STATE GETS DROP ON LUNG CANCER.

Byline: Erik Nelson Staff Writer

California's ferocious anti-smoking efforts have produced a big dividend: a 20 percent drop in the state's lung cancer rates over 10 years, state and federal health officials said Thursday.

The state results were released in conjunction with a federal study that examined lung cancer rates from 1988 to 1997 that showed other regions of the country had a 2.7 percent decrease during the same period.

The report by the state Department of Health Services found that in 1998, lung cancers reported in the California Cancer Registry declined to less than 58 cases per 100,000, which brings the decade's drop to nearly 20 percent.

``We think this is exciting news for California, but it has implications for the whole nation,'' said Terry Pechacek, associate director for science with the Office on Smoking and Health, which is part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

The report released by the CDC said the number of lung and bronchial cancers decreased from 72 to 60 cases per 100,000 Californians.

Other parts of the country where reliable cancer data were available fell from about 68 to 65 cases per 100,000 residents. The states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico and Utah and the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Detroit and Seattle were used in the comparison.

State health officials said about 2,000 Californians are alive today who would have otherwise died of lung cancer because of a sharp decline in smoking.

The federal study compared lung cancer rates in the state from 1988, when voters approved the Proposition 99 25-cent-a-pack tobacco tax, which dedicated 5 cents to an anti-smoking health education program.

``We've been noting for a number of years that the California program was reducing rates of tobacco use,'' with the promise of lower smoking- related disease, Pechacek said. ``Now what is happening is the numbers are delivering upon that promise.''

Some health policy experts said that while the results were encouraging, they don't mean the problem is licked or that the state's anti-smoking policy is necessarily the cause of the decline in lung cancer rates.

``There's absolutely no question that smoking cessation is wise,'' said Miriam Cotler, a California State University, Northridge, physician who represents the United States on international health policy panels. ``But to assume a clear cause-and-effect relationship lulls us into a false sense of complacency about what needs to be done.''

For example, Cotler cited continuing problems with adolescent and minority tobacco use, and increases in the numbers of Latino women who buy their own cigarettes.

She added, however, that such research could be useful in educating other nations - in addition to other states - about how to curb a major health problem.

State health officials acknowledged that there is a lag time between when the anti-smoking policies began and when its health effects were noticed.

``Californians have only begun to see the tremendous health benefits from over a decade of comprehensive tobacco education programs,'' added Ken August, a spokesman for the state Department of Health Services. ``What we're seeing today is the result of our efforts in the early '90s.''

Those with a penchant for smoking said they can't help themselves.

``It's addicting and that's all it comes down to,'' said Brycon Brown, a 20-year-old Encino resident who smokes a pack a day. ``It's so expensive. That's how I know I am addicted.''

Valerie Gaber, a 46-year-old Woodland Hills resident who has smoked for 20 years, said smoking is a medical problem.

``The PR won't change someone's addiction. I need a doctor's help with it.''

Staff Writer Orith Goldberg contributed to this report.