Massachusetts’ budget is in terrible shape, running some of the largest deficits of any state in the union. That’s why Acting Governor Jane Swift’s recent 88 percent cut in funding for the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, as reported by the Associated Press, is understandable and even prudent.

Swift’s cuts have forced the elimination of the state’s 49 youth smoking prevention programs and 29 smoking intervention programs, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund reported to the Associated Press. Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly gathered yesterday with anti-smoking and other health groups to criticize the cuts and call upon the state’s next governor to restore the programs. Massachusetts now uses less than one percent of an $800 million settlement with tobacco companies for smoking-prevention programs.

Youth anti-smoking programs are undoubtedly important in preventing children from starting damaging habits during their habit-forming years. The state’s anti-tobacco use programs did an important job, teaching smoking’s perils to those most vulnerable to starting down the road to lung cancer and other diseases.

But the anti-smoking programs’ cuts represent smaller funding cuts for other crucial social services. Because of the deep cuts to smoking-prevention programs, more money can be saved for the state’s other, more important social service programs that help level the playing field for the state’s poor and work to protect all the state’s residents and visitors.

The state’s private and non-profit anti-smoking groups should now take a more active role and help make up for the state’s cuts. Programs devoted to preventing youth use of other dangerous and illegal substances should also help pick up the slack, as many of their interests coincide with anti-smoking programs’ interests. Together, it should be possible at least partially to make up for the state’s lack of coverage.

Effective public servants make difficult choices during the toughest of times. While smoking prevention programs are important for preventing youth tobacco use before it starts, the state has other more important budgetary priorities representing a better use of state funds.