
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, September 2, 1995                   TAG: 9509060007
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: RICHARD E. SINCERE JR.
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CLINTON'S UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT ON NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS

THE DRACONIAN nature of President Clinton's plan to curtail teen-age smoking is slowly being unveiled as details of the plan are examined and explained to the public. What has come to light so far indicates that the plan is unquestionably misguided and unconstitutional. It will no doubt have little affect in achieving its intentions, but will have significant unintended consequences that will affect the lives of every one of us.

We're all concerned about the health consequences of smoking. As a nonsmoker, I'm as aware of this as anyone else. Over the past 40 years, smoking has become less and less acceptable public behavior.

Look at the way smokers are portrayed in movies and on television: In the '30s through the '60s, the majority of adult characters on the screen smoked, whether heroes or villains. Today, a cigarette between the lips of a film actor signifies his character's flawed, perhaps evil, nature.

``Would you like a cigarette?'' has been replaced by ``Do you mind if I smoke?'' as a polite question, both in public and private. Etiquette rules have reduced smoking far more effectively than restrictions enacted by city councils, state legislatures and Congress.

Yet tobacco remains a legal commodity. Millions of Americans continue to choose to smoke, while millions of others choose not to.

Because Clinton's plan is so comprehensive and intrusive, it violates the constitutional rights of all of us - not just smokers, but tobacco farmers, retailers, manufacturers, exporters, advertisers, artists, photographers, athletes and newspaper publishers.

Clinton's plan will ban some forms of tobacco advertising, and regulate the content and appearance of other advertisements. According to advertising-industry analysts, the plan amounts to a ``virtual ban.'' Said Danie Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers: ``The government has now become the copywriter and the ad director for tobacco advertising. They can speak through your ads, but you can't. It's a very substantial step in a free society.'' Indeed, this is a form of coerced speech, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional as recently as the Hurley case, addressing the right of the organizers of Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade to exclude groups whose message was disagreeable to them.

Advertising restrictions include a ban on the use of cigarette-brand logos on T-shirts or baseball caps, and prohibiting the sponsorship of sporting events by cigarette brands. By what authority does the president tell business people what kind of community events they can host or underwrite? Such authority doesn't exist in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, such a prohibition is ridiculous. Under this regime, Philip Morris could sponsor a tennis tournament using the Kraft Macaroni & Cheese brand name, but not Marlboro cigarettes. Will the next ban exclude Miller beer from car racing?

The ban on cigarette vending machines also raises constitutional questions. The Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public purposes without just compensation. Will vending-machine owners be paid for their lost property and lost revenue by the government? Clinton doesn't say. There's nothing to suggest that government will pay these merchants for their losses - and that, in itself, is a crime.

Mom-and-pop grocery stores will suffer much. These small businesses have very narrow profit margins. A few dollars a week can mean the difference between staying in business and shutting down. Small shops like this get paid by tobacco companies to advertise their products through store displays, placards and the like. Customers stopping in for a pack of cigarettes end up buying other products as well - impulse purchases that keep a small business afloat. Jim Daskal of the Service Station Dealers of America told the Washington Times: ``My folks are going to be under the gun. Cigarettes are profitable. They do much more promotion than soft drinks.''

Virginia's economy relies heavily on the tobacco industry. The ripple effect on the entire regional economy will be devastating. To protect our jobs and our families, we must do all we can to prevent these regulations from taking effect. This plan is an assault on our livelihoods, and on the Bill of Rights. Virginia taxpayers should demand that these new regulations be revoked.

All Americans are aware of the health consequences of cigarette smoking. No one can claim to be ignorant on this topic. Anyone who chooses to smoke does so with eyes open. Responsible citizens can make responsible decisions in this regard. The government isn't and shouldn't be our nanny.

Richard E. Sincere Jr., a nonsmoker, is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.

by CNB