Posted on 10/03/2003 10:06:10 AM PDT by 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 dont 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.
"Were 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 shouldnt 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.
But SheLion identified your reference to drugs and I was responding to her identification of your reference to drugs. Retract your slur.
Seems like you are mixing religion in with your quest for legalized cocaine.
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.
... 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.
Are you claiming that businesses are "in the public"?
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.
So if they prominently post a "Smoking Allowed" sign outside, non-smokers are no longer invited and everything's OK, right?
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
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.
I agree with you.
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.......
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.
I'm afraid I have none (though I wish I did).
I thought socialists weren't allowed on FR.
I'm afraid I have none (though I wish I did).
Statistics, that is---though I also have no chocolate but wish I did.
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.
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.