1. California Proposition 29

2. Official summary
The official summary provided by the Attorney General of California's office to describe the initiative says:
"Imposes additional five cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products, to fund cancer research and other specified purposes. Requires tax revenues be deposited into a special fund to finance research and research facilities focused on detecting, preventing, treating, and curing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases, and to finance prevention programs. Creates nine-member committee charged with administering the fund."

3. No on Proposition 29
A career politician is pushing Proposition 29, a new $735 million annual tax and spending mandate.  Prop. 29, the so-called California Cancer Research Act, is a flawed and poorly drafted measure that would create a new unaccountable state bureaucracy filled with political appointees.  The measure will be voted on at the June 2012 election.
We all believe cancer research is important, but California can’t afford to start a new billion-dollar spending program when we have a $10+ billion budget deficit and can’t pay for critically-needed existing programs like education and health care. 

4. Yes on Proposition 29
California has the opportunity to lead the way in the battle against all forms of cancer, including lung cancer. Proposition 29 will provide more than $700 million annually for cancer research and smoking prevention. Over time, Proposition 29-funded research will result in better diagnosis and treatment of all cancers – and other diseases related to tobacco – and it may just lead to cures. Proposition 29 will save lives. Read more here:

5. UCI student opinion
Yes vote
No vote
Do not know enough yet to vote

6. L.A. Times urges No on Prop 29
The problem with Proposition 29, which would raise $735 million a year at the outset (gradually dropping off as more smokers quit), isn’t the tax but how the money it raises would be spent. Most of it, more than $500 million a year, would be directed to a new, independent quasi-public agency that would award grants for research on cancer and other smoking-related illnesses, such as heart and lung diseases. (The research itself would not need to be tobacco-related; a grantee could study, say, the effects of obesity on heart disease, or malignant melanoma caused by overexposure to the sun.)

7. Proposition 29 is well intentioned, but it just doesn’t make sense for the state to get into the medical research business to the tune of half a billion dollars a year when it has so many other important unmet needs. California can’t afford to retain its K-12 teachers, keep all its parks open, give public college students the courses they need to earn a degree or provide adequate home health aides for the infirm or medical care for the poor. If the state is going to raise a new $735 million, it should put the money in the general fund rather than dedicating it to an already well-funded research effort. Funding priorities shouldn’t be set at the ballot box. ”

8. Voting again on Prop 29
Yes No
I still have not made up my mind