State Smoking Restrictions

In reference to your Aug. 30 editorial on Prop. 188, “Half-Truths Cloaked in Slickness”: Misled or not, all voters who signed a petition to qualify Prop. 188 for the ballot should now vote no.

When these petitions were circulating, Assembly Bill 13, a statewide smoking restriction bill sponsored by Assemblyman Terry Friedman (D-Brentwood), was given little chance for passage. In a show of courage against the powerful tobacco lobby, both houses passed the bill and Gov. Pete Wilson signed it into law on July 21.

AB 13 does exactly what Prop. 188 claims to do but does not: provides real protection from secondhand smoke for the great majority of Californians who do not smoke. It also has the practical effect of establishing a uniform statewide regulation while not denying localities the right to establish stricter regulations (few, if any, will because AB 13 already prohibits smoking in virtually all workplaces, including restaurants).

The proponents of Prop. 188 (i.e., Philip Morris) are disingenuous when they argue that a “uniform” tobacco control act is needed. The fact is, one already exists . . . as long as Prop. 188 does not pass. Because one of the worst aspects of Prop. 188 is that it would supersede AB 13, and cement a tobacco company marketing ploy into our state Constitution instead.

RONALD M. GWYNN

Orange

* Your editorial is a good example of why Prop. 188 should be approved by the voters. You cleverly try to give the opinion that Philip Morris Inc. has misled the public into thinking that Prop. 188 is something that it’s not. Prop. 188 is clearly written and easy for anyone to understand. We need uniform state laws for smokers and nonsmokers.

Some cities haven’t gone far enough. Other cities such as Davis have gone to the extreme, making it illegal to smoke within 30 feet from any building, which in reality benefits no one’s health. Prop. 188 is a sensible solution to a problem that should have been solved years ago. It should be approved on Nov. 8.

DARWIN SEAMONS

Whittier

* Few sights are more ironic than that of conservatives clamoring for their “civil rights.” Even as the right continues trying to deny freedom of choice to women, protection from discrimination to gay and lesbian people, and separation of church and state to schoolchildren, former Reagan aide Aram Bakshian Jr. is actually complaining that the government isn’t freely indulging Americans’ right to smoke (Column Right, Sept. 1)! I’m sure his ACLU card is in the mail.

MICHAEL CHASKES

Los Angeles

* Bakshian is off base on several items. First, as an “anti-smoking zealot” I do not wish to pass a tobacco version of Prohibition. Higher taxes (to pay for the increased use of Medicare dollars), and a ban on smoking in public will be adequate. And whether or not one believes the evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer and heart disease, it is undeniable that for the millions of people with asthma and respiratory ailments, tobacco smoke, even in small doses, is quite dangerous. Additional medication, associated side effects and possible long-term complications do result. And while eating junk food is bad for you, nobody else is harmed.

So, Mr. Bakshian, I say to you--take your cigar and smoke it in the privacy of your home, but stay out of public places when you must indulge. You can venture out there whether or not you are smoking, but there are others who are condemned to stay inside, in private, because they cannot be where others are smoking.

STEPHEN M. GREENBERG MD

Santa Monica