Posted on 07/23/2007 2:27:03 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo, Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today introduced legislation to wipe out tobacco use in America through an innovative cap-and-trade program that will shrink the size of the tobacco market over the next 20 years.
“Tobacco kills. We need new ideas to get people to stop smoking, or better yet, never to start,” Enzi said. “That’s what my legislation does. My bill contains a novel cap-and-trade program that will guarantee that fewer people suffer the deadly consequences of smoking, while providing flexibility in how those reductions are achieved.”
“Cap-and-trade programs have a proven track record in the environmental arena, particularly in addressing acid rain. My tobacco plan is based on the successful program in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This system achieved the desired results faster and at lower cost than had been anticipated. The same can be done for tobacco,” Enzi said.
The cap-and-trade program will reduce the adverse health effects of tobacco use through reductions in the size of the US tobacco market to fewer than 2 percent of the population over 20 years. Tobacco manufacturers would be required to meet specific user level limits by specified deadlines and the plan would set up a market share allocation and transfer system in which allowances could be used, banked, traded, or sold freely on the open market.
The Enzi proposal, the “Help End Addiction to Lethal Tobacco Habits Act” (HEALTH Act), would also close loopholes in the law that tobacco companies have exploited and enjoyed for far too long. It would use proven approaches to help people stop using tobacco products and implement tried and true prevention programs.
“Some have suggested that FDA regulation of tobacco is the way toward safer tobacco products. But we know that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette,” Enzi said. “Proposals to have FDA regulate tobacco are a misguided attempt to force a deadly product into the regulatory structure developed for drugs and devices – products which DO have health benefits. The Democrat’s deadly scheme for tobacco would be very costly, and would not result in much of a health benefit. We can do better.”
The Help End Addiction to Lethal Tobacco Habits Act (HEALTH Act)
Title I: Raising the bar on our knowledge
· Removes an outdated provision that allows manufacturers to shield from the government which ingredients are in which tobacco products.
· Modernizes and standardizes testing methods for measuring and reporting nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
· Strengthens warning labels on packages – changes to bold warnings with color graphics – a strategy that has been proven to work in the EU and Canada .
Title II: Determining who uses tobacco
· Consolidates multiple overlapping surveys on tobacco use to gather the necessary data to monitor the baseline and reductions under Title III.
Title III: Reducing the number of tobacco users
· Creates a cap-and-trade program to reduce the adverse health effects of tobacco use through reductions in annual size of the US tobacco market from 2006 levels.
· Requires compliance by tobacco manufacturers with specific user level limitations by specified deadlines.
· Sets up a market share allocation and transfer system. Allowances can be used, banked, traded, or sold freely on the open market.
· The number of allowances decreases each year, ultimately resulting in fewer than 2% of the population using tobacco, versus nearly 21% today – a 90% reduction.
Title IV: Increasing the tobacco excise tax
· Increases the tobacco excise tax based on the relative risk of products (see Title V for information on risk classification).
· Distributes the revenue as follows: 50% to Medicare, 25% to Medicaid, and 25% to tobacco control and prevention. This maintains the tight link between tobacco tax policy and tobacco health policy.
Title V: Encouraging tobacco control and prevention, and smoking cessation
· Establishes an FDA panel to classify tobacco products or groups of products by risk.
· Gives FDA explicit authority to ban nicotine.
· Creates a program of counter-advertising, conducted by HHS, and funded from the 25% for control and prevention in Title IV.
· Closes a loophole in Medicare and Medicaid to provide coverage for smoking cessation, regardless of whether the beneficiary has a diagnosed smoking-related illness.
· Enhances the Federal match under Medicaid for states that meet the CDC recommended levels of MSA funds spent on tobacco control and prevention.
What is “cap-and-trade”?
Cap and trade is an administrative approach used to control something, historically a pollutant, by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of that pollutant. Cap-and-trade programs have a proven track record in the environmental arena, the most dramatic success story being the control of acid rain in the 1990s. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 instituted a system of allowances for emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides that could be used, banked, traded or sold freely on the open market. The number of allowances decreased each year. This system achieved the desired air quality improvements faster and at lower cost than had been anticipated.
