Letters to the Editors

Costs of smoking outweigh any revenue loss

Re: Will ban leave patrons in a huff for a puff?, Oct. 8 and What if everyone quits? and Begging people to smoke, letters, Oct. 10.

I'm confused. A number of readers responding to the article seem to be implying that we shouldn't enact the ban because we need the tax money from cigarettes to balance our budget. Assuming there can be no one on the face of the earth that doesn't know smoking is harmful to both smokers and those in their environment, this position implies we should be tolerant of the health hazard, because eating and working in unhealthful environments is better than having to pay more taxes. Where did we get budget funds before the tax?

On the contrary, as a nonsmoker I will not eat in a restaurant where I ingest smoke, even if I like the food there. This includes restaurants that supposedly have nonsmoking sections, but whose ceiling fans blow smoke into the nonsmoking area, or those where you have to walk through or stand in a smoking section to pay your bill. I love to bowl, but can't find an alley in my county that caters to nonsmokers.

Don't businesses realize that, as the gentleman from California said, new customers may patronize for the reasons I have mentioned? And does anyone really believe that if this ban is enacted, all smokers are suddenly going to stop coming to restaurants?

If it could be equated, I believe one could show that the costs of secondhand smoke to society, in health care, health insurance, and detriment to quality of life, far exceed that of some additional taxes we might have to pay somewhere else.
-- Bill Ackerman, Homosassa

Smoking ban long overdue

Re: Amendment 6.

The Oct. 10 editorial in support of Amendment 6 was a great public service, as many people I have spoken to are not aware of this issue being on the November ballot. In my opinion, cessation of smoking in all public places is a health measure that is long overdue. Dividing restaurants into smoking and non-smoking areas is absurd, for smoke travels and seeps into everything: the food, the furniture, the air, our clothing and, worst of all, our lungs. Often, teenagers are employed in such eateries and made to serve in smoking sections; I have seen it often. What people choose to do in bars and tobacco shops is up to them; I do not go there, and only adults work there. Mostly, I am looking forward to January 2003 and breathing clean, fresh air whenever I dine out.

Let us put an end to illnesses and early deaths caused by secondhand tobacco stench.
-- Adele Ida Walter, Tampa

Vote with your wallet

I am a nonsmoker who gets headaches when I'm around cigarette smoke. But that does not make it right for me to use my vote to force the owners of a restaurant or other private business to make their place of business smoke-free. The owner of a restaurant has the right to allow smoking, and I have the right to eat somewhere else. Employees also have the right to seek work elsewhere if they don't like the smoking policy where they work. Parents can choose smoke-free child care centers.

If it is true that smoke-free environments will increase business as they reportedly have in California, business owners will eventually figure that out. Restaurants and child care centers will advertise that they are smoke-free.

The Times states that "If Amendment 6 passes, it will move Florida forward on an important matter involving public health and quality of life." What the Times does not say is that Amendment 6 will move Florida along toward a society where government regulates everything that happens on your private property.

It's time to say "No" to such government intrusion. We must resist the urge to micro-manage our neighbors' businesses. Rather than using government coercion, let's vote with our feet and our wallets and let the free market continue to push the change toward smoke-free indoor environments.
-- John Nystrom, Seminole

Clogging our Constitution

Two proposed amendments to the state Constitution on the ballot this November worry me -- one that proposes to ban smoking in public places, and the class size amendment. Both seem to be enjoying wide support for the wrong reasons and illustrate the very reason our founding fathers saw fit not to include initiative and referendum as an avenue for constitutional amendment on the federal level.

Both of these proposed amendments were put on the ballot with absolutely no due consideration by their proponents as to what they will actually cost us in terms of lost tax revenue, lost wages, lost profits to local businesses and increased costs to the taxpayer, as well as other societal consequences.

No one in the antismoking crusaders' camp has reckoned with the power of the average smokeras a consumer. Florida smokers spend a lot of money in restaurants and bars that serve food. Now, I've heard it said that smoking drives nonsmoking customers away, but the difference to the smoker that would occur if this amendment passes is a choice not between what restaurant to go to, but a choice between going out and staying home. That will translate to less money for restaurants and bars, less tips and wages for wait staff, less tax revenue and less money being plowed back into local economies through consumer spending. The less circulation of capital, the fewer jobs, and the more pressure on low-wage office workers who are already hard-pressed to meet their needs without an influx of ex-restaurant wait staff that would result from a smoking ban.

