Talks on Capitol Hill to Regulate Tobacco Industry Break Down

Smoke Club Newsletter ^ | 10-2-03 | By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos.

[SheLion]

Talks in Congress to regulate the tobacco industry broke down Wednesday along partisan lines, making it highly unlikely that new restrictions would be imposed on the cigarette industry anytime soon.

Lawmakers had been close to passing legislation that not only would have ended unpopular tobacco subsidies, but also would have allowed government control over tobacco products for the first time.

But Democrats said late Wednesday that regulations that would have handed the Food and Drug Administration (search) oversight of cigarettes were not strong enough.

"Unfortunately, the proposed legislation which Republicans put forth today falls far short of the strong FDA authority which is needed to effectively do the job," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the leading Democrat on the health committee. "A weak bill is worse than no bill at all because it would give the public a false impression that their health was being protected."

The House and Senate had been close to voting on bills that would have ended Depression-era tobacco farm subsidies that lawmakers have described as archaic and harmful to the farming communities in several states that grow tobacco.

Farming quotas -- which dictate how much tobacco a farmer can grow and the subsidies given in return -- have been slashed by 50 percent over the last several years due to the decline in demand for cigarettes and foreign competition on the international market.

Paid for by a five-year annual assessment on manufacturers that import tobacco, the buyout would pay for both farmers leaving the tobacco business and those choosing to continue growing the crop on their own.

"The tobacco support system is "outmoded and not practical anymore," Rep. Mike McIntyre, R-D-N.C., told Foxnews.com, explaining that the government began controlling the production of tobacco farming in the 1930s to ensure stable payments to farmers for their crops.

"You can imagine what would happen if your income were cut in half," said Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., whose district has been devastated by the declining tobacco industry. "And they still don’t know if it can be cut further."

McIntyre joined Rep. Ernie Fletcher, R-Ky., Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., and Rep. Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., in introducing a bill last month to end the subsidies with a $15.7 billion buyout.

While the House had not planned to include FDA legislation in the bill, Sens. Judd Gregg (search), R-N.H., the chairman of the Senate health panel considering the legislation, and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, had agreed to marry the FDA authority to a bill proposed by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that would have allowed a $13 billion buyout.

Calling the FDA proposal a "bitter pill for this senator to swallow," McConnell said in a recent floor speech that support from the senators and the health community behind FDA regulation would be necessary to end the subsidies once and for all.

"That is simply a reality which we confront today," he said, noting that linking the two measures together would create "a formidable coalition here in the Senate across an ideological divide to move us in the direction of achieving both these goals."

House aides had said that similar FDA legislation would likely have remained in final legislation written when negotiators from both chambers met in conference. That way, the bill would have had a better chance of passing in the House, but would also have satisfied lawmakers who wish to see greater regulation of tobacco products.

But when Senate Democrats saw Gregg's final proposal, they said that the provision that allowed only Congress to ban cigarettes was so vaguely written it could have prevented the FDA from requiring changes to make cigarettes safer.

"The vague language was a loophole that could prevent FDA from taking any steps to reduce the harm caused by tobacco," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"We’re not willing to support FDA regulations that are too weak," said Allison Dobson, spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, before the final legislation was offered. "I think there are a lot of senators who feel strongly that this shouldn’t be a sham."

Mark Berlind, a lawyer for Philip Morris parent company Altria, rejected the criticisms. He said health groups wanted the FDA to be able to ban tobacco products, something that was in a previous bill sponsored by Kennedy.

"We're disappointed that these talks broke down over a last-minute insistence that FDA be able to ban all cigarettes for adults," Berlind said.

Jacob Sullum, editor of Reason magazine, added that the public health lobby is "never satisfied." He said that he thinks the latest attempt to regulate tobacco is just another boondoggle for government.

"This is more than [the public health lobby] dreamed of years ago, but they are still not happy," Sullum said, referring to the 1998 tobacco settlement with the states in which the cigarette makers were forced to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for state programs as well as comply with new marketing and promotion standards.

Other areas of disagreement include how far states should be able to go in setting their own restrictions on the industry and whether tobacco companies can be sued for failing to adequately warn people about smoking hazards.

This latest effort by lawmakers to regulate the tobacco industry was the most serious in years. Whereas a buyout of tobacco-growers was an unpopular suggestion five years ago, it had recently been embraced by farmers and lawmakers alike as the only solution to their ongoing financial woes.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest cigarette maker and a major campaign contributor, had also recently reversed its previous position and endorsed FDA regulation, even though would be getting hit twice in the pocketbook -- once for the buyout, another with the oversight fees.

Smaller companies like R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., say they will be financially ruined by both the buyout and the oversight measures.

Smaller cigarette makers will likely be squeezed by the new rules, said Sullum, who added, "The cost will be passed on to consumers."

