America's Poly-Addictions

Cigarettes, food, alcohol, drugs, music, movies, TV -- even work "Why are so many of us addicted to one or more of these? The answer is simple: we seek to avoid our pain. When we change our mood with diversions like these, we numb out, shut down and shut out our pain -- and we do nothing to solve the problem that's the cause of it.

"The solution: in difficult moments, avoid substances and other diversions. Stay with the problem. Think about what's causing your difficulty, try to clearly identify and be aware of it, and absolutely, talk about it to others. It's by talking about our problems that we can best solve them, and begin to heal. So stay with what's bothering you, talk to someone, and then take a step to solve your problem. Even taking a little step is more important than you may realize.

"In summary, when life's problems arise, and they will, don't alter your mood with smoking, alcohol, drugs, music, or working too hard. Tough it out, and do the work at hand. Stay with the hard moment.

"Life is not meant to be easy -- it's difficult by design. It's by our personal struggles that we build and define our character. Dealing with life's obstacles and failures empowers each of us to become stronger, and to reach our full potential as adult men and women. And -- you can do it!" ^ top

In recent years, we have made tremendous strides in our fight against the tobacco industry.

Our greatest progress has come from local governments, which have passed hundreds of 100% smoking bans, vending machine bans and sales-to-minors compliance checks.

Only two State Legislatures, California (1987) and Delaware (2002), have passed 100% Statewide smoking bans. Others have passed much weaker laws, which often preempt local communities from banning smoking 100%. In these cases, the weaker Statewide law applies. "Preemption" has been a very effective strategy for Big Tobacco.

Only four States have allocated the CDC's minimum recommended amount for an effective tobacco education campaign, proportionately matching the amount spent by Florida, which by 2002 had attained a 47% reduction in middle school smoking and a 30% reduction in high school smoking.

The other 46 states have not even met the CDC's minimum recommended amount, and in 2002, many States are cutting already inadequate tobacco education funds to meet budget shortfalls. Several have securitized their entire 25 years of settlement payments, which means they took a smaller upfornt payment in 2002, in place of all future payments. Some, like Wisconsin and California, have used the entire amount to pay down a portion of their current budget shortfall.

Yet our greatest win came from the Judicial Branch of government, which awarded $246 billion in settlement of the States' lawsuits. Even though little of the money has been used for youth education and smoking cessation programs, this hurt Big Tobacco both financially, and in terms of its public image.

In spite of the overall progress made by other divisions of government -- the courts, a very small handful of State legislatures, and many local governments -- Congress has done almost nothing to regulate Big Tobacco.

In fact, for more than thirty years, Congress has passed no bill making it harder for children to purchase cigarettes, no laws to limit cigarette advertising, and no Federal workplace smoking law. And for thirty years, Congress has passed no substantial increase in the Federal tobacco tax; the US tobacco tax continues to be among the lowest in the industrialized world.

"I believe the primary reason for Congress' stunning leniency on Big Tobacco has been our system of campaign finance," says Reynolds.

Looking at the larger picture, many other industries have also amassed excessive influence over Congress, through huge political donations and hundreds of hired lobbyists. Mr. Reynolds points out that the large corporations have amassed truly awesome power over our government. The tobacco industry, he says, is a prime example of excessive corporate influence over Congress.

By April, 2002, after the long awaited and bitterly contested passage of Campaign Finance Reform by Congress, more dollars were flowing to our elected officials than ever before. Both parties went on a binge of political fundraising, collecting as much as possible before the new bill became law in November, 2002. As of December, foes are challenging the new law in the courts and doing their best to weaken the law with loopholes and added rules.

Despite politicians' claims that political donations have no effect over the way they vote, no corporate executive gives away millions of company dollars without expecting something substantial in return. Any executive who did would be fired.

Studies show that politicians who have accepted donations from the tobacco companies were several times more likely to vote the way Big Tobacco wanted them to.

Thus our former system of campaign finance effectively helped the tobacco industry elude significant regulation by Congress for many decades.

Mr. Reynolds says that public finance of campaigns, while not perfect, would keep our politicians more honest, and would cost every American just $4.00 each per year. He also believes that the Internet offers some excellent possibilities for reducing the cost of political campaigns.

The suit to undo the new campaign finance reform law, led by Republican members of Congress, is based on the idea that limiting election ads and regulating soft money contributions violates Freedom of Speech. Opponents argue that campaign cash excessively amplifies the voices of the special interests, and effectively drowns out the voices of citizens with less cash. The suit will soon be decided by the Supreme Court.

Much depends on the outcome. Our fight to reign in the political influence of the tobacco industry hangs in the balance, and so does the public mandate to bring to heel other excessively powerful special interests as well. ^ top

In March, 2000 the Supreme court voted 5 to 4 that Congress should regulate tobacco, and ruled that the FDA had no authority over it until Congress bestows it on them. The tobacco industry's attorneys had presented arguments to the Court that the FDA would almost have to ban tobacco. But FDA regulation would not in fact have done this. Instead it would have brought about meaningful regulation of the cigarette companies at the national level.

