Upcoming prop to tax smokers Kevin Smead
WEDNESDAY May 9, 2012 Volume 97 Issue 118 W W W.T H E D A I LYA Z T E C . C O M
facebook.com/dailyaztec twitter: thedailyaztec
SCAN CODE FOR MOBILE CONTENT
SDSU’S INDEPENDENT STUDENT N E W S PA P E R SINCE 1913
assistant news editor Next month, Californians will vote on two ballot measures that are quickly becoming prominent as debate surrounding them heats up. While Proposition 28 reduces term limits for members of the state legislature by two years (from 14 to 12), Proposition 29 focuses on an issue that directly affects all Californians. The proposition, which was placed on the ballot by petition, would impose an additional $1 tax on each pack of cigarettes. This would increase the tax on cigarette packs from 87 cents to $1.87. Proponents of Proposition 29 claim this tax would raise between $700 and $800 million a year. This money would specifically fund research to find cures for cancer and other tobacco-related illnesses. “If I thought all that money would actually go to cancer research I might be for it. But I think it’s basically just another way for the government to try and discourage smokers (along with all the extra taxes, non-smoking areas, warning labels, etc),” nonsmoker Rachael Butcher said. The proposed la,w titled Hope 2010: The California Cancer Research Act, allots varying percentages of funds to different aspects of cancer research. Sixty percent of the funds accumulated will flow directly into the Hope 2010 Research Fund, which is the portion of the act set aside specifically for research grants. Fifteen percent of the funds will be put toward providing equipment and facilities to be used for the research. Twenty percent will be allotted to the Hope 2010 Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund, which focuses on the regulation and prevention of tobacco use, including the implementation of tobacco education programs.
INDEX:
E N T E R TA I N M E N T
Proposition 29 will add an additional $1 to the 87 cent tax on cigarretes. Most of its revenue will go toward cancer research. | THINKSTOCK
“I don’t necessarily think it’s fine to target smokers only, but when it’s for something as important as cancer research, I don’t care at all.” television, film and new media senior and smoker James Reese said. “You also have to consider the fact that we, as smokers, may benefit later from the research we are helping to fund now.” The remaining 5 percent is directed toward committee costs and law enforcement programs that combat the sale of untaxed and illegal tobacco. The implementation of these measures is to be overseen by the Hope 2010 Cancer Research Citizens Oversight Committee, which is made up of members from state
health offices and members of the scientific community. The proposition is supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Stroke Association, as well as many other cancer-related organizations. The ballot measure is not without its opposition, though. The “No on Prop 29” campaign is very vocal in expressing its stance, claiming the proposition is the brainchild of a “career politician,” and“the so-called California Cancer Research Act, is a flawed and poorly drafted measure that would create a new unaccountable state bureaucracy filled with political appointees.”
The group behind the campaign calls itself Californians Against Outof-Control Taxes and Spending. With the vote less than a month away, nearly $40 million has been spent on the No on 29 campaign. The largest donors include cigarette companies Phillip Morris USA and R. J. Reynolds. The rhetoric used by the antiProposition 29 group spotlights the omission of the state budget from the measure, the potential wasteful spending, “conflicts of interest” and the assertion that this measures circumvents a tax requirement, which mandates 40 percent of tax revenue must go toward schools. The measure will be voted on June fifth.
Matthew Rocca talks cults, vampires and student acting opportunities.
2
CFA protests CSU trustees meeting Hutton Marshall news editor Donning red shirts reading “I don’t want to strike, but I will,” approximately 150 faculty members from San Diego State to Humbolt State rallied at the California State University Chancellor’s Office in Long Beach to protest the CSU Board of Trustees meeting. According to a press release sent out by the California Faculty Association, the CSU trustees will be looking to revise their recently instated policy allowing a newly hired CSU executive to receive a salary increase no greater than 10 percent of their predecessor. This policy was implemented after the widespread criticism SDSU and other CSUs received after paying President Elliot Hirshman 33 percent more than his predecessor, Stephen L. Weber. The proposed change would cap the amount of money state funds contribute to salaries of newly hired CSU presidents. Although the capped salary increase would remain at 10 percent, only non-state funds could pay for these raises. The funds that would go toward these salary increases would come from the private donation-funded foundations at each CSU School.
“So what the CSU is proposing is to actually freeze what presidents would get from the state side of CSU, tuition funds or anything like that, at the level of the predecessor,” CSU media relations manager Erik Fallis said. “So it’s actually a more strict policy than the prior one.”
would no longer come from the stategenerated funds, it still comes out of money that would as a result no longer be spent on students.” Meanwhile, the bargaining process between CFA and CSU administrators remains unresolved. Their respective bargaining teams convened last week-
“There seems to be a fundamental disagreement ... on what it is we’re talking about. We’re hopeful, but not optimistic.” Brian Ferguson, California Faculty Association spokesperson Currently, Hirshman receives $350,000 in state funds and $50,000 from foundation money. Faculty protesters call this move by the trustees a “shell game.” “They say (the money for presidential salaries) comes out of a different pot, but all these pots affect students negatively,” CFA spokesperson Brian Ferguson said. “The foundations do things like fund student activities and scholarships, and although the raises
end, but the discussion ended when the CFA walked away from the table. “We sat down with them trying to come to an agreement last week, they walked out of those contract negotiations yesterday, and frankly the only issue we thought was still unresolved when they walked was how much in state taxpayer and student tuition dollars went toward paying their president and committee action chair to do union and
political business,” Fallis said. He said the bargainers had come to an agreement on faculty pay. “The faculty has been lying about where we were about that issue,” Fallis said. “In fact, they sent a proposal forward on April 6 that essentially took that issue off the table. But they’ve been making statements on the contrary.” On the other hand, Ferguson said the bargaining teams still have several unresolved issues. “The CSU says issues are resolved, in as much as they’re no longer willing to talk about them,” Ferguson said. “There’s 40 articles in our contract, and I think they’ve only agreed on 13 or 14 of them.” Ferguson lists job security for lecturer faculty and making sure faculty rather than administrators determine class sizes as important issues yet to be agreed upon. He also claims faculty salary remains unresolved. “There seems to be a fundamental disagreement between the sides on what it is we’re talking about,” Ferguson said. “We’re hopeful, but not optimistic. The fact that the administration has said they want to talk and want to talk often is a good sign though.”
F E AT U R E S Clothing trucks drive local fashion to newer, trendier heights.
3
Although I’ve grown to love you, East Commons, I’m looking forward to getting away from you for the next few months. I need my space ... maybe we can start again. B A C K PA G E
4
W E AT H E R : SUNNY HIGH: 77 LOW: 58 SUNSET: 7:37 PM