The reason initiative activists try to amend the constitution is because it makes it almost impossible for the legislature to come back and repeal or gut the law change.

Also, it makes it impossible for a state court to find such a measure unconstitutional, since it by definition IS constitutional.

supporting this measure, but looking at it from the devil's advocate point of view... i don't think the phony 'constitutional' issue is the best reason to reject the measure. rather, i think it's because giving the state .80 fucking cents more for every pack of cigarettes sold makes it that much more difficult for us to ever imagine a day where cigarettes are made illegal. which i think they should be.

i know that's not the way most liberals in oregon (a large number of whom are progressive enough to personally have no problem funnelling thousands of dollars a year into the evil tobacco industry themselves) choose to see this.

but whatever.

let's face it, this measure is gonna go down in flames because of the fact that too many people who would otherwise support it and vote for it are just too damn self-centered and unwilling to part with that extra .80 cents+ a day.

just like measure 5 fifteen years ago.
never underestimate the stupidity of average people? more like, never underestimate the greed of average people. or in this case, both.

Click on the video and it takes you off the page. That's really fucking annoying.

Argh. I'll try to fix that. Initially, I embedded the video, but EVERY TIME Blogtown loaded the damn thing would start playing automatically. Talk about maddening!

Measure 72 did not pass.

If children's healthcare is so important, I suggest we make everyone pay for it rather than lump the costs onto a minority.

People have this weird idea that state constitutions are like the federal constitution -- about our core rights. But Oregon's constitution talks about mobile homes, etc.

here are just the section titles:

XI-I(1) Water Development Projects
delta XI-I(2) Multifamily Housing for Elderly and Disabled
delta XI-J Small Scale Local Energy Loans
delta XI-K Guarantee of Bonded Indebtedness of Education Districts
delta XI-L Oregon Health and Science University
delta XI-M Seismic Rehabilitation of Public Education

You get the idea. California's constitution guarantees the right to fish.

Also, the tobacco people are doing something weird with trying to make the Oregon Constitution look just like the U.S. Constitution. Fact is, it's not a great-looking document.

Either we clean up the whole constitution at once (ironically, that's probably unconstitutional) or we recognize that it's going to be a hodge-podge of laws.

As I understand it, the reason it's a Constitutional Amendment is because big tobacco lobbied against it at the Legislature. If they were allowed to refer it as a statutory change, they would have.

Measure 72 did not pass.

Whoops.

Here's an image of the actual Oregon constitution.

This is how it will work, if passed:

1: It gets expanded to cover the "poor" parents of the children (yet these same parents probably have cell phones, cable TV, big flat panel TVs, etc)

2: Every illegal with a kid will flock to Oregon, putting a greater burden on the state resources;

3: The cig taxes will not be enough to cover the increasing costs, so the politicians will display some kids and say they need to have a sales tax or simple increase other taxes to pay for their socialized medical care;

4: Even more illegals come to Oregon for the freebies, as well as legal parents that suddenly drop their private insurance since Oregon is now picking up the tab for their kids;

5: Eventually Oregon ends up like Canada, where very long wait times force citizens to seek health care outside their own country. Having married a Canadian that was a professional in the health care system up there I know the truths of it - not the fabrications some Americans want to spread around.

Oh, JustaDog, you're incorrigible! Let's just hope the parents of all those "illegals" are smokers!

But, really, it's good to see that conservative xenophobia somehow trumps the health of children. I guess we know where your moral priorities are.

BTW, you can read more about Oregon's ballot measure history here.

I'm sorry JustaDog (@10), but for full credit, you have to use the term "HillaryCare". Minus ten.

Also, are you aware that there are government-run health systems in countries other than Canada? It's true! You should look into them and see if maybe they're better than our northern neighbor's. Looking at Canada and concluding government-run health care won't work is like looking at the U.S. and concluding that representative democracy won't work.

there have been more than twice as many

Except instead of "more than", you mean "almost". Not that it invalidates your argument, but!

