PROPOSITION 172: HALF-CENT SALES TAX : This Is Truly a Life-or-Death Issue : Yes: Keeping this small levy-- remember, it’s not a new tax--is the only way to save police, fire and other safety services.

If, as jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes noted, “taxes are what we pay for a civilized society,” then Proposition 172 is what we pass for a safer one.

It is really a simple issue, though its opponents have attempted to obfuscate it with arguments that range from convoluted to bizarre and are consistent only in their inaccuracy.

The issue is public safety. It is the issue insofar as it is the single most important reason for government to exist. No other governmental purpose can function unhampered in a society where crime pays dividends to the lawless and presents the bill to the victims.

Proposition 172 would amend the state Constitution to require that the revenues from a half-cent of the existing state sales tax be used to support local law enforcement and fire protection. It would insert specific language in the Constitution declaring that public safety is the first responsibility of local government and that local governments have an obligation to give priority to public-safety services.

It keeps cops, deputies and firefighters on the streets, prosecutors in the courtrooms and criminals away from the rest of us.

What it doesn’t do is equally simple. It doesn’t raise taxes. The half-cent that would be dedicated to crime-fighting and fire protection is in place now and has been for two years. It doesn’t give state or local officials a new source of revenue for spending on other programs. And it doesn’t represent just one of many options.

Without it, local public-safety agencies will lose $1.4 billion. As large as that number is, potential county-by-county losses are equally staggering.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has estimated its $83 million share of the cut could mean a loss of 800 sworn deputies, the padlocking of nearly half of its patrol stations, a 25% reduction in neighborhood patrols and the closure of three jail facilities, with the loss of more than 5,000 jail beds.

Orange County’s cut of up to $25 million means it could lose 205 peace officers and another 272 personnel and have to reduce its neighborhood patrols by one-fifth and close two jails, with a loss of 2,466 beds.

Ventura County could lose an estimated $29 million, eliminating 100 officers. San Bernardino County could lose $30 million, which translates to 216 fewer officers and the closure of three facilities.

Similar devastating effects would be felt by city police departments, firefighting agencies and district attorneys’ and probation offices.

Opponents’ rhetoric notwithstanding, there is no other timely solution to the problem. The money cannot be found by making further cuts in other local services. Discretionary spending in health and welfare programs has already dried up in the wake of California’s prolonged economic recession. Park and library services have been slashed to skeletal forms.

Does that mean Proposition 172 is the perfect solution? Of course not. In the long run, California must find a more equitable, more logical way to allocate its government resources. Long-term solutions, however, will be of little consequence to the man who is mugged or the woman who is assaulted or the child who is shot at school because there are too few police and too many crooks.

The California Taxpayers’ Assn., which can hardly be considered cavalier with taxpayers’ money, is not alone in its endorsement of Proposition 172. Virtually every law-enforcement and fire-protection organization in the state supports it. So does the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Business Round Table, the California Teachers Assn., Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Medical Assn., the California Manufacturers Assn., the California Rainbow Coalition and the California Labor Federation AFL/CIO.

The breadth and depth of that support is impressive. But it pales in importance to the support Proposition 172 must have from voters. If ever there was a life-or-death issue on a ballot, it’s this one.

It has been suggested that in a perfect world, voters would not have to choose between supporting a tax--even a small one--or supporting the demolition of agencies that protect our lives and property.

In the real world, however, that is precisely the kind of choice that defines a society. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, Proposition 172 is what we must pass to ensure that we have a civilized society.