Unfettered Letters

Smokers helpful to society?

Letter writers have expressed the opinion that if the recently enacted high tobacco tax discourages smokers from smoking, there will be some sort of economic dividend to society for making these people healthier. Most likely, however, society will realize a negative economic impact if a sizable number of people quit smoking because of this tax.

Of course we will see the immediate downturn in the tax revenue from tobacco sales and the negative economic impact on the tobacco industry. But beyond that, I think we will actually see the cost of medical services go up so as to cover the lost revenue from tobacco-related illness. And then there is the cost factor of supporting an ever-increasing senior population.

Not to over-dramatize, but it seems to me that smokers might actually be performing a valuable public service.

Kenneth A. McGee
Overland Park

Rising cigarette prices

Oliver Wallen (3/26, Letters, “The soaring price of smoking”) wonders where all the taxes will come from when we all quit smoking.

I would suggest that the government is raising taxes on tobacco because it knows that you smokers will not quit. If the quit option were chosen by most, the lost tax revenue might be offset in time by reduced spending on smoking-related medical care.
 
Tom Reintjes
Cleveland, Mo.

The recent cigarette price increase was by the tobacco companies, not a tax increase. (A national 62-cent-a-pack increase begins April 1.) Maybe if smokers and their families would quit filing lawsuits against the cigarette companies, the prices would be less.

As a nonsmoker who hates cigarette smoke, I would gladly pay more in taxes if enough people quit that the revenue needs to be replaced. Even now with the smoking ban, when I am in a bar I can often smell smoke when a door is opened by a smoker returning from smoking outside. Sometimes they smell like an ashtray.

John Hall
Kansas City

Have you seen a loved one suffer and die from lung cancer? Becoming a widow at age 54 wasn’t in the plan.

Perhaps it’s time to quit and save more lives, because you never think that it will happen to you.

Carol M. Steele
Leawood

We hope smokers quit

Oliver Wallen (3/26, Letters, “The soaring price of smoking”) implies that we nonsmokers will be hurt financially by his and others’ quitting smoking. We’ll have to pay more taxes to make up for the tobacco taxes the smokers and tobacco companies will no longer be paying.

What he does not know is that we’ll be more than happy to pay those additional taxes because they will be easily offset by the health-care dollars that those same smokers will no longer be taking from us because of their super-expensive use of health-care facilities.

Insurance is already too expensive. Why should we continue to subsidize the smokers’ extravagant waste of precious health-care resources?

John Belmont
Merriam

Oliver Wallen threatens that the increased taxes on cigarettes will cause smokers to quit smoking. The “downside” to that is that all these new former smokers will live healthier, longer lives, they’ll have much more money in their pockets, they’ll no longer walk around smelling like ashtrays and they’ll cause less of a strain on the U.S. health-care system.

And the problem with that is?

Barry Kaplan
Overland Park

Cigarette taxes and kids’ health

We have now banned smoking in restaurants and public places. So now the secondhand smoke has been banned, and our health is saved!

If smoking is so bad for us, ban it. Tell our government to stop subsidizing tobacco growers. Now we are imposing a 62 cents a pack tax on cigarettes to take care of our children’s health care (2/16, A-1, “Will cigarettes end up a lifesaver?”). Can you believe that a “health hazard” will pay for children’s health care?

What if every smoker quits, lives longer and puts a bigger burden on Social Security, which is broke, by living longer?

My solution? Everyone should smoke, pay high taxes, die sooner and save our Social Security. Should this be part of our “stimulus” package? What a country.

Al Ward
Kansas City

Being one of your senior citizens who has smoked for the past 50 years of his life, I find it quite humorous that once again we smokers have been targeted for the cure- alls of the world.

Once again I am told that it is a win-win situation. How, I haven’t quite figured out, for if all of us smokers quit like they say we will, then where will the money come from to help the poor needy children?

Big Brother seems to be looking over my shoulder again and telling me what is good for me. Trouble is, who will be watching him when he starts looking elsewhere for this cure-all?

Loyd Byfield
Kansas City

KC should reconsider smoking ban

Since Kansas City’s revenues are way down, it may be time to reconsider the smoking ban. People who resent being treated like second-class citizens are spending their money elsewhere.

What if the city were to enact a “smoking fee” to small bars that have less than 50 percent food revenues? The owner would get a choice, which is all they’ve ever asked for. Customers also would have a choice. People vote with their wallets. Most important, the city would get revenue from these fees that they currently are not getting.

Also, there’s no need to protect workers in the food service industry. There are plenty of jobs in this sector, and in the small ma and pa taverns, most of these people smoke anyway.

The city is losing a lot of money due to this ban.

Duane G. Whorton
Kansas City

Allow smoking? Why not asbestos?

A.P. Lane (12/11, Letters) says business owners should get to decide whether to allow smoking.

I have this analogy. Asbestos in ceiling tile is known to cause cancer, right? As a business owner, should I have the right to put asbestos-laden ceiling tile in my establishment since perhaps it’s cost effective and the perfect texture? It’s my business, and I’m the property owner, correct?

Oh, that’s right — it’s been proved to be carcinogenic and, in fact, would create a health issue for my employees and customers alike.

Thus, I’m not allowed to do this by law.

Suzie Warren
Lake Winnebago

Secondhand smoke unhealthy

I suffered from childhood asthma until I was 6 years old. My father, who was a smoker, died of lung cancer when I was 5 years old. Though no one can go back and verify the connection between my father’s smoking and my asthma, scientists and doctors today have verified the connection between secondhand smoke and a host of illnesses.

I can’t have my father back, and I can’t be rid of the memory of gasping for air as a child. But what I can do, I will do. It’s simple and it doesn’t cost anything. It leads to lower rates of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

The simple solution is reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in public places and workplaces, including restaurants, bars and private clubs.

I live in Kansas City, Kan., and I will contact the Unified Government and encourage my representatives to create a smoke-free community. Won’t you?

Rick Behrens
Kansas City, Kan.

Allow smoking? Let owners decide

Chuck Inzerillo (12/6, Letters) favors banning smoking in public places.

I do not smoke and never have, but I believe that the property owner should have the right to decide what legal activities are allowed on the property that they purchased and continue to pay taxes on. The customer also has the right to decide not to patronize businesses that allow smoking.

Inzerillo asks, “Doesn’t a democratic decision still count?” In reviewing the 2006 vote for light rail, I would say that in Kansas City no, it doesn’t. Only the city government knows best.

A.P. Lane
Lake Lotawana

Nonsmokers shouldn’t have to breathe smoke

Dave Leonard (11/23, Letters) says to limit or ban smoking at the Kansas Speedway and the bars and restaurants in the metropolitan area is “stupid” and smoking bans are not good for business or the tax base.

People who smoke have a choice to smoke or not smoke. Nonsmokers have this choice taken away when they have to inhale unhealthy secondhand smoke.

Keep in mind there was a law passed in Kansas City by a majority to ban smoking in public places. Doesn’t a democratic decision still count?

This is a health issue more than a business issue.

Chuck Inzerillo
Kansas City

Ban smoking in all public places

I applaud smoking bans, not only at Kansas Speedway but everywhere.

Lung cancer, pneumonia and emphysema, which is caused by smoking and secondhand smoke, cost our nation much more than the amount of taxes that smokers pay.

Allowing smoking only in one’s car or home would be great for the future of our world.

Janet Silke-Koval
Lee’s Summit