This article's sourcesmay have beencherry-picked. Itsaccuracy and/orneutrality is potentially compromised. Please helpimprove it by introducing a greater range of sources and ensuring they lend equal weight to varying viewpoints.(January 2013)
The measure would have placed a $1excise on tobacco products into a protected fund to finance medical research on smoking-related illnesses, strengthen California’s smoking prevention and cessation programs, and enforce the state’s existing tobacco laws.
The independentCalifornia Legislative Analyst's Office projected that the measure would have generated approximately $855 million in first year, declining slightly but predictably (about 3% annually due to decrease in the number of smokers) every year thereafter.[1]
The measure would have created a nine-member committee charged with administering direct revenues. This oversight committee was to be composed of cancer-research medical professionals,University of California Chancellors, and representatives of national disease advocacy groups. The measure restricted administration costs to no more than 2% of its direct tax revenues.[2]
The measure failed by a small margin of .4 percentage points. Later, in 2016, the cigarette tax was increased by the successful passage ofCalifornia Proposition 56.
Approximately $75 million annually: Maintaining existing tobacco tax revenue streams to ensure that theCalifornia Proposition 99 (1988),California Proposition 10 (1998), General Fund and Breast Cancer programs funded by existing tobacco taxes are not negatively impacted by theexcise tax increase;
60% (approximately $468 million annually): Research of cancer and tobacco-related disease "for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases, including but not limited to coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease";
15% (approximately $117 million annually): Facilities and capital equipment for research "for the purposes of grants and loans to provide facilities, including but not limited to those building, building leases and capital equipment as may be found necessary and appropriate by the Committee, to furtherbiomedical,epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, rehabilitation and potential cures oflung cancer and other types of cancer,cardiovascular disease,emphysema and other tobacco related diseases";
20% (approximately $156 million annually): Tobacco prevention and cessation to the state’s existing tobacco control program. These funds would be divided between theCalifornia Department of Public Health (80%) and theCalifornia Department of Education (20%) for their existing programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco.
3% (approximately $23 million annually): Tobacco law enforcement "to support law enforcement efforts to reducecigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion, and counterfeit tobacco products, to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and to enforce legal settlement provisions and conduct law enforcement training and technical assistance activities for tobacco related statues".
No more than 2% (approximately $16 million annually): Administration.
The measure would have created a 9-member governing committee charged with administering the fund. The California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee was to be composed of:[5]
3 "selected from among Cancer Center Directors ofNational Cancer Institute designated cancer centers located within the State of California" (appointed by theCalifornia Governor)
1 "affiliated with a California Academic Medical Center who is a practicingphysician with expertise in the prevention, treatment or research ofcardiovascular disease" (appointed by theCalifornia Governor)
2 "selected from among California representatives of California or national disease advocacy groups whose focus is tobacco-related illness, at least one of whom shall be a person who has been treated for a tobacco related illness." (appointed by Director ofCalifornia Department of Public Health)
A Committee to establish a peer review process for selection of grants modeled on the process used by theNational Institutes of Health.
TheCalifornia Secretary of State confirmed that The California Cancer Research Act had qualified for California’s next statewide ballot on August 24, 2010, after its supporting coalition submitted 633,453 voter signatures for verification in June 2010. To qualify, the measure required 433,971 signatures, or more.[6]
No