As for the class-size amendment, limiting class size puts a severe strain on our school systems to hire teachers, build classrooms and hope that the quality of both isn't compromised in the process, as it undoubtedly will be. I went to school up North with classes generally around 30 students per teacher, and they proved if you have good teachers and good material, you will get a good education. But if this amendment is passed, what already is a mediocre education that Florida students are getting will decline even further in quality because of the money tied up in hiring inexperienced teachers and in construction projects, instead of paying for better textbooks and raising the wages of teachers worth keeping in the system.

This is not what the U.S. Constitution calls "republican government," it is mob rule recklessly rewriting a state constitution that is already creaking under a huge load of useless amendments.
-- Harry Van Twistern, Kenneth City

Take off those exemptions

Florida, you can't have it both ways. Excellence in anything doesn't come cheap or without sacrifice. It all boils down to priorities. Smaller class sizes, phased in over eight years, will cost, but what is the alternative? Right now, we are the laughingstock of the nation when it comes to high school graduation rates and per-pupil spending.

People are asking: Where will we get the teachers to staff smaller classes? Simple: We have 50,000 or more Florida residents who continue to renew their Florida teaching certificates every five years but aren't teaching. Why, when in their heart of hearts they would like to come back to the classroom and make a difference? Well, let's offer some financial incentives. Many of them left because of large classes.

Where will we get the money? Simple: Florida exempts, each fiscal year, more than $20-billion in sales taxes. Now, over eight years, the time it would take to phase in smaller classes, that would come to about $160-billion. That's ridiculous.

It's time to show some backbone and take off some of those exemptions. Otherwise, let's just be honest with ourselves and admit we are dirt cheap and don't have the will to do it. That I could respect. But let's not continue to say we care and then do nothing year after year. That's hypocrisy.
-- Ray Palmer, special education teacher, Groveland

Not the state's responsibility

While Amendment 8 is a great "feel good" amendment, its usefulness is overblown and the cost is unnecessary.

I'm sure every parent of a child under 4 years old will support this amendment, but I see it as nothing more than a glorified, taxpayer-funded day care that will pay the teachers (babysitters) about $40,000 a year to teach 4-year-olds their ABCs and 1-2-3s, a job that should be done by parents. The latest statistics show that only 17 percent of children starting first grade are not ready for school -- why then should taxpayers foot the bill for all 4-year-olds to get free pre-K?

The answer is simple: They shouldn't. The free-to-parents and expensive-to-taxpayers amendment should be soundly defeated. But I doubt the feel-good liberals in this state will force parents to take responsibility and do the job they are most responsible for in the world -- helping educate their children.

It's the parents' responsibility, not the state's!
-- Thomas Frazier, Edgewater

Don't trivialize our Constitution

Howard Troxler's Oct. 14 column, Willy-nilly meddling gums up our Constitution, was on the mark. The state Constitution should not be taken lightly and modified at the whim of sponsor groups. Yes, the amendments must be approved by voters, but most voters can't understand the legalistic verbiage that "explains" them and so they may cast an uninformed vote.

The state Constitution is vital to our governance. Let's not trivialize it. Remember, amendments are permanent. Find out what these amendments really mean before you cast your ballot on Nov. 5.
-- Robert L Corliss, Dunnellon

Keeping us in the dark on pigs

Re: Don't tolerate cruelty on hog farms, Sept. 29.

Matthew Scully missed -- or conveniently ignored -- the whole point of Amendment 10.

If Amendment 10 were really about the comfort of pigs, animal advocates would still be plugging away at the Legislature. The truth -- acknowledged by PETA campaign director Bruce Friedrich last December -- is that animal rights zealots know a Florida victory will "help us lobby in Congress" and will ultimately "lead to similar... campaigns in other states." They are planning a state-by-state transformation, and their goal is a permanent constitutional shrine to their twisted agenda.

A constitution that enumerates animal rights of any kind is the first step toward one that guarantees animal rights of every kind. This should make thinking people cringe. In no time at all, lifesaving medical research will be a thing of the past. So will milk -- and beef. Enjoy the circus? Like leather shoes? Forget it. And don't even think about "owning" pets. That's on the agenda as well.

Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said so herself a few months ago, in a speech at the Animal Rights 2002 convention: "If anybody wonders about -- what's this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation."

Matthew Scully may be a heck of a speech writer, but he appears to know little about what his own movement is really trying to accomplish. Or maybe he'd just rather keep everyone in the dark for now.
-- David Martosko, director of research, The Center for Consumer Freedom, Washington, D.C.

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 • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

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