Ban Tobacco, or Let People Choose?

Robert Scheer (Commentary, July 18) discusses tobacco and poses the penetrating question, “Now that its health risks have been so well documented . . . why is it not prohibited?” He argues the question with the currently popular tobacco industry gibberish about freedom, choice and personal responsibility.

Wrong answer, Mr. Scheer! The right answer is that we should ban this dangerous, highly addictive product, which kills. We should take tobacco supervision away from the politicians who are addicted to industry political donations and assign it to the health care professionals at the FDA. The FDA would objectively recognize nicotine as far more dangerous than most of its already-regulated prescription drugs and, yes, prohibit it because it has no medical benefit whatsoever.

DONALD FUNK

Redondo Beach

* I finally found a subject that Scheer and I agree on, the wanton rip-off and travesty of the law profession that disguised itself as justice in the Florida tobacco case.

Yes, it’s hard to have sympathy for the tobacco companies, but it’s even harder to care about what happens to people who smoke and have been warned to death about the effects. Scheer is right to conclude that this is only the beginning of more suits of this kind involving other industries. Common sense and accountability have been thrown out the window and the only ones who will truly win are the lawyers. Sadly, it also appears that liberty and individual choice will soon be a thing of the past.

CHARLES REILLY

Garden Grove

* Re the tobacco verdict, July 15: The law doesn’t allow criminal charges against executives of the tobacco industry (or any corporate entity), despite their vile behavior. Corporations and industries that make deliberate, intentional decisions to injure people, often to the point of an early death for one reason only, deserve the most severe punishment that civil law will allow.

The tobacco industry practiced conspiracy and fraud, deliberately addicting people and children for one reason only: profit. The firms deserve the verdict they got.

LARRY HALL

Palos Verdes Estates