Cracking down on coffin nails
Finally, the feds will have the power to regulate cigarettes
Cracking down on coffin nails
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Finally.
Thanks to the Democratic Congress, a burst of enlightenment in the Republican camp, and the presence of a Democratic president, the feds will finally have the power - for the first time - to regulate the chemical production and marketing of cigarettes. By a 79-17 vote yesterday, the Senate gave thumbs-up to the FDA; the House today is expected to vet the Senate move, and Barack Obama is poised to sign.
So, hey, what a concept: the Food and Drug Administration will be empowered to deal with America's top death product the same way it polices everything from cereal to dog food to lipstick. Kind of makes sense...given the fact that cigarettes are the only consumer product that kills its customers when used as directed.
It took 12 years to achieve what should have been a slam-dunk decision all along. During those 12 years of congressional dithering, nearly 5.3 million Americans died prematurely from the deleterious health effects of smoking - a Centers for Disease Control figure that includes roughly 600,000 premature deaths attributable to second-hand smoke. During those 12 years, tobacco-related health woes burdened the nation's health care system to the tune of roughly $1 trillion.
Obviously, the human and monetary toll won't be magically wiped out by the FDA. But the FDA will surely make a measurable dent; the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has already estimated that the law will slash youth smoking by 11 percent over the next decade (because the feds will finally be able to substantively crack down on the marketing trickery aimed at kids), and cut adult smoking over the decade by two percent. And the higher cost of smoking could be a further disincentive; the law slaps a new fee on every pack, as high as six cents, with the money specifically earmarked for the FDA oversight program.
On the national level, this is by far the most significant anti-smoking victory since the government banned smoking on commercial flights 19 years ago. There have been few such major victories during the decades since the Surgeon General conclusively linked cigarettes to lung cancer back in '64, due largely to the financial and political power the tobacco industry. So now that the FDA will finally have the authority to (among other things) order the cigarette-makers to cut their nicotine levels and actually provide details about their chemical ingredients, it's worth pondering how much the politics of tobacco has changed - for the better - these past 12 years.
I covered the politics of tobacco extensively during the late '90s, shuttling to and from Washington, and my notes and stories tell the tale:
After the FDA sought to assert authority over tobacco in 1996 (arguing that nicotine was a drug, and hence within its jurisdiction), there was a congressional push for legislation that would specifically empower the agency. The '97 Senate effort was led in part by John McCain (this was during his maverick phase), with the Clinton administration giving aid and encouragement. But the Republican-led Senate ultimately blocked it. There was much speechifying about how Big Brother should not be allowed to meddle with big tobacco, but the real deal was obvious at the time. In the 10 years between 1987 and 1997, the industry had pumped $12,965,070 into national GOP coffers - four times the amount given to Democrats.
During the spring of 1998, there was a brief flicker of conscience - with the off-year elections looming, Republicans got worried that they might be tarred as shills for the death merchants - and so, for awhile anyway, it appeared that the FDA authority language would pass. The Republicans' internal polling even showed that 82 percent of Americans supported the regulation of nicotine.
But in the end, the Republican Senate killed it again. The party's elected leaders calculated that, with respect to those '98 congressional elections, their top priority was to nurture the conservative voters who dislike government regulation. As Ethan Siegal, a Washington economist analyst tracking the politics of tobacco, told me at the time, "There is a strong group of Senate Republicans that sees this bill as the antithesis of what Republicans were elected to do - downsize government."
The stalemate continued through the George W. Bush years; even if Congress had voted to grant authority to the FDA, President Bush made it clear that he would have refused to sign it. (I know, you're shocked.) Partly because of Bush's stance, FDA authority language was stipped out of a tobacco reform bill at the eleventh hour in 2004.
But times have changed, and not just because this Congress and this White House are more amenable to cracking down on big tobacco. Philip Morris USA, the number one tobacco producer, has cleverly played the Machiavelli card, choosing to support the bill; it has calculated that its less successful, less well-heeled competitors won't be able to catch up if the FDA is breathing on their necks - whereas Philip Morris has the superior lab resources, thus enabling it to most easily meet fed directives for safer tobacco products. Moreover, Philip Morris' parent, Altria, Inc., has decided that it would be good for its image to be seen as a responsible corporate citizen.
Also, the aforementioned financial impact of tobacco on the already-stressed health care system has helped sway minds on Capitol Hill. Also, some tobacco-state lawmakers are less resistant than they used to be, because now there are fewer tobacco farmers to defend (due in part to a new federal buyout program that has encouraged tobacco farmers to switch to other crops; to Bush's credit, he signed that law).
