Debate Over Smoking

Re “EPA Blows Smoke on Risk of Breathing It” (Robert Scheer, Column Left, May 29):

Scheer hit the nail right on the head regarding the hidden agenda of the “secondhand smoke” doomsayers.

Cooking the books or massaging the test data to support a predetermined conclusion on the part of the EPA is illustrative of why the government’s credibility is almost nonexistent. The government would rather shift the burden of ensuring “clean air” to individuals than to the corporate polluters who manufacture cars and trucks that foul our environment far more than the (relative) handful of smokers could ever do.

More notable, however, is the hypocrisy of the militant nonsmokers who make a matter of personal inconvenience or distaste into a point of principle. Thus, the same liberals who arrogate to themselves the moral high ground on the smoking issue are conspicuously absent from the anti-smog fight, having failed to support--with significant time and money contributions--myriad citizen organizations dedicated to eradicating smog over the past 30 years.

STEPHEN P. WATKINS

Los Angeles

* Responding to “Blow Away All the Smoke” (June 4), I thank The Times for the editorial about Tony Miller and his efforts to expose Philip Morris for its deceptive telephone campaign to get signatures for their so-called “anti-smoking” initiative.

Unfortunately, I was among those who were duped. The question posed to me on the phone was “Do you support statewide anti-smoking laws?” I was never told that the proposed legislation would wipe out strong local anti-smoking laws. Nor was I told that the sponsor of the initiative was Philip Morris. I signed the petition, fully unaware that I was lending support to the very cause I so strongly oppose.

ANN STRAUCH

Manhattan Beach

* Your editorial implied that signers of a petition for a tough anti-smoking plan were deliberately misled. What this petition is trying to do is to have a statewide regulation regarding smoking, rather than have a patchwork of different ordinances in some cities and counties. Under present conditions, many restaurant owners are at an unfair disadvantage, and others are favored, depending how each municipality handles their situation. You would not stand for each community to have their own seat belt law or helmet law, would you?

As for signing a petition, it is up to the voter to inform himself of its complete contents before signing it. Furthermore, if you find out later that the petition you signed is not what you thought it would be, you can vote against it when you go to the polls. The petition is only the vehicle to get there.

OTTO J. MUEKSCH

Vice President

Californians for Smokers’ Rights

* I am one of the individuals who made a formal complaint to the secretary of state about flagrant deception in the gathering of signatures. Several times in front of a very busy local market, I witnessed the same affable, elderly gentleman egregiously misrepresent this measure as simply an effort to increase penalties to vendors selling cigarettes as distracted signers put their name to petitions that would do the very opposite of what these folks seemed to expect.

I am not, as suggested by the measure’s paid consultant in a Times article, an anti-smoking fanatic, individuals he states he suspects simply fear putting this measure to a statewide vote. I say to him, fairness and money, not fear, is the issue. My firsthand observation indicates that many voters signed these petitions believing that the measure in some way tightened cigarette regulation.

Again, to the measure’s hired political consultant who denies duplicity and obviously hopes to divert attention from the facts by making his own charge of harassment by a few anti-smoking nuts gone over edge, I ask, if you believed this initiative has merit and would be widely supported, why have you felt compelled to intentionally deceive to gather a sufficient number of signatures?

JOAN H. LEONARD

Sherman Oaks