In cap and trade programs, the government sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. The cap provides the standard by which progress is measured, and it creates an artificial scarcity. Companies or other groups that emit the pollutant are given allowances to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances is fixed and cannot exceed the cap, limiting total national emissions. The allowances then have value, due to the artificial scarcity created. The cap is lowered over time - aiming towards a national emissions reduction target.
Companies must hold a sufficient number of allowances to cover their emissions, or face heavy penalties. A source that reduces its emissions below its allowance level may sell the extra allowances to another source. A source that finds it more expensive to reduce emissions below allowable levels may buy (trade) allowances from another source. Buyers and sellers may “bank” any unused allowances for future use. This system reduces emissions at the lowest possible cost to society.
In some cap and trade systems, organizations which do not pollute may also buy allowances. For example, environmental groups could purchase and retire allowances to reduce emissions and raise the price of the remaining credits – the laws of supply and demand in action.
Cap and trade systems leverage the power of markets to deal with pollution. While the cap is set by a political process, individual companies are free to choose how, when or if they will reduce their emissions. Firms will choose the least-costly way to comply, creating incentives to reduce the cost of achieving a pollution reduction goal. Cap and trade systems are easier to enforce than traditional “command and control” bureaucratic approaches because the government overseeing the market does not need to regulate specific practices of each source.
Cap-and-trade systems guarantee reductions, and companies are given time and flexibility to meet the targets. Sources have flexibility to decide when, where and how to reduce emissions. Making the power of the market work to achieve our policy goals just makes sense.
Isn't that special. Thanks for the information BUMP!
They would think that the Tree of Liberty was parched and famished.
Ask yourself this; did the Founders think that the principles of individual liberty and freedom and tightly restricted powers of government should be subject to exceptions on such a premise as you've laid out? Can you find any quotes of theirs that give such caveats?
This plan of Enzi's is nothing less than social engineering, ie government forced behavior modification. I am at a loss to fit that into any system of government other than totalitarian, socialist, fascist and Marxist communist models. Certainly not into a representative constitutional republican model.
As less people smoke, which is the trend, less taxes are collected. At some point there will be a tipping point where the tax revenues drop below the threshold where it can be made illegal.
Nanny state Republicans, why don’t they mind their own business? We got democrats to worry about this stuff.
Explicitly? No.
But implicitly, yes! They clearly intended that an individual not have free rein to diminish the same inalienable rights of others. Congress was granted power to make laws to that end.
Does a smoker deprive his non-smoking wife and children of their rights to some degree? I think he possibly does. As I said, I'm still unsettled on the issue.
It's not a clear-cut case, as trespassing on private property or defending your life against an attacker would be. Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
This plan of Enzi's is nothing less than social engineering, ie government forced behavior modification.
Yes, but that isn't inherently wrong, nor is it inherently prohibited by the Constitution. All laws are "forced behavior modification". The question is, does society have a sufficiently strong interest in that behavior to override the individual's rights?
Remember, the Founding Fathers even granted the government the power to take the life of its citizens, after due process of law. They never intended that individual liberty be absolute.
An individual is not allowed, and would not be by the Founding Fathers, to choose to murder his competitors in business. That behavior is denied. He is not permitted by our law, and rightfully so, to prosper by fraud or extortion. Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it?
In those cases, as with others, the interests of the People outweigh the individual's liberty. I submit that smoking might meet that same criteria.
If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question. It would be a clear case of individual liberty.
I am at a loss to fit that into any system of government other than totalitarian, socialist, fascist and Marxist communist models. Certainly not into a representative constitutional republican model.
Come now, you're being disingenuous. We "behavior modify" plenty of unwanted traits, as did the Founding Fathers.
Enzi, as well as other anti-smoking politicians, was elected. You can't pretend it's some Marxist dictatorship just because you disagree with the representation.
The most you can do--and it's perfectly consistent with the ideals of a Constitutional Republic--is to persuade other voters to join you and remove him from office. Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
*sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
One thing, though, is that this should not be a federal issue. The States have Constitutional authority to address this issue.
You've got that right!
"Communism! It's not just for Democrats anymore."