And despite the fact that 17 senators voted No yesterday on FDA empowerment, there is finally broad philosophical agreement that government should be empowered to police cigarettes, with minimal protests that such a concept is tantamount to "socialism." (Although 16 of the 17 No votes were cast by Republicans, 23 Republican colleagues did vote Yes.) This bipartisan trend was arguably foreshadowed back in February 2007, when religious conservative leader Richard Land testified at a Senate hearing. He's hardly your typical FDA kind of guy - yet this time he argued that federal policing of cigarettes should be viewed as "a moral imperative."
Land continued: "We find it incredible that the FDA can ensure the safety of everyday items like cold medicines, cookies, and even dog food, but has no authority over tobacco, a product that causes more preventable deaths than any other...No one wants too much government regulation. What we are asking for is not overly burdensome; it would simply assure the protection of consumers, particularly our children...We are simply asking that tobacco products be subject to the same common-sense rules that apply to other products."
As Ethan Siegal warned me in May 1998, when the FDA effort tanked again in the Senate, "The whole push for reform is going to die a thousand deaths before passage. And right now, we're only at number 732." For the sake of our public health, it's a relief that we've finally closed the gap.
I enjoyed reading your post and the long history you have had covering the tobacco story. The main problem with the FDA regulating tobacco is that cigarettes really have no benefit, while most other things the FDA regulates have some benefit. Even alcohol, such as red wine, can have a health benefit if used in moderation. There is no "beneficial" level of cigarettes. As an FDA regulator, I would be somewhat nervous regulating a product which has no upside. How do I define what is an "acceptable" level of a harmful compound? That being said, the ability of the FDA to regulate marketing and disclosure of ingredients could be useful, both points which you make in your post. Further research examining what compounds in cigarettes are most addictive or harmful, and ways to decrease those levels would also be helpful. In addition, I also hope this new mandate will significantly reduce the tobacco industries' decades-long war against science and its abhorrent attempts to obfuscate the issue through their quasi-science attempts to legitimize tobacco.— Nalaka- "Can any of you put more than two sentences together? Or one thought?" No...if I were you I'd leave right now.— legatus
- Phrossty says, "We should be free to commit slow suicide with personal choices." Not if others have to pay for it.— Djoko Pritza
- "And then when does personhood begin?" At conception. "The choice of live birth is largely to provide certainty as to the moment when a new human life begins." If a human exists, its life has begun. Why do you need to know the moment that it began? "If it is moved to conception how can the date and time of this be determined?" Why does it matter. For any legalities beyond the most basic right...the right to life...we can still use the birthdate. (I have to go now...I'll be back later. Don't want you to think that I was intimidated by your clearly superior and more rational intellect. I'll see if I can muddle through this debate with ya...LOL!)— legatus
- liberal, I'm not sure when to apply personhood. I'm not comfortable with seeing a live birth of a 35 week old fetus and being faced with the idea that 4 seconds earlier, it wasn't a person.— JimR
- tpsyogaqueen writes: "I haven't read anything bad from you regarding democrats." Quennie, Polman has written plenty critical of the Dems, but not nearly as much as of Republicans. Are you one of those politically correct types who think to be an objective journalist you have write 50 percent on one side and 50 percent on the other? Or are you just not very observant?— Djoko Pritza
- lib, aside from the law, if you have seen an ultrasound of a baby at 6 or 7 or 8 months, it is hard to say it is not a human being! I would say viability outside the womb would be a good starting point. I have said before any abortion after 4 1/2 months should be outlawed unless the mothers life is truly in danger!— NEPhilly
- jward, feel free to stick with the Repubs. We don't want you to throw anything out of joint.— Djoko Pritza
- lib/djoko, how about that Chris Dodd and his wife? He should recuse himself from the debate, not be leading it! And releasing his financial info late on Friday afternoon is classic, slimy Wash DC at its best! What say you?— NEPhilly
- jmc, you're views are distorted ("I hate smoking more than anybody I know, but I hate government infringement on liberty more.") Smokers infringe the liberty of those around them who don't want to breathe secondhand smoke. If smokers are smart enough to quit and stop harming others, who's going to do it?— Djoko Pritza
- NEP, I agree. Dodd has married badly. If he's a Catholic, can he get a divorce?— Djoko Pritza
- djoko, I think it is his wife who married badly :) He can divorce as a Catholic, he just has to pay up for the annulment!— NEPhilly
- lib [[Can those people who want to redefine personhood to include the unborn (changing thousands of years of settled law) explain why?]] Thousands of years? Really? And where exactly did you get this number from? I am personally against abortion, but do feel that it is a personal decision to be made. My biggest problem is that it can not be properly regulated. Fathers are no where in the process, parents are not either. But to say thousands of years? you are not helping your argument.— DadofThree
- Obama's an affirmative action kiddie too.— MaggieL
- NEP, we finally agree! The Dodds should divorce! I'm going out to celebrate (our agreement, not their divorce).— Djoko Pritza
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
