To the editor:

There is some irony expressed in two articles in Monday’s Lawrence Journal-World, one claiming smokers are essential to the health of business in Lawrence and another saying an increased tobacco tax that reduces cigarette consumption is a healthy proposal for Kansas.

Some sections of the article “Numbers fuel debate on smoking ban” imply the health of a community is secondary to the perceived financial well-being of a business. How can allowing cigarette smoking in public places be held up as the best way to do business in a community? Is exposing clients, customers and workers to the known toxins in secondhand smoke recommended as a good business practice?

Smoking rates for adult Kansans have gone down to 20.4 percent, and fewer teens are starting to smoke. Most smokers regret ever getting addicted to cigarettes, and most Kansas smokers have tried to quit in the past year. The 55-cent tax increase in 2002-2003 reduced cigarettes packs sold by more than 20 percent. The governor’s recent 50-cent-per-pack cigarette tax could reduce prevalence rates even further and improve health and health access.

The smoking population in Kansas is decreasing through choice or death or disease. Why would local businesses market their services to an obviously declining population? Marketing to the majority of the Lawrence population is the more logical approach, certainly the most profitable for the business owners, and absolutely the healthiest one for both customers and workers alike.

Mary Jayne Hellebust,

Tobacco Free Kansas

Coalition director,

Topeka