[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       NOTHING KILLS LIKE TOBACCO

                                 ______


                           HON. MIKE KREIDLER

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 13, 1994

  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Speaker, anyone who reads a newspaper has seen a 
series of ads from the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., claiming that the 
Government is trying to ban cigarettes as part of a plot to take away 
the constitutional rights of Americans. These ads are truly a tribute 
to the creativity of the advertising and tobacco industries. But they 
are ludicrously misleading.
  For the benefit of those who want a different point of view, I am 
including in the Congressional Record an op-ed article that appeared in 
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on September 2, 1994, by Astrid Berg, 
executive director of the American Lung Association of Washington. Ms. 
Berg provides a welcome dose of factual information and common sense to 
counteract the distortions of the tobacco company ad campaign.
  Instead of a pointless and unenforceable ban on tobacco products, she 
urges further restrictions on young people's access to tobacco, 
reductions in levels of addictive nicotine in cigarettes, and truth in 
tobacco advertising and promotion. Given the lengths the industry will 
go to profit from the only consumer product on the market which kills 
people when used as intended, this last goal presents the greatest 
challenge.
  I commend this article to all those who need an antidote to the 
distortions of Reynolds' ad campaign.

                There is Nothing That Kills Like Tobacco

                            (By Astrid Berg)

       With its recent full-page ad in the Seattle Post-
     Intelligencer and other major newspapers around the country, 
     the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has reduced the tobacco control 
     debate to fear-mongering at its worst.
       Its earlier ads were ridiculous enough to warrant a 
     chuckle, suggesting that restricting tobacco use would next 
     lead to a ban on books, movies, music, even buttermilk. But 
     this time the ad campaign takes a sinister turn, featuring 
     gun-toting police officers and dire predictions. ``Will the 
     homes of `known' smokers be raided? Will we be encouraged to 
     inform on our neighbors? Has the Government given any thought 
     to the consequences?''
       That's Government with a capital G, in case you hadn't 
     noticed. Not unlike the capital P on Prohibition. The tobacco 
     industry is fond of capital letters--they make things more 
     ominous.
       The truth is that neither the American Lung Association nor 
     its fellow tobacco control advocates has called for a ban on 
     cigarettes. We realize that there are nearly 50 million 
     people who smoke in this country, and such a ban would be 
     both foolish and cruel. How then might we gradually reduce 
     and eliminate tobacco use without making people suffer? There 
     are three approaches we can integrate toward an effective 
     solution:
       Restrict youth access to tobacco products. The overwhelming 
     majority of people who smoke started the habit as young 
     teens. The tobacco companies like to argue that smoking is an 
     adult choice, but in reality it's a young person's choice 
     that becomes an adult addiction. Let's get rid of cigarette 
     vending machines, the sale of single cigarettes in 
     convenience stores, free samples of tobacco products and 
     promotional items, and then make sure that tobacco is 
     available only in adult venues.
       Reduce the nicotine in cigarettes to nonaddictive levels. 
     If smoking were truly a choice, fewer people would smoke. 
     Anywhere from 70 percent to 80 percent of all smokers would 
     like to quit. The problem is that nicotine is addictive, a 
     conclusion recently confirmed by a federal advisory panel to 
     the Food and Drug Administration. By gradually reducing the 
     nicotine level in cigarettes over the next 10 to 20 years, we 
     could satisfy the needs of the current population of smokers, 
     while at the same time preventing youthful experimentation 
     from becoming a lifelong addiction. Then smoking would be a 
     choice, and we would no doubt see fewer smokers.
       Demand truth in cigarette advertising and promotion. The 
     evidence about tobacco is irrefutable: It is quite capable of 
     causing disease and premature death when used exactly as 
     intended by the manufacturer. Promoting cigarettes with 
     cartoon characters and slogans such as ``Alive with 
     Pleasure'' and ``You've Come a Long Way, Baby'' belies their 
     addictive and dangerous nature. Do we run afoul of the First 
     Amendment by restricting tobacco industry advertising? Legal 
     and medical experts writing for the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association suggest that, ``The cigarette, in its 
     popularity, danger and lack of regulation, is an unusual 
     product, requiring unusual public interventions.''
       From movie popcorn to hot dogs, it seems everything is bad 
     for you these days. But to compare the effects of too much 
     margarine on your toast to a tobacco addiction is a deadly 
     miscalculation. The tobacco industry would like you to 
     lump cigarettes as a risk factor in with a Big Mac habit 
     or that second cup of coffee. Don't do it. Because 
     nothing--absolutely nothing--kills like tobacco. It is the 
     single greatest underlying cause of premature death in 
     this country, racking up more than 400,000 deaths a year. 
     You underestimate tobacco's impact if you regard it as 
     just another one of our many vexing public health 
     problems. Combine all the deaths in this country due to 
     alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, fires, AIDS 
     and car accidents and you still won't equal the number of 
     deaths due to tobacco-related illnesses. It is a health 
     crisis of gargantuan proportions.
       So tobacco kills, so what? We've all got to die of 
     something right? Of course. But what will your life be like 
     before you die if you're checking out because of tobacco? 
     What's it like to get around with only 30 percent of your 
     lung capacity? What's the cost of a hospital stay and surgery 
     to remove a cancerous lung tumor? How much of your monthly 
     pension check will you spend on the inhaler you need to puff 
     on every two hours just so you can get a breath? Health care 
     for smoking-related illnesses took at least $50 billion out 
     of our pockets in 1993, according to the federal Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention. That means smoking accounts 
     for a least 7 percent of all health care costs in the United 
     States. And if you're a nonsmoker who still thinks it's 
     someone else's problem, consider this: The federal government 
     and state governments pay for more than 43 percent of all 
     smoking-attributed medical expenditures, and more than 60 
     percent for those over the age of 65.
       Is that a reason to dislike people who smoke or to punish 
     them in some way? Absolutely not. Is it a reason to 
     aggressively challenge the power of an industry that places 
     profits above human pain and suffering? Absolutely.
       One of the most offensive tactics of the tobacco industry 
     has been its attempt to elevate smoking to a ``right.'' It 
     has cloaked itself in the Bill of Rights, a document that 
     embodies the basic tenets of fairness and freedom in our 
     society, to protect its greed. Smoking in public places isn't 
     a right, it's a choice. And because recent research confirms 
     that one person's choice to smoke may affect the health of 
     another, we have sought to restrict involuntary exposure to 
     secondhand smoke.
       The government regulates hundreds of things that affect the 
     public health, from speed limits on highways to the 
     temperature at which restaurants cook meat. We rely on 
     government to protect us from hazards and dangers, and that 
     is why it is appropriate that legislation govern tobacco use.
       The only ``right'' the tobacco industry is trying to 
     protect is its perceived right to continue to reap phenomenal 
     profits at the expense of profound pain and suffering. Every 
     American should be outraged at their crass and selfish 
     commercialization of this country's ideals.
       It took decades to learn what we know about tobacco use and 
     the tobacco industry now it's time to do something about it. 
     Don't fall for the cigarette manufacturers' scare tactics 
     when they summon up the specters of Government, Big Brother, 
     and Prohibition. Think instead of using capital letters on 
     words such as Addiction, Disease and Premature Death.

                          ____________________