Sen. Mike Enzi introduces bill to wipe out tobacco in America in a generation

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.”

· Removes an outdated provision that allows manufacturers to shield from the government which ingredients are in which tobacco products.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 .

· Consolidates multiple overlapping surveys on tobacco use to gather the necessary data to monitor the baseline and reductions under Title III.

· 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.

· 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.

· Establishes an FDA panel to classify tobacco products or groups of products by risk.

· 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.

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.

Does a smoker deprive his non-smoking wife and children of their rights to some degree? I think he possibly does.

And so, since you "think" he possibly does, would it be fair to assume that you're leaning toward accelerating the anti-smoking Taliban's next step in the Great March Forward? Smoking as child abuse: the new best friend of neurotic control freaks and junk-science grant addicts everywhere.

...the anti-smoking Taliban...

This sort of inflammatory hyperbole certainly doesn't help your position.

Smoking as child abuse: the new best friend of neurotic control freaks and junk-science grant addicts everywhere.

Breathe, Madame, just breathe. Remember your blood pressure.

If you read the rest of my posts, you'd see that I haven't made up my mind yet. I believe there is something to be concerned about, and I believe the principles of the Constitution clearly allow for regulating the behavior of others when it affects someone else. Not every issue demands government response, but I believe this one might.

That said, I don't think the feds should be involved AT ALL.

ROTFLOL! My favorite is his “asshole” rant! I want that darn Caddy he’s driving in the video :)

I drive really slow in the ultra fast lane, while people behind me are going insane....Hahahaa, he’s throwing styrofoam containers out of the car!

Hell, Denis for president!

This sort of inflammatory hyperbole certainly doesn't help your position.

Characterizing my accurate observation as "inflammatory hyperbole" is a common tactic.

Breathe, Madame, just breathe. Remember your blood pressure.

As is condescension. Really, it loses its effectiveness after a while. You might want to rethink this one.

Not every issue demands government response, but I believe this one might.

And what might be the basis for your "belief?"

That said, I don't think the feds should be involved AT ALL.

But you would have no problem with the states legislating that a father smoking in his own home is engaging in child abuse?

Just what is is that you're having trouble making up your mind about?

It seems that it's not the notion, just who should legislate it.

“~~Tobacco~~(place any politically correct term here) kills.

Life kills and there is a world full of reasons for dieing that can be taken away via loss of personal freedom.

Some actually promote the idea that living without personal freedom makes life worth living before one dies.

Go figure.

We are all going to die however not all of us are going to live...

Just what is is that you're having trouble making up your mind about?

I haven't decided if the negative effects of smoking on non-smokers is sufficient to seek a statutory remedy.

That's about a plain as I can make it.

I am keenly aware of the individual liberty issue at stake, but non-smokers also have individual liberties.

At what point does the non-smoker's situation outweigh the smoker's? Where's the line?

Should a smoker be permitted to light up any kind of smoking material anywhere he's legally permitted to be? ...in a hospital? ...in church? ...as a guest in someone else's home?

Should a smoker with a non-smoking spouse and children be OK to chain-smoke all day long with the windows closed, as his infant daughter plays nearby in a playpen?

Have you ever tried looking at it from the non-smoker's perspective?

I believe there is something to be concerned about, and I believe the principles of the Constitution clearly allow for regulating the behavior of others when it affects someone else. Not every issue demands government response, but I believe this one might.

It's a legal product.

It's like saying SUV's need to be regulated for IF an SUV goes head on with a Yugo in an accident the occupants of the Yugo don't stand a chance.

Only when we all drone to lockstep agenda and lose all individual freedom will the the arguments end.

The arguments end won't come for it's human nature to be individual as long as there is two humans or more on the face of the earth.

Where in the hell is “Reed City”?

Where the hell is "LeRoy"?

I never heard of LeRoy but just checked a map and Reed City is about 15 miles south of LeRoy. If she moved from LeRoy to Reed City then she's moving "up". LeRoy is off M-131 on the western part of the state as is Reed City but Reed City must be bigger because its written in bigger letters on the map than the surrounding cities.

I have no idea what goes on in Reed City but its gotta be better than LeRoy. Reed city is kinda like being from Mexicao rather than Nicaragua or Guatemala. You know that Mexico is bigger and better than Nicaragua or Guatemala but that doesn't mean you want to live there ........

If she keeps moving south, she's going to end up in the really big dead city of Grand Rapids........but don't worry, on the map she has about another 4 1/2 inches to go.......

It's like saying SUV's need to be regulated for IF an SUV goes head on with a Yugo in an accident the occupants of the Yugo don't stand a chance.

