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