Massachusetts voters will confront taxes on cigarettes and tobacco, as well as tough new packaging requirements, when voting on four state ballot questions in next week's election.

Question 1

Question One would implement a tax on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, with proceeds going to a newly created Health Protection Fund. Under the proposed law, revenues placed in the Health Protection Fund would be appropriated by the legislature for various educational and social programs relating to tobacco use.

Examples include school health education programs, workplace-based smoking cessation programs and community health center prenatal programs incorporating information on the effects of smoking on fetal development.

The proposed tax increase would be 25 cents for a regular pack of 20 cigarettes and 25 percent of the wholesale price of smokeless tobacco products.

Supporters say the tax, besides raising revenue, will cut down on the commonwealth's smoking rate and save lives, through discouraging smoking and educating children of its dangers.

Carrie Devine, an American Cancer Society worker involved with the campaign, said since California voters passed a similar referendum in 1988, smoking rates have declined there by 17 percent--double the national rate.

Opponents, however, call the tax another burden on working families, and say it will only force business across state borders. Marianne Preskul-Ricca, communications director for the Committee Against Unfair Taxes, said projections from a Price-Waterhouse study showed that small business would lose $215 million a year if the tax increase passes.

Preskul-Ricca also said that since initiatives cannot earmark revenues for certain purposes, the legislature will have total control over how the funding is spent and there is no guarantee on how the tax money will be spent.

Question 2

Question Two appears to be largely moot even before the referendum goes to Massachusetts citizens next week.

Activists on both sides of the question reached a compromise last month which, thorough legislation to be passed early next year, will supersede the initiative regardless of the election's outcome.

The ballot measure would require banks, insurance companies and publicly-traded corporation to publicly disclose all income and state tax payments, beginning in 1993.

The compromise legislation would also require this disclosure, but would publish the results only in aggregate form, not by individual company.

The compromise would further create a task force to study all Massachusetts' taxes on business, with a report to be issued by May 31, 1993 proposing changes to the corporate tax system.

Negotiators in reaching the compromise--which legislative leaders will file and the governor has agreed to sign, according to the initiative's support team--have urged voters to vote "yes" on the initiative to show their support for the compromise.

Question 3

Question Three would, if passed, require all packaging used in the state after 1996 to be reduced in size, reusable or made of materials that have been or could be recycled.

This high-profile question is supported by some environmental groups and a number of state officials--including Gov. William F. Weld '66--but has drawn opposition from many economists, employers and labor leaders.

If the law takes effect, all packaging in Massachusetts would have to meet one of the following conditions:

.reduction in size by a least 25 percent every five years;

.reusability at least five times, with at least 50 percent actually being reused;

.composed of at least 25 percent recycled materials;

.composed of materials being recycled at a rate of at least 25 percent;

The law would apply to any container or packaging "used to protect, store, handle, transport, display or sell products," but would not include medical devices or products requiring tamper-resistant packages or certain types of food packaging.

Packaging simply being shipped through the commonwealth is exempt.

Supporters say the initiative forces businesses to meet sensible requirements which many businesses meet already. They also say the proposal would conserve resources, increase recycling levels and jobs and reduce garbage disposal costs.

Michael Sullivan, a campaign coordinator in Beverly, called a "yes' vote on Question Three "both pro-environment and pro-business."

Opponents say that the law would not mandate recycling programs or solve solid waste problems. They say it would set up expensive bureaucratic commissions to investigate packaging and enforce the new rules.

The opponents allege that the new regulations would cost Massachusetts employers $500 million, translating into $230 a year per household in higher prices.

Question 4

Question Four proposes a tax on oils and hazardous materials. The revenue, which supporters say will raise up to $35 million, will be placed into the state Environmental Challenge Fund and be used to clean up hazardous waste sites.

Opponents charge that the pollution tax will simply raise prices on home heating oil for consumers without guaranteeing that the tax money is used to clean up waste sites.