LETTERS/YOUR VIEW: The truth about tobacco

To the Editor: Peter Novelli, the "activist" of the headline, is a corporate PR agent who, not so puzzlingly, travels hither and yon condemning only tobacco, the natural base substance for most industrial cigarettes. He utterly avoids condemnation or even mention of the host of dangerous, corporate supplied cigarette additives and adulterants. He doesn't even have a bad word for the incendiary chemicals in typical cigs that are the cause of so many "smoking"-related fires every year -- fires that often take the lives of the kids he cares so much about. Novelli's organization, which expresses such concern for "the kids," has not said a word in public about the severe threat to young people posed by things added to tobacco in typical cigarettes nor about the many sweet, flavorful, soothing and addictive substances that really sink the hook into young smokers. Because of "limited resources" (or limited interest), the Tobacco-free Kids folks don't event mention this peripherally and, in so doing, let every single additive and adulterant supplier escape liability and deserved negative publicity. It is interesting to note that nowhere in the US public health system are there any studies of the negative effects of plain, unadulterated tobacco, the stuff all the commotion is about. A comparison could exculpate tobacco and indict the Dr. Frankensteins who contaminated it. In the meantime, at least do not use the industry-serving word "tobacco" to refer to the typical smoking product -- which is as different from any natural plant as a cheap handgun is different from iron ore. A typical industrial cigarette is no more tobacco than your newspaper is Spreading Chestnut tree. John Jonik A HUP worker speaks To the Editor: I read with great interest the full page ad [paid for by a union seeking to unionize many HUP workers] on March third in The Philadelphia Inquirer, and I have a number of comments. First, it's funny to accuse management of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania of "consummate indignities" against employees. The only indignities I see are the ones you perpetuate against those of us who never asked your union to represent us. I refer to the sneaky and undignified way you may have duped unsuspecting employees into signing your "union cards." I have heard a number of employees regretfully admit that they signed such cards believing they were only asking for more information. Sadly, many of these people did not realize their signatures would be used to petition the National Labor Relations Board for a union vote. I wonder how many would have signed the cards had the facts been fully explained to them. It seems that you found some vulnerable workers who were unhappy in their jobs, and you took advantage of them. What an indignity -- to prey on ignorance and fear! Second, it is your union (not HUP) that has "generated anxiety" among employees. I come to work each day wondering what propaganda I'll be handed by your union operatives. Because of you, sir, I have knots in my stomach and headache each night. Since I am now forced to vote (a choice I did not make), I must keep informed about my options, which takes much effort and time away from my work -- the work that HUP pays me a fair wage to perform. Third, I have never considered HUP to be "disingenuous" to its employees. In fact, I have always been treated with fairness and respect by managers and co-workers since I started working for the hospital four years ago. Had it not been for HUP, I could have never financed my college education. HUP paid my tuition (up front) to the school of my choice. My salary and benefits package are exceptional. Should I ever have a grievance with my supervisor that cannot be resolved between the two of us, I need only contact the human resources generalists assigned to my department to help resolve the issue. What do I need a union for? Why should I pay you to intervene on my behalf? I can do just fine on my own, thank you. Alicia Salvatore HUP employee