over $700 million for cancer research, but it could also reduce the number of smokers. at least that's the intent. some say the law itself is flawed and big tobacco is fighting it tooth and nail. ahead of voting day california tv screens are full of ads. not for mitt romney or barack obama, but instead proposition 29. >> no on 29. >> and here's what's at stake. california voters will decide the fate of proposition 29 raising the tax by $1 on every pack of cigarettes. >> there's strem evidence from all overtime world that when you increase the tax on cigarettes, when you increase the tries, people smoke less. >> reporter: it would raise an estimated $735 million a year, and most of that money would go to cancer research. >> no on 29. >> according to -- that's a nonpartisan research firm, nearly $47 million has been spent to try to stop proposition

29. more than of that of that from big to be wroe. another $11 million from rj reynolds. >> we estimate that if prop 29 practiceses it will cost philip morris and reynolds and other tobacco companies about a billion dollars a year in sales, and that's why they're in here spending $40 million or $50 million trying to stop us. >> reporter: meanwhile, supporters have spent just $12 million. one of the biggest backers is livestrong, that's the nonprofit founded by cancer survivor lance armstrong. >> vote yes on 29. >> reporter: i should say that i'm a board member. >> not one penny employs to new funding for cancer treatment. >> reporter: of all the ads against the cigarette tax, a few stand out to me. they feature doctors. seemingly taking the side of big tobacco. >> i thought prop 29 was a good idea. then i read it. >> i really wanted to talk with dr. porter, but she wouldn't take our calls. i did find other critics of prop 29. they said smoking may be bad, but that didn't just few a new tax.

>> it's a tax increase in a state that already pays the highest taxes in the nation. it's ballot box budgeting that basically puts a group of nine unelected individuals in control of billions of california tax dollars at a time when california is facing a $16 billion budget deficit, and it's another example of nanny state legislation. >> reporter: there's no question that california has a rep taking as a leader when it comes to healthy living, but the cigarette tax is here are among the lowest in the country. just 87 cents a pack. on tuesday voters will decide if they want to keep it that way. joining me now to discuss this further, dr. mercy and opposes the law and laurie bremnor, a volunteer with the american cancer society. thanks to both of you for joining us. obviously a big week here in california. laurie, i know you have been busy as a volunteer with the acs. you've been making a lot of phone calls to voters about this. give us a little bit the of sort of atmosphere right now here in

california. what's the mood like regarding this particular proposition? >> thank you for having me on today. when we call voters sometimes we hear them just sort of spout back the deceptions that have been put forth in the tobacco company's advertising campaign. other times when they will listen to us speak the truth, they do come around to understand it. voting for prop 29 will save lives and protect kids and invest in important cancer research here in california. we often get into interesting conversation with smokers themselves who most often say i wish i didn't smoke. i don't want kids to start, and if cigarettes had been more expensive when i was a kid, i might not be addicted now. >> quickly, what is the biggest misconception? can you summarize that? >> well, the biggest misconception is that the money will be misused. the money is going to go exactly for what we say it's going to go for. the american cancer society, the american heart association, and

the american lung association wrote the initiative very carefully. the money is going to be invested in cancer research here in california and on tobacco prevention and is hes saying programs to protect kids and reduce smoking here in california. that's exactly what the money is going to be spent on. the biggest misconception is that it will be somehow wasted or used otherwise. >> and let me bring in you, doctor, as well. i know you have been thinking and talking about this quite a bit. again, thanks for joining us. we are talking about something i think that's important to all of us as doctors, cancer research, reducing smoking. just a lot of people were surprised to hear a doctor apparently taking the side of big tobacco. why are you against proposition 29? >> well, first of all, thank you very much for having me, and i'm speaking here today as a physician, but also as a responsible citizen here in the state of california. when i initially read this law, i wasn't reading it as a doctor. i was actually asked to read this for one of the groups that

