Proposition 86, which would raise cigarette taxes by $2.60 a pack for health-related programs and smoking reduction, is opposed by a $30 million campaign (so far) from the tobacco industry, $27 million of it from Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, plus a mere million kicked in by the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.

Proposition 87, which would impose a severance tax on oil pumped from California fields to stimulate alternative energy development, is funded by Hollywood deep pocket Steve Bing ($16.5 million-plus), Gap Chairman Bob Fisher and some high-tech venture capitalists. It's opposed by $30 million-plus from Chevron, Exxon, Shell, Occidental et al.

Both measures have worthy goals and enjoy the opposition of two of the most disliked and distrusted industries in America. So it should be an easy call. But both are also infected by California's inherent initiativeitis - heavy handedness, narrow focus and bad drafting.

But to what extent would it also drive Californians to bootleggers or Internet sellers on Indian reservations or, of all places, Switzerland? The opponents quote state Board of Equalization member Bill Leonard warning darkly that the measure is "an open beacon for terrorist groups to play games in California." How's that for smoke?

Kris Deutschman, the communications director for the Yes on 86 campaign, points out that California has a strict enforcement system backed by a federal law that requires interstate shippers to inform state taxing authorities of the names and addresses of recipients.

But it's not clear whether that law applies to shippers located abroad or on Indian reservations, which now advertise cigarettes at roughly $3 a pack. (The average California retail price is about $4.13.) Predicting tax avoidance after a hefty $2.60 jump, said a spokesperson for the Board of Equalization, is "uncharted territory."

The beneficiaries - hospital emergency services, community clinics, children's health coverage, smoking reduction campaigns - can surely use the money. But the measure doesn't address the basic mess in the healthcare system. Instead, it feeds it and locks up another $2.1 billion in new revenue in a fiscally strapped state for a single - albeit laudable - purpose.

Proposition 87, meanwhile, would impose a severance tax of 6 percent per barrel on oil priced at $60 a barrel or more (the price is now close to $70). That would fund alternative energy development - gasoline and diesel use reduction and research on renewable fuels technology. Lesser rates would apply to oil valued at lower amounts.

Although Proposition 87 isn't clear whether that 6 percent is a marginal rate (as in the income tax) or would apply as a single rate on the gross value of the oil, it hits another industry you love to hate. The tax would sunset after $4 billion has been raised and loans paid off.

The initiative orders the Board of Equalization to make sure producers don't pass the severance tax on to consumers, an almost unenforceable rule. Nonetheless, the tax isn't likely to have a great impact on California's retail fuel prices since refiners can always buy from other producers in a global market.

But the backers' decision to include the rule is an indicator of California's basic problems. It offers another seemingly desirable program at what appears to be no cost, locks up a revenue source and doesn't go near the obvious strategy, which is higher fuel taxes. And as in the stem-cell program, it seeks to do something the federal government should be doing.

The opponents contend that high gas prices are already a strong incentive to develop alternative energy. By the same logic, higher gas and diesel taxes would reduce consumption of fossil fuels even more effectively.

Ditto for Proposition 1B, the governor's $20 billion transportation bond. Instead of raising the gas tax - which hasn't gone up since 1994 and hardly covers road maintenance - it puts the burden of road improvement on the general fund and thus California's future taxpayers. Again voters are offered a "free" benefit.

This is cache, read story here