Smokers should pay smokers' cost to state
In response to Serina McDade's letter to the editor on July 27, "Don't place tax burden on smokers," Serina stated that New York is using smokers to support the entire state's budget by increasing the tobacco tax by $1.60. What Ms. McDade did not mention is that smoking costs New York residents $8.17 billion annually in health care costs. Of that $8.17 billion, $5.4 billion is paid by the state Medicaid program. Therefore, the tax increase will go toward decreasing medical costs by encouraging people to quit smoking, which will lessen the annual health care cost. The tax increase was not "implemented" to single out smokers but in an effort to saves lives.
Smoking kills 25,400 New Yorkers annually, which is more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. Smoking is not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Smoking is a chosen behavior, not a civil right. It's a behavior that not only pollutes the air but endangers the health of surrounding people.
In response to, "Why doesn't New York state tax something the entire state uses; a necessity? Toilet paper, soap or toothpaste are some things that come to mind." The entire state is not responsible for the $8.17 billion deficit caused by tobacco use. Nor would a necessity such as toilet paper, soap or toothpaste kill 25,400 New Yorkers each year and place an undue burden on our state's health care system.
Tobacco is the No. 1 cause of preventable death. The goal of this $1.60 tax increase is to save lives, by encouraging smokers to make healthier choices and eliminate the 39.1 million packs of cigarettes bought or smoked by kids each year in New York.
Alison Bruce
Stamford
BRUCE writes on behalf of Reality Check of Delaware, Otsego & Schoharie Counties, where she is program coordinator.
Drilling meeting not much of a 'hearing'
I attended the public hearing convened at the Otsego County Courthouse on July 21. As stated in The Daily Star's coverage of the event, the meeting, "was intended to allow the board to hear public comments related to (natural gas) drilling." However, it is grossly inaccurate to use the terms "hear" or "hearing" in connection with the event. The courtroom is beautiful, replete with chandeliers, carved wood, stained glass window, and air conditioned. But with no provision made for a public address system, it is hard to believe that the county's representatives were able to hear public comments in their entirety. I found it difficult to hear many of the speakers.
Otsego County's public hearing stood in stark contrast to that of Broome County's, which I also attended.
There, two extra rooms were opened to provide for the overflow of attendees, the PA system allowed everyone to hear all the speakers, and their names as they were identified, and the three-minute rule was strictly enforced.
Katharine Dawson, Ph.D.
Guilford