i belong to. i belong to a legislative council. i was shocked see where the money was going as it is written in this bill. you know, 40% of this money does not go, even start to go to cancer research. the money actually goes to backfill past taxes that have not been able to meet their needs. what we're seeing in the state of california is a lot of frustration on the part of our citizenry that is just another tax, and, of course, the state of california hasn't been spending its money very wisely. in this case this tax goes to build bigger bureaucracies, build business, build buildings. not necessarily to go to cancer research. >> well, doctor, let me -- you said a lot there, so let me just try and ask you a couple of specific questions. do you think the higher taxes would cut down on smoking, yes or no? >> that's an interesting question that we don't have the answer to. you know, california in the country has the second smallest

rate of smoking. the federal goal is 12%. we are at 13%. it's not because of the tax because our tax is relatively low. wills no place for this in california. you can't smoke in public. we have been very successful without a tax. without taxing the floor, which is where this tax will go. it's regressive tack, and without putting more money into the public coughers, we have been successful at having people quit smoke and decreasing the number of people who start to smoke. >> there is data on this, though, and i'm sure you've looked at some of it that shows that taxes do have an impact on smoking sessation. i don't want to get mired in too much here. let me talk to you doctor to doctor. you know the hippocratic oath that i will prevent disease wherever i can for prevention is

preferable to cure. i mean, don't you worry about the optics of this, you as a doctor. i understand your position on taxes, but semplly weighing in on this, you may be sending a message to people who don't hear your entire message that you are in some way condoning smoking. are you worried about that? >> i actually -- anybody who knows me and has listeninged to the first part of my statement, i hate smoking. i don't condone -- the point is this, as a doctor on principal i read this bill. as a physician you know that we don't do surgery, my surgery just because the surgery is necessary. we don't put our hands in a plastic bag and just pick out the surgery we think is necessary. we're very specific and focused. we follow the laws and the rules of the markets. we believe in principaled specific focused answers, legitimate answers. as a physician, you would agree with that. we don't just join things because they're politically correct, and in this case i

think it's -- >> what i also agree with is that month bill is perfect, and i'm reluctant, i think as a lot of people are, to throw the baby out with the bath water. i think there is a concern here. we're talking about tobacco. arguably, the most addictive substance on the planet, which has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. in in i way shape or form to condone this or to volt against something that might promote spoking or at least not deter it, i have a problem with that as a physician. thanks for sharing your story, both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you know, we're going to continue this discussion right after the break. we're also going to get down to the nitty gritty and tell you who should be screened for lung cancer. the head of the american cancer society will weigh in on this, and later, michelle pfeiffer will stop by. , i'm new ensure clear. clear, huh? my nutritional standards are high. i'm not juice or fancy water, i'm different. i've got nine grams of protein. twist my lid. that's three times more than me! twenty-one vitamins and minerals and zero fat!

hmmm. you'll bring a lot to the party. [ all ] yay! [ female announcer ] new ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. twenty-one vitamins and minerals. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. refreshing nutrition in charge! mcallen, texas. in here, heavy rental equipment in the middle of nowhere, is always headed somewhere. to give it a sense of direction, at&t created a mobile asset solution to protect and track everything. so every piece of equipment knows where it is, how it's doing or where it goes next. ♪ this is the bell on the cat. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat.

it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. begins with back pain and a choice. take advil, and maybe have to take up to four in a day. or take aleve, which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. good eye.

before the break we were talking about proposition 29. it's on the ballot here in california, and it's this tuesday. it could raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1. it would raise more than $700 million a year and about three-quarters of that would go

to cancer research. joining me to talk about this a little bit more from atlanta, dr. john seffrin, head of american cancer society. thank you for joining us. you and i have had a chance to talk about the issues quite a bit over the years. this money would go to all kinds of cancer research. not just lung cancer, is my understanding from reading the bill, but, of course, lung cancer is a big one. we know in a perfect world people would never smoke or they would quit before they ever get cancer, but quickly, if you endulling me, i want to give you some of the benefits which are almost immediate for someone to quit smoking. 20 minutes, for example, after smoking, your blood pressure drops back down to normal. literally within hours your risk of having fatal heart attack goes down. within the year a rescue of heart disease is halfway back down to that of a nonsmoker. these are incentives, doctor, to try and obviously get someone to think about this. let me ask you something specific. can an ex-smoker ever get their cancer risk down to where it is for a never smoker? >> very close.