But lawmakers say the move was necessary to help the ailing farming community as well as provide regulations aimed to protect the public health.

The FDA asserted authority over cigarettes in 1996, but the Supreme Court later ruled that only Congress can give the FDA that power.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[cinFLA]

That post was relevant to tobacco, as jmc813 and I have pointed out.

But SheLion identified your reference to drugs and I was responding to her identification of your reference to drugs. Retract your slur.

[cinFLA]

Amen!

Seems like you are mixing religion in with your quest for legalized cocaine.

[cinFLA]

I personally feel that property rights take precedence over public opinion.

Seems like you do believe that it should be legal to use cocaine on one's own, or with the permission of the properties owner.

[TKDietz]

"I personally feel that property rights take precedence over public opinion. For instance, would you be cool with a particular city declaring itself a "gun free" city, and banning guns in peoples homes?"

No, such a ban would be an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment, and I would think it would violate privacy rights. There is a big difference between regulating what goes on in people's homes and what goes on in public places. What goes on in your home is your business. What goes on in the public is everybody's business.

Personally, I think local ordinances banning smoking in public places are a little harsh. I would think that local businesses should at least be given the option of investing in high quality ventilation systems designed to minimize the levels of smoke in the establishment. I am also of the mind that those who don't want to inhale smoke should stay the heck out of smokey places, then there wouldn't need to be any smoking bans and the free market would dictate whether these places that allow smoking will stay open. But still I am not opposed to communities passing laws governing conduct that affects people in their community. That is perfectly acceptable in a free and democratic society.

[MrLeRoy]

I was responding to her identification of your reference to drugs.

... in a manner that had nothing to do with tobacco.

Retract your slur.

You mean "your ongoing cowardly refusal to tell us whether you support smoking bans on restaurants and bars"? That's not a slur---it's a fact.

[MrLeRoy]

What goes on in your home is your business. What goes on in the public is everybody's business. [...] local businesses should at least be given the option

Are you claiming that businesses are "in the public"?

[TKDietz]

Not all businesses, but restaurants, theaters, bars, buses and so on... you bet those are "in the public." These are public places where the whole community is "invited" to come.

Now, I would think there should be a distinction for businesses where the public isn't regularly being confined to closed, smokey rooms. I would think that blanket ordinances banning smoking in all places of business go too far. But, I suspect such ordinances could be devised in such a way where they would not be unconstitutional infringements on property or privacy rights. I think your remedy if you live in a community that passes such a law is to move to a community where they don't over-regulate. Pretty soon local authorities will feel it in the pocket book and get the message that perhaps regulating peolpe to death isn't a good idea.

[Gabz]

(Starting from the bottom)

Liberal use of prohibition is a bad idea that doesn't succeed in its intended purpose and that does in fact cause a great degree of additional problems for society.

I agree completely. It is my personal opinion, and my opinion only, that the main reason Ted Kennedy is so in favor of FDA regulation of tobacco products is he wishes to follow in his father's footsteps in order to take advantage of bootlegging a prohibbited product to refurbish the dwindling Kennedy Koffers. The ill-gotten gains of Old Joe from the days of alcohol prohibition have been hard hit in recent years defending various offspring (including Teddy boy himself)from numerous brushes with the law.

It's down by close to half if I'm not mistaken since the early 1970's, especially among young people.

You are only partially correct here. For adult smokers you are just about on the money, the numbers have levelled off and have remained level for several years at around 24-25% of the adult population, down from close to 50%. I disagree with you when it comes to young people, after a period of steady decline, the numbers have started a slight, but seemingly steady, increase. I lay the blame for this phenomena squarely at the feet of the anti-smokers and their blatant propaganda aimed at young people. And I also blame the increase of youth use of other substances in the same spot. "cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroin" is such a blatant and bogus claim that anyone stating it, IMO, should be held liable for false advertising or something along those lines. Everyone knows that the more you tell a kid NOT to do something, the more they may very well decide to try it. Keeping the kids who won't bother trying cigarettes or anything else out of the equation, you're going to get 2 sets of kids here - those that see it for the BS it is and try the cigarettes, knowing that cocaine or heroin is far more dangerous and those that fall for decide if cigarettes are worse they might as well try the heroin or cocaine. In the 15+ years that I have been dealing with the issue of keeping adult cigarette smoking legal I have never heard of a first time smoker dying because of that 1 cigarette. Yet I have heard and read of many cases of that happening to a first time cocaine or heroin user.

And I save the best for last....

Nicotine is an extremely addictive drug and cigarettes are killing millions of Americans.

Nicotine was no more an addictive drug than the caffeine in your coffee or cola or chocolate bar until the Surgeon General changed the definition of addiction to include that which was previously considered an habituation. As to killing "millions" of Americans, even the CDC (that bastion of truth) only claims about 450,000 (give or take 10,000 or so, depending upon who is making the statement) "premature" deaths per year from smoking-related causes.

