<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Tobacco Articles: org prop._28</title>
<link>http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/org/prop._28.rss</link>
<description>Latest top tobacco news headlines</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<item>
<title>LETTER: Ballot Measures</title>
<link>http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20000314/t000024379.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38900.html</guid>
<description>&#160;Portrait of California on March 7: Gay people make us uncomfortable.
Gambling is good, as long as it's on the reservation. If jail is good
enough for adults, it's good enough for kids, too. We want the death
penalty to extend to all felonies. We have more seniors and childless
couples than families with school-age children. We hate lawyers even more
than insurance companies (that one really hurts!). We hate tobacco
companies the most. [This graph only]</description>
<source url="http://www.tobacco.org/media.php?mode=display&amp;media_id=120">Los Angeles Times</source>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bay Area Voters Are State's Contrarians - Some winning measures lost big here</title>
<link>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/03/10/MN43389.DTL</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38700.html</guid>
<description>Proposition 28, which would have repealed the tobacco tax, went
                      down to defeat by a large margin statewide, but in the Bay Area,
                      the results looked like an election in North Korea -- 82 percent in
                      Marin voted no, 81 percent in San Francisco, 79 percent in
                      Alameda and Santa Cruz counties, 78 percent in San Mateo and
                      Santa Clara counties and 76 percent in Contra Costa. 

                      No other urban area in California had such large anti-smoking
                      margins.</description>
<source url="http://www.sfgate.com/">San Francisco Chronicle</source>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Oak View may continue to reap rewards of tobacco tax</title>
<link>http://www.latimes.com/communities/news/oc_beach_cities/20000309/thb0001704.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38625.html</guid>
<description>&#160;Oak View is one of six sites in Orange County to benefit from tobacco
tax revenues totaling more than $1 million.

&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The center recently received $80,000 in funding, which it plans to use
to hire a full-time public health nurse and for family health workshops
and seminars.</description>
<source url="http://www.tobacco.org/media.php?mode=display&amp;media_id=120">Los Angeles Times</source>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Calif. OKs Billions in Bond Debt</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000308/aponline164534_000.htm</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38561.html</guid>
<description>Voters on Tuesday also defeated a measure that would have repealed the state's 50-cent cigarette tax. But experts said that speaks to a different sentiment than voters' generosity. 
]
                        &quot;I don't think it's even viewed by most voters as a taxing measure,&quot; Kelso said. &quot;It's tobacco  &#8211; that puts it in a category all its own.&quot; 
[This graph only</description>
<source url="http://hosted.ap.org/">AP</source>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Tobacco tax repeal snuffed out</title>
<link>http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/tobacco08.htm</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38503.html</guid>
<description>The resounding defeat of Proposition 28 was a relief to health and child welfare groups, who backed the voter-approved, 50-cent-per-pack tax in 1998 to raise money for early childhood development programs and fought hard to preserve it in this election. . . But Ned Roscoe, president of Cigarettes Cheaper! and author of the repeal measure, vowed to continue fighting a war of attrition against the tax.

   ``From what we learned this time, we could do something similar again for less money,'' he said.</description>
<source url="http://www.sjmercury.com/">San Jose  Mercury-News</source>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Proposition 28 Defeated In a Landslide</title>
<link>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000308/ca_prop_28_1.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38491.html</guid>
<description>California voters overwhelmingly
defeated Proposition 28, which would have repealed Prop 10 -- the 50-cent
tobacco tax passed in 1998.

