Anti-Smoking Campaign

Re “Clinton Orders Smoking Limits for Teen-Agers,” Aug. 11:

In all the political brouhaha about President Clinton wanting to protect children by having the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco, it seems strange that no one has commented on the outright absurdity of that proposal.

For years, the Food and Drug Administration has attempted to get more authority over vitamins and minerals by claiming that anything taken to improve health is a drug. Not even that claim is broad enough to cover tobacco.

The director of the FDA would need a far bigger empire than he has now in order to regulate tobacco, and the cost to the people would be immense. We already have at least two other federal agencies with more legal and administrative claim to tobacco regulation, and more practical experience. Given that tobacco is an addictive drug, the Drug Enforcement Administration is the obvious choice for regulating it. Should there be some objection to DEA, then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms might appreciate the opportunity to do more good than harm.

DENZEL L. DYER

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

* As much as I applaud President Clinton’s realistic program of preventing kids from starting smoking and not trying to stop adults, I was very disappointed that he stated that he has no plan to stop his cigar smoking.

Clinton claimed that he used to smoke more cigars but allergies have caused him to cut back to about six a year. When questioned by a reporter as to whether this would be good time to quit, and thereby set an example, he (defensively) replied that he won’t stop because pipes and cigars were not listed in report therefore they are not the point.

What President Clinton misses is that it will be hard to convince kids to not use a drug that may affect them 30-40 years from now, while he won’t quit a drug that is affecting him now (through his allergies)!

By not quitting, Clinton is saying that this drug is so good that he is willing to sacrifice his health and tolerate his allergy problems.

GARY COYNE

Van Nuys

*

* Rather than set up another bureaucracy to monitor tobacco sales to teens, wouldn’t it be simpler and more effective if our government took these two steps to reduce the use (and cost to the country) of tobacco: 1) Eliminate the millions of dollars in subsidies to tobacco growers; 2) increase the tax on tobacco products to the point that smoking becomes so expensive its use will be curbed.

These steps, along with strong, consistent pressure on tobacco companies and state governments to rigidly enforce present laws, would do more to cut down smoking and would show more political spine than Clinton’s proposals. And most important, we would more effectively solve the giant problems caused by tobacco products.

WILLIAM L. BANNING

Santa Barbara

* North Carolina Gov. James Hunt Jr. said of Clinton’s anti-smoking plan for teens, “We don’t need big government trying to run our lives” (Aug. 10). It should read, “We don’t need big government trying to save our lives.”

SHIRLEY WOLF

Santa Monica

* It is good to see Diane Disney Miller fighting for common sense regarding tobacco (Commentary, Aug. 9). The whole tobacco story is a sad reflection on our political system. Anyone who ahs used cigarettes knows how addictive nicotine is.

I started smoking before World War II because my girlfriend did. I quit about 1957 because my doctor told me it would help me with an incipient ulcer. It was a struggle. About 10 years later, at a party after drinking a bit too much, I took a puff on a cigarette just to be funny. Two weeks later I was smoking over two packs a day. It took me another two years of constant struggle to quit again.

Though people should be allowed to smoke if they want to, tobacco advertising should be banned. The fact that it isn’t demonstrates that our political system is not one man, one vote, but rather one dollar, one vote.

RICHARD FOY

Redondo Beach

* If the Disney family is concerned about the accessibility of tobacco to children, why not begin at home by making Disneyland a smoke-free environment? As a concerned parent and physician, I have long found it disturbing that the “happiest place on Earth” is also one of the smokiest. While waiting in line or eating at the restaurants, my children are continuously exposed to secondhand smoke and have had close calls with cigarette burns.

STEPHEN C. ROSS MD

Santa Monica

* I will approve the use of my tax dollars to control the use of tobacco when the government stops spending my tax dollars to subsidize tobacco.

BARBARA ALFS

Los Angeles