pushed for this bill know that nicotine is one of the most powerfully addictive drugs in the world. They don't want to stop Big Tobacco from pushing drugs, they're just the pimps who want a cut of the profits. I'm glad that this bill went down in flames, and I hope that the Legislature finds a fairer and more reasonable way to extend health care to those who need it most.
I wasn't even going to write about it, until I read this story this morning, in which supporters of the measure blamed its defeat on an advertising blitz paid for by tobacco companies. And that pissed me off, because it makes it sound as if those of us who voted against the measure (and it seems like there were a lot of us) are just ignorant tools of Big Tobacco.
For the record, I hate smoking. I smoked a pack and a half a day for seven years and quit cold turkey four and a half years ago. The closest I've come to having a cigarette since then was when I accidentally took a swig out of a beer bottle that my brother had been using as an ashtray, which was as unpleasant as it sounds. Now that I've got a sense of smell again, I hate leaving a bar or club at the end of the night and smelling like a chimney, and if I have my druthers, I'll choose to go to night spots where smoking is not allowed (although I don't believe in legislating this, but that's another rant for another day). The vast majority of my friends are not smokers, and I wish that the ones that still do smoke would wake up tomorrow and never take another drag again. And finally, I believe that the tobacco companies are drug pushers and cancer merchants who murdered their most loyal customers by misleading entire generations of smokers into believing that the health risks associated with smoking were insignificant.
Hopefully my non-smoker credentials are in order now. So why do I side with Big Tobacco over poor sick kids?
Well, I don't. I side with smokers, because I used to be one. And from a smoker's perspective, anti-smoking rhetoric is shrill, condescending, often poorly-informed and occasionally downright hostile. It's practically fundamentalist. There's no room for argument or questioning the science behind their conclusions, because to do so means that you are pro-cancer and a dupe of Big Tobacco. It's as if everyone with pink lungs and a big mouth thinks that smoking is the sole reason that humans don't live forever. In today's society, there are basically three groups of people that it's okay to talk shit about: fat people, Nazis and smokers. And the fat people are forming advocacy groups.
This whole measure was conceptually flawed and relied on emotional rather than rational arguments. It played upon the existing dislike of smoking (and, by extension, smokers) by saying that we can take care of sick kids by taxing something that you already don't like. All you have to do is take money away from filthy smokers, and we can have healthy children! It's a double feel-good!
Well, here's the thing: smokers are addicts, and a lot of them tend to be found on the lower end of the income scale. What good is expanding health care for poor kids if their single mother--who's just barely not getting by as it is--now has to come up with an additional $40 a month for her habit? And please don't use the excuse that higher-priced cigarettes will convince smokers to quit. That's the sort of logic that non-addicts come up with. Addiction isn't logical. When you're in the grip of it, it's your top priority. You will do what it takes to feed it. You will not quit until you are ready to quit. I smoked for years when I couldn't afford it. I quit because I was ready to quit, and while it was nice to have the extra money in my pocket, it wasn't the reason I did it. I don't know anyone who quit smoking for purely financial reasons. My brother claims to have done just that, but I think the fact that he quit right about the time he started living with a non-smoker who would play with his weenie had just as much, if not more, to do with it.
And even if the price of cigarettes did affect their consumption, financially punishing a specific class of people for their lifestyle choices is insulting and should be recognized for the bigotry that it is. Everyone has vices that reduce their quality of life. Unless you slavishly adhere to a healthy and balanced diet, avoid alcohol and trans fats, regularly exercise, eschew a stressful career and lifestyle, avoid a sedentary life, don't engage in activities that carry a disproportionate risk of injury and abstain from sex (which always carries some risk of STD transmission, no matter how you do it), please don't try to force other people to lead a healthier life. Of course, you can always make the innocent-victim-of-second-hand-smoke argument, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the dangers of second-hand smoke to healthy adults are dramatically overstated.
Finally, although I'm sure that some kids who would have qualified for this expanded health care would have needed it because White Trash Mom and Deadbeat Dad insist on smoking two packs a day inside their double-wide with all of the windows closed, cigarette smoke is not the only reason that kids get sick and need health care! Childhood obesity is supposed to be an epidemic, so why didn't this measure include a tax on potato chips and McDonald's? I might work in the video game industry, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not the healthiest thing in the world for a kid to sit on his ass for five hours a day playing video games, so how about a $10 surcharge for every video game sold in Oregon? There's ample evidence that a vegan diet can be extremely unhealthy for children. How about a tax on all foods that aren't meat or animal-derived? (If this is too broad, we can just tax patchouli oil and hacky sacks, or start kicking hippies in the nuts so they can't reproduce.)
Here's the reason why: because the Oregon legislators who pushed for this bill know that nicotine is one of the most powerfully addictive drugs in the world. They don't want to stop Big Tobacco from pushing drugs, they're just the pimps who want a cut of the profits. I'm glad that this bill went down in flames, and I hope that the Legislature finds a fairer and more reasonable way to extend health care to those who need it most.
babyblue:
Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm almost always afraid to vote yes on any measure, unless it's modifying or repealing an already existing one, like Measure 49. Never know what those bastard legislators will try to sneak by. 