Sorry, that math was originally intended for the measures that have passed. This is what happens when the office is empty for a large part of the day. Me no good at math.

See also C.H. Carey's "History of the Oregon State Constitution," published in the 1920's, great source for a look at what went down during the ratification process.

while i will agree that basically all "state consitiutions" profit from a level of political clout that they don't really deserve, given that most of them just dictate procedural habberdashy, and nothing that effing matters, i will NOT agree that 81 percent is "more than twice' 44 percent.

seriously how stoned were you?

Not stoned enough, apparently. Anyway, it's fixed, thank you very much.

So, we raise the state tax on cigarettes from $1.18 to over $2.00 per pack, tack it on to our constitution (where it doesn't belong) and spend the proceeds further expanding government. We'll sell this bad idea with "Won't somebody think of the children!" and insinuate that all who oppose must hate kids. Brilliant.

As much as I don't care for big tobacco, their cheesy TV spots and idiot customers, I still gotta say no on 50.

Scott, thank you for making this frequently overlooked argument. Oregonians get high and mighty about not wanting to amend the constitution, but (a) we amend it all the time, and (b) it wasn't the best to begin with. Sundown laws, anyone?

Anyhow, thanks again! I'll be sending this link out to loads of friends & family.

I'm not sure if I like this measure or not, but one thing I can't figure out is how it's NOT okay to change the constitution for a cigarette tax for children's healthcare, but it WAS okay to change the constitution for measure 36 which takes away civil rights for homosexuals.

At least according to the makers of this ad.

More pettifoggery from Big Tobacco to confuse the issue.

Expect them to say that the measure "taxes the poor". No, it cuts into your profits - poor people who don't want to pay extra will smoke less or go to cheaper cigarettes not manufactured by R.J. Reynolds and Altria/Philip Morris, the source of nearly all the anti-50 money.

R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris are almost as bad as Loren Parks in pumping out-of-state money to support a special interest.

"...but it WAS okay to change the constitution for measure 36 which takes away civil rights for homosexuals."

No, it wasn't okay and the voters shot it down. You are aware that Measure 36 didn't pass, right?

Correction: I'm all wet on Measure 36. I was thinking of a different wacky ballot initiative.

The Oregon League of Women Voters says the Oregon Constitution is sacred and should almost never, never be amended.

Also, the labor unions in Oregon have been running for about 15 years a constant campaign throughout the state, arguing that the Oregon Constitution should not be amended and that amending it should be made much more difficult. This campaign has affected public opinion, so that it is more difficult to obtain votes for a constitutional amendment than for an initiative or referral that proposes only a statute. The tobacco companies are merely capitalizing on the public opinion shaping work already done by the labor unions.

If it's so much harder to get people to vote for constitutional amendments, why do they have a much higher rate of passing than statutory changes?

I was actually against the measure, and I hate cigarettes and love poor, sick children. But ever since those annoying commercials came on (radio too), thick with faux outrage, I'm changing my vote just to fuck the copywriters. Stupid fucking advertising.

I see only two things wrong with this initiative:
1) The legislature couldn't pass legislation to fund state insurance for children, so activists decided we should do it anyway. Why have a legislature? Vote NO and tell them to do their jobs.

2) Tax tobacco. Get funds for state insurance for children. Who can possibly be against that. Plus with the increased cost of tobacco, usage will hopefully fall and so less people will die from tobacco-induced illnesses. (We are all going to dies sometime from something, just not tobacco) With decreased usage comes less tax money. The program then needs money for its funding. So we have to raise taxes somewhere else to do the right thing. Then we have more taxes, but hey, who cares. Children have state funded health insurance.

Both of these to me are reasons to vote NO.

BTW, Congress should have outlawed tobacco in 1964 after the Surgeon General showed it causes all manner of health problems. Why don't we make Congress do what they should have done 43 years ago?

While it is true that we have passed many amendments to the constitution, it is clearly overused and I believe we should always think long and hard before we amend it. This is a very good time to say a constitutional amendment is the WRONG VEHICLE for a very questionable idea.