Tobacco Documents Online

AUG 1 4 i995 OI'>aA1GZ Cib:ialiY RcClSTC,'1 AJ:~ Mcotine fit p a t might not be.aa ab:lo(ut~y variabie rule. But whenever a politician starts talking about protecting and safeguarding ."our" chtldrea, the key to our futiire as a nation, you will hardly ever be wrong if you suspect apwwer- grab is occurriag. And so it is wtttt President Clinton's sudden urge to be the Nicotine Nanny of every teen- ager in the land. Nobody will argue thatg ~oidng cigarzttes is good for children and other living things, and hardly any- body,wants to endorse open market- ing of tobacco products to children- althoiigh experience in other societ- ies with other substances (wine in Fratice, for example) might cause one to wonder whether paternalism and prohibition, creating as they do the. "forbidden fruit" syndrome, work.better than open access to en- courage people to aiake responsible decisioas. . Be that as it may, however, every state in the country prohibits sales of ztobacco products to people under 18. Many states, including California, have active taxpayer-supported anti- smoking campaigns. Hovt urgent is it that the national government get in- volved more actively, h9w likely is such a program to be cost-effective - and, just for fun, is such national cannyisrn constitutional? President Clinton's program amounts to a massive increase in the power of the federal Food and Drug Administratiott, one of the most un- accountable, ine:fficient, and virtual- ly immune-to-rea! sciencx agencies in the national government. The president is authorizing the FDA - witicb has done so much harm to the development of safe and effective. medical treatments and devices that 'it sh,ould probably be abolished rath- ec thhn empowered - to take over what•has up to now been the respoosi- biii`tY of state goyCrllnlCn_t3z _.. I FDA wilf be given the power to req re sellers to require an ID card, to pibit cigarette vending ma- chino~s, to prohibit tobacco advertis- iag }Yithia 1,000 feet of a school or playhroaund, to prohibit advertising How likely is such a prcgram to be cost- effective - and, just ior fun, is such national nannyism constitutional? images such as "Joe Camel," to pro- hibit Ort:dn advertising and promo- tion practices; and to take S150 tnil- llon a year from the tobacco industry to funii anti-smoking campaigns. Fascinatingly enough, he didn't talk abouc ending any direct or indi- rect federal subsidies to tobacco growers. ,So taxpayers will continue to support both tobacco growers and anti-tobacco campaigns. It's 'probably impertinent to ask just where in the U.S. Constitution the federad government is given the duly-aoastittued authority to do these thing4. But at a time when American voters haire been delivering a clear, strong message that the federal gov- ernmefnt las grown too big, too pow- exful, too all-pervasive, and too arbi- trary and sometimes cruel in its de- cisioattiaking and enforcement procedures, it is more than a little irotlic to Ee giving an esseruially un- accouatabde, power-hungry federal agewy emn more power. AttxUody who be ieves this cam: palgn:-srill have any more impact on citizeit behavior -• other than beef- ing up the FDA'a power to threaten people - probably stilt believes in the Great Society. Does th+: cynical use of children to incre se FQ[itical power and seize as- sets ;nstitute child abuse? t .