I would like to comment on The Santa Barbara Independent‘s endorsement of Prop 29 and Jerry Roberts’s summary of it.

Although I can somewhat agree that “anything that discourages people from smoking by increasing the cost of cigarettes is a positive step,” I can only somewhat agree. Neither writer adequately investigates how the money will be used.

“Cancer research, health education, and other anti-smoking activities,” is also not enough information for me to make an informed decision. At this point, I will be voting no on Prop 29, unless I learn that laboratory animals will not be used in the cancer research. Here is why. Cancer research very often will use laboratory animals. Although I suffer from a serious health condition that significantly reduces my quality of life, I do not support research on animals to find cures or treatments to human health problems. Every individual that suffers or is afflicted with a disease can not be held responsible, but society as a whole can be in most instances. As far as I know, animals have in no way caused our degenerative diseases and I feel it is unjust to make them responsible for finding cures or treatments for our degenerative diseases.

I certainly appreciate the writer’s opinion, but I did want to point out that by supporting Prop 29, we may be supporting an unjust treatment of laboratory animals to help find treatments or cures for the health consequences of a very obvious and intentionally foolish behavior. Something to consider.


Please note this login is to submit events or press releases. Use this page here to login for your Independent subscription

Not a member? Sign up here.