FDA Editorial Watch


FDA EDITORIAL WATCH

  • On July 13, 1995, the press reported the Food and Drug Administration had determined that nicotine was a drug, and that tobacco products should be regulated as nictoine delivery devices. Though the FDA could act on its own, it sent to President Clinton a set of initial suggestions for curbing the use of tobacco products by minors.

  • On August 10, 1995, President Clinton announced his intention to allow the FDA to assume regulation of tobacco, and presented a detailed set of proposals aimed at preventing the use of tobacco products by minors. The proposals would create strict limits on the advertising, sale and distribution of cigarettes.

  • On Sept. 6, 1995, Rep. David Funderburk (R-NC) introduced the "Motor Sports Protection Act," which would specifically prevent federal enforcement of advertising or promotion restrictions in the case of tobacco companies which sponsor auto racing events.

  • On Sept. 21, 1995, Senate Minority Whip Wendell Ford (D-KY) introduced youth access legislation which would specificaly disallow FDA regulation of tobacco.

* = Recent Update

Vincent J. Bufalino, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, October 31, 1995

Nearly every adult, adolescent or child for that matter can look at a tobacco image ad, such as Joe Camel, compare it with a tobacco company's full page print ad that claims they don't want kids to smoke, such as those currently running in major national newspapers, and tell you which one packs more punch for young people.

When it comes to marketing tobacco products to children, the tobacco industry's actions speak louder than its words. . . .

Tobacco company documents, reported in the national media, show that the tobacco industry has been tailoring its products and its marketing campaigns to young people for years. . . .

President Clinton and the Federal Drug Administration have a proposal to reduce the access and appeal of tobacco to children. Millions of Americans from more than 100 national medical, religious, children's, teachers' and health organizations support this proposal as part of a Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. . . .

"The campaign is also supported by a coalition of Republican and Democratic members of Congress who have signed a 'Commitment to Reduce the Access and Appeal of Tobacco to Children.' We believe our entire congressional delegation has a responsibility to support the FDA proposal and join this bipartisan coalition and the millions of Americans who want to stop the tobacco industry from selling and marketing tobacco products to children."

Rance Crain, ADVERTISING AGE, October 30, 1995

The advertising industry is intent on proving that advertising doesn't workThe ad business is hurting itself by carrying the cigarette people's luggage. . . .

[W]hy should the advertising industry use up its good credit protecting an industry that is cynically using advertising to divert its critics? . . . .

[T]he front-page article in the Wall Street Journal the other week detailing how the cigarette companies add ammonia-based compounds to enhance the impact of the nicotine makes me realize that they will do anything to sell their product.

Eventually, their brazen excesses will lead to their demise, and I don't want to see the advertising industry go down with them."

Don Feder, BOSTON HERALD, October 25, 1995

[Conservatives] are not supposed to talk about the impact of smoking or children or the fact that advertising plays a key role in the tragedy.

We're for the free market. We're anti-regulation. . . When it comes to teens and tobacco, however, the dogmatic applications of these otherwise sound principles defies logic. Conservatism should be reality-based.

I too worry about government becoming the national nanny, telling us exactly what to ingest and mandating a health regimen. But here we're talking about children courting death.

Conservative defenders of the tobacco industry are put in the untenable position of arguing that when a school gives a condom to a teen, it sends a pro-promiscuity message; when Hollywood makes a slasher movie, it glorifies violence; but when cigarette companies promote their products as hip, cool, macho etc. . . . and give away gear with obvious adolescent appeal -- it has zero impact.

Bit of a consistency problem, no?

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, October 19, 1995

Coming as it does on the heels of evidence that tobacco ads specifically target young people, a new study [from the University of California] showing that marketing is the most powerful influence on teen smokers provides potent grounds for regulation of cigarette advertising. . . .

When in doubt, the inclination should be to opt for less government interference. But the tobacco companies leave no doubt they are working against the best health interests of American youth. And their promises that they will regulate themselves ring hollow and belie past behavior."

(New Bedford) STANDARD TIMES, October 19, 1995

In light of these new revelations [recently exposed industry documents from the 70s], for the tobacco industry to act as though it treats nicotine as just another flavor element is like a teen-ager saying he reads PLAYBOY for the articles. The tobacco industry, which has killed more people with its product than were killed in the Holocaust, will eventually be called to account, and all of its pieties about 'choosing' to smoke, and lies about keeping cigarettes out of the hands of minors, will pale in comparison to the price the industry will pay in the end.

Documents such as the latest ones are what will give people like Dr. Kessler the courage to face the coming fight.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, October 3, 1995

[The FDA's proposed tobacco regulations] could help to counteract the notion among kids that smoking is fun, harmless, and socially acceptable. For years, the tobacco industry has promoted this point of view. The FDA should be supported in its efforts to refute it.

(New York) DAILY NEWS, October 19, 1995

New evidence has emerged that tobacco companies lace cigarets with chemicals to boost nicotine delivery. The revelations -- which fly in the face of the companies' denials -- should be the final, damning proof that Big Tobacco can't be trusted. . .

Ironically, the evidence comes to light at the same time the Food and Drug Administration has extended for two months public comment on tough rules aimed at stopping cigaret companies from pitching their products at kids. Before the two months are up, 180,000 kids will have started smoking. A third will eventually die of tobacco-related illness. . .

Americans already know the truth about tobacco and smoking. That any comment period should exist is ridiculous. To extend it only plays into the hands of death merchants.

JAMES BOVARD, WASHINGTON TIMES, September 30, 1995

While the news media focuses on the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler's assault on tobacco, new evidence has come out on the FDA's deadly effects on cancer patients. . . .

Congress must slash the FDA's power to suppress medical innovation and end Dr. Kessler's assault on the First Amendment. The longer that Congress postpones decimating the FDA's power, the more Americans will be victims of the FDA's delays

James Bovard is the author of the book, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty

*DALLAS MORNING NEWS, September 28, 1995

The tobacco industry says it is concerned about solving the problem of underage smoking in America.

But recently submitted legislation, which has the industry's support, does little to address the real issue of marketing tobacco products to young people.

The bill introduced by Sen. Wendell Ford, D-Ky, pales in comparison to the strong regulations proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Here are a few examples of the glaring differences:

Mr. Ford's bill prohibits billboard advertising for cigarettes or smokeless tobacco within 500 feet of schools. But highway billboards facing away from schools are exempted. The FDA wants a total ban on outdoor advertising of tobacco products within 1,000 feet of schools.

