Pubdate: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 Source: Oakland Tribune (CA) Copyright: 1999 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/alameda/tribune/ Contact: WINNING THE SMOKING WAR NO doubt about it, one of the wars we are winning is against smoking. The most recent proof of this -- a 32 percent decrease in per capita smoking consumption over eight years -- is recorded in Gov. Gray Davis' budget summary. What's more, consumption is expected to fall a further 19 percent from the beginning of this year. This is gratifying. It's mostly due to excise increases over the years that have funded anti-smoking education, to the recent price increases brought by tobacco litigation and by the state's excise tax hike of 50 cents per pack coming from Proposition 10 passing on Nov. 3 to tax tobacco to pay for programs for infants and young children and ensure health education continues. Right now, overall cigarette consumption is expected to drop 51 percent off what it was back when Proposition 99 put a 25-cent tax on each pack in 1989-90, according to the budget summary. Taxing the dickens out of tobacco is hardly an expressive way of getting people to quit or not to start smoking but, as the horsefly said, when you're on a good thing stick to it. This isn't to say we're winning the teen-age smoking battle; indeed, smoking by teen-agers throughout the country as a whole has risen by 32 percent in the 1990s. This is alarming and leaves no room for complacency. But in California, at least, we are winning the war against smoking in its overall sense. That means we're beating what is considered the leading cause of premature death in the country. Good news For a majority of Californians jaundiced about the state government's ability to spend their tax dollars wisely, this must be good news. Indeed, the anti-smoking programs have worked so well in cutting consumption that they actually reduced Proposition 99 revenues available for health education, research and breast cancer programs. Proposition 10 provides the backfill for this revenue shortfall. The budget summary anticipates Proposition 10 will generate $373 million this financial year -- $298 million of which will go to counties to fund health, nutrition and education programs to promote early childhood development. Extra revenue Since this money will be shared by basing the proportion of the number of births in a county relative to statewide births, Alameda County's relatively high birth rate of 20,000-plus a year will guarantee it a significant amount of Proposition 10 money. It does not stop there either. Used in the right circumstances, Proposition 10 funding will trigger the availability of existing federal matching dollars at the rate of $2 for each $1 of county spending. Beyond this, the budget summary suggests local governments can expect a windfall in the form of funds from the nationwide settlement of litigation against tobacco companies to begin coming their way this year. California's share of this money is $25 billion over 25 years. Davis promises that at least some of this money will find its way to counties. In discussing this tobacco money in his budget, Davis holds out the possibility of getting a dialogue going into how to rebuild trust into the state-local government relationship. This has suffered due to state takeaways of county, city and special property taxes since Proposition 13 in 1978 reduced local government's primary source of revenue by 56 percent. While Davis acknowledges there is no easy solution to this, he has directed his Office of Planning and Research to make recommendations within 45 days on how to begin a reasoned discussion with local elected officials and interested citizens. It's ironic to think that tobacco, which has done so much damage and cost so much emotion and private and public money over the years, might be the catalyst for California's politicians to sit down and hammer out a new principle of sharing more equitably. Gerald M. Sutliff 6400 Chrisite Ave., #1409 Emeryville, CA 94608-1024 510-652-7929 - --- MAP posted-by: Rolf Ernst