LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: CARBON MONOXIDE, NOT SMOKING, IS THE CAUSE OF INCREASED LUNG CANCER

To the Southeast Missourian,

In answer to Dr. Martin in today's paper (May 4), and the hoard of cigarette-bangers, I'd like to point out same of his inaccuracies in smoking research.

First, in the 50's he said few women smoked -- but my mother and most of her friends smoked, often quite heavily. The errant research says that smoke from others kills many non-smokers. The home I was brought up in and our car was always filled with smoke -- and yet mother, dad and their friends did not get lung cancer.

Where the tobacco research is purposefully slanted is that back in the 20's to 50's there was just a fraction of the carbon monoxide spewed out of cars as there is today -- and carbon monoxide is an acknowledged carcinogen.

Country people -- who are exposed to only a fraction of the carbon monoxide as are the majority of our populace who live in cities and medium sized towns -- have less incidents of cancer.

Also, the slanted researchers NEVER contact someone like me who has smoked akout two packs a day for 65 years -- and I don't have lung cancer, nor do any of my smoking buddies.

Researchers never tell you that a cigarette helps reduce stress, which is why so many youngsters who are under lots of stress have begun to smoke.

Now some people with allergies are bothered by cigarette smoke, as is one of my sons, so I don't smoke around him -- but he is OK in my smokey house, particularly if he's taking allergy medicine.

This anti-smoking craze has really gotten out of hand. Many, many people have quit smoking not because it hurt them, but because of the confiscatory taxes levied on cigarettes by federal, state and local governments. And alcoholic beverages are lightly taxed despite them killing so many people by drunk drivers, or those who get fired when they sneak a drink on the job -- and a working smoker now must go outside in the rain or cold to lessen their stress with a cigarette.

No! Smoking is not the killer it is portrayed to be. Taking away a person's right for a puff or two is not only unethical, but is going to cost every American hundreds of dollars in increased taxes when smoking is prohibited and the hundreds of millions of cigarette tax dollars are lost.

And many merchants will be hurt when there'll be no holes burned in our rugs, chairs and clothing by us smokers, who will not have to buy replacements like I do.

I hope and trust the equality of the Missourian will publish this, for smokers get nothing but nasty gigs from a slanted national press.

CHARLES E. STIVER

Cape Girardeau