Still, A. Lincoln could have said “good riddance” but he wanted southern tariffs too much. The South paid 2/3 of the tariffs even though it was only 1/3 of the population.
Boo freakin’ hoo. Save it for the CW threads.
There is a tremendous gulf between "I think it might" and murder as in your later example.
Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
So is driving a vehicle. In fact so is owning a firearm.
All laws are "forced behavior modification". ... Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it? (as per your examples)
No, not at all. Those laws provide for punishment for harming others. There is no intention in them to modify behavior as per this cap-and-trade scheme which allows the behavior but works at (in theory) getting people to gradually change behavior. Your view of the purpose of criminal law is skewed 180 degrees out of whack. You are imposing your own emotionally based motivations and perceptions over the actual bases and genesis of criminal law.
If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question.
This statement assumes that the question of whether second-hand tobacco smoke does do harm is settled. That is far from being a known fact. It also assumes that every behavior that contains some potential harm (as opposed to absolute harm as in murder, fraud, theft, etc) is subject to governmental authority.
In those cases, as with others, the interests of the People outweigh the individual's liberty. I submit that smoking might meet that same criteria.
"Interests of the People" is a perfect definition of socialist criterion for governance.
Enzi, as well as other anti-smoking politicians, was elected. You can't pretend it's some Marxist dictatorship just because you disagree with the representation.
I neither said nor implied any such thing. You are being disingenuous to suggest that I did. I said that Enzi's plan fits those models of governance and not ours. That is true. That it might be implemented by elected representatives under the rules of constitutional governance doesn't change the character of the plan itself. Nor the consequences.
Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
Empty hyperbolic rhetoric intended to imply that I did. I did not.
*sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
It's all about choices. You stated this position before so I threw out some rhetorical questions to give you a baseline you might use to sort out your priorities. What you do with it is your business. Either you set your priorities based on support for the principles of governance you want or you set them on the outcome you personally desire in each situation. The former sometimes means supporting the liberty of others to do things you don't care for personally.
There is a tremendous gulf between "I think it might" and murder as in your later example.
Yes, there is. It was intentional. The point was to clearly illustrate that one person's personal liberties may be denied when those liberties intrude on the liberties of another.
Murder is an obvious case to illustrate the principle, and I believe smoking is a murky case which could go either way.
> Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
So is driving a vehicle. In fact so is owning a firearm.
True, but both of those are examples where the people, in the first case, and the Founding Fathers, in the other, have concluded that the importance and benefits of those activities outweighs the harm and/or risk. That's a difficult case to make for smoking, which is purely a "because I want to" thing as far as benefits go.
> All laws are "forced behavior modification". ... Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it? (as per your examples)
No, not at all. Those laws provide for punishment for harming others.
...which is a method of behavior modification, is it not? Punishment is clearly intended to modify behavior, or every sentence would be for life (no expectation of change).
There is no intention in them to modify behavior as per this cap-and-trade scheme which allows the behavior but works at (in theory) getting people to gradually change behavior.
As I wrote above, I disagree. And, because this is dealing with behavior that is currently legal, it's reasonable that a gentler approach be used. Quitting smoking is exceptionally difficult, so applying some longer-term economic pressure rather than immediately handing out citations sounds like a prudent course, given our experiences with outright prohibition.
Your view of the purpose of criminal law is skewed 180 degrees out of whack.
It seems to be out of whack with your view, though it seems a bit presumptuous to label your view as "the purpose".
To my understanding, criminal law is to protect and defend the people from infringement of and damage to their rights. As I explained above, I believe there is a case to be made that smokers do, to one degree or another, infringe on the rights of others.
Of course it isn't as severe as murder, but the principle of infringing on the rights of others is still there. Other minor infringements are illegal as well. Speeding, running stop signs, jaywalking and simple trespassing are all quite minor, in the overall scheme of things. Yet each of them is illegal.
Trespassing is a particularly good example. For me to jump your fence and walk across your property against your will does very little, if any, damage to you. Yet you are well within your rights to deny me access and perhaps to have me arrested for it. If I trespass, I have infringed on your rights, though I have not harmed you in any significant way.
