Just caught a commercial for the tobacco company-backed effort to defeat proposition 201. Proposition 201, which is supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association, would ban smoking in all public places and raise taxes on cigarettes. That tax revenue would then be spent on early childhood education. In contrast, prop 206, which is backed by those tobacco companies, would be less restrictive and do nothing to reduce the smoking rate in the state.

So imagine my irritation at a couple of commercials that just urged a no vote on 201. The claim was that the tax on packs of cigarettes was a "ridiculous waste of taxes" for enforcing a smoking ban. This is misleading on its face. The tax is not for enforcement. The tax is to make it less economically feasible for people to be able to afford to smoke. It's an economic solution to a public health problem. We could debate the merits of this approach because it disproportionately effects people of lower economic means, and that debate would be fine and valid. But the way this was presented was totally misleading.

The ads also assert that the tax money could be better spent on school supplies for children or that the tax revenue is more than Arizona spends to track sex offenders. First of all, the tax revenue would be used for early childhood education, so that's the first lie. The other claim may be truthful, but don't you dare use the sex offender registry - or anything else related to sexual violence for that matter - to justify voting against a smoking ban that would improve public health. Oh hell no. No fucking way. That ad has just spurred me into action to make sure everyone I know votes FOR 201 and AGAINST 206. They just fucked with the wrong anti-violence advocate.