Times’ endorsement of proposed cigarette tax

Re “Have a smoke and a tax,” editorial, Oct. 9

Shame on The Times for endorsing Proposition 86. Less than six cents of the $2.60-per-pack tax on cigarettes would go toward tobacco-related disease research, while more than 40 cents would cover already well-funded diseases. This is not the way to pay for emergency care services, just because the Legislature is not doing its job.

Lung cancer will kill more people this year than breast, prostate, colon, liver and kidney cancer and melanoma combined. More than 50% of new lung cancer cases this year will be diagnosed in former smokers who quit 10 to 30 years ago, and it will kill 85% of those diagnosed within five years. Yet lung cancer continues to be underfunded and under-researched. A new tobacco tax proposition should be placed on the ballot that would distribute the funds to tobacco-cessation programs and to tobacco-related disease research for early detection and treatment.

KIM NORRIS

Palos Verdes Estates

*

If The Times’ arguments supporting the proposed cigarette tax are accepted, then I propose that we also tax alcoholic beverages and fast food. Both are health risks that should be discouraged by high taxation. Both cost the public treasury at public health facilities heavily utilized by the uninsured.

Drunk driving is notorious for its role in automobile accidents, rape, spousal and child abuse and other socially unacceptable behavior. Obesity is now causing the expensive redesign of automobile, theater, aircraft and other public accommodation seating and capacity. No one can calculate the cost to society of obesity-related health problems, low self-esteem and under- achievement.

JORDAN MO

Solvang

*

Why should only one segment of the population (tobacco purchasers) be called upon to subsidize the healthcare of the uninsured, many of whom are in this country illegally? If this proposition passes, I will lead the charge to get it declared unconstitutional.

DEE LONG

Van Nuys