it doesn't go down as fast as for heart disease, but it's like a stair tip. it goes down year after year, and about 125 years out they get back to the base line of the lung cancer rate among people who have never smoked. >> we talk a lot about lung cancer, and it's a frightening prospect if you are diagnosed. where do we stand on screening, and is there any sort of effective screening test for lung cancer? >> we think there now is for the first time. this is five decades of research. we know that spiral ct scanning can catch early lesions, and in a study -- a very well funded study the american cancer website -- people who were 55 on & older and have a 30 pack a year history were screened regularly by x-ray and ct scanning, and there's a 20 3erz reduction in lung cancer mortality and those screened by ct screenings. it's not a perfect test, but it's the first time that we've had mying that reliably picked up early lung cancer. >> it is arguably one of the most addictive substances on the

planet, cigarettes. let me ask you something specific about prop 29, which i know you have been following closely. how much of the money from prop 29 goes specifically to programs to help people quit smoking? >> well, it would be several millions of dollars, but the thing i heard the earlier part of the conversation. i'm going to make the point. the thing about prop 29, it's very good public health policy and economic policy for the state of california. it hits on all cylinders. it will create better paying jobs, bathe by the way. it will create about a $1.2 billion increase in economic activity. it will save 100,000 lives and protect 220,000 kids from getting addicted and provide life-saving research, and the point i want too make it make california the second large it's funder of the nci in the country. the pay line of mci a decade ago was one in three proposals would get funded. today it's one in ten. we have grants that would benefit, and they aren't getting

funded, and now they can be funded. it's a tremendous opportunity for california to do the right thing. not only for california, but for the whole world. >> i think a lot of people should pay attention, even if you don't live in california as to what's happening there because i think it's -- it could be an inflexion point in what's been happening for a long time with big tobacco and smoking sessation. dr. john, i don't get to see you in person today, but thanks for joining us. i appreciate it, as always. >> thanks for having me. >> up next, beautiful and bold. we got the story behind these children's dolls that have no hair. stay with us. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. ♪ it has more of seven antioxidants to support cell health. that's one a day men's 50+ healthy advantage.

in just a few days there's going to be new and different looking dolls on the shelves of

your local toy store. they are thanks in part to the efforts of one new jersey mom. i want to introduce you now to a cancer patient who successfully lobbied major companies like mattel to create dolls that look just like her. jane bingham had bounced between doctors for more than a year before finally being diagnosed an incurable type of nonhodgkins lymphoma. >> it's in your lymph system. >> for five years doctors were able to keep the cancer in check. then that stopped working and doctors told bingham she would have to start chemotherapy. only then did her daughter realize that her mom was sick. >> she was 4 when i was diagnosed, and she had just turned 9 when i had chemotherapy and last my hair. >> her hair loss became a defining moment for her and her young daughter sfp. >> she always knew me as long, blond hair and she said numerous

times that she missed my hair, she wished i didn't have to lose my hair and that was her big focus was the hair. >> reporter: her daughter's experience prompted bingham to petition toy companies to consider manufacturing a bald doll. companies are listening. bald moxie and bratz dolls have been created as part of a new collection to go on sail this june. mattel has promised to manufacture 10,000 beautiful and bald friends of barbie. >> i think it's important to focus your energies outward instead of just focusing inward on yourself. >> doctors say jane will never be cancer-free, but for now her symptoms are gone. and her quality of life has returned. we certainly wish her all the best. look for those dolls. at 54 years old michelle pfeifer can still take hold of the big screen. >> i mean to be a part of this family again. >> on one condition.

