Letters to the Editors

Smoking ban would damage state economy

Re: Will ban leave patrons in a huff for a puff?, Oct. 8.

I think we can agree at this point that there are more nonsmokers than smokers. But Amendment 6 is one that conflicts with the other interests of nonsmokers.

For example, if everyone were to stop smoking, where would all the special interests for funding of stadiums, school initiatives and balanced budgets for some states come up with their money? In Ohio, Cuyahoga County voted for a sin tax to pay for the new hockey and baseball facilities. Much to the smokers' and drinkers' dismay, they were immediately prohibited from smoking or drinking in their buildings. And several states were reported to have balanced their fiscal budgets with awards from tobacco suits. Who are people going to pick on now? Coffee drinkers? Fast food establishments contributing to obesity? How about taxing something that nearly everyone consumes, such as soda, ice cream and snacks? How long will the nonsmoking public continue to punish, fine and ostracize smokers while reaping major financial benefits?

Amendment 6 seems to provide no answer for bars who serve food to their drinking and/or pool-shooting patrons who might want to eat while they are there. Should they stop serving food? Or do they have an option to say, "This is a smoking establishment -- enter at your own risk?" Will it be the startup of private "smoking" clubs?

Florida caters to tourists who want to relax and escape the stresses of work and everyday regulations. Aren't we supposed to "kick back" and take a break? If the amendment were to pass, smoking patrons would be forced to eat and run. And aren't we supposed to wait at least a half hour before running after a meal? Or is that swimming . . .?
-- Sasha Friedman, St. Petersburg

What if everyone quits?

I'm kind of curious to know: When all these bans on smoking are enforced and everyone quits, where will the government get the tax dollars currently obtained from cigarette sales?
-- Mary Voiles, New Port Richey

Begging people to smoke

McBride's overly simplistic approach to teacher pay is to immediately raise each teacher's salary by $2,500. Being the true Democrat, McBride says he'll pay for that on the backs of taxpayers (of course) with a 50-cent per pack increase in cigarette taxes.

McBride's teacher salary/tobacco tax plan means that a lot of folks will need to keep on smoking to pay for this scheme. Yet, I thought these same Democrats wanted everyone to kick the foul habit. They were most vocal against nasty tobacco, but now they turn to tobacco for the salvation of their expensive education schemes.

Today's 134,508 public school teachers getting an average $2,500 pay raise would require an additional $336-million in annual taxes from smokers. Raising cigarette taxes by 50-cents per pack would mean selling a minimum of 772-million packs per year. That is an amazing one pack a week for every man, woman and child now living in Florida.

And the average smokers are not the rich upper-class folks with money to burn. They are the lower- to middle-class working Joes trying to eke out a living with a modest wage and seeing more and more of their mediocre incomes going up in cigarette taxes.

Hiring additional teachers to make up their shortfall will also add to the number of smokers we need. But, as more and more people quit smoking due to its ill health effects, and more importantly, the sudden upward spike in cigarette prices, McBride will soon be faced with begging for people to go back to smoking cigarettes to pay for his programs.

Of course, when Democrats' tax sources dry up and their programs get ever more expensive, they'll just pass more onerous tax laws to make up the difference.
-- Robert C. Gotshall Jr., Palm Bay

Sucked in by tobacco

I couldn't believe the Oct. 5 article, Governor still undecided about smoking amendment. I am 62 and can never remember reading an article where it was so obvious that a person or group had been pulled in by money or political pressure. It upset me so much I actually got sick to my stomach.

I really thought Gov. Bush had his head on straight and would be above getting bought out. I just couldn't believe what I was reading. His statements in the article weren't even about what the amendment is about. He talked about how fewer children are now smoking; Amendment 6 is a health issue. The governor appears to have rolled over to big tobacco and possibly other special interest groups, slapping Floridians in the face.

Now we will have to fight not only the smokers with votes, but the man we call our governor, and whom I have lost total respect for. I know one thing: This really makes me mad, and I will work twice as hard now to get this amendment passed for myself and all my fellow Floridians.
-- Ford Easton, St. Petersburg

Surveys are a waste of dollars

Re: Governor still undecided about smoking amendment, Oct. 8.

