Writing to The Times

Re “Few Incensed by Story on Capt. Ed’s Joint,” April 29.

I am one of those people who thought your article on the head shop was in bad taste and an unworthy subject for The Times. So why didn’t I call or write? Because I have written to The Times. Plenty of people have written and called to complain about other articles and photos promoting tobacco use, such as those “cigar night” promotional stories. But the fact that The Times continues to publish pro-tobacco articles and images shows how little influence we have regarding the validity of publishing those “news” stories (compared perhaps with the tobacco industry’s public relations people?).

The fact that you wrote in such friendly terms, and the photo editor gave it so much space, led me to believe that this was another “promotional” story. I (rightly or wrongly) saw yours as one more example of the media glorifying and promoting an activity that has injured--physically, emotionally and financially--so many people.

You mentioned that some people did complain that the image promotes a filthy habit (smoking tobacco, “Wink wink, nudge nudge”). I wish that filthy were all that it was. Then my dad could just wash his filthy lungs out, like a dirty ashtray, and he’d still be alive today. But he couldn’t and he’s not.

Every image and word you give space to in your paper has the power to influence the public. When we write to you, it means we think we can still make a difference by expressing our point of view. When people don’t respond to an obviously controversial topic, maybe it doesn’t always mean that they agree with you, but instead, like those infamous no-show voters, maybe they’ve just begun to disregard what you write.

You and your editor should consider that a more dangerous “sign of the (Los Angeles) Times.”

WINIFRED MEISER

Quartz Hill