Unfettered Letters

Smokers make a choice

Diana Lewis, in her Voices comment (4/6), expresses her belief (and mine) that the claims against tobacco companies are ridiculous.

When I was a little boy (I’m 77 now), the men who gathered around the wood stove in my father’s general store talking and smoking and coughing told me, “Son, don’t ever start smoking! It’ll stunt your growth and cut your wind and you’ll cough your lungs up.” That was a time when kids listened to their elders, and I never took up smoking.

So don’t tell me you never heard that smoking is bad for you. With all the information, both anecdotal and scientific, that’s been available for many years, habitual tobacco use is a choice and shouldn’t’ be rewarded by litigation.

Fred Moore
Kansas City

Snus safer than smoking

Regarding “Nothing to snuff at; If you think Snus is a safe alternative to smoking, think again” (11/1, TeenStar): What was ignored in this article is that no tobacco can legally be sold to minors. If kids have access to smokeless tobacco, then they will have access to cigarettes. So nothing is gained by keeping smokeless tobacco off the market.

If kids do use tobacco (and some will), better that they use smokeless products, which are 99 percent less harmful than smoking. And if they end up as continuing nicotine users, better that they have this healthier alternative to turn to.

There is evidence that smokeless tobacco users are more likely to quit nicotine entirely. So the student in the article, and other smokers who switch to smokeless tobacco, are both more likely to quit and less likely to get sick. This was actually a “good news” article.

By the way, Snus was never popular throughout Europe. It was popular in Sweden. And Sweden is the only country in the developed world that has gotten smoking levels below 20 percent. It also has the lowest lung and oral cancer rates.

If the European Union wanted to safeguard public health, it should have banned cigarettes, not Snus.

Paul L. Bergen
Research associate, University of Alberta School of Public Health
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Editor’s note: Bergen’s area of research is harm reduction, with a special emphasis on the harm done by tobacco.

Snus alternative

Snus has the same risks for oral cancer as smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco or snuff but none of the risks for lung cancer and emphysema (8/26, A-1, “Tobacco trend comes to KC early; Smokeless Snus pouch is being test-marketed here. Health advocates see dangers.”). Sweden’s smoking rates went from 19 percent of the male population to 9 percent as smokers switched to snus.

Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial board member Steve Chapman wrote 13 months ago that the surgeon general’s refusal to say snus was safer than smoking was like saying there’s no difference between driving a Volvo or a motorcycle without a helmet.

Snus is an obvious alternative for bar owners to offer customers who want a nicotine fix with anti-smoking ordinances taking effect.

Lyndall Caldwell
Prairie Village

Amendment 3 failure

My sympathy to Joanne Edwards for the loss of her father to lung cancer. In her letter (11/14), she wrote to express her hope that the designation of November as Lung Cancer Awareness Month in Missouri would prove helpful in preventing this terrible disease.

How ironic that November, instead, has brought about the continued increase in tobacco use, which accounts for most lung cancer. It is a tragedy that so many people in Missouri could blindly vote no on Amendment 3.

Instead of researching and learning the facts, as Joanne was moved to do, voters apparently made their decision based on the lies propagated by the tobacco companies and their beneficiaries, the convenience stores.

As a mother, I know that 461,700 Missouri youths alive today will become smokers. I know that for every 10 percent increase in the cost of tobacco product, there is a 7 percent reduction in youth smoking.

As a nurse, I know that smoking costs Missouri $4.3 billion a year in health care and lost productivity. I’ve held the hand of many as they died and watched their loved ones suffer unnecessarily due to tobacco use.

Too bad there wasn’t greater awareness Nov. 7.

Julie Goodman
Kansas City

Don’t stop with tobacco

If we’re going to try to tax certain groups of people in Missouri for their bad habits, we certainly shouldn’t stop with tobacco users. I can think of a few others we can tax. How about overweight people? They are prone to diabetes and other illnesses, which ultimately the taxpayers have to pay for.

We could have everyone weigh in when they pay their personal property taxes. If they are over the limit, we could charge them so much a pound. This would bring in a lot of money for the state.

How about those people in wheelchairs? The taxpayers have to foot the bill for all those ramps, and yet only those in wheelchairs benefit. I would certainly vote for a tax on those people.

How about church-going people? We all know churches are big business, yet they pay no taxes. Not everybody goes to church, yet everyone but the churches have to pay taxes.

I’m sure that everyone can think of a segment of the population to tax. So let’s get those petitions going.

Harley A. Tompkins
Kansas City

Amendment 3

The idea of raising the tobacco tax raises its ugly head once again. It seems that every few years we have to go through this.