``Tonight's landslide victory sends an unmistakable message to the tobacco
industry -- our children are more important than your profits,'' said Rob
Reiner, the Chair of the No on Prop 28 campaign.</description>
<source url="http://www.prnewswire.com">PR Newswire</source>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Calif. Passes Ban on Gay Marriages</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/../../wp-srv/aponline/20000308/aponline011545_000.htm</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38484.html</guid>
<description>Reiner returned to the political theater to oppose the measure that would have repealed the 50-cent-a-pack cigarette tax he campaigned for in 1998. With 14 percent of precincts reporting, the measure had 966,711 no votes, or 71 percent, and just 402,039 yes votes, or 29 percent.</description>
<source url="http://hosted.ap.org/">AP</source>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>American Cancer Society: Big Tobacco Loses Again!</title>
<link>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000308/ca_aca_tob_1.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38476.html</guid>
<description>With today's resounding defeat
of Proposition 28 the voters of California have once again handed Big Tobacco
a Big Loss.  . . The coalition partners are ecstatic in the knowledge that cigarettes will
NOT be cheaper.</description>
<source url="http://www.prnewswire.com">PR Newswire</source>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>SALTER: On these 4 props, answer is 'No'</title>
<link>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/05/salter.dtl</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38438.html</guid>
<description>One fact should suffice as reason enough to reject this colossal time-waster: The man who got it on the ballot is president of a mega-chain of stores called -- &quot;Cigarettes Cheaper!&quot; . . 
Mr. Cigarettes Cheaper! wants to repeal the tax for several altruistic reasons, he says. Among them: The folks in charge of spending the money are taking too much time deciding which programs will make the best use of the dough.</description>
<source url="http://www.tobacco.org/media.php?mode=display&amp;media_id=154">San Francisco  Examiner</source>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>So Many Questions, So Little Time - Unless ...: At FAQvoter.com, Voters Don't Have Wait Until March 7 To Get Intelligent Answers About the California Primary</title>
<link>http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000306/ca_faqvote_1.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38361.html</guid>
<description>At FAQvoter.com, Voters Don't Have Wait Until March 7 To Get Intelligent Answers About the California Primary
. . Haven't made up your mind about Proposition 28, which would
repeal the Rob Reiner-sponsored tobacco tax? Check out the rival
campaigns' answers when asked: ``How much do the owners of Cheaper
Cigarettes receive in tobacco merchandising benefits?'' and ``If
(California's tobacco tax) works so well, won't funding go away as
more people quit smoking?'' [This graph only]</description>
<source url="http://www.businesswire.com/">Business Wire</source>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>LETTER: No On Prop. 28</title>
<link>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/03/06/ED63617.DTL</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38329.html</guid>
<description>I am a junior at 
Albany High School, Alameda County. . .   The 50-cent tax created the California Children and Families First 
Program to fund early childhood development programs and also shaped 
health care, preschool, family mentoring and other critical programs 
for young children and their families. If Proposition 28 passes, all 
of those great programs would end, for lack of funding.</description>
<source url="http://www.sfgate.com/">San Francisco Chronicle</source>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>EDITORIAL: Golden State Taxes</title>
<link>http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB952302600748010041.djm</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38320.html</guid>
<description>Supporters of the repeal have no money from big tobacco companies, who are AWOL after enduring Mr. Reiner's tirades against them (&quot;They're out there to kill kids&quot;). . .  The prospects for Mr. Roscoe's repeal of the tobacco tax are dimmer, given it's being greatly outspent. California voters are likely to retain the status quo on taxes, which given the state's current tax-happy liberal legislature, will count as a political signal for it not to push hard to make a fat state government even fatter.</description>
<source url="http://www.wsj.com">The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition</source>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>In a Video E-Mail Message, Earvin 'Magic' Johnson Urges Californians to Vote No on Prop 28: Campaign Sends GOTV Message to Thousands of Californians On the Eve of the March 7th Election</title>
<link>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000306/ca_no_prop_1.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38318.html</guid>
<description>With less than 24 hours before polls open, thousands of Californians received a video e-mail message form Earvin ``Magic'' Johnson urging them to vote ``No'' on Proposition 28. . . 
The message was taped at a February 28th event where Johnson announced his opposition to Prop 28 and encourages recipients to forward it to as many people as possible. To see the video message, go to &lt;a href=&quot;a href=http://www.NOonProp28.org/magic.html &quot;&gt;www.NOonProp28.org/magic.html&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
<source url="http://www.prnewswire.com">PR Newswire</source>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>POLITICS: It would repeal Prop. 10, which drove up the cost of smoking while funding early childhood programs.</title>
<link>http://www.ocregister.com/politics/prp28005w.shtml</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38299.html</guid>
<description>Among other issues, Prop. 28 prompts heated debate about what is a fair tax. Some groups &#8212; including the Orange County Taxpayers Association and the state Republican Party &#8212; favor repealing the tax because it forces a minority &#8212; smokers &#8212; to cough up cash to benefit the majority. . . But opponents of Prop. 28 say the extra $700 million a year raised statewide is a fraction of what the state pays to deal with problems that are a result of smoking.</description>
<source url="http://www.ocregister.com">Orange County  Register</source>
<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Criticism Of Cigarette Tax Smolders: As voters consider repealing the tax in Prop. 28, Valley agencies plan to spend funds.</title>
<link>http://www.fresnobee.com/localnews/story/0,1724,140451,00.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/38298.html</guid>
<description>&quot;The truth is the tax represents a revenue stream and people who are in the government at the state commission level or county level express noble motives or noble intentions, but what's lost is none of the money actually has gone to children,&quot; Roscoe said in a telephone interview. 

Reiner, in Fresno on Thursday to campaign against Prop. 28, said counties are moving faster to submit plans than he expected.</description>
<source url="http://www.fresnobee.com/">Fresno  Bee</source>
<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2000 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>