Voting on the State Ballot Propositions

Thank you for your editorial (Oct. 28) advocating a Yes vote on Proposition 99. That editorial succinctly points out the total hypocrisy of the proposition. It speaks of discouraging smoking while relying on present smokers to finance its programs. It promises education against smoking but admits its dependence on future smokers to maintain those programs.

What happens to the “clear and urgent” social value if all smokers quit the day Proposition 99 passes? Who maintains the $600 million income if they quit the day after?

Proposition 99 is not about education or health or parks--those are ruses to influence votes. It is about one segment of society seeking ultimate power over another segment that is already completely without protection from prejudice.

MARK TAPSCOTT

Los Angeles