Groups get together and start pushing the notion that raising the tobacco tax will help lower-income Missourians. This is far from the truth. This is a regressive tax that hurts lower-income families with smokers. The lower the income, the higher the percentage of income paid in taxes.

The proponents have said this would make smokers pay their fair share. Many smokers already pay income, property, sales and two tobacco taxes. But according to these groups, they aren't paying their share.

The only true beneficiaries of this tax will be doctors, hospitals and medical research companies. The lower-income families will not benefit, since they will be paying out more in taxes than ever.

Lonnie Vang
Jefferson City

I have followed the debate over Amendment 3 in Missouri with interest. I think that the opponents are driven by money motives and that their position is specious at best.

The proponents, however, are motivated by improving the public's health. It makes no sense that the majority of people continue to be held hostage by a minority of Missouri smokers.

As a member of the speakers bureau of the American Heart Association, I know it doesn't take a stand on something without years of scientific research backing its work. This is why I believe the association and not Amendment 3's opponents.

"Big Tobacco" has a track record of misleading consumers, and convenience stores are more concerned about their profits than our health.

It is time that tobacco users bear a fuller burden of their tobacco use. I hope in the future they will bear the full financial responsibility for their unfortunate choice.

Richard Xia
Grain Valley

Amendment 3

As president of the Metropolitan Civic Political Council of Kansas City, I would like to express my opinion about the proposed tobacco tax increase, Amendment 3.

After much discussion with associates who are for and against this tax increase, I have concluded that it would accomplish absolutely nothing should it pass. Tobacco users would simply find another means of getting what they want by making purchases across state lines.

Promises of all the "good" that could be achieved with these new tax dollars come with no guarantee and several flaws. The tax actually could be costly to implement.

As a person who is in agreement with Missourians Against Tax Abuse, I suggest we vote collectively against Amendment 3.

Roy E. Johnson
Kansas City

Cigarette tax measure

On Tuesday, Missourians have the opportunity to vote for an increase in the cigarette tax. Although most do not smoke, Missourians must pay about $1.7 billion per year in health-care costs for treatment of illnesses caused by smoking.

One of the best ways to reduce the numbers of people smoking — especially our children — is to increase the price of cigarettes.

Missouri is one of only eight states that have not raised cigarette taxes since 2000. We now have the second-lowest cigarette tax in the nation.

About $61 million of the money raised by this tax would be spent on smoking cessation and prevention programs. Missouri now spends very little on smoking cessation and prevention efforts. Not surprisingly, the state has one of the highest rates of adult and teen smoking in the country.

Given the latest U.S. surgeon general report showing the harm that secondhand smoke causes, it seems only fair that those who smoke should pay more taxes for the medical treatment caused by smoking.

If you do not smoke or use tobacco products, you will not be paying higher taxes by voting for Amendment 3.

Steve Roling
President and CEO
Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City
Kansas City

I am a nonsmoker. I never have and never will smoke.

However, I think that a 470 percent tax increase on smoking products is downright sinful and discriminating. They say 4 cents more a cigarette. Well, do the math. That’s 80 cents a pack and $8 a carton.

Adult smokers in Missouri already contribute more than their fair share, with more than $100 million in annual tax revenue. If they are trying to break the tobacco companies and lose all that tax, where do you think they will get the tax money to make up for it? It will come from all of us.

Don’t let the ads mislead you. Vote no on Amendment 3.

Lucille Bushnell
Warsaw, Mo.

Amendment 3

A commercial asks why convenience stores are against the new tobacco tax (Missouri Amendment 3). Here’s why: A smoker in Raytown needs to buy a carton of smokes. That’s 10 packs and $8 of new tax.

That smoker, like many in Missouri, lives close to a state line. The smoker goes to Kansas to buy cigarettes and avoids the higher tax.

While buying cigarettes, the smoker also buys gasoline, a drink, some candy and a newspaper. That money has left Missouri never to return because of the increased tobacco tax. That smoker will probably start shopping more often in Kansas rather than Missouri. Missouri loses out on the new tax money and much more tax money besides.

That is why convenience stores are against Amendment 3. Pure economics that anyone but a politician can understand.

Calvin L. Oyler
Claycomo

Tobacco tax

On Nov. 7 we’ll be voting on whether to increase taxes on tobacco products to cover medical costs associated with tobacco usage. Well then, why not tax fast food establishments for the medical costs resulting from their artery-clogging fare and start taxing the auto industry for medical costs stemming from injuries sustained on the roads? The list could go on.

Bruce Erickson
Lee’s Summit#