No, it's not like that at all. Your SUV doesn't have a good chance of harming me simply by being near it. There seems to be a likelihood that smoking does.

...and smoking isn't an accident.

Your SUV doesn't have a good chance of harming me simply by being near it. There seems to be a likelihood that smoking does.

Public buses spew smoky exhaust that I don't like because it makes me sneeze and give me a headache because of it.

They should be taxed and/or banned. ; )

Not only THAT, I have to spend my hard earned labor on climate regulation in my SUV so I don't have to put up with the stench of diesel exhaust from those evil public buses while I am commuting.

I think that public bus diesel exhaust may be causing me to be experiencing a lassisazical attitude, making me tired, and most likely shortening my life because of inhaling the exhaust.

There's just got to be SOMETHING that our forefathers put into the Constitution that I can use to stop the use of public transportation so I can live in peace and comfort again.

If not, can it be amended for me and my concerns?

Should a smoker be permitted to light up any kind of smoking material anywhere he's legally permitted to be? ...in a hospital? ...in church? ...as a guest in someone else's home?

Although I've never made the argument that they should, allow me to address your straw men:

In a hospital....as a guest in someone elses's home?

If it's private property, the owner calls the shots.

in church?

Not once in my life have I witnessed anyone light a cigarette in church. See, back in the good old days, before smoking became the bogeyman du jour for neurotics and busybodies, there was actual etiquette regarding smoking. This is something that the smoking Taliban has tried to disappear down the memory hole of course. The idea that anyone would light up in church, or ever had, is utterly ridiculous but your bringing it up shows just how deep that memory hole has become.

Should a smoker with a non-smoking spouse and children be OK to chain-smoke all day long with the windows closed, as his infant daughter plays nearby in a playpen?

You know, I've been wondering when the smoking Taliban would be producing their version of "Reefer Madness." You've provided a good script outline. Good luck in your new career.

Have you ever tried looking at it from the non-smoker's perspective?

"Tried looking at it?"

How could one avoid the screeching and hand-wringing lo these many years?

I've looked, and still come down on the individual freedom, property rights and anti-junk science side. How about that?

Come ON! Are you over the age of 25? Then it's damned likely you were exposed to the horrors of public smoking when you were a kid. It used to be everywhere. I know I didn't like it when I was young, but long term harm? Bullshit. 50-60% of the population smoked back in the 50's. We should have seen MILLIONS of cases of cancer in non-smokers. We didn't. Now that smoking is banned just about everywhere, we should be seeing a much lower incidence of asthma exacerbation. No, it's actually increasing. It boils down to this. A lot of people "don't like" smoking and they'll accept any lie in order to forbid people from engaging in an activity that they "don't like".

If you were locked up in a garage with a running SUV, you'd better believe it could cause you harm by being near it. If I locked you up in a garage with a thousand smokers for an hour, you wouldn't like it, but you wouldn't be dead. But there are parking garages that forbid smoking, because it's "so dangerous". It is pure hysteria.

Sen. Mike Enzi introduces bill to wipe out tobacco in America in a generation

Okay, so we have less lung cancer and heart disease deaths. But we'll have a continued sky-rocketing of obesity (which smoking in former generations helped to keep under control), as well as all the mental problems that self-medication with nicotine helped to manage. Imagine the costs of obese, diabetic, psychotics who won't die sooner due to lung cancer and heart disease. Imagine all these folks living to draw on their social security or to draw SS disability payments at a time when they otherwise would have been merrily puffing away.

After I posted to you, I got driving directions from Yahoo maps. She’s closer to her auntie in Maine, than us.

I saw a pic, and the signal lights are hung on cables. It actually looks like a decent, old fashioned town.

I had a great grand aunt and uncle who lived in MI. I think it was Ann Arbor. I saw them when I was 9, and was totally blown away with the all the green vegetation. Beautiful place to live, but babycakes is making min wage 9 hours on her feet. We had a huge ugly family blow up a couple of years ago, and I want to see her and my grandbabies. No comment on the bum she hooked up with, except she’s supporting 4 people.

Lol, my girl told me that LeRoy was like living on the Jerry Springer show! I love her dearly, and want her and the babies to have a better life.

Why don’t we simply build a fence around the smokers and treat them like lepers?

Where have you been? It's already been done. Smokers are the "new n_ggers". That's naggers for anyone with a racist subconscious mind.

Even better, why don't they just ban all tobacco products instead of resorting to social engineering, discrimination and bogus studies? You know why. If you believe that you are exempt from the fetid breath of tyranny or get a "Get Out of Health Fascism" free card as a non-smoker you are in for a rude awakening my FRiend.

I want you to get back to me in 2 weeks when you see how the "health authorities" don't support this bill. Deal?

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.