Actually when I hear them speaking of Green I think of money. Tax money. However, our money today looks more the color of a spilled Starbucks.

Oh yes, I canceled out your 50 vote. Older and wiser I guess, but it sounds as you are getting there.

No. I hate the tobacco jerks, and I always will.

I tend to react similarly when companies and causes have ads with children saying unnaturally adult things. It's hard to trust folks who resort to such a manipulative ploy.

Well I voted against Fifty for the Following reasons.
It was a Discriminatory tax And I feel that made the purveyors of the measure very Non Inclusive.
The Morons wanted to put it in the Constitution.
And I agree with Gordie

I voted yes on 50, but for the children is particularly annoying to those of us who don't have kids and don't plan to.

You can't argue that the tobacco companies are abusing their customers for money by addicting them to a substance then charging them for it... and somehow claim that you are morally superior by adding on additional charges to that same substance.

When addiction is the central issue, you know that additional charges are not going to touch the tobacco companies, but are going to come directly out of the pockets of the addicted customers.

That's why I voted against 50. You find me a real cure, one with a greater than 10% success rate, and want to fund that with a cigarette tax? Fine. Using a tax as a "cure" though? I can't support that.

those of us who don't have kids and don't plan to.

Indeed. What possible potential use or value to you are other people's children?

I am a recent quitter, and I used the drug "Chantix" it works like Methadone for Heroin and I have not smoked for 4 weeks after being a dedicated tobacco user for 35 years. My "insur-ance" charges me more $ for being a smoker, but will not cover the medication, or smoking-cessation workshops. I am all for taxing the Tobacco companies and using the bucks for stop-smoking programs. I voted yes on 50. I am against "sin taxes", but that did not stop my yes vote.

I also tune out as soon as I hear the catch phrase "it is for the kids". Hey, everything is for the kids in some form or another. School funding, transportation, sewer fees, zoo bonds, etc. It is all for the kids but someone still needs to pay for it and someone needs to set priorities. There isn't a magic money tree set aside "for the kids".

I'm offended that my grandson is being used in such a disgusting way.

They don't care about him or the "other children".

I too vote no every time they tell me it's for "the children" or "for the poor".

The least they can do is be honest. I would be more inclined to vote for a higher tax, if they just said they wanted it because they wanted it.

Look since billy brad-bury stopped all initiatives that are not state sanctioned or from a power house, anything and I mean anything from the state is an automatic no vote. It is either (revenue enhancement) tax boost or power grabbing. I am really suprised that Oregonians still play that game.

I am a recent quitter, and I used the drug "Chantix" it works like Methadone for Heroin and I have not smoked for 4 weeks after being a dedicated tobacco user for 35 years. My "insur-ance" charges me more $ for being a smoker, but will not cover the medication, or smoking-cessation workshops. I am all for taxing the Tobacco companies and using the bucks for stop-smoking programs.

I quit a two to three pack a day habit with yogurt and orange juice, I haven't smoked since 1973. I still am totally against punishing a legal segment of society because they aren't politically correct and definitely because the politicians think we are such suckers we will do any thing for "the children".

If they really want to help the kids, help them to grow up to be educated, adults. Quit pampering them and making them into a bunch of wimps.