Tobacco.org

Tobacco BBS -- Critique of CLinton

Dole vs. Clinton, as reflected on the Tobacco BBS

I want to first point out my position on this issue--I am very anti-tobacco and would not mind to see the industry's demise.

My issue is with the treatment of Bob Dole vs Bill Clinton. Most articles are very much against Dole, and I agree absolutely. However, I hardly ever read a single negative word on Clinton. In fact, many times the articles are supportive of him and the Democratic party. I suspect that this is because people genuinely believe that Clinton is anti-tobacco.

Why is this so? I feel he is almost as pro-tobacco as Dole. Think about it. He talks tough about tobacco, but has done so only later in his term. Also, he and Gore has taken tobacco money before. Currently, the Democratic party is still taking tobacco money. I know that they've said something like "we take it, but we're not bought buy it." I disagree strongly. If everything goes with Clinton's plan, there will still be millions of smokers. Millions of people would still be free to start smoking each year. Many of Clinton's proposals seem like mere public relations lies.

For example, he only started his most vicious attacks on tobacco after 1994, when the Republican congress was elected (I am implying he knew that his proposals would never pass Congress). Also, given his legal background, I find it surprising that his solutions for tobacco is several proposals he knows would be struck down by the Supreme Court if they ever went into law (such as restriction of ads to black and white, no name brand sponsorship of sporting events). This is re-affirmed by the latest FDA proposals sent to Congress which Clinton says he will sign. Why did the FDA and Clinton submit something they KNOW will be tied up in the courts for years, maybe decades (ad limits to black & white, text only)? They knew that the vending machine ban was more practical, but consciously tied it to completely illogical solutions. So, in the end, they will have a big show about how they tried to stop tobacco, but couldn't.

What's my opinion summed up? I feel that Big Tobacco is orchestrating this dance between BOTH Republicans and Democrats to give the illusion that they are under attack. Having both sides well under control, they know that nothing damaging to the industry will happen. A telltale piece of evidence ... Mickey Cantor, Clinton's trade rep, was very busy opening up foreign markets to tobacco, many times threatening trade sanctions. Mickey in fact started as trade rep under Bush and Republicans. Clinton decided to keep him on. Only AFTER all the major markets were opened up (the US tobacco companies now have access to 90% of smokers, up from 40% just seven years ago), did the official policy change. I do not believe that Clinton was unaware of this as it happened. Even if he wasn't, he surely knows by now. Yet, after Ron Brown's tragedy, Cantor was promoted and given nothing but praise. Why would Clinton do this unless he was a part of the public relations show?

So please, see through all the smokescreen (no pun intended) that the tobacco industry is throwing up about a so called war between the two parties over smoking. They are both pro-tobacco! Nothing proposed will actually pass (and they know it). Even if it does, it will have so little an effect on smoking it would be unnoticable. Do we really believe that no more Joe Camel=no more teen smokers? Get real! Teenagers all over the world (including Americans pre-Joe Camel) have started smoking in absence of those slick ads.

If anyone wishes to discuss this issue with me, please feel free to contact me.

Search News