Posted on 06/25/2002 1:16:19 PM PDT by Just another Joe
Health groups critical of new smoking age
By James P. Sweeney
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
SACRAMENTO - When a West Hollywood legislator and a powerful doctor's lobby launched a drive earlier this month to raise the state's legal smoking age to 21, some prominent allies in the war on tobacco were conspicuously absent.
The proposal, which could make California the first state to outlaw cigarette sales to 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, immediately drew national attention, including a poll that showed broad support for the idea.
Amid the applause, however, representatives of the state's heart, lung and cancer associations were sitting on their hands, or openly critical.
"It's silly," said Stan Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and a leading anti-tobacco voice. "There is no good evidence that laws restricting sales of cigarettes to kids actually affect smoking by kids."
While it "sounds like a good idea," Glantz said, "it's just a waste of time."
Even worse, some public health advocates fear the measure may divert attention from a critical fight to preserve funding for a broad range of tobacco-control programs that have a proven track record in California.
With a state budget deficit approaching $24 billion, Gov. Gray Davis has asked for deep cuts in funding for the anti-tobacco campaign, a model that has pushed smoking rates to near national lows.
Long-term funding at issue
Long-term base funding for the tobacco-control program is at stake this year. One administration proposal would dedicate most of the state's $500 million a year from the national tobacco settlement to help balance the budget. That move alone could soak up some 80 percent of those funds for the next 22 years.
"In another year," said Lisa Rea of the American Heart Association, "maybe we would have gotten excited about" raising the legal smoking age to 21. "But it's not something that we can say is high on our priority list. It just isn't. The budget is everything this year."
Likewise, a spokeswoman said the American Cancer Society is taking no position on the legislation by Assemblyman Paul Koretz. The American Lung Association was initially ambivalent, but has since expressed support for the bill.
Only three other states have smoking ages higher than 18. In Alabama, Alaska and Utah the legal age is 19. Koretz's measure would be phased in so that it would not affect those 18 and older who now smoke.
The first-term Democrat is carrying the legislation for the California Medical Association, an organization of 35,000 physicians that has long been one of the state's most formidable political forces.
"Everybody accepts the idea that the drinking age should be 21 to reduce the number of traffic fatalities and other kinds of incidents," said Dr. Jack Lewin, the CMA's chief executive officer.
"The window of danger with alcohol is four to six hours after a teen-ager has been drinking. As physicians we know that the window of danger with tobacco is four to six decades."
Dr. Leonard Klay, a Santa Rosa obstetrician and gynecologist, persuaded the CMA's house of delegates to endorse the concept in February.
In the intervening months, the CMA and the public health groups discussed the timing of the legislation as the state's fiscal situation continued to deteriorate. The CMA declined to wait.
"It's very disheartening that we're not all together on this," said Ron Lopp, a CMA spokesman.
While many teen-agers are introduced to tobacco products long before they turn 18, Koretz and the CMA said most do not become addicted until they have easy access and can legally purchase cigarettes.
"It's easier to prevent smoking than it is to get people to quit," Dr. Klay said.
California's anti-tobacco campaign has pushed the adult smoking rate down to 17.4 percent, second only to Utah. But state data show that young adults have proven to be the toughest group to reach.
Smoking increases in group
Eighteen- to 24-year-olds are the only age group that has not shown a marked decline since 1989, when California initiated its aggressive anti-tobacco efforts. During that span, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who smoke actually increased from 18.9 percent to 23.6 percent.
"By raising it to 21," Koretz said, "we dramatically reduce the number of people who are getting cigarettes at 16 and 17 by going into stores and looking close enough."
But Glantz, the UCSF professor, said age restrictions on tobacco sales are widely ignored and poorly enforced.
"We know that the way to reduce youth smoking is not by supply side controls, it's by demand reduction," Glantz said. "The state's anti-smoking program has achieved the lowest youth smoking rates in the country if not the world . . . and that's exactly what the governor is dismantling."
How 'bout eating one....since the legislators are soon going to outlaw hamburgers....
Everything these people say and do is hypocritical and they consistently get away with. The impunity with which they act is what is unbelievable to me.
I understand the nature of your comment, but you know what - it's probably not that bad of an attitude to have.