Similarly, non-smokers have a right to not smoke if they so choose, don't they?
You are imposing your own emotionally based motivations and perceptions over the actual bases and genesis of criminal law.
No, I'm thinking that non-smokers are having smoking, and some degree of associated health risks, imposed on them. I realize that the degree of harm and risk aren't completely settled, but it seems pretty clear to me that some harm and some risk are involved.
> If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question.
This statement assumes that the question of whether second-hand tobacco smoke does do harm is settled. That is far from being a known fact. It also assumes that every behavior that contains some potential harm (as opposed to absolute harm as in murder, fraud, theft, etc) is subject to governmental authority.
That there is some harm is nearly undeniable. It's only how much that's in question, I believe.
Another analogy: How much would you allow your neighbor to molest your child? If it's only a little, and scientists haven't proven any lasting harm, should you be able to deny him?
Child molestation is, clearly, morally repugnant. Should we ignore that and make the judgment based only on scientifically proven harm? If a non-smoker doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, why is the question of scientifically proven harm the only issue?
> In those cases, as with others, the interests of the People outweigh the individual's liberty. I submit that smoking might meet that same criteria.
"Interests of the People" is a perfect definition of socialist criterion for governance.
How about "rights of the People"? That's contained in the Constitution. Would that suit you better?
> Enzi, as well as other anti-smoking politicians, was elected. You can't pretend it's some Marxist dictatorship just because you disagree with the representation.
I neither said nor implied any such thing. You are being disingenuous to suggest that I did. I said that Enzi's plan fits those models of governance and not ours. That is true.
How is his plan "Marxist", then? How does it "fit those models" better? What does his plan have to do with Marxism, fascism, etc. at all ?
I think the plain fact is, you just don't like it.
That it might be implemented by elected representatives under the rules of constitutional governance doesn't change the character of the plan itself. Nor the consequences.
I'll await your explanation of what you mean here.
> Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
Empty hyperbolic rhetoric intended to imply that I did. I did not.
Why bring it up then? Why throw out the inflammatory references to Marxism and fascism? I still fail to see anything whatsoever in Enzi's plan that suggests (fits with?) those philosophies.
> *sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
It's all about choices. You stated this position before so I threw out some rhetorical questions to give you a baseline you might use to sort out your priorities. What you do with it is your business. Either you set your priorities based on support for the principles of governance you want or you set them on the outcome you personally desire in each situation. The former sometimes means supporting the liberty of others to do things you don't care for personally.
If it were simply a matter of not caring for those activities, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But there is some degree of infringement on others. That's where the conflict lies, for me.
What harm to others are you talking about? SHS?
Before you spend 4 posts and 3,000 word manifestos that are longer than the Old Testament trying to obfuscate the issue, let me make your argument for you:
The Gubmint doesn't need to prove harm to others to enact laws...there are dozens of prohibited actions that are simply designed to protect people from themselves. Gambling, drugs...When did "harm to others" become a requirement for the nanny state? You can't play poker in your pajamas online, in your own living room, with your own computer and your own money. (I wouldn't anyway but that's not the point)
Why do previously free people willingly let the Gubmint be their masters?
Yes, it is easier to debate that way, isn't it?
If your mountain climbing somehow increased the risk that I would fall to my death, and if the desire to go mountain climbing was tied in with a powerful chemical addiction, then I might agree with you. :-)
My argument has never been about what the consequences of smoking cost me in taxes.
You are spot on about alcohol. It makes me insane hearing Ted Kennedy bloviate about how awful tobacco is and how it needs to be banned and regulated. And this f-ing guy got drunk and killed someone.
People don’t choose to be smokers, they’re born that way. /sarcasm
Oy vey...
I’m a little late to this party, but I left a message for Senator Enzi. I think they want to create a new criminal class. You’d think these people could find better things to do, besides pick on cigarette smokers.
First they came with the Dept. of Revenue and the ATF but it was only for the rich so nobody cared.
Then they came for the free use or not of seat belts, but it was for the chilluns, so nobody cared.
Then they came for the Tobacco companies, but tobacco companies were evil, so nobody cared.
Who’s next?
Do we see a trend here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.