>> yes? >> promise me that this, all of this, will remain our secret. >> a little goth there but glamorous as always alongside johnny depp in "dark shadows." she'll reveal some dramatic changes she's made to her own life and her diet as well. almost tastes like one of jack's cereals. fiber one. uh, forgot jack's cereal. [ jack ] what's for breakfast? um... y the number one! [ jack ] yeah, this is pretty good. [ male announcer ] half a day's worth of fiber. fiber one. imagine if you could always see life [music] in the best light. every time of day. outdoors, or in. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything

the way it is meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. long before the race. get your head right. and focus. on race day you don't leave anything to chance. get set every morning with gillette fusion proglide. its thinner, finer blades cut close, for less tug & pull. ♪ great starts begin with gillette fusion proglide. check out our great promotional offers this month.

you're not talking about just reducing your chance of heart disease. you're talking about potentially reversing heart disease.

>> oh, absolutely. >> the late wisdom is that once you develop these plaques, they're there. you're stuck with them. try not to let them get worse. is that faulty thinking? >> i think it's absolutely faulty thinking. >> here is a picture he likes to show of a heart patient with a blocked coronary artery. and here is that same patient after going on a plant-based diet. you see the way the blockage has almost disappeared? that was part of my documentary called "the last heart attack." about how a plant-based diet can reverse heart disease. this struck a chord with many people, including michelle pfeifer. she agreed to talk and talk to us about staying on top of her game. at the age of 54 she says she's in the best shape of her life. you can see the full interview monday night at 9:00 eastern. we want to give you some of our conversation as her new life as

a vegan. it's not easy. when we had lunch we had a vegan lunch which was fantastic but i think most people think vegan, they think there's no way. how hard is it? >> you actually really love the vegan diet because i love carbs. and i don't really -- i have never really -- i have never really loved animal protein. i mean, in terms of animal meat. i ate it because i thought it was good for me, you know, and i thought i needed to eat the protein and vegetables to stay lean. it was all about vanity really honestly. the older i've gotten of course, it's still about vanity but it's become more and more primarily it's switched a little bit, you know. vanity is right under there, but i have to say it's a close second with wanting to, you know, live long and -- >> has it made a difference? do you know that you're healthier now as a result of being a vegan? do you get your bloodwork

checked -- >> i actually, sounding like such an old fart now. i did get my bloodwork checked. >> i'm a doctor, i can ask these questions. >> yes, doctor. i had unusually high cholesterol -- >> is that right? >> for somebody who ate well and exercised well and did all the right things but it wasn't enough to sort of -- i mean, maybe some doctors would have put me on medication but i have a thing on medication so i didn't. so i go on this diet and i'm curious now because of these claims. two months later i check my chris, it has gone down 83 points. >> is that right? wow. >> 3 poin83 points. jim delig jim. >> i am delighted to hear that. monday night 9:00 p.m. eastern i'm filling in as guest host for

piers morgan. you can hear more about michelle's diet and her marriage to david e. kelly and how she age sos gracefully in hollywood. i should point out i'm working on a new protect with david kelly called "monday mornings" based on my novel that came out earlier this year. you know, you jus heard michelle pfeifer talking about being a vegan. now, as you may know a vegan diet means no meat, no eggs, no dairy. they say eat nothing with a mother or a face. it can be very healthy, but health is your goal, you don't necessarily need an all or nothing approach. if the only change in your diet is eliminating red meat, do you greatly cut your risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. red meat is harmful because it's higher in saturated fat, may have more iron than your body needs, and some meats also have these harmful nitrates which they use as a preservative. my family and i, we still eat

meat occasionally, but we simply don't keep it in the house. for us it's a simple way to cut down and it gets us out of this habit of thinking that every male should revolve around meat. unfortunately, that wraps things up for us. stay connected all week long at cnn.com/sanjay. also there's a conversation we want to keep going on twitter @sanjayguptacnn. time to get you a check of your top stories in the cnn "newsroom." from the cnn world headquarters in atlanta, this is cnn "sunday morning." a wildfire bigger than the entire city of chicago has become the largest one on record in new mexico. more than a quarter of a million acres burned, 1,250 people fighting it, and still only 17% contained. and it's just one of nine states on fire. plus, tuesday's wisconsin recall race has pitted party heavyweights against each other as last-minute money continues to pour in on both