[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8835-H8837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TOBACCO SETTLEMENT

  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, tobacco industry leaders are under attack by 
nearly everyone. A tobacco-friendly tax provision that was hidden in 
the settlement was quickly removed by the Senate and the House once the 
public became aware of it. But without a tax benefit or higher 
cigarette prices, or both, there is no way the industry can afford the 
astronomical $368.5 billion settlement they have agreed to pay over the 
next 25 years. The industry makes only $8.4 billion annual pretax 
profit.
  The tobacco companies deserve every bit of grief they are receiving, 
but for reasons other than commonly assumed. It is true they profit 
from selling a dangerous product, but so do automobile, airplane, and 
gun manufacturers as well as food producers, drug companies, and coffee 
farmers. When we boil it down, any product used incorrectly or 
excessively is dangerous. Even oxygen used incorrectly can be 
dangerous. And most people know tobacco is dangerous without the 
benefit of the nanny-state inspectors and the bureaucrats' warning 
label.
  Tobacco company executives symbolize much of what is wrong with 
corporate America and our corrupt system of special interests, 
favoritism, and interventionism. For decades, Big Tobacco lobbied for 
and gladly accepted subsidies and trade benefits, while anyone with a 
grain of common sense knew smoking was a bad habit that adversely 
affected some people's health. It is no secret that young people could 
easily become addicted to nicotine.
  There were specific gains to be realized from the charade that 
surrounded tobacco sales. Pretending that smoking was a benign habit 
made it easier to collect benefits from the nonsmoking taxpayers. And 
the alternative, arguing for personal responsibility, was hardly in 
vogue.
  Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk incrementally 
has been shifted from the individual to the State. As we moved further 
from a free

[[Page H8836]]

society toward a managed welfare state, responsibility for nearly 
everything began to be systematically delivered to someone else through 
the State and its growing army of bureaucrats. The tobacco industry was 
a willing accomplice to this betrayal of individual responsibility.
  The failure of Big Tobacco to fight Government's requirement to put 
warning labels on cigarettes while accepting agricultural subsidies 
allowed the entire smoking industry to be invaded by the Federal 
Government.
  Tobacco put the welcome mat out for big Government. Now it is only a 
matter of time before nicotine will be declared a drug and more FDA 
regulation will inundate us. Unfortunately, this will only compound our 
many problems with nicotine.
  Madam Speaker, smoking should be treated no differently than 
compulsive eating, chocolate addiction, or driving too fast. But the 
way the tobacco corporate leaders are acting in cahoots with big 
Government, one would think they are conspiring to prevent this.
  Madam Speaker, the question is who has responsibility for our well-
being? Who should make decisions regarding risk-taking and personal 
habits, the Government or the individual?
  During the Clinton health care debate, tobacco, and nearly every 
other industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was 
Government's responsibility, Federal and State, to provide medical care 
for everyone, as if it were in itself a constitutional right.
  When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to 
reflect the cost of habits like smoking, sky diving, overweight, and 
medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance 
goes out the window and everybody gets everything paid for and no one 
can be discriminated against.
  Persons who have harmed their health by smoking have learned they can 
coerce those with good health into paying for the consequence of their 
bad habit. In fact, many who harm themselves through their chosen 
lifestyles, not just a single bad habit, religiously believe they have 
a right to be taken care of by someone else. This group of individuals, 
not only those who smoke, but those who drink too much or perform 
sexual acts which increase their chance of acquiring AIDS or hepatitis, 
or who will not diet to take care of diabetes or heart conditions.
  It is this abdication of personal responsibility, this misconceived 
notion that the State is responsible for us, that drives 
counterintelligent drug laws, which inspires the use of dirty needles, 
which serves to further spread AIDS and hepatitis. And instead of 
legalizing the right to buy a clean needle for a few pennies, the 
bureaucrats insist on making it the Government's responsibility to 
coerce nondrug users into paying for free needles so the addicts can 
keep using their illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre.
  This lack of understanding responsibility, rights and subsidies has 
led the tobacco industry leaders to further compound the problem by not 
fighting the trumped up obligation to pay for any health care that may 
have arisen from smoking.
  Not once have we heard a tobacco industry leader defend his right to 
sell something that is risky to someone but not others, which is the 
case with tobacco and most other products.
  Tobacco industry leaders are under attack by nearly everyone. A 
tobacco-friendly tax provision that was hidden in the settlement was 
quickly removed by the Senate and House once the public became aware of 
it. But without a direct tax benefit or higher cigarette prices, or 
both, there's no way the industry can afford the astronomical $368.5 
billion settlement they have agreed to pay over the next 25 years--the 
industry makes only $8.4 billion annual pretax profit.
  The tobacco companies deserve every bit of grief they are receiving--
but for reasons other than commonly assumed. It's true they profit from 
selling a dangerous product. But so do automobile, airplane, and gun 
manufacturers, as well as food producers, drug companies, and coffee 
farmers. When you boil it down, any produce used incorrectly or 
excessively is dangerous. Even oxygen used incorrectly can be 
dangerous. And most people know tobacco is dangerous without the 
benefit of the nanny-state inspectors and the bureaucrats' warning 
label.
  Tobacco company executives symbolize much of what is wrong with 
corporate America and our corrupt system of special interests, 
favoritism, and interventionism, For decades, big tobacco lobbied for, 
and gladly accepted, subsidies and trade benefits while anyone with a 
grain of common sense knew smoking was a bad habit that adversely 
affected some people's health. It was no secret that young people could 
easily become addicted to nicotine.
  There were specific gains to be realized from the charade that 
surrounded tobacco sales. Pretending that smoking was a benign habit 
made it easier to collect benefits from nonsmoking taxpayers. And the 
alternative--arguing for personal responsibility--was hardly in vogue.
  Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk has 
incrementally been shifted from the individual to the State. As we 
moved further from a free society toward a managed welfare state, 
responsibility for nearly everything began to be systematically 
delivered to somebody else through the State and its growing army of 
bureaucrats. The tobacco industry was a willing accomplice to this 
betrayal of individual responsibility.
  The failure of big tobacco to fight Government's requirement to place 
warning labels on cigarettes, Government intervention into 
distribution, while accepting agricultural subsidies, Government 
involvement in production, allowed the entire smoking industry, from 
production to distribution, to be invaded by the Federal Government.
  Tobacco put out the welcome mat for big government. Now, it's only a 
matter of time before nicotine will be declared a drug and more FDA 
regulations will inundate us. Unfortunately this will only compound our 
many problems with nicotine.
  Smoking should be treated no differently than compulsive eating, 
chocolate addiction, or driving too fast. But the way the tobacco 
corporate leaders are acting in cahoots with big government, you would 
think they are conspiring to prevent this.
  The question is: Who has responsibility for our well-being? Who 
should make decisions regarding risk taking and personal habits--the 
government or the individual?
  During the Clinton health-care debate, tobacco and nearly every other 
industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was the 
Government's responsibility--Federal and state--to provide medical care 
for everyone as if it were, in itself, a constitutional right.
  When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to 
reflect the costs of habits like smoking, sky diving, overweight, and 
medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance 
goes out the window, everybody gets everything paid for, and no one can 
be discriminated against.

