If smoking is satan,why is the government in partnership with tobacco companies instead of outlawing it? Could it be because they don’t want to share the profits with people in the black market?
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.
I`ve grown tobacco for 40 years and yet to get
a gov payment. There used to allotments,like rice
and cotton,where you could grow so many acres or lbs.
Now you make a contract with the tobacco co. for
as many lbs as you feel you can grow
Getting ready to cut another field this week-end
You can get as much nicotine as you want, as long as you buy it from Pfizer or Merck in one of their NRT products.
“Why not place it in the same class of drugs as marijuana.”
That thought sexually stimulates law enforcement budget administrators.
>>So much for free markets and America’s free enterprise system.
So much for Sen Enzi`s lifetime ACU rating of 96.
So much for conservatism.<<
Yeah, something is wrong here - have see this story confirmed elsewhere?
What you're missing, if you read closely, is that they don't want you to stop buying cigarettes, they only want you to stop smoking.
In the Utopia these guys envision, you'll keep buying cigarettes, one or two packs a day, but you'll just throw them out and buy another pack or two the next day, so they keep up the tax collections.
That's what I was thinking, the state governments especially are hooked on tobacco taxes. The stuff will just come in illegally, and not be taxed at all.
Couldn’t help but notice hes a republican pushing this. This is the type of reason why I only support certain republican candidates not the party.
COMMIE SOB
Great. Then if someone wants to outlaw tobacco they should go ahead and propose that, instead of trying to eliminate its supply through a nefarious market manipulation cap-and trade scheme.
We’d probably save more if we banned homosexual behavior....since it causes AIDS, and AIDS gets waaay more health care money than it deserves. A hetero male smoker on average lives longer than a homosexual male...65 vs 45, If I’m not mistaken.
If smoking is satan,why is the government in partnership with tobacco companies instead of outlawing it? Could it be because they don’t want to share the profits with people in the black market?
Not to worry, ultra-liberals (and beyond). Marijuana, crack, and “illegal” drugs are not included. They are PC.
Not since Broke Back Mountain. Now, even the sheep are afraid.
Proof that NicoNazis come in both Ds and Rs.
I think there is more to this. Another "Republican", Mike Grosz, in the ND State legislature introduced a bill to ban tobacco completely. It was later learned that his motives were ingenious...expose the health groups in all their naked glory for the world to see.
Why not just ban tobacco completely? : This is a question that has been asked by FReepers with common sense. If it is so horrible and kills the consumer and everyone around them, how could the Gubmint continue to allow it? Everyone here knows the answer. In 2003, Rep. Michael Grosz, R-Grand Forks, a North Dakota Assemblyman introduced a bill to ban the sale of tobacco products in the state. Who showed up to speak against the proposal? Philip Morris? No. RJR? No. Convenience store owners? No. SheLion? No. Gabz? No. Me? No....The American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and the North Dakato Medical Association!! Why? You guessed it...no tobacco = no money for them.
hamburgers next
As another poster noted: a black market will thrive.
These morons never learn that prohibition of popular substances, under whatever rubric, increases crime and doesn't begin to stop the behaviour ''prohibited''.
That’s what my husband is hoping for...it’ll be like Oklahoma when it was dry.
“They” came to your door and it cost no more.
Maybe in future I should do more detailed research before posting. (Naw, why spoil a post with something so mundane as facts? ;-)
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.