Hurray for school Vice Principal Nancy Frick for spotlighting the fraud of Prop. 188, which is probably the most deceptive measure ever on the California ballot ("Educator Recants Her Ads Backing Measure," Oct. 28). Frick's turnabout shows the trickery of Prop. 188, which pretends to be a tough tobacco control measure. She was misled to do a pro-Prop. 188 TV ad but quickly recanted after realizing it was a sham. We hope California voters will also see through Prop. 188, which tobacco giant Philip Morris has bankrolled with $5 million. Would we expect these nicotine dealers to want reasonable curbs on smoking and cigarette vending machines? Not any more than we would trust a fox to design our henhouse.
Please vote no on Prop. 188.
RALPH R. OCAMPO MD
* The tobacco industry never ceases to amaze us ("Tobacco Industry Drops Low Profile and Airs TV Ad," Oct. 26). The industry's pro-Prop. 188 television ad describes the initiative as the "best way to keep cigarettes away from kids." This comes just two weeks after the same tobacco industry threatened to sue television stations in the state for running a state Department of Health Services ad aimed at keeping cigarettes out of the hands of children and adults.
The tobacco industry supports Prop. 188 for one simple reason--it eviscerates AB 13 (Terry B. Friedman, D-Brentwood), which will ban smoking in most indoor workplaces as of Jan. 1. Worse yet, Prop. 188 will wipe out some 300 local smoking ordinances and forever prevent cities from passing tough new smoking restrictions.
The tobacco industry spent over $2.5 million lobbying to defeat AB 13 and other smoking-related measures and lost. Now, it's spending over $18 million to erase AB 13 and every local smoking ban from the books. The real question Prop. 188 puts before the voters is this: "Who do you want to write your laws--you and your local city council or the tobacco industry?"
DEBRA BOWEN, State Assembly
D-Marina del Rey
MARIAN BERGESON, State Senate
* I heartily concur with A. David Rossin (letter, Oct. 26). I would gladly vote "to get rid of the law that allows (and invites) making law by referendum." As a voter I'm tired of doing the job that elected officials of California are supposed to do. I haven't got the time to research these initiatives to make an informed decision. I'm beginning to think that these prospective laws are not populist, grass-roots ideas, but rather the ideas of well-organized and well-endowed special-interest groups. I would much rather vote for the people who will make the laws, not for the laws themselves.
NANCY E. JOHNSEN