Mr. Ford's bill requires tobacco vending machines to be in plain view and supervision of store operators. The FDA wants tobacco sales to be made face-to-face, thus eliminating vending machine sales.

The senator's bill limits free samples or coupons for cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. But coupons still could be placed in magazines if 85 percent of the subscribers were over the age of 18. And it places no limits in areas where underage people are not permitted. The FDA's plan would prohibit the distribution of free samples of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. Period.

The senator's bill would require states to make it unlawful to sell tobacco products to anyone under age 18 in order to receive drug abuse block grants. The FDA places the onus on the sellers, requiring them to verify the purchasers' age through photo ID cards.

Mr. Ford's measure bans tobacco brand names on video games and at family amusement centers. The FDA would ban the use of cigarette and smokeless tobacco brand names on any nontobacco item.

The senator's bill would deny the FDA the right to regulate tobacco products. The FDA would treat nicotine in tobacco as an addictive drug that would require regulation. And the federal agency would seek $150 million annually from the tobacco industry for education programs aimed at youthful customers.

The crisis of underage smoking in this nation won't be solved with half-measures such as Mr. Ford's bill. . .

Congress should weigh in on the side of the Food and Drug Administration. Americans must have something better than legislation that still leaves gaping loopholes for the tobacco industry to market its products to the young.

THE (Raleigh, NC) NEWS AND OBSERVER, September 14, 1995.

Rep. David Funderburk would do his constituents and accuracy a favor if he would call his 'Motor Sports Protection Act' what it really is: the 'R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Protection Act.' . .

Clinton's wise and well-meaning efforts to curtail teenage smoking would not force Reynolds to stop sponsoring races. All that would be required is a simple name change from Winston Cup to Reynolds Cup. But tobacco executives don't want to do that because they know that kids watch racing and they know that brand name advertising works on kids. . . .

The fight is not about saving racing and it never has been. For Funderburk and Richard Petty, a former champion who knows better but who's been blinded by Republican campaign ambitions, to scare race fans into thinking that mean Bill Clinton wants to put the brakes on their excitement is just plain old political expediency.

CONSUMER REPORTS, October 1995

We support the President's proposal. It could make a serious dent in the tobacco industry's ability to recruit young new smokers. We especially support its requirement that retailers demand photo identification before selling cigarettes to young-looking customers. Vigorous enforcement of that requirement by state and local authorities would surely help end the plague of teen smoking.

USA TODAY, September 20, 1995

Like them or loathe them, tobacco companies should be free to peddle their wares. If they choose to make that sales pitch on the sides of race cars whizzing around a track or on the backs of pit crews, that's their business -- as long as they make no false claims. . .

And it's not just sports advertising that will fall under FDA's proposed rules. . . . it wants to dictate the form tobacco ads in publications with youth readerships of more than 15 percent -- black and white, words only, no illustrations. . .

If you really want kids not to smoke, give them the facts. Make cigarettes harder for minor to buy. But don't waste time on contrived schemes that will do no good.

JOE CHERNER, USA TODAY, September 20, 1995

Cigarettes are not entirely a legal product. They are illegal to sell to children, illegal to use in most public places and illegal to advertise on television and radio. Call them what they are: a semilegal, cancer-causing, addictive drug. . . .

When cigarette advertising was banned on television, there were rumors that the tobacco cartel would circumvent the ban by sponsoring televised sporting events such as auto racing or women's tennis. The tobacco cartel swore it would never do anything so deceitful and promised to obey the letter and spirit of the law.

During the two-hour telecast of the Marlboro Grand Prix, the Marlboro logo appears on screen almost 6,000 times. . . .

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED FOR KIDS gives out Marlboro race- car trading cards. Other youth magazines, such as ROLLING STONE, feature full-page ads of popular race-car drivers dressed in Marlboro uniforms in front of Marlboro cars. . . .

By sponsoring auto racing, the tobacco cartel violates its own voluntary code, which says it will not use athletes to promote smoking. The cartel adopts such voluntary codes to head off legislation, knowing full well that there is no penalty for a violating voluntary code. That's why the Clinton administration is right -- we need government action. . . .

CHICAGO TRIBUNE, September 14, 1995

Not long ago, President Clinton declared war on teenage tobacco smoking, vowing to cut its use in half within seven years. The same campaign, conducted with equal zeal and power, should be waged against marijuana and other illicit drugs.

DONNA SHALALA & DAVID KESSLER, CHARLOTTE (North Carolina) OBSERVER, September 3, 1995

[Donna Shalala is the Secretary of Health and Human Services David Kessler is the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration]

Today, more than 3,000 young Americans became regular smokers. They lit a slow burning fire in their lungs by taking a few puffs of a cigarette -- and that will lead to another cigarette, and another one, and another one. . . .

Tobacco addiction is a pediatric disease that must be stopped. . . .

Even though it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, more than 80 percent of adult smokers lit their first cigarette before their 18th birthday. And more than 50 percent became regular smokers by that time.

First, we propose to reduce children's easy access to tobacco products. Building on state laws proven to be only partially effective, we would shut down avenues by which cigarettes end up in children's hands. . . .

Second, we propose to limit the appeal of cigarettes, chewing tobacco and other tobacco products.

Children face a barrage of advertisements that glamorize smoking as cool, sexy and grown-up. . . . We do not propose to ban all tobacco advertising, but would change the rules to put power back in the hands of parents.

Because parents have no control over the pro-smoking messages their children see outside the home, outdoor tobacco advertising such as signs and billboards would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds. . . .

As a society, we must send clear and consistent messages to young people: Tobacco is dangerous and addictive. It is not cool or OK. It is not respectful of one's body. Don't start using tobacco, and if you have, stop right away.

There's no question, the president's bold initiative is smart public-health policy. The health-care costs associated with tobacco use totaled a staggering $50 billion in 1993.

More important, it's the right thing to do. Seven in 10 young Americans who smoke say they regret having started. We have a chance to save a generation from a lifetime of addiction.

RICHARD BURR (R-NC), CHARLOTTE (North Carolina) OBSERVER, September 3, 1995

The crux of this debate is not whether we should limit youth access to tobacco products, but rather how to accomplish this worthy goal. . .

I am alarmed by the devastating effects additional regulations will have on the farmers and manufacturers of tobacco products in my district. I cannot understand why the president believes a government bureaucracy is more effective than parents. . .

Today the villain is tobacco. Tomorrow, chocolate, caffeine and fatty foods could be the next convenient foe. . . .

Through the combined efforts of parents, the tobacco industry and government, proper enforcement of the laws prohibiting minors' access to tobacco would be much more effective. In addition, the tobacco industry has already instituted multimillion dollar campaigns aimed at telling kids that smoking is an adult choice.

I have seen firsthand the horrors of the ineptitude and mismanagement of the FDA. The FDA also lags behind most countries in approving lifesaving drugs, with a current approval process that takes an average of an amazing 14.8 years. . . .

The FDA's core mission is to approve pharmaceuticals and medical devices and to protect food safety. Period. As one of my colleagues in the House of Representatives eloquently pointed out, to give the FDA regulatory authority over the marketing and advertising of tobacco is 'like asking the Navy to run the Department of Agriculture'. . . .

Tangible efforts were made to craft a solution creating a partnership between parents, government and business rather than allowing the government to act as the nation's nanny. Parenting should be done by parents, not bureaucrats. . .

President Clinton's willingness to send children and smoking into an endless legal quagmire lends credibility to the armchair policy analysis of the tobacco farmers in my district -- that the president's plan is to limit or ban all smoking.

DANVERS (Mass.) HERALD, August 31, 1995

Clinton . . . should look at the tactics Massachusetts has adopted to combat teen smoking . . .

The Massachusetts Department of Health, with the help of the 25-cent-per-pack cigarette tax, has crafted an effective anti-smoking campaign. It combines dramatic advertising with education programs and funding for local anti-smoking programs. . .

Instead of getting tangled up in legal fights over new advertising restrictions, Clinton would do better to propose a federal tax on cigarettes, and funnel that money to anti- smoking advertising and education campaigns on the local level.

CAMBRIDGE (Mass.) CHRONICLE, August 31, 1995

Cigarette companies have had free rein to lure generation after generation into this world of addiction and eventual disease. The federal government's move to cut teen-agers off from cigarettes is long overdue. . . .

The image of cigarette smoking must be stripped of its glamour, severed from its long marriage to sports tournaments and feeling young and 'springtime fresh.If you weigh into this battle, remember one thing: Smokers are not the enemy. The cigarette companies are the bad guys."

PHILIP TERZIAN, WASHINGTON TIMES, August 31, 1995

Since the regulatory function of the federal government is in retreat, its surviving adherents have grown passionate about smoking, an easy target. FDA Commissioner David Kessler, anxious as always to stay in the news, has persuaded our cigar-smoking President Clinton to declare nicotine a drug, and impose all manner of intrusive restrictions and criminal liabilities on consumers of cigarettes and chewing tobacco. . .

This is a matter of regret to me, as one who still misses cigarette ads on TV. . . . For out of the dozens of different types of cigarettes, drawing some distinctions required extraordinary feats of creativity in what must have been the golden age of Madison Avenue. . . . "

SUE RUSCHE, USA TODAY, August 30, 1995

Take a good look at your children. Worried that your grade-schoolers will be exposed to drugs? Tired of tobacco companies pushing Joe Camel in their faces?. . . .

You should be scared to death.

Just when teen-age drinking and drug use are rising again, the U.S. House is dismantling the infrastructure that reduced adolescent drug use by two-thirds between 1979 and 1992.

The tobacco industry responded to President Clinton's regulations to reduce teen-age smoking by filing suit to tie them up in court for years. . .

Local drug-prevention efforts are financed primarily by the federal government. Who else is going to pay for prevention -- the Cali cartel? R.J. Reynolds? Miller Beer? . . .

It is legal for these industries to finance campaigns, take lawmakers on junkets and lobby Congress to kill federal agencies and non-profits that place a higher priority on kids' lives than on bottom lines. . . . money talks and big money talks loudest, drowning out the voice of the electorate. . . .

RI'CHARD MAGEE, SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, Aug. 29, 1995

Many young people take the threat of cancer in 20 or 30 years lightly because they don't plan on being around that long. With death coming frequently and in many forms, from AIDS to violence, the long-term dangers of cigarettes are not a pressing concern for teens who simply can't imagine themselves in 20 years.

Smoking in this context isn't a passive act, a succumbing to constant peer pressure in order to be part of the "in crowd." It's an act of despair. . .

If the president is serious about freeing young people from tobacco addiction, he's got to find ways to help them imagine a future.

Ri'Chard Magee is on the staff of YO! (Youth Outlook), a newspaper by and about Bay Area teens produced by Pacific News Service.

DR. ROBERT LESSLIE, THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, August 29, 1995

One of the reasons teenagers give for smoking is that "everybody's doing it." Their erroneous perception, based partly on effective advertising, marketing and brainwashing, is that the majority of teenagers are currently smoking. "If everybody's doing it, it must be OK." The reality is that only 25-30 percent of them smoke. . .

With my extensive parental wisdom, I decided to test this hypothesis on my 18-year-old. Surely she knows that smokers, even teenage smokers, are in the minority. She will know that most of her peers don't smoke.

So I asked her. How many teenagers in this country smoke?" Her response: "Oh, probably 80 percent. Maybe more."

Doggone it. How do you compete with Joe Camel? . . .

Clinton's critics claim his intrusive proposed efforts will have little effect on teenage smoking. But if only one unnecessary death is prevented, will the effort be worth it?

What if that one death is that of your father, healthy three months ago, now dying painfully with lung cancer? Or your 40-year- old son, suffering the ravages of mouth and throat cancer, having endured two disfiguring surgeries of his face? Or your spouse, confined to a bed, chained to an oxygen tank, slowly suffocating with emphysema?

DENNIS WITTMER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, August 26, 1995

One of the major functions of government is to protect public safety, especially when individuals or firms do not regulate themselves.

the bottom line is that tobacco firms do have a special ethical and social responsibility to our youth. When self-regulation is not demonstrated by firms and our youth are at risk, government intervention is warranted for the public good.

Dennis Wittmer [is] a professor in the Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1995

President Clinton has finally found an industry he can bash without it being hazardous to his political health. . .

In principle Mr. Clinton has a point: Surely cigarette smoking is bad for you and for society, and public policy should seek to minimize it. Yet his specific proposals would be further government-imposed nuisances . . .

The big problem with Mr. Clinton's plan is that it's going to be run by a federal government that doesn't currently have much moral capital. . . It has abandoned Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign of the '80s in favor of concentrating on hard-core drug users. The use of hard drugs among teens dropped under the earlier approach, and is now increasing. Indeed, we suspect the increase in both tobacco and drugs reflect a moral aura to which the White House has contributed no little.

The way to keep kids off cigarettes is the same way to keep them off marijuana or cocaine: Persuade them that it's a bad idea--that in the long run cigarettes kill and in the short run are a disgusting habit. While there certainly is a role for government-particularly in setting the moral tone, such a campaign is probably better left to civic culture. If President Clinton really wants to curb smoking instead of merely making political points, he might call tobacco to the attention of the private groups dealing rather well, thank you, with drunken driving, TV violence and gangsta rap.

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, August 23, 1995

Smoking takes years off your life, and if tobacco didn't contain nicotine, almost no one would smoke. The tobacco companies know this, but weasel out of saying so outright. . . .

The [FDA] isn't doing a great job at its real job. . . Why add a job it has no hope of doing well? . . . .

. . . These attempts to make regulators or the courts 'solve' the problem let us dodge a hard truth: Smoking won't stop unless smokers, and their loved ones and communities, take responsibility. . . .

Smart, or just plain honest, Republicans should start inoculating themselves against the charge of being soft on tobacco by backing tactics more effective than those proposed by Clinton -- by backing national education efforts, by making it easier for communities to fight smoking and by joining the fight in their own homes."

DR. ELIZABETH M. WHELAN, GREENWICH TIME, August 23, 1995

. . . the Clinton plan is more symbolism than substance. . .

Instead of blowing smoke (as President Clinton is doing), and instead of defending the tobacco industry (as the Republicans seem to be doing), we should mount a bipartisan effort to get to the heart of the problem: the exemption from the burden of corporate responsibility that the U.S. Congress gave to the tobacco industry in 1965.

When Congress voted to place the mandated government warning label on cigarettes (a move that was largely orchestrated by the tobacco industry), the industry received a priceless gift: freedom from the responsibility to be accountable for the health effects of their product.

Since then the industry has argued (and its position has been largely supported in the courts) that when Congress mandated the "health" warning that preempted the industry's responsibility to warn about the dangers of cigarettes as the manufacturers of any other product would be legally required to do.

Thus, lawsuits brought against the industry have unanimously failed because the tobacco companies enjoy a Teflon-like protection from lawsuits.

The threat of litigation is a powerful incentive for keeping an industry honest -- and for keeping that industry aware of its obligation to be totally up front with consumers about the dangers of its product. But cigarette manufacturers, legally unaccountable, to date have had no incentive whatsoever to be honest. Our society has been waging a phantom war on cigarette smoking for more than 30 years. The Clinton announcement is an extension of that illusory battle. . .

Instead of tilting at regulatory windmills, the president and Congress should remove the government label on cigarettes, allow litigation to level the playing field, and treat tobacco companies as they treat all other corporations.

When tobacco companies are held responsible for the consequences of their actions they will be forced, in their own interest, to take effective measures to ensure: a) that underage teens do not buy their product (if they do, the tobacco company, not the teens or the vendors, should be held legally responsible); b) that advertising, if it continues at all, is free of images that conflict with the reality of disease and death; and c) that all smokers or prospective smokers are given the nitty-gritty facts about smoking, addiction, disease and death.

[Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health]

JOSEPH PERKINS, NEW YORK POST, August 23, 1995

. . . authentic civil libertarians ought to be alarmed by President Clinton's politically transparent campaign to reduce -- he says -- teen-age smoking. . . The president's real aim is to kill the cigarette industry through draconian government regulation. And he's using kids as a smokescreen. . . The only remaining step is a de facto ban on cigarettes . . .

[T]he average American teen-ager is far too sophisticated to be duped into smoking because some advertising display features a cartoon.

If the government can get away with trampling on the tobacco industry's flee-speech rights, . . . it will be that much easier for the government to limit the rights and freedom of other industries and individuals that it vilifies.

MALCOLM WALLOP, WASHINGTON TIMES, AUGUST 22, 1995

Dr. Kessler is a man with a mission, and it isn't our safety. It's to increase the size and scope of the Food and Drug Administration, establish an FDA police force, create a regulatory nightmare for any company looking to make a profit, and withhold drugs from people who desperately need them to save their very lives. There you have the real power. Look out, Mr. President, Dr. Kessler, with your blessing, is playing God. . . .

The American people will see this tobacco assault for what it really is -- the government, once again, telling us what to do and what is best for us.Whether you like smoking or find it thoroughly disgusting, step back and look at the totality of what is being done. must Americans give up their First Amendment rights simply because a liberal president and big-government bureaucrat say we must? Surely not.

Our job now as citizens, smokers or non- smokers, is to work within the political system to vote out of office those who believe our Constitution counts for nothing.

(Malcolm Wallop is an ex-U.S. Senator)

SAMUEL FRANCIS, WASHINGTON TIMES, August 22, 1995

Obviously, Joe Camel ads, Virginia Slims ads and billboard ads for cigarettes are not observed for minors only, or even by minors mainly. None of them depicts teenagers or even dwells on subjects adored by teenagers. . . . The ads are aimed at 20-somethings who want to attract Significant Others ...

The point [of the proposed regulations], as with most of what Mr. Clinton does, is to enhance the power of the federal government over private life. Misleading ads, the health and welfare of teen-agers and indeed the health and welfare of grown-ups have nothing to do with it. It has to do with power.

The tobacco companies boast of how much they're already doing to prevent teens from smoking . . . They readily grant the premises of the superstitions Mr. Clinton then wields against them, and when he or his successors do use federal power to outlaw tobacco completely, they and their few furtive customers will wonder what happened.

JEFFREY HART, WASHINGTON TIMES, August 21, 1995

There is now little doubt that we are witnessing a tidal tug toward a new prohibition, in which tobacco and alcohol are the targets. . . Any war on tobacco is doomed to fail. There are not enough police to enforce it. Like Prohibition, even more so, it will be a shambles. Like Prohibition, it will increase the prestige of smoking. The nation will be awash in tobacco, as it is in drugs.

A.C. SNOW, (RALEIGH, NC) NEWS AND OBSERVER, AUGUST 20, 1995

If the government and society can't begin to stop 12-year-olds from bringing unwanted babies into the world, it's not likely to make inroads against a habit that held me hostage as a two-packs- a-day smoker for more years than I care to remember.

It's true that I may have stopped earlier or never begun if we had been told then what is gospel now: cigarettes are deadly.

But I can't swear that would have been the case. To most teenagers, death seems as remote as the dimmest star. . . .

MARK GREEN, WASHINGTON POST, August 20, 1995

The industry argues that tobacco advertising is protected First Amendment speech. But once the FDA has classified nicotine as a drug, it has every right to restrict advertising of products containing the drug. . . .

Indeed, courts have held that if the state has the power to ban a harmful activity or dangerous product, it can certainly take the less onerous action of restricting its advertising. 'Commercial speech' has never enjoyed the same constitutional protection as 'political speech' -- hence all the laws against false and deceptive advertising. Commercial speech can be restricted to advance a compelling state interest if the ban is narrowly tailored. . .

Tobacco isn't coffee, but a proven killer. Smoking isn't a choice but an addiction. And the administration's policy aims at children who cannot appreciate the long-term health dangers. . . .

JAMES A. BARNES, NATIONAL JOURNAL, August 19, 1995

Clinton's anti-smoking initiative may be at odds with some of his antiregulatory rhetoric, and it's likely to engender the wrath of the smoking public, but at least his intentions are sound -- to discourage teenagers from taking up cigarettes and other tobacco products. . . ."

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, NEW YORK POST, August 14, 1995 :

. If I were a stockholder in tobacco companies, I would pray fervently that they lose these suits.

If they win, they will reap the harvest of a million or so teenagers who might otherwise have refused themselves the use of cigarettes. But the tobacco industry might then face a population enraged that existing law prohibits earnest efforts to protect teen-agers from developing habits that can be mortal.

If that stage is reached, the tobacco companies will be in real trouble.

Steve Parrish, senior vice president of corporate affairs for Philip Morris, contended that the "hidden agenda" of the FDA was to prohibit cigarette smoking by adults. That line of argument is what lawyers call the "slippery slope," as in: if you outlaw pornography, the next thing you know you will he outlawing James Joyce.

. . . Here and there one hears of proposals to tax a pack of cigarettes by $1, $2, $5. . . . A comprehensive campaign against cigarettes could go in that direction, without any obstacle in the First Amendment.

. . . It is in the interests of the tobacco companies to permit Clinton his intervention. The part of his program that calls for banning advertising especially designed to attract teen lust might be challenged on constitutional grounds, but again, this is not a judicial contest the tobacco industry should want to be seen as winning. The other side can come up with 300,000 corpses the harvest of a million or teenagers dispatched by Philip Morris

NEW YORK POST, August 14, 1995

"Clinton has undoubtedly discovered that it's easier to thunder about the malign consequences of teen-age smoking than to deal with the infinitely more severe and complex social problems created, for example, by the teen pregnancy epidemic

. . . the President's war on cigarettes . . . represents an utterly inappropriate and punitive attack on a legal American business.

. . . Why not just enforce existing laws?

. . . Why isn't the President waging a war on booze?

. . .The link between AIDS and homosexual conduct is as strong as the link between smoking and lung cancer. Yet . . Clinton is silent. Why?

. . Instead of pursuing difficult targets, the President has decided to concentrate his energies on an industry based in a region he's unlikely to carry in 1996.

PLAYTHELL BENJAMIN, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, August 15, 1995

President Clinton is right in calling for serious restrictions on the promotion of cigaret smoking among young people. He is addressing a problem that has grown out of hand.

. . . One young man expressed the views of many teenage smokers when he said, 'If cigarets were really that dangerous, they wouldn't be selling them in stores.'

On the face of it his skepticism seems logical. After all, kids have a right to feel that their elders wouldn't behave so cavalierly with a deadly substance. But the kids are wrong.

Although evidence is mounting that executives of the major tobacco companies have lied to Congress and the public about what they know about the harmful effects of tobacco, many members of Congress have rushed to the companies' defense at the behest of lobbyists who are generous with their nicotine-stained dollars.

. . . restrictions on smoking'? Absolutely. Most especially when it comes to young people, which is why Clinton deserves the nation's thanks for taking the strong measures he announced last week.

THE (Jackson, Miss.) CLARION-LEDGER, August 14, 1995

Race fans are very brand loyal. The same probably goes for politics. If his ban holds, the president shouldn't expect to find a lot of votes at Talladega next year.

TONY SNOW, USA TODAY, August 14, 1995

This assault reveals two things about the Clinton White House. First, the president and FDA Commissioner David Kessler don't want to admit they plan to ban cigarettes. . . .

This leads to the second and more profound revelation: The White House itself is addicted to a failed view of human nature.

The anti-smoking campaign will fail, like other forays into federal nannyism. It demands nothing of the people and seems utterly oblivious to the power of incentives. Nancy Reagan's oft-maligned 'Just Say No' campaign worked because it encouraged youngsters to behave responsibly. Bill Clinton could adopt a similar approach: 1) Help young smokers appreciate how stupid they look and 2) Throw a few young scofflaws in jail. That may not be as much fun as beating up on Joe Camel -- but at least it would stand some chance of success.

WASHINGTON TIMES, August 14, 1995

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but has anyone noticed how concern for child welfare has a way of turning into a proxy for bigger government?

. . . Now comes the Clinton administration to propose sweeping new restrictions on cigarettes sales and advertising. Why? To protect the children, of course, a job best left to government officials. . .

. . . Once FDA claims jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes, the total ban that the administration at least publicly says it does not want becomes inevitable. . .

WASHINGTON POST, August 13, 1995

Many of the sales and distribution curbs in the president's package have already survived legal challenge at the state level -- the banning of cigarette vending machines, the prohibition of free streetcorner giveaways or of selling 'loosies,' single cigarettes from open boxes.

More problematic are the proposals to curb not just sales to minors (illegal, after all) but advertising aimed at minors, including the sponsoring of sports events by specific brand-names such as Virginia Slims. . . .

The administration asserts that all the new rules are drawn to conform with what has already stood up in courts. That assertion now stands to be tested at great length. Congress could do a great service by enacting -- at the very least -- the sales and distribution provisions into law while the courts grind on with the rest.

JACK GERMOND AND JULES WITCOVER, (Louisville, KY) COURIER-JOURNAL, August 13, 1995

Clinton's determination to crack down on teen-age smoking by targeting tobacco sales and advertising to minors should help cast him as a president willing to act out of conviction rather than politics. Most often in the past, presidents have either ignored the significant health problems for the country inherent in smoking, or danced around them. . . . [It] marks a major step forward in dealing with a national health problem in which political courage has been in exceedingly short supply over the years. . . .

DETROIT FREE PRESS, August 13, 1995

[I]t's right to put together a special effort aimed at heading off the addiction among new generations of smokers. Some of it may prove impractical. The legal and policy issues are significant: the free-speech rights of even the producers of a clearly unhealthy product, the question of whether the FDA has the right to treat tobacco as a drug, or whether the regulations are unreasonably broad. Litigation of such issues already has begun. . . .

Discouraging smoking among young people is probably as good a public health investment as this country can make. . . .

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, August 12, 1995

BIG TOBACCO HAS mostly itself to blame for President Clinton's decision to abandon voluntary measures aimed at curbing smoking pitches to America's youth. . . That Clinton pulled no punches stems at least in part from the companies' behavior.

For decades, the tobacco cartel has peddled a highly dangerous and addictive product -- and denied the obvious consequences . . That denial reached its nadir in April '94, when executives of the top seven American tobacco makers took turns swearing under oath to Congress that cigarets are neither dangerous nor addictive.

It's not incidental that much of what Clinton based his decision on came from secret documents written by tobacco company scientists and executives.

. . . This duplicity stands in sharp contrast to the actions of brewers and distillers

. . . Tobacco companies, of course, insist they don't want kids to smoke and don't target them in their $6 billion marketing and advertising budgets.

Yet 86% of kid smokers choose one of the three most advertised brands -- Marlboro, Newport or Camel -- while only 35% of adults choose those brands. Here's another sickening statistic: 30% of 3-year-olds and 91% of 6-year-olds recognize the Joe Camel cartoon character. For comparison, 62% of 6-year-olds recognize Ronald McDonald.

Keep those numbers in mind as the battle rages over Clinton's plan. And watch how the tobacco companies try to wriggle away from the fatal facts. Then it will be crystal clear why Clinton had to act.

LOS ANGELES TIMES, August 11, 1995

With a stiffness of political spine rare in this presidency, Bill Clinton has taken a historic and courageous step to curb tobacco use by children. . . .

This is obviously not a politically opportune time to extend the arm of federal government, but FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has built a solid case for the move against smoking. . . .

The states have mostly done a poor job in enforcing existing laws, and the voluntary efforts by the mendacious tobacco industry are laughable. A recent packet on anti- youth smoking programs by RJ Reynolds' Tobacco Co. makes no mention of cancer, heart disease or emphysema.

The time has come for the nation to control the scourge of cigarette smoking. . .

DETROIT NEWS, August 11, 1995

[I]t is doubtful that the FDA can handle the proposed regulatory regime -- it isn't handling its current responsibilities. It may be argued that FDA red tape kills more people than tobacco. At the very least, the agency's regulatory mismanagement has been fatal to jobs and the economy. . . .

If members of Congress believe additional controls on teen smoking are necessary, they should adopt legislation imposing the restrictions rather than have them imposed by executive fiat.

MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, August 11, 1995

Clinton's perspective isn't traditional. He redefines cigarettes as falling somewhere between alcoholic beverages and heroin -- legal for adults, but a dangerous drug definitely out of bounds for kids. If Clinton's right, then perhaps it is time to accept restrictions on cigarettes that would be inappropriate on less toxic products. . . .

While some of his proposals raise constitutional questions, at least he sees through the smoke and tax revenue to the damage tobacco does . . . Clinton wants to protect the new generations of Americans from that fate [being killed], and good for him.

(Louisville, Kentucky) COURIER- JOURNAL, August 11, 1995

We have serious reservations when it comes to rules that restrict advertising of a legal product. . .

Commercial speech may not enjoy First Amendment protection to the full extent that political speech does, but government control of advertising content raises serious constitutional and public policy questions. . .

Sure, some kids will still get cigarettes. . . But experience in communities that have tried restrictions, such as Santa Rosa, Calif., suggests they can substantially reduce sales to minors. . .

Ideally, the federal government wouldn't have to get into the business of regulating tobacco sales to minors. . . States and local communities would do the job -- as some have done. . . and the results have been encouraging. Others, including Kentucky, haven't and won't.

That's why federal action is needed.

THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, August 11, 1995

The question President Clinton posed is simple: do you, or don't you, want to deter teens from smoking?

We don't agree with everything in the Food and Drug Administration proposal on teen smoking . . . (some) proposals make sense. . . Other of the FDA's proposals are less clearcut. . . However noble the FDA's intent, (some) recommendations raise First Amendment concerns.

As to the problem, the facts are clear. . . Tobacco state politicians and tobacco company executives may make some legal points, but they're whining mostly because they're more interested in protecting an industry than in saving lives, and always have been.

SANDY GRADY, THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, August 11, 1995

Clinton's anti-smoking crusade, if it prevents some of the 400,000 deaths from tobacco annually, may succeed where his wacky health plan flunked. But it may sink his presidency into intensive care.

Skip Washington's cynical calculus. Is it possible Clinton simply did the right thing?

Sometimes a presidency isn't as important as saving kids from the tombstones of Marlboro Country.

(Raleigh, NC) NEWS & OBSERVER, August 11, 1995

To see President Clinton's attempts to limit teenage smoking as an inevitable step toward prohibition is unreasonable, and hinders the discussion of good, sane regulations. . . The The best way for North Carolina's elected officials, and those from other tobacco states, to respond to these directives is not with damaging -- and futile -- rhetoric, but with reasoned acceptance. That might get them a place at the table as the discussion of regulation continues among Clinton administration officials and in Congress. The best approach now is to try to hold down the economic casualties -- because the war is plainly lost.

NEW YORK TIMES, August 11, 1995

If Republicans or tobacco-state senators in Congress do not like the notion of regulatory intervention . . . they have only their own failure to confront this urgent public health issue to blame.

. . . the Administration may be on reasonable ground in seeking to ban outdoor advertising near schools and playgrounds. But it is probably stretching too far to insist that all other outdoor advertising contain only black-and-white text, with no pictures or color allowed, for those ads are aimed at adults as well. . . .

But whatever the legal merits may be, there is no question that President Clinton is on the right track in calling for the strongest Federal effort yet to curb teen- age smoking. Congress should join him in trying to end anepidemic of smoking among youngsters that even the tobacco industry says it opposes.

BOSTON GLOBE, August 11, 1995

In most cases Clinton's proposals are justified by the addictive nature of nicotine and its demonstrated threat to health. . . Most significant, probably, is that the president's emphasis might help move public opinion, as the public has moved against drunken driving, so millions of people act more responsibly. A just-say-no program alone is clearly not enough. But in the end it is individuals who decide whether to light up or crush it out.

(Minneapolis, MN) STAR TRIBUNE, August 11, 1995

The tobacco industry's reluctance is understandable. Congress, however, has no excuse but its traditional, bipartisan hypocrisy. . . Clinton's general initiative is welcome.

THE COMMERCIAL APPEAL, August 11, 1995

ANOTHER WORTHY cause - keeping cigarettes away from children - threatens to add another flash flood to the waterworld of regulation and litigation.

Why didn't President Clinton find real courage in his convictions and call for a stiff tax increase? . . .

If (the FDA's proposed) measures will work, fine. But let local and state governments set them up, not a ponderous Washington bureaucracy.

The question is not whether to discourage smoking. We already do that with warnings on cigarette packs and public-service campaigns against smoking. The question is whether to attack the problem with federal regulation, a tactic that already is being challenged in court, or to encourage local remedies and induce the tobacco companies to make changes voluntarily.

Philip Morris proposed to discontinue free samples and cut off retailers who sell to youths under 18. That's too tame. The industry should get serious in the next 90 days, before Clinton's FDA action goes into effect.

But it would be so much easier and more effective to use taxes to keep children smokeless.

(Wisconsin Rapids, WI) DAILY TRIBUNE, Aug. 10, 1995

President Clinton has taken a bold and extraordinary move to get the tobacco industry to help curb teen-age smoking.

He deserves credit for taking action that goes beyond tough talk.

USA TODAY, August 10, 1995

. . . history says tobacco companies can't -- or won't -- keep their unhealthy products away from kids. They can't be trusted to do what's right. . . they've used their money and clout in state legislatures to snuff out aggressive local anti-smoking programs in 17 states, replacing them with weaker state enforcement. . .

Parents, though, won't be fooled. You know smoking can kill your kids. And Clinton is right to protect them.

ROD KUEGEL, LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER, August 10, 1995

Those who support FDA action against tobacco say they're not out for Prohibition: they're simply deciding what may and may not be done in public. Isn't that the first step toward Prohibition? . . .

The measures proposed by Kessler threaten a freedom smokers have enjoyed for years. Government regulators shouldn't try to substitute their values for the choices made by 45 million American consumers. . .

The FDA is an example of big government at its worst -- huge, ineffective and out of control.

Technically, Congress has oversight of regulatory agencies like the FDA. Urge your members of Congress to halt the FDA's tendency toward overregulation.

Ask them to trim or even abolish this agency if it cannot rid itself of wastefulness and bureaucracy. House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed replacing the FDA with an agency staffed with biomedical entrepreneurs, not career bureaucrats.

When Kessler took the helm, he vowed to clean up the FDA's act. Let's hold him to that.

(Rod Kuegel is president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative in Lexington.)

DIANE DISNEY MILLER, LOS ANGELES TIMES, AUGUST 9, 1995

My father, Walt Disney, was a lifelong smoker. He died of lung cancer 10 days after his 65th birthday, in 1966. . . . Nine months later, my sister's husband, Bob Brown, also a lifelong smoker, died of the same disease. Bob was only 38 years old. . . .

(The anti-youth access rules FDA Chief David Kessler) proposes would have absolutely no effect on adults who choose to smoke. . . .

The President . . . must be prepared to help defend his FDA chief from the predictable legal assaults by the tobacco industry as well as legislative assaults by Congress, where the industry has made huge campaign contributions over the years. . . it will take courage on the President's part to do so.

REP. RON WYDEN (D-OR), LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER, August 9, 1995

An attempt to assert FDA authority over tobacco will result in years of delay while the industry straight-arms the president through the courts (and looks to its allies in a tobacco-friendly Congress). . .

The tobacco companies employ legions of this nation's keenest legal minds, and spare no expense to win. I should know. A few months ago, Rep. Henry Waxman and I were taken to court for a second time by the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co. for our work in uncovering evidence about the health hazards of smoking. The first time they put Robert Bork and Griffin Bell on our case. This time, they hired Kenneth Starr.

The tobacco industry spares no expense for its legal efforts because this is the way to strike fear in the hearts of its potential adversaries. . .

. . . unlike voluntary measures initiated in the past by the tobacco companies, this one would have the Department of Health and Human Services monitoring compliance and administering the programs under a written agreement. We must not, and need not, rely on the tobacco industry to self-police an agreement.

. . . if our country can do more to protect the health of our children without facing years of gridlock, why wouldn't we choose that course?

BARRY GOLDWATER, WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 8, 1995

I have devoted my life to fighting for limited government, and I do not endorse new government programs lightly. But there is a special role for government in protecting children from the greatest dangers in our society. One of those dangers is tobacco. . . .

The responsibility of government to act is even stronger when the danger comes in the form of a product specifically marketed to young people. . . .

It's hard to imagine a more compelling case for government action.

I've watched the tobacco industry make promise after promise over the past 40 years. With every promise, they give an inch, grudgingly, and buy enough time to hook another generation. . . .

It's time to stop kidding ourselves. Back room deals and gentlemen's agreements never have worked with this industry and never will. This is not a partisan issue; this is about the health of our children. Instead of dealing with this problem squarely, both political parties have sold our children short in the past. . .

The tobacco industry continues to insist that smoking is a simple matter of individual rights and adult choice. If that were true, I would be on their side. But we're not talking about adults. Neither the FDA nor anyone else is talking about prohibiting adults from smoking. . . . The time has come to rise above partisan politics on this issue. We owe it to our children.">

QUEENS (NEW YORK) NEWSDAY, August 8, 1995

Clinton is correct in seeking to elevate public consciousness about a serious health threat that demands greater public activism to eradicate . . . the administration shouldn't ignore efforts by some members of Congress to get tobacco companies into a binding agreement . .

The industry can no longer plausibly claim its product isn't addictive or doesn't have dire health consequences. There's evidence that the industry has targeted advertising on youth . . . The nation can't ignore this threat to its young.

WILLIAM MURCHISON,WASHINGTON TIMES, August 8, 1995

. . . tobacco regulation comes about 400 years too late. If society was going to stamp out tobacco it should have done so before the habit permeated all levels of society. . . President Clinton is generally supportive of the FDA's attempt to gain authority over tobacco. . . . Likewise, Mr. Clinton and his senatorial allies stubbed out the Republican deregulatory bill. The battle lines for the '96 elections look clearer all the time.

LOS ANGELES TIMES, August 7, 1995

The President is undoubtedly worried about the economies of tobacco states like North Carolina and Virginia, and thus the potential political impact of any decision on his reelection chances. We remind him, though, that it is unlikely he can win reelection next year without California's 54 electoral votes. California voters have repeatedly spoken on this issue, voting to devote millions in cigarette taxes to anti-smoking education and to rebuff industry efforts to repeal the state's strong rules against smoking in restaurants and other public places.

Perhaps Clinton's choice is not so hard after all. He can both stand up for public health and boost his chances for reelection.

WASHINGTON POST, August 4, 1995

Youths who smoke . . . overwhelmingly smoke the three most-advertised brands. . . Much of the current congressional enthusiasm to dismantle, defund or otherwise weaken the FDA stems from concern that that agency will eventually leapfrog all these half-measures and simply declare tobacco the addictive drug that it is. If the White House can't come up with something that's truly tough and effective, it should back up the agency in doing just that.

JIMMY CARTER, USA TODAY, August 3, 1995

During my administration, the industry used its power and persuasion to argue, just as it is doing today, that it could be trusted not to market cigarettes to children. . .

We must not be tricked again. If history has taught us anything, it is that this industry must be judged by its 40-year record, not by its promises to protect the health of our children.

It is time we recognized the need for a comprehensive approach that includes eliminating advertising and marketing that appeal to children, reducing the ease with which children obtain tobacco, funding public education campaigns designed by health experts and not the tobacco industry, and overseeing tobacco manufacturing to ensure that nicotine and other ingredients are not manipulated to enhance addiction and that hundreds of additives in cigarettes do not contribute to the risks of smoking. Only a strong agency such as the FDA is capable of implementing such a program. . . .

Given all that we know, the scientific case for protecting children from tobacco is indisputable. The moral imperative to act is overwhelming. . . This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is a bipartisan, pro-child, pro-family, pro-health issue. Politicians of both parties understand that to oppose protection of children from tobacco is to be on the wrong side of history.

JOAN BECK, AKRON BEACON JOURNAL, August 1, 1995

Never have so many powerful people tiptoed so timidly around such a deadly problem as the decision-makers in Washington. . . But tobacco companies give heavily to politicians. . . Congressional recipients of tobacco money include 83 percent of senators and 68 percent of representatives.

Last month -- three decades and millions of deaths late -- the Food and Drug Administration got around to declaring that the nicotine in tobacco is a drug. Instead of taking political risks by acting on its finding, the FDA merely bucked a few proposals to President Clinton.

All government can really do is educate, cajole, set examples, tax tobacco products as high as possible, enlarge smoke-free public areas and try to restrict access to those too young to make a decision for themselves.

ATLANTA CONSTITUTION, August 1, 1995

. . . we don't need a deal that forbids future government action against an industry whose product kills 400,000 Americans each year. What we need is the courage to stand up and do the right thing. . . This plan simply looks like a way for companies to put up a modest sum and buy their way out of a reasonable regulation.">

ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, July 31, 1995

The tobacco companies are crazy if they don't jump at a compromise measure that would keep the Food and Drug Administration off their necks in exchange for a massive attack on teen-age smoking. . . FDA regulation of nicotine as an addictive drug is probably inevitable someday. . . However, the legal and regulatory issues are in the future. The problem of teen-age smoking is right now.

DES MOINES REGISTER, July 28, 1995

... many states already ban sales of tobacco to minors, yet they won't or can't enforce those laws. FDA regulation and federal laws might bolster state efforts. But an anti- regulatory Congress is not likely to impose more regulation. . . . the industry might see a need to polish its image by cooperating in an educational program, even though it must know that education is the best way to reduce the number of smokers. The overall decline in cigarette use -- to the point where many of the puffing minority feel like pariahs -- was not because of legislation or regulation but because of information.">

(Raleigh, NC) NEWS AND OBSERVER, July 28, 1995

These are the same tobacco companies, after all, that refuse to acknowledge the link between smoking and disease and that are under investigation for alleged misrepresentations and lies to Congress. Before accepting a handshake from this industry, it's best to look for the buzzer in its palm.">

WASHINGTON POST, July 27, 1995

The issue these days isn't whether smoking is harmful. It's the narrower question of whether the cigarette companies knew they were working with a body-altering chemical substance, nicotine, and whether they designed their cigarettes purposely in such a way that the one-time casual user would get hooked. The answer is looking more and more like yes. This is an important advance, because if tobacco can be correctly described as a drug, the FDA has the legal right to regulate it.">

WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL, July 23, 1995

The battle the FDA has picked to fight is a battle in which the individual's freedom to choose is on one side and government's authority to compel behavior is on the other side. ">

DETROIT FREE PRESS, July 22, 1995

Stating the plain truth that tobacco is an addictive drug is another logical step in the effort to make sure people understand what they're getting into when they start using it.">

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, July 20, 1995

Bold National Strides Should Be Taken To Treat Tobacco As The Addictive Scourge It Is.">

CAPE COD TIMES, July 16, 1995

The FDA has every right to act in the interests of the kids. And Mr. Clinton could do battle with the pro-tobacco, get-government-off-our-back types in Congress with a joyous heart -- the majority of the voters do not smoke, and he'd be championing children.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 15, 1995

If nicotine were a newly discovered drug and tobacco a previously unheard-of product, there is no question that the American people would want both strictly regulated." [I]t would be foolish to the point of madness for . . . the Food and Drug Administration to arrogate to itself the right to regulate tobacco. It would be no less foolish for the White House to do so. On an issue that touches so many popular concerns and habits, it is the people's branch, the Congress, that ought to take the initiative.">

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE, March 16, 1995

Three cheers for Dr. David Kessler...

. . . We walk now into the shadowy world of influence. Many photographs and cartoons are designed to attract young people to smoke cigarettes. These would be forbidden under federal law. Now this is tough legislation, inviting a government official or two government officials to decide that that particular advertisement is aimed at young people. Okay, it is a difficult assignment, and a lot of quarrels would result. (Is that cowboy ad designed for kids?) But the philosophical position is surely sound: i.e., there are professionals who sit down at work and ask themselves: How can I design an ad that entices 15-year-olds to begin smoking?

It is a legitimate enterprise of an agency charged by the law to oversee the consumption of drugs to inquire into the merchandising of them.

..."The figures tell us that 75 percent of the young people who take up the habit will very soon regret having done so. So why not give them a helping hand -- while simultaneously giving dignified berth to those of adult age who are addicted?

...The concept -- pediatric disease -- qualifies as an epiphany, given the acknowledged authority of society over a minor. . . It yields no substantial libertarian ground to add to the list enforcement mechanisms designed to dissuade the 15-year-old from taking up a habit that brings on aching experiences (those who give up smoking), and at the other end premature and painful death."


***********************
  • ©1996 Gene Borio, Tobacco BBS (212-982-4645). WebPage: http://www.tobacco.org).Original Tobacco BBS material may be reprinted in any non-commercial venue if accompanied by this credit

    • ***********************
    Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
    ***********************

    END OF DOCUMENT