The measure would have placed a $1 excise 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 independent California 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 of California Proposition 56.
Approximately $75 million annually: Maintaining existing tobacco tax revenue streams to ensure that the California Proposition 99 (1988), California Proposition 10 (1998), General Fund and Breast Cancer programs funded by existing tobacco taxes are not negatively impacted by the excise 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 further biomedical, 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 of lung 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 the California Department of Public Health (80%) and the California 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 reduce cigarette 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.
Oversightedit
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 of National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers located within the State of California" (appointed by the California Governor)
1 "affiliated with a California Academic Medical Center who is a practicing physician with expertise in the prevention, treatment or research of cardiovascular disease" (appointed by the California 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 of California Department of Public Health)
A Committee to establish a peer review process for selection of grants modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health.
Ballot qualificationedit
The California 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]
2012, california, proposition, this, article, sources, have, been, cherry, picked, please, help, improve, article, january, 2013, proposition, california, cancer, research, california, ballot, measure, that, defeated, california, voters, statewide, election, j. This article s sources may have been cherry picked Please help improve the article January 2013 Proposition 29 the California Cancer Research Act is a California ballot measure that was defeated by California voters at the statewide election on June 5 2012 The measure would have placed a 1 excise 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 independent California 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 California Cancer Research Act was widely supported by cancer advocates including cancer survivor Lance Armstrong and the American Cancer Society 3 The measure failed by a small margin of 4 percentage points Later in 2016 the cigarette tax was increased by the successful passage of California Proposition 56 Contents 1 Detail 1 1 How CCRA revenue would have been spent 1 2 Oversight 2 Ballot qualification 3 Election results 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksDetail editHow CCRA revenue would have been spent edit According to the independent California Legislative Analyst s Office revenue raised by the measure would have been spent as follows 4 Approximately 75 million annually Maintaining existing tobacco tax revenue streams to ensure that the California Proposition 99 1988 California Proposition 10 1998 General Fund and Breast Cancer programs funded by existing tobacco taxes are not negatively impacted by the excise 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 further biomedical 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 of lung 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 the California Department of Public Health 80 and the California 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 reduce cigarette 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 Oversight edit 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 University of California chancellors 3 selected from among Cancer Center Directors of National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers located within the State of California appointed by the California Governor 1 affiliated with a California Academic Medical Center who is a practicing physician with expertise in the prevention treatment or research of cardiovascular disease appointed by the California 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 of California Department of Public Health A Committee to establish a peer review process for selection of grants modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health Ballot qualification editThe California 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 Election results edit nbsp Results by county Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research Choice Votes nbsp No 2 592 791 50 23 Yes 2 568 715 49 77 Total votes 5 161 506 100 00 Registered voters turnout 23 713 027 7 See also editTobacco in the United States California Proposition 10 1998 California Proposition 56 2016 References edit California Legislative Analyst s Office January 15 2010 Full text of the California Cancer Research Act PDF Archived from the original PDF on June 12 2011 Retrieved April 12 2011 Steering Committee of the Campaign to Pass the California Cancer Research Act Archived from the original on September 11 2011 Retrieved April 12 2011 California Secretary of State Qualified California Ballot Measures Archived from the original on May 15 2014 Retrieved April 12 2011 Full Text of the California Cancer Research Act permanent dead link California Secretary of State Qualified California Ballot Measures Archived from the original on May 15 2014 Retrieved April 12 2011 Archived copy PDF Archived from the original PDF on October 18 2012 Retrieved July 14 2012 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint archived copy as title link External links editLetter to Attorney General Requesting Ballot Title Full Text of the California Cancer Research Act permanent dead link Opposition Website Archived May 24 2011 at the Wayback Machine Clickable Map from the Secretary of State to county by county returns and results for Proposition 29 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title 2012 California Proposition 29 amp oldid 1218744480, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
