No Tobacco Tax for Research?
06/11/2012 Daniel B. Moskowitz
To increase funding for cancer research, should tobacco products be taxed
more? The California vote remains too close to call.
It's a cliff-hanger. On June 5, California voters were asked to consider a
proposal to add a $1-per-pack tax on cigarette sales in the state, with the
revenue going to fund biomedical research. Following the preliminary vote
counts on election night, the plan, called Proposition 29, appeared to have
been rejected by around 63,000 votes.
But the final outcome remains uncertain. As officials wade through hundreds
of thousands of mail and disputed ballots, the margin has narrowed, and Prop
29 backers continue to hope for its passage.
As the final votes are counted, proponents of a tax on tobacco products that
would benefit biomedical research remain hopeful.
Join the conversation Official state estimates reported that the new tax
would generate about $441 million in the next fiscal year for research on
cancer and other tobacco-related diseases. In addition, it would provide $
110 million to build new facilities and acquire new equipment to be used for
such research.
Kristiina Vuori, president of Sanford-Burnhan Medical Research Institute,
believes that the money would go a long way to fund translational research
in cancer research. "Every organization doing medical research in this
country has more ideas than we can get funding for," she said. "It means a
lot of ideas aren't being pursued."
California has previously passed a tobacco tax that is dedicated to
biomedical research. In 1992, science administrators at the University of
California spearheaded a coalition that successfully lobbied for an
additional 2 cents-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax that would benefit
the California Breast Cancer Research Program. That program is now one of
the largest state-funded research efforts in the country; it has distributed
a total of $220 million in research funding. Then in 2004, CA voters
approved a proposition to authorize the appropriation of $3 billion worth of
general obligation bonds to stem cell research funding.
In February, a poll of CA voters found strong support for the proposed
tobacco tax increase: 67% of voters planned to tick "yes" on Proposition 29.
Why the turnaround in voter support? The most obvious answer is that
opponents to the tax were simply funded better. By June 3, proponents raised
just over $12 million while the opponents rounded up $47 million.
Moreover, opponents "did a brilliant campaign," said Ahmed Enany, president
of the Southern California Biomedical Council. Their campaign managed to
shift the focus from the health impact of smoking and the benefits of
research funding to a more general debate on the state of the California
economy and whether right now there are more pressing public service needs,
such as schooling and policing.
"Many people on my board of directors were supporting it reluctantly,
because they are fiscal conservatives," Enany explained.
Vuori thinks that the special state tax is still a viable way to fund
biomedical research, but it might have to wait until the economy is more
robust.
