Tobacco Bill Killed in Senate

Republican lawmakers killed the tobacco bill because the legislation would have required a tax hike (June 18). Apparently, they opposed this more than they favor good health, in this case for our children. I wonder if they would go along with a tax increase only for Democrats and others. Maybe Republicans want their kids to smoke.

HAL ROTHBERG

Woodland Hills

*

The entire public health community united this year in favor of a bill that would raise the price of cigarettes so that our children could not afford them, and against any provisions that would protect the tobacco companies or their parent corporations from legal action, or preempt FDA, state and local regulation of tobacco. Despite this overwhelming consensus, a group of more than 50 senators, all but one of whom take money from the tobacco industry, voted against public health interests and in favor of the tobacco industry. In the process, they voted in favor of cynical amendments that would have offered unprecedented legal protection to an industry that preys on our children, creates millions of nicotine addicts and is responsible for the premature deaths of 480,000 Americans each year, and for the suffering and disability of many millions more.

If these long and tortuous Senate proceedings accomplished nothing more, they have illuminated the problem of corruption of our political leaders by campaign contributions. We will not solve our society’s important problems until we reform our system of government; reform political campaign contribution laws.

FREDERIC W. GRANNIS JR. MD

Long Beach

*

The engineered downfall of a bill designed to protect the young is very disturbing. The Republican attitude reeks of big business sentiment with little regard for the health of children. Their argument that the bill is purely about taxes is weak. Even if this was the case, think of the numerous benefits: deterrent against smoking; added revenue to fund the devastating results of smoking; one of the few taxes that is entirely optional--one can easily avoid paying it.

Given these immense benefits, I’d like to understand the actual disadvantages of such a bill. Could it perhaps be less political funding?

CHRIS YOUNG

Hermosa Beach

*

Re your June 19 editorial decrying the demise of the tobacco bill, you refer to “pliable members of Congress” with “Big Tobacco benefactors.” Horrors! But I can take comfort that we will be saved by the good guys who have shunned Big Tobacco money and have the good sense to have Indonesian and Red Chinese benefactors. What a relief!

KARYN CHEBUL

Granada Hills