County Lawsuit Against Tobacco Firms

* I was pleased to see “L.A. County Files Lawsuit Against 6 Tobacco Firms” (Aug. 6).

However, the revelation that “Board Chairman Mike Antonovich, who voted against filing the suit, argued that individuals choose to buy cigarettes, and noted that they are a legal product” is unbelievable. He parrots one of the tobacco companies’ arguments, which certainly indicates he is in their camp. This argument belies the existence of “addiction” which incurs huge medical costs and pain.

I would suggest that Antonovich investigate the voluminous data on the record that reveals the perjured testimony of tobacco company officials and the supporting medical data condemning this addiction.

LEON FIELD

Beverly Hills

* So Los Angeles County wants to sue the tobacco industry for health-related costs. How about suing the automobile industry for car-related health costs or the gun industry. We know for sure what they do. Brilliant job, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky!

KARIN STANSELL

Whittier

* The tobacco industry’s latest claim that state tobacco lawsuits are some sort of backdoor attempt to “tax” the industry through the courts, rather than through the legislature, is particularly ludicrous (“Untested Theory Becoming Tobacco Firms’ Top Threat,” Aug. 4).

Minnesota’s case is a law enforcement case, and laws in this country are enforced through the judicial system. The tobacco industry broke our consumer fraud and antitrust laws by lying to consumers about their product and colluding to keep safer products off the market. When any other business or scam artist disobeys these laws, we prosecute them in court and hold them accountable for the harm their lawbreaking caused. We shouldn’t allow a business to secure special legal immunity in a legislature simply because it is politically powerful.

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III

Attorney General of Minnesota

St. Paul, Minn.

* The stated object of the county’s suit is to obtain repayment of county monies spent on medical treatment of smokers. But there is more and more evidence that smokers, overall, do not cost money but actually fatten the public purse.

The problems caused by smoking, increased illness, fires caused by careless smoking, and so on, are more than covered by the taxes on tobacco and by the smokers’ shortened life span. Smokers who die prematurely never collect their pensions or use the expensive medical treatments of advancing age. And yes, these savings are sufficient to cover not only the smokers themselves, but their neighbors who breathe “secondhand smoke,” if it is ever shown that such smoke is harmful.

ISADORE M. RICHLIN

Culver City