In a time when a bottle of aspirin can get a student expelled from school, do any of us believe that middle- and high-school students, especially those who use illegal substances, are going to be honest on a government survey that questions them on their use of illegal substances?

Gov. Jeb Bush and drug czar Jim McDonough should stop insulting our intelligence. Their numbers are based in fallacy. McDonough justifies the survey's results by stating that his staff screens surveys that appear inconsistent to ensure truthful student answers. Who decides what is truth or fiction, and what is done with the untruthful ones? Sounds like a hanging chad to me.

These surveys are a waste of taxpayers' money. They serve no purpose other than to give politicians horn-blowing and back-patting material. To call them anything other than political propaganda would be a lie.

While I'm at it, could you please tell me why Noelle Bush's drug problem should be kept confidential, yet Jeb has the audacity to refer to someone's sexual orientation as a juicy bit of gossip? I hope that the voters of Florida will remember his drug war double standards and insulting comments on Election Day. I know I will.
-- April M. Hendry, Wesley Chapel

Ban will improve bar business

Please, no more whining from the restaurant and bar owners regarding the public smoking ban coming up on the ballot. I lived in Southern California when that state went through this. The pro-smoking crowd, restaurant and bar owners, spent tons of money to try and defeat the California ban. Much to their surprise, after the ban passed, their business went up remarkably, prompting many of them to complain about why it took so long to get it on the books. What most owners found out was that their die-hard smoking patrons had no trouble going outside for their nicotine fix, but a whole new group of people who normally wouldn't set foot in a smoke-filled club or a pseudo-divided smoking/non-smoking restaurant, started showing up. If the same goes here as for California, the next step will be scenes of civil disobedience by the "I don't give a hoot about my lungs, your lungs, or the law," types. For a while, the clubs, restaurants and even the police bucked enforcing the new law, until the majority made it clear that they wanted teeth in it.
-- Bill Short, Clearwater

Paying for youthful mistakes

I am not and never have been employed by anyone or any part of the tobacco industry, but I think the judgments given to people suing the industry are ludicrous. I, unfortunately, started smoking when I saw how sophisticated Bette Davis was; a lot of us decided we wanted to be like her. So I got hooked at age 19. I smoked two packs a day until sometime in the '60s, when I quit, but the damage had been done. Now I have emphysema so bad, I can hardly make it to the mailbox and back.

A lot of former smokers are much worse off than I am. But we all went into smoking with our eyes open. No one twisted my arm. It was my own doing, as it is with everyone else who starts the very bad habit.

How can we blame the industry for something we did voluntarily?

I would like a couple million, but I know I won't get it. You just learn to live with the mistakes of your youth. I hope the new generation realizes what smoking does to them in later years. Look around you!
-- Betty J. Southard, Clearwater

Blame the lack of ethics

Re: Torricelli's exit complicates battle for Senate, Oct. 1.

If you really want to know who's to blame for the mess in the New Jersey Senate race, look no further than the entire U.S. Senate and its ethics(?) committee.

The senators knew Torricelli took bribes and lied and yet allowed him to apologize for a lapse in judgment. Lapse in judgment? He sold his U.S. Senate office for personal gain. In any other setting he would be considered a felon.

Once he couldn't win, they replaced him with another candidate, in violation of state law. His name should have stayed on the ballot; let the voters use the write-in provision for another candidate. However, after living in New Jersey I can say that ethics in politics is seldom evident.

I would make a bet that Torricelli will try to pocket the millions from his campaign fund. He should be required to return the money to the original donors since the money was donated for his campaign.

The lack of ethics in the U.S. Senate is astounding.
-- Jim Harpham, Palm Harbor

A blown opportunity for decency

Although I am a proud member of the Democratic Party, I am bothered by the recent developments in the New Jersey Senate race. The rules in New Jersey were clear regarding the deadline on substitution of a candidate. However, that state's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrats in replacing Robert Torricelli on the ballot. Torricelli's late exit from the race showcased either his neglect of the law, or his indifference toward his own party.

It's unfortunate the Democrats didn't take advantage of this situation. They were faced with a choice of conceding a Senate seat, and gaining public respect for a display of decency and common sense, or making a faux case in front of a liberal court, while alienating independent voters. Unfortunately for proud Democrats, they chose the latter.
-- Kevin King, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com. E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its ''Save as'' function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright