‘Tobacco Money’ Has 2 Sides to Coin

There is a misunderstanding regarding “tobacco money� that requires clarification.

A letter to the editor headlined “Use of Tobacco Money,� published in The Times on Oct. 31, says “cigarette tax money was to be used to bail out� the county. This hints that Proposition 10 sales tax revenues were used to cover the first payment toward settlement of a Medicare reimbursement agreement with the federal government. This is untrue.

For the record, there are two different sources of tobacco-related funding for counties in California.

The first, approved by the attorney general in November 1998, is a settlement of a lawsuit brought forward by several states and supported by numerous organizations including the county of Ventura. This settlement resulted in $24 billion over the next 25 years to California and its counties, which makes sense because in this state counties are responsible for providing direct public health care services.

*

It is not, as suggested, “tax money.� This money comes directly from the tobacco companies as a result of a lawsuit brought against them and their desire to avoid going to court to defend tobacco and its effect on the public’s health.

The county of Ventura already has spent money on public health care programs to treat tobacco-related illnesses. This considerable expenditure continued through difficult economic times and truly hurt the county Health Care Agency. To this day the agency is attempting to recover.

With this in mind, the county’s recent allocation of tobacco lawsuit money to ensure a strong overall county health care system was a proper use of the settlement money. In fact, I have held firm since the tobacco lawsuit settlement was announced that the county of Ventura should take this opportunity to make its public health care system healthy.

This is exactly what the county attempts with its recent allocation of tobacco lawsuit settlement funds. In fact, at a recent Board of Supervisors meeting I recommended that we establish a committee to develop a long-range plan for use of the settlement funds. The board approved the recommendation, and I look forward to working with Supervisor Frank Schillo and other county leaders on this plan for future expenditures.

The second source of tobacco-related funding is revenues from Proposition 10, passed by voters in November 1998 to enact a 50-cent sales tax on tobacco products. Proposition 10 funds are sales tax revenues, and the initiative outlined clearly how the revenues can be used and who will approve allocations.

*

According to Proposition 10, the Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 4182 in December 1998 to establish the Ventura County Children and Families First Commission, as well as a trust fund for receipt of program funds. With this ordinance, the county relinquished its authority over distribution of Proposition 10 funds. This distribution will be approved by the new commission, which was arranged and appointed according to the proposition.

I hope this resolves any outstanding misunderstandings about so-called “tobacco money.