  Persons who have harmed their heath by smoking have learned they can 
coerce those with good health into paying for the consequences of their 
bad habit. In fact, many who harm themselves through their chosen 
lifestyles, not just a single bad habit, religiously believe they have 
a right to be taken care of by someone else. This group includes not 
only those who smoke, but those who drink too much, or perform sexual 
acts which increase their chances of acquiring AIDS or hepatitis, or 
those who won't diet to take care of their diabetes or heart 
conditions.
  It's this abdication of personal responsibility--this misconceived 
notion that the State is responsible for us--that drives counter-
intelligent drug laws, which inspires the use of dirty needles, which 
serves to further spread AIDS and hepatitis. And instead of legalizing 
the right to buy a clean needle for a few pennies, the bureaucrats 
insist on making it Government's responsibility to coerce nondrug users 
into paying for free needles so the addicts can keep using their 
illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre.
  This lack of understanding responsibility, rights, and subsidies has 
led tobacco industry leaders to further compound the problem by not 
fighting the trumped-up obligation to pay for any health care that may 
have arisen from smoking.
  Not once have we heard a tobacco industry leader defend his right to 
sell something that is risky to some but not others--which is the case 
with tobacco and most other products. One pack of cigarettes a year 
never hurt anyone. Everyone who smokes doesn't become addicted. Ninety 
percent of smokers never get a smoking-related illness. Absent fraud, 
the user is responsible for the risk he assumes, not the seller of any 
given product.
  It has been suggested by some that smoking cigarettes provides 
certain immunity from some diseases. I personally cannot stand smoking, 
and even as a child I knew it was dangerous. It was a time when parents 
had a lot more to do with assuming the responsibility for teaching 
children about all dangers--like fire, chemicals, heights, crossing 
highways, sharp objects, guns, and smoking.
  We still don't hear a principled challenge to the demands of the 
various states to be reimbursed by the tobacco industry for the costs 
of smoking-related illnesses. States should not be in the medical 
business in the first place, let alone be extorting funds from the 
producers of tobacco products.

[[Page H8837]]

  Yes, the business leaders in the tobacco industry deserve sharp 
criticism. Once this precedent of paying medical bills is set, the 
manufacturers of automobiles will then be liable for all accidents even 
if the drivers are speeding and intoxicated. Chocolate addicts can then 
sue Hershey, fat people can sue cattle ranchers. The whole notion that 
tobacco companies should pay for tobacco-related illnesses is absurd.
  The tobacco deal does great harm, because it further undermines the 
principle of self-responsibility. The spread of this concept will not 
only push up the costs of medical treatment and the products involved, 
it could actually encourage the use of dangerous products. The response 
of potential users will be, ``If I'm unfortunate and become ill or 
injured, the seller or the Government will be made to take care of 
me''--a very common reaction in a welfare state. To the extent one can 
lower the cost of one's own risky habit by socializing it, one is less 
likely to worry about consequences and more likely to engage in that 
dangerous behavior.
  If this attitude toward consumer risk is not changed, the free 
society that we once had cannot be restored.
  I'd like to see a spokesman for tobacco come forward and insist on 
recognition of the moral principle that individuals have responsibility 
for themselves and a duty to make choices and assume the consequences 
of the risks they take. My advice to him would be to give up the 
subsidies, demand freedom, and fight the social misfits who argue for 
collective guilt and collective responsibility. Any other course of 
action will lead to more evils.

                          ____________________