Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.
Kristiina Vuori, who were the subjects of a column by Michael
Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition
29, the "Son of CIRM" measure that would raise
$800 million for research by increasing the price of cigarettes by $1
a pack. In addition to serving on the CIRM board, Lansing heads her
own anti-cancer foundation and is chair of the board of the UC
regents. Vuori is head of the Sanford-Burnham Institute in La
Jolla.
measure that created the stem cell agency. The organization established by Proposition 29 would also be governed by a board that is run by
representatives of organizations almost certain to receive the bulk
of the funding, as is the case with CIRM.
Vuori said the Times and Hiltzik had fallen for "a smokescreen"
put up by tobacco companies which are spending something in the
neighborhood of $40 million to defeat the initiative. Lansing and
Vuori said the measure is needed to stop smoking by young people as
well as providing cash for research for tobacco-related diseases.
Young people are more sensitive to price increases of cigarettes than
adults, according to research.
in which Hiltzik opposed the measure because it would divert money
from more immediate state needs, including health and welfare
programs for children, education and the poor. (See here for thecolumn and here, here and here for related items.)
said,
"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now.
"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."
government cuts that have meant the loss of health coverage for
400,000 California children, eliminated welfare benefits for 578,000
poor California families and would mean an end to state college
student aid for 72,000 young people from less affluent families.
"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice.
"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."
carried a piece yesterday on Proposition 29 that drew 481 comments.
The article said,
"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."
of San Francisco and a keen observer of California politics,
predicted voter approval of the measure along with an increase in
cigarette smuggling from adjacent states and the sale of discount
smokes at the 58 Indian casino sites in the state.
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss