Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 18, 1994 TAG: 9404180044
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
Politicians are moving slowly for many reasons, but the main one may be that no one is sure exactly what to do to stop people from smoking.
Outlawing cigarettes seems to be out of the question. It raises the prospect of the corruption and gangsterism that prevailed during Prohibition.
"I think we have enough experience with alcohol," said Rep. Mike Synar, D-Okla., a leader in the anti-smoking drive in the House of Representatives.
"Alcohol didn't work, because of the black market," Synar said. "Secondly, it's a little dishonest to say in one breath that nicotine is an addictive drug, that 50 million smokers are addicted, and then not have some sense of compassion and understanding that to ban the product would be cruel punishment."
Another possibility would be to eliminate or restrict nicotine in cigarettes, but that might also be easier to address in the abstract than in practice.
David Kessler, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, told Congress last week that he was not sure what the public health consequences would be. Reducing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, he said, might simply push smokers to smoke more cigarettes, thus causing themselves more damage.
"How should nicotine be regulated?" he asked the lawmakers, the tone of his voice emphasizing the difficulty of the question. "What is the right way?"
While broad strokes against smoking seem unlikely this year, the political momentum is clearly running against it. Last month alone, the Labor Department took the first steps toward outlawing smoking in all workplaces in the country, and the Defense Department banned smoking in workplaces on military bases and ships around the world.
Meantime, Congress approved and President Clinton signed a law that prohibits smoking in schools and in Head Start and community health centers, and the House approved a measure requiring that all schools that receive federal drug prevention money teach students the dangers of tobacco.
Last week, the chief executives of the top seven U.S. tobacco companies were called before a House subcommittee on health and grilled on live television about smoking.
An even more forceful blow came in February when Kessler announced that he was re-examining the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes. Because cigarettes are not considered a food or a drug, the agency had taken the position that it lacked the authority.
But Kessler said that if it could be shown that the companies manipulated the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to satisfy addiction, then the agency would have no choice but to regulate cigarettes as a drug.
As a legal matter, that would probably mean banning tobacco products. And since neither Kessler nor lawmakers believe that would be a wise course, he asked Congress for legislation that would define how he should proceed.
Top FDA officials said last week they would eventually act unilaterally if Congress did not deal decisively with smoking, but they said no such steps were contemplated this year.
Synar and Rep. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., have introduced legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over tobacco but label it as neither a food nor a drug. The bill would prohibit the agency from banning tobacco but would permit the regulation of manufacturing, advertising, labeling, distribution and sales of products.
The bill is not likely to become law this year, in part because the congressional committees with jurisdiction are tied up with other matters. But the Synar-Durbin bill could be the direction Congress will follow eventually, legislators said.
More modest measures stand a better chance of passage. A higher federal tax on tobacco products has such broad support in Congress to raise money for more widespread health care coverage that the only remaining question is how high the new tax will be.
President Clinton proposed increasing the tax, now 24 cents on a pack of cigarettes, by 75 cents. A House subcommittee voted last month to raise it by $1.25. And some in Congress are considering a tax of $2 a pack or more. The prevailing view is that a higher tax might curtail smoking in the long run, but for the short term, it is seen mainly as a source of revenue.
Another bill under consideration would ban smoking in virtually all buildings except private homes. Its sponsor, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., canceled subcommittee votes twice last month when he realized that the panel would not approve the measure. But his office said he planned to bring it up again this week and believed he had the votes.
The subcommittee seems to be the biggest obstacle to this bill in the House. If Waxman can win there, he probably will succeed in winning House passage. But Senate approval is questionable.
Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has worked for years for tougher legislation against smoking, said: "What's happened in Congress is that it's very easy to block something and very hard to thread the needle. You have a group, obviously from tobacco states and districts, where there's an extremely passionate feeling."
But as do most of his colleagues, Wyden senses that the forces opposing legislation against tobacco are on the decline and that it is only a matter of time before strong laws are enacted.
"I personally think what they're faced with is a tidal wave," he said, "and when you talk to tobacco-state legislators, they know that."
An aide to one of the Senate's strongest opponents of tobacco restrictions agreed with that assessment: "If you get even one or two members who can work to get something to a vote, generally speaking, it's a pretty easy vote for most members."
by CNB