Notably, the five more conservative Justices were all in the majority in this decision, and the liberal Justices comprised the minority.

In summary, the court ruled that only Congress has the power to give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco. Sadly, however, Washington has done almost nothing in the past 30 years to regulate Big Tobacco. It's a real setback that the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch of government, did nothing to bring Congress into check in this area. ^ top

"The new workplace ban in Federal buildings should be extended to all workplaces. Sadly, to date OSHA has failed to rule. Some workers have quietly suggested it's because OSHA fears having its budget chopped in reprisal by powerful members of Congress.

"A few years ago, California's legislature passed a statewide 100% ban of smoking in nightclubs, bars and restaurants. This has proven among voters to be one of the most popular bills ever passed in California. But immediately prior to its becoming law, the tobacco industry spent $20 million on a highly deceptive ad campaign. The goal was to pass a tobacco industry-sponsored ballot measure which would actually have undone the pending law, and allowed for smoking in 25% of restaurant seating areas.

"Billboards appeared all over California with the message, "It's time for tough smoking restrictions. Vote yes...." But in the election, the tobacco industry-backed measure failed by a slim margin, and California's 100% smoking ban went into effect. Fortunately, the majority of voters were not fooled.

"In the 1980's and 90's, as local smoking bans were being passed by hundreds of city governments around the nation, the tobacco industry fanned the fires of panic among restaurant owners. They claimed there would be a big loss of customers if a town banned smoking 100%. However, studies by Stan Glantz and his team at UC San Francisco proved irrefutably that restaurant sales tax revenues remained the same, or actually increased, following local smoking bans. This was quite contrary to the alarmist spin of the Big Tobacco-backed 'Restaurant Associations'.

"Another strategy was to take out full page ads in magazines, promoting the spin that smoking laws interfered with the personal freedoms of smokers. One ad showed a smoker with dozens of guns pointed at his head from all directions. These ads said nothing about the freedom of nonsmokers to breath clean air and not inhale smoke involuntarily. Nor did these ads comment on smokers' enslavement to nicotine, or the possible liability of businesses who knowingly expose their workers to second hand smoke.

"Change was coming. By the mid and late 1990's, various courts in fact began awarding damages to plaintiffs who had suffered a health injury in the workplace due to exposure to second hand smoke. Awards went to restaurant workers and private citizens, and the flight attendants association won $300 million, which went into a Foundation.

"It's clear that 100% smoking bans are actually in the interest of the restaurant owners. Most airlines have recognized this, and voluntarily extended their ban to all overseas flights. That's well beyond the present 6 hour smoking ban required by law on flights of 6 hours or less.

"Despite the tobacco industry's disinformation campaigns, there is by now an overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence proving beyond all doubt that second hand smoke kills, and causes lung cancer and heart disease among nonsmokers. Some studies suggest that as many as 44,000 US deaths per year are caused by second hand smoke.

"I believe the passage of campaign finance reform will do a great deal to promote the passage of many more 100% smoking bans in State legislatures across the US. 100% bans are exceedingly popular among voters, and clearly help protect the public health.

If the campaign finance reform bill passed in April, 2002 holds up, and is not undone by the Freedom of Speech lawsuit, then both Congress and America's State legislators will have every reason to do the right thing --and no reason not to." ^ top

The tobacco industry's influence is strong not just in Congress, but in State legislatures as well. The brazen slashing of Florida's tobacco education campaign is an excellent example of the tobacco industry's tremendous influence with State legislators.

Spearheaded by their "Truth" ad campaign, Florida's tobacco education program resulted the most successful effort ever. But in early 1999, the Florida House actually voted to kill funding for the entire program. How could this happen? Let's go back in time.

The Tallahassee-based, at that time named the "Tobacco Pilot Program," was funded by Florida's early settlement with the tobacco industry. Within a year, smoking had dropped 8 percent among high school students and by 19 percent among sixth to eighth graders. These were some of the largest decreases ever observed in the United States -- at a time when teen smoking rates elsewhere in the nation were soaring. A follow-up study published in March 2000 showed a 47% reduction in Florida middle school smoking.

Despite a poll which showed that 78% of Floridians wanted the program there to continue at present levels, Florida's House of Representatives abolished the program by cutting its funding -- to zero! But Senate approval was needed and there was a public outcry. So in April 1999, as the legislature approved the budget, about half the funds were restored.

Members of the legislature claimed they were unconvinced by the recent studies showing the dramatic drop in teen smoking rates. However, the truth might be that the unspoken promise of future campaign donations from Big Tobacco is more important to these politicians.

Clearly, the best step we can take to have a more honest government is strong campaign finance reform. This passed in March, 2002, but is now being challenged in the courts on the grounds that the new law violates Freedom of Speech. ^ top