I think people that smoke are not too smart. I think smoking should be banned from all commerical buildings. I think smoking should be banned from all movies. So, if Sleeepy Ted gets us accustomed to funding things from cig taxes, how do we fund these activities if the gubmint's goal of abolishing smoking is successful? I am voting NO.

Wow. Seeing Joe Camel after all these years is really shocking.

Whoever designed that thing was able to squeeze in cartoon genitalia from both sexes pretty well. There's something for everybody in Joe Camel's face.

Must ... resist .... urge .... to start .... smoking .... again!!

The Statesman Journal editorial say we should vote YES because tobacco has spent $10M. That is the only reason they give. Even for them, that is lazy.

I wanna live forever, I ride my bike next to cement trucks because the government gives me the right of way.I ride mass transit because the government says it's safe. Im gonna live to be 93 because i donn't smoke cant you see. I wanna live in a condo in downtown because exhaust doesn't bother me the way those evil smokers do

One of the all-time "The train has left the station" moments comes when one of the actors in a No on 50 commercial exclaims, "Well I'm not gonna let them start messing with our Constitution now!" High comedy.

Something about all the ads suggests that the characters in them are smokers. You can almost smell the cigarette stink.

Check out this gal from one of the flyers. Are those hands poised for a smoke or what?

Here's another one:

Enjoy your smokes, ladies!

OK, so for years my wife and I make easy work of wading through dozens of confusing referendums by voting "no" if it seeks to amend the constitution to accomplish something that seems legislative in nature. My wife's first reaction on seeing Measure 50 is the same - wanting to vote no simply because of the Constitutional aspects of it (and she wasn't even swayed by Joe Camel's TV ads, as she doesn't even watch TV). So what do I tell her? Why is this a Constitutional amendment rather than a statutory change? I pored thru the voters' pamphlet this weekend and had reviewed the supporters' websites but found nothing to explain why it was framed this way.

i have a modest proposal:

eliminate "corporate freedom of speech."

ban all campaigning or support of campaigns by for-profit corporations. forever. maybe recently created nonprofits too.

based on the last 30-40 years, that'd eliminate nearly all deceptive ballot measure advertising of this kind.

I think the pro-measure 50 commercials that show that little girl with cancer are just as shameful as anything the tobacco lobby has sponsored. Its all getting creepy.

What we have here is a great example of the perfect being the enemy of the merely good.

In a perfect world, we would not have to amend the Oregon constitution to increase the tax on cigarettes. In a perfect world, health insurance would be provided for everyone who can't pay for it, including the children targeted by Measure 50.

But in a perfect world, tobacco would be classified as a Schedule II drug by the DEA and you'd get busted for possessing a pack of cigarettes, let alone smoking them.

So nothing's perfect and our elected representatives don't have the guts to ban the sale of tobacco, so instead they use it as a source of funding for health care. Makes sense to me. Cigarettes make you sick, so tax them to help make people well.

I think we should apply the same reasoning to television and funding for schools.