It is unfortunate that The Times did not support Prop. 126, but it is even more unfortunate that incorrect information was used to reach your conclusion. In fact, the law preventing cities and counties from levying alcohol taxes, which you cited as a new provision and "opportunism," is already in effect and dates back to the days following Prohibition. It was placed in Prop. 126 solely to codify its presence in law should the measure pass.
Contrary to your assertion that Prop. 126 attempts to circumvent the provision in the Constitution, which states that if two ballot measures pass the one with the most votes wins, the fact is that Prop. 126 contains specific language that reaffirms that clause and clearly says whichever alcohol tax measure gets the most votes takes effect.
Even if The Times won't support Prop. 126, voters should.