I remember when I was growing up and the big Sunday family dinners. There was always wine on the table and I was always permitted to have some. And in the summer when those sunday dinners were backyard BBQ's there was always beer, same deal. I was in college before I ever figured out the whys of the binge drinking of some of my friends. Having a glass of wine or a beer was not some unknown taboo to me.
Smoking, OTOH, was a different story. Many members of my family smoked - including both of my parents - yet I was forbidden. No reason, just - "you can't because I say so."
So I did exactly what any other red blooded American teenager did (and does) I rebelled and started smoking. The first time I got caught the neighbors must have thought I had come home pregnant over the hysteria that ensued.
I'm talking the mid 1970's here. Back when it was perfectly legal for me to buy them and smoke them, even though I was under 18. They were also under a buck a pack in NYC, so as a teenager I could afford them.
Sounds like an historical truism. This age group is in the throes of establishing their identities and expressing their individuality in the adult world for the first time. Not only do they question the authority of force, they resent it and will rebel against it. I think humans were born with an encoded message etched deep into their psyches which comes to the fore during transition to adulthood. If it could be put into words, It would probably sound like, "I am not a sheep!"
You are to be commended.
Interesting point. And I have the perfect solution to all the problems - particularly the war on drugs. Actually it is the anti-smokers that have the solution, they just don't realize it.
The anti-smokers claim that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine or heroine. They also claim that for every increase in tobacco taxes there is a reduction in tobacco use.
So, what we need to do is legalize cocaine and heroine, tack a hefty excise tax on it and increase that tax every 6 months or so. Voila no more addicts.
Why not - everyone seems to believe everything else the anti-smokers say about tobacco and they claim increased taxes cures the addiction. So it would be a win-win situation for everyone, particularly the taxpayers. Not only would the billions of dollars in taxpayer money spent on the WOD be saved, the government would start reaping in billions of dollars in excise taxes, and finally there would be all those addicts immediately cured of their addictions because of the continual increases of the taxes.
Nice theory, however quite invalid in that excessive taxation in effect becomes prohibitive. As well, addicts would not care what the price was, if they could not afford it, they would find someone who could afford it and rob them.
Prohibition can take many forms.
---max
My oldest (now 22yo) niece was a rabid anti-smoker 10 years ago. She is now a smoker. It had nothing to do with me, she lives in California, I live in Delaware.
Her younger sister was an even more rabid anti - told her mother she wouldn't come to our house for dinner because we smoke. That attitude has totally changed. She doesn't smoke, and still doesn't like it, but has absolutely no use for the in-your-face anti-smoker mantra that is being, in her words, shoved down their throats.
I am in no way pushing for the legalization of cocaine or heroine.
I am just making an attempt to point out the absurdities of many of the tenets of the anti-smoker doctrines.
In most states it is perfectly legal for a minor to use tobacco products. Only the person selling the product is committing a crime.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live legislation was introduced 3 years ago to make it illegal for a minor to use or possess tobacco products.
The only opposition this proposal got was from the anti-smoker organizations. And because they have so many legislators in their pocket it went no where, so it remains legal in Delaware for minors to possess and use tobacco products.
And before you, or anyone else asks if I have proof - yes I do, but it is currently not in an online format. The newspaper that carried the quotes from the anti-smokers did not have their content online at the time and the scanned copy of the paper that I did have on my computer was among the fatalities of a hardrive failure I encounterd about 3 weeks ago.
You may choose to believe me or not, that is your perogative, and I respect it. But I will give you a quick background, and it benefits lurkers and others that don't know me or think I am some tobacco company employee.
There are 3 days left of the 20th session of the Delaware legislature that I have dealt with. I started dealing with Delaware government in 1982 when I moved here to take my first job as a reporter for a local radio station. After I got out of radio I became one of those evil people known as a lobbyist. It gets worse - I became a member of the executive committe of my local Republican district. Even worse - I became an officer of that committee and so got a seat on the County party committee.
But getting back to the subject - I don't see the Libertarians as the ones targetting kids with tobacco - I only see the anti-smokers guilty of that.
http://www.smokerswarehouse.com/
I just received my first order last week and like the tobacco better than American Spirit (which I've been using for years). I'd call direct though. I ordered on-line and it took almost two weeks to get my order.
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.