news-record.com

OPINION

Editorial: Getting smoked

Friday, June 12, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Only tobacco could draw together two North Carolina senators of opposing parties in a lost cause.

Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Kay Hagan staged a tag-team battle over two weeks against proposed Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco products. They lost on procedural motions to prolong debate, and Burr’s amendment to provide a more palatable alternative was shot down Tuesday, 60-36. Hagan was the only Democrat who voted for it.

The FDA bill’s final approval Thursday by a 79-17 margin was anticlimactic. It had the support of the Democratic leaders and President Obama. The mood in Washington strongly favors stricter regulation of tobacco.

Nevertheless, Hagan and Burr fiercely defended an industry that still makes a big financial impact in North Carolina. “We are in the midst of an economic crisis and the bill before us today will further devastate our economy in North Carolina by putting thousands of people out of work and exacerbating the already high levels of unemployment throughout the state,” Hagan said on the Senate floor when debate began last week.

She also argued against giving the FDA authority to require the removal of harmful ingredients from cigarettes, “including constituents that are native to the tobacco leaf itself and ... even if the technology does not exist” to do so.

Burr occupied the floor for hours, offering as an amendment the bill he and Hagan had introduced earlier to shift regulatory authority to an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that would be “responsible solely for tobacco and nothing else.” Of course, its powers would be less than those given to the FDA.

Despite their bipartisan partnership, Burr and Hagan didn’t get anywhere. Tobacco isn’t a sacred cow anymore — not in North Carolina, judging from recent state legislation to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, and certainly not on Capitol Hill, where it’s viewed favorably only as an easy source of tax revenue.

The FDA regulation bill was approved overwhelmingly by the U.S. House of Representatives in April with five North Carolina members voting yes: Mel Watt, Brad Miller, David Price, Bob Etheridge and G.K. Butterfield, all Democrats. That many defections from pro-tobacco solidarity once would have been unthinkable. Three North Carolina Democrats and five Republicans voted no.

Hagan and Burr held an equally weak position in the Senate. Senators from most states might be happy to cripple the tobacco industry if that can be accomplished through FDA regulation. They could reason that lost tax revenue will be offset by savings realized through an eventual decline in smoking-related medical costs, and they probably would be right.

Public sentiment has turned against smoking, and that’s reflected in attitudes in Washington and even Raleigh. Hagan and Burr worked well together but in an increasingly unpopular cause.
 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

lilbean

June 12, 2009 - 1:11 pm EDT

i wonder with this legislation if now the federal and state governments become equally culpable in any future tobacco lawsuits. and i guess that we'll see "bootleg" smokes like the bootleg liquor. and now that its federally controlled, is not the government responsible to treat the addicted wards of the state? kinda cruel to lock up an addict without a cessation program.
well anyways, spent $60 on nicorette gum today. feed the feds by keeping on smoking? that would be like buying a GM auto.

Panacea

June 12, 2009 - 5:48 pm EDT

The legislation does NOT make tobacco or smoking illegal. It merely gives the FDA some control over the ingredients used in cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Tobacco is still legal to grow, sell, and use. The ATF will still collect tobacco taxes they way they always have.

Tobacco companies will face restrictions on ingredients: both flavorings added to entice kids to smoke, and toxins added to tobacco to make them cheaper to make or add to their addictiveness. The FDA cannot ban tobacco.

We're not looking at a repeat of Prohibition. We're looking at gradually weaning America off the tobacco habit. There will probably always be some smokers, but it will be something people do in their own homes and not in public.

dusenberry

June 13, 2009 - 8:33 am EDT

What's next ? Sugar and Soda. How dare those people have jobs that contribute to diabetes. Shut em down before it kills all americans. Thanks for looking out for me Obama, Oh by the way Mr. President you need to kick your smoking habit in the White House. Thats off limits to smokers.
It sounds good to eliminate tobacco and taxes generated from it. but somebody is going to pay for it. What will replace the tax revenue from tobacco ?

Panacea

June 13, 2009 - 9:21 am EDT

Asking what will replace tax revenue is a silly question. Lawmakers will always find something to tax when they need money. The answer of what they will tax is irrelevant to the fact tobacco is an easy target for taxes, and that tobacco taxes produce measurable benefits for society: smoking decreases, and the money spent for the medical care for smokers and victims of second hand smoke go down.

Lawmakers really aren't thinking about whether they will need to replace tax revenues or how they will replace them. They figure out the answers to those questions when they need to: at budget time. I personally don't care if tobacco suddenly stops producing tax revenue. The benefits of the tax outweigh its eventual loss.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search