# California Proposition 29 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928 "2012-06-03T12:49:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![scismgenie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19adc/32.png) [@scismgenie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scismgenie)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/1 "2012-06-03T12:49:33Z")
Proposition 29 establishes a tax that ONLY applies to smokers, to pay for Cancer research. Does the tax violate the provisions of the 14th Amendment regarding class, as it discriminates against a CLASS of citizens by taxing them specifically, and not being apportioned to the general population? It CLASSIFIES smokers as a separate Tax base. It is being promoted as a tax for passage because ONLY the (hated} smokers will have to pay it? The Non-smokers will receive the benefit of the tax as well as the smokers. This is the next in along series of taxes applied against smokers specifically. Tobacco is a legal product and smoking is a lawful activity. Although there are many laws being implemented to try to make it impossible to smoke, by location, the activity itself is legal. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/2 "2012-06-03T12:59:52Z")
This is absurd. It’s just a $1 tax on cigarette packs. Nothing more. There’s already a state tax on tobacco. This just raises it and dedicates the money to cancer research. Almost all states have tobacco taxes. The feds have their own tax. It’s not a tax on people at all. Whether you smoke or not, if you buy a pack, you pay a tax. There are, for example, gasoline taxes. Does this discriminate against drivers? Shesh. I am amazed by the very question. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/3 "2012-06-03T13:03:34Z")
No, it doesn’t violate the 14th amendment, which has nothing to do with taxes. There is no constitutional prohibition against taxing certain classes of people. If there were, there would be no property taxes, which affects the class of property owners, no fuel taxes, which affect the class of car drivers, no vehicle taxes, which affect the class of car owners, no estate taxes, which affect the class of dead people, and no income taxes, which affect the class of people with incomes, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/4 "2012-06-03T13:37:35Z")
Full disclosure, I’m a smoker. OTOH maybe paying more for cancer research wouldn’t be such a bad thing. The more research there is the better chance you have of getting rid of the cancer if you end up getting it. OTOOH, I don’t smoke enough for small raises in the price of cigarettes to make that big of a difference to me. I go through about 2.5 packs a week so a tax like that would cost me about $10 a month. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/5 "2012-06-03T13:40:14Z")
Not to mention that the Constitition specifically authorizes the Federal government to collect excise taxes. One must pull a rabbit out of one’s sleeve to explain why the Feds can collect an excise, but states would be prohibited from doing the same because of the 14th Amendment. So, as others have said, excise taxes are not discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/6 "2012-06-03T13:41:50Z")
The “class” involved here would have to be “suspect class”. The SCOTUS has recognized a few such classes-- race and gender being two. But there is no suspect class of “smokers” or “eaters” or “runners” or “sky divers”… ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/7 "2012-06-03T13:44:47Z")
Smokers are no more a class of citizen than drivers are, and we have gasoline taxes that only fall on those who operate motor vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/8 "2012-06-03T14:54:03Z")
Sounds like someone needs to quit smoking or move to Nevada. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/9 "2012-06-03T15:05:24Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Sounds like someone needs to quit smoking or move to Nevada. But what if it’s the wrong week to quit smoking? ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/10 "2012-06-03T15:48:07Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > But what if it’s the wrong week to quit smoking? You’ll be fine so long as you keep drinking. Or sniffing glue. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/11 "2012-06-03T16:51:04Z")
As long as they don’t tax a certain type of canned meat product, the OP should be fine. Op, did RJ Reynolds pay you for this post? There have always been “sin” taxes, such as tobacco and booze. In fact our early government depended very highly upon them, so they are hardly new, unconstitutional or unusual. I like these sorts of taxes as they are the one sort of tax paid by choice. ---
**Author:** ![Bartman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@Bartman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bartman)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/12 "2012-06-03T17:15:09Z")
There are a lot of such taxes. As a hunter I pay certain extra taxes which generally go to the Division of Wildlife for specific purposes. Likewise fishing. My off-road motorcycles have special registration fees and taxes, that go to pay for trail construction and maintenance. Ever float a river? Probably paid a dedicated tax either directly or via the guide company. Ever board a plane? Definitely paid extra dedicated taxes, some to the feds, some to the states, some to localities. Ever rent a hotel/motel room? Probably paid a room tax that frequently pays for the local tourism board. Ever driven a car. Then you paid a special road tax on the gasoline used to fill it. These aren’t necessarily “sin” taxes. But it is long standing practice to tax certain activities to raise the money to maintain the infrastructure related to those activities. Taxing a cancer causing activity to pay for cancer research/treatment certainly passes any test you may think it should have. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/13 "2012-06-03T17:30:14Z")
Moved to Great Debates from GQ. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/14 "2012-06-03T17:46:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Smokers are no more a class of citizen than drivers are, and we have gasoline taxes that only fall on those who operate motor vehicles. Correct. But I write in response to this post to clarify that in fact drivers ARE a class. And smokers are too, certainly no more a class than drivers but no less either. The phraseology used above might lead a reader to conclude that the writer is saying smokers and drivers a not classes. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/15 "2012-06-03T19:45:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The “class” involved here would have to be “suspect class”. The SCOTUS has recognized a few such classes-- race and gender being two. But there is no suspect class of “smokers” or “eaters” or “runners” or “sky divers”… No. As **Bricker** notes, any distinct group is a class for the purpose of Equal Protection analysis. The difference between types of classification is the level of deference given to the legislature in determining whether the classification is a violation. In this particular case, the classification does not involve race, sex, alienage, non-marital children, sexual orientation\*, or the exercise of a fundamental right, so the standard applied is rational basis. The government could still have to defend the law in the case of a legal challenge. However, under rational basis the burden of proof is on the challenger, and the standard is whether the enactment is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Put another way, the challenger has to prove that the law is arbitrary and capricious. There’s really no question that excise taxes on classes of products are within states’ police powers, though. \*sexual orientation is a sort-of-suspect class, for reasons addressed in any number of other GD threads. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/16 "2012-06-03T20:28:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. When I get the answer I like, I stop reading. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/17 "2012-06-03T20:44:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No. As **Bricker** notes, any distinct group is a class for the purpose of Equal Protection analysis. The difference between types of classification is the level of deference given to the legislature in determining whether the classification is a violation. I don’t know what you’re saying “no” about. In order for the OP to be correct, the “class” in discussion would have to be a “suspect class”. It isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/18 "2012-06-03T20:53:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know what you’re saying “no” about. In order for the OP to be correct, the “class” in discussion would have to be a “suspect class”. It isn’t. Only for strict scrutiny analysis. lesser classifications are analyzed under rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/19 "2012-06-03T21:11:22Z")
Just putting an extra tax on the products? Big deal. Now, if you had to check a box on your personal income tax return if you were a smoker (with the same penalties for lying that come with making any false statement on your return) and the information was used to calculate a higher tax rate for you… that could be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928/20 "2012-06-03T21:18:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know what you’re saying “no” about. In order for the OP to be correct, the “class” in discussion would have to be a “suspect class”. It isn’t. Read the OP again. While it _suggests_ that the tax violates the 14th Amendment, it only explicitly poses a question of whether it does. As I just explained, a class does not have to be suspect to be protected under the 14th Amendment. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposition-29/623928.md?page=2)