Do you have any idea of how they come up with that number? probably not, considering they really don't even know - it's a computer generated number. And smoking-related does not equate to smoking-caused. A smoker, driving home from work is broadsided by a drunk driver and killed in the collision - that smoker winds up on 3 different "death by" lists, including smoking-related.

I don't buy into over taxation, over regulation, or over paternalistic government. I am an adult, I make my own choices in life. And life, in and of itself is a MAJOR risk.

[MrLeRoy]

restaurants, theaters, bars, buses and so on... you bet those are "in the public." These are public places where the whole community is "invited" to come.

So if they prominently post a "Smoking Allowed" sign outside, non-smokers are no longer invited and everything's OK, right?

[MrLeRoy]

Nicotine was no more an addictive drug than the caffeine in your coffee or cola or chocolate bar until the Surgeon General changed the definition of addiction to include that which was previously considered an habituation.

Drug Category	Proportion of Users That Ever Became Dependent (%)
Tobacco	32
Alcohol	15
Marijuana (including hashish)	9
Cocaine	17
Heroin	23

- Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine

[Gabz]

MrLeRoy:I support a person's right to use tobacco or any other recreational substance on their own property or any property whose owner has agreed to it---therefore I am opposed to all smoking bans imposed by government on unwilling restaurant and bar owners.

jmc813:What say you, Mr. Cin?

From my experience, mr. cinnie has the total opposite position of MrLeRoy, and proclaims it loudly and proudly. He does not like his delicate sensibilities offended by us lowlife cigarette smokers, even though he will willingly patronize an establishment owned and operated by one of us, as long as the owner is unable to partake of said cigarette on his own premises at any time on the off chance that mr. cinnie might deign to patronize the establishment.

[Gabz]

I for one wish you would take the illegal drug argument elsewhere.

I agree with you.

[Gabz]

Studying the drug war might help you prepare better for your particular battle in the tobbacco spectrum by knowing what tactics your opponents are likely to make in the future.

There are no surprises in the battle of keeping tobacco legal - they use every arguement and emotional heart string tugging that has been being used since Adam ate the proffered apple.......

[TKDietz]

Well, my mother is now in advanced stages of emphysema and she still can't quit smoking the damnd things. My grandmother, also a heavy smoker, died a miserable death from emphysema. My mother-in-law, who still can't bring herself to quit, was diagnosed nearly a year ago with emphysema. I quit my twenty plus year habit the day she was diagnosed, and it was probably the hardest thing I ever did. I still crave the damned things.

I can tell you from personal experience that nicotine is way more addictive than caffiene, alcohol, or chocolate. I've never done heroin or been addicted to cocaine, but I am in a line of work where I frequently deal with drug addicts. My guess is that nicotine addictions are at least very close to being as strong as hard drug addictions. The process of swearing of cigarettes, then backsliding again and again is so like what I see with the meth addicts I deal with on a daily basis. It's hard as hell to quit smoking.

I am not at all surprised to hear that the cigarette/mortality connection is exaggerated. That seems to be the modus operandi of our government when it comes to anti-drug propaganda.

[Mears]

Where are the stats on addiction to chocolate and caffeine? I just went out and bought 5 Cadbury chocolate bars that are on sale. I also drank a large coffee and smoked a cigarette.

I guess I'm a triple addict,but I have a good time.

By the way,caffeine will never be declared addictive or troublesome because the PC crowd likes coffee,the same goes for wine.

[Gabz]

and who cravenly STILL won't tell us whether he supports smoking bans for restaurants and bars.

Believe me, he is all in favor of them.

Not because of any other reason than he doesn't like to have his person "offended" by the odor of cigarette smoke.

He also has a major concept problem with the idea of 'private property' - he's one of those folks that believes if a place is open to some members of the public, it automatically becomes a 'public place.'

sort of like the elected officials who enact these idiotic smoking bans.

[MrLeRoy]

Where are the stats on addiction to chocolate and caffeine?

I'm afraid I have none (though I wish I did).

[MrLeRoy]

he's one of those folks that believes if a place is open to some members of the public, it automatically becomes a 'public place.'

I thought socialists weren't allowed on FR.

[MrLeRoy]

Where are the stats on addiction to chocolate and caffeine?

I'm afraid I have none (though I wish I did).

Statistics, that is---though I also have no chocolate but wish I did.

[Gabz]

Why shouldn't the majority of people in your town be able to decide if smoking will be allowed in public places?

I've got no problem with this......as long as you recognize that bars and restaurants and pool halls and bingo halls and bowling alleys are PRIVATE PROPERTY, not public places.

Public places are those paid for by the public, ie. courthouses, state buildings, municipal buildings, etc.