April 1, 1996
CONGRESSMAN HENRY WAXMAN ON THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat from California, has sprearheaded efforts to publicly question the advertising techniques and honesty of tobacco companies. In the 103rd Congress, Rep. Waxman served as chairman of the Health subcommittee investigating the tobacco industry's actions. He called the heads of all the major tobacco firms in the U.S. before his committee to question them on the health impact of their products.

Just last year, Waxman took to the floor of the House of Representatives and accused tobacco companies of gearing their products toward children and "spiking" nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Waxman has become a lightening rod for both anti- and pro-smoking groups. One smoker's rights group has already attempted to discredit his work.

A question from Harriet Grandis of Boca Raton, FL:

When the CEO's of those tobacco companies testified before your committee two years ago, they all said that cigarettes posed no significant threat to human health. What do you think the political, economic and legal repercussions of their appearance will be? Are you going to investigate whether they knowingly lied to you?

Congressman Waxman responds:

That April 14, 1994 hearing has had--and continues to have--important implications for the tobacco industry and for advocates of sane tobacco regulations. That was the first time the tobacco executives testified together before Congress, and it provided an unprecedented opportunity to question the industry under oath.

Before April 14, the tobacco industry communicated with the public solely through carefully orchestrated and very sophisticated $6 billion annual advertising campaigns. At the hearing, we heard the executives--in their own words--swear that nicotine is not manipulated in cigarettes and that it's not addictive.

Since that hearing, a series of documents and sworn statements by former tobacco industry employees has contradicted that testimony. The Justice Department is currently investigating whether the executives' testimony amounts to perjury, and the Food and Drug Administration is working on regulations to limit the sale and access of cigarettes to children.

I wish Congress would continue the investigation I began two years ago, but the new Republican leadership ended the effort to uncover the truth about the industry's practices as soon as they took control of the House. I am confident, however, that we will continue to learn more about the industry, and that the fundamental changes affecting tobacco will continue in the years ahead.

----------------------

A question from Janet Butts of Atlanta, GA:

I don't understand this debate. If we cannot control the illegal drug use in this country, how is any government program or law going to control cigarettes?

Congressman Waxman responds:

Let's look at the scope of both problems. Every year cigarettes kill over 400,000 Americans a year; all illegal drugs combined kill 20,000 Americans. In fact, tobacco kills more Americans every year than illegal drugs, AIDs, alcohol, auto accidents, murders, suicides, and fires combined. That's astounding, but it's true.

It's also true that we are losing a whole new generation of kids to nicotine addiction. Every day approximately 3,000 kids start smoking for the first time. And, despite the industry's claim that advertising doesn't matter, nearly 70% of children smoke the three most heavily advertised brands of cigarettes (Marlboro, Camel, and Newport.)

So, we have a bad problem and every day it gets a little worse. We can't accept defeat and lose our children to an addictive drug. Instead, we should try to do better.

But Prohibition isn't the answer. It wouldn't work, and it might even make the problem worse.

Instead, we should adopt the FDA's proposed rules that would eliminate cigarette vending machines, prohibit companies from targeting kids in their ads, and make it as difficult as possible for kids to buy cigarettes. These are common-sense steps that can and will work.

It's not realistic to expect that we can eliminate smoking among children. But if we could reduce the number by at least fifty percent, we will do more for improving the public health in our country than any other measure before Congress.

----------------------

A question from Elizabeth Lee of Los Angeles, CA:

Is the real issue the negative health impact of tobacco or is it the addictive qualities of nicotine? Perhaps the government should look into making a cigarette less addictive so that people won't get hooked. What do you think of working to make a "safer" product, or is there no such thing when it comes to cigarettes?

Congressman Waxman responds:

There is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette with regard to lung cancer or heart disease, but cigarettes could clearly be made with less nicotine. I think the FDA should organize a blue ribbon panel of scientists and experts to study whether--over time--the level of nicotine could be gradually reduced in cigarettes so that smoking was no longer addictive. If that were possible, then smoking would truly be a choice, not an addiction. We need to be careful, however, that we don't create a situation where people smoke just so they can receive the same dose of nicotine as today's cigarettes provide.

----------------------

A question from Frederick H. Bartlett of Merceville, NJ:

The solution to the tobacco question cannot come from further regulation. Perhaps, instead of regulation, we can look at economics: tax the tobacco industry at a rate sufficient to reimburse the various state and local governments for their tobacco-related costs and let the market encourage people not to smoke.

Congressman Waxman responds:

Politics is most frustrating when common-sense proposals can't become laws because of political realities. Prepare to be frustrated.

Increased tobacco taxes is a rational approach and it works (except for those with severe addictions.) Most Americans support increasing tobacco taxes and higher prices make it more difficult for kids to smoke. But the tobacco industry--which is still the most powerful special interest in the country--will oppose it with all its resources. In fact, two years ago the industry defeated attempts to increase the cigarette excise tax.

See the next question for my thoughts on how we can change this reality.

----------------------

A question from Gloria Roffman of Richmond Virginia:

According to reports I have seen, tobacco companies and their PACS have contributed significant funds to many members of Congress, including Presidential candidate Bob Dole. What effect has this money had on your efforts to regulate tobacco?

Congressman Waxman responds:

It makes it nearly impossible to adopt sensible policies. Last year, the tobacco industry was the single biggest campaign contributor to the Republican Party. They got a lot for their money. Speaker Newt Gingrich has attacked FDA for trying to regulate tobacco, the head of the Republican Party (Haley Barbour) has personally lobbied Governors and State Legislators on tobacco's behalf, and the congressional investigation into the tobacco industry has been terminated. And Republican leaders have made it clear that no legislation opposed by the tobacco industry will be considered in either the House or Senate.

The tobacco industry is Washington's most formidable special interest not because they have the best policy arguments (they don't), but because they have the most money. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is circulating a Pledge to all Members of Congress asking that they refuse any more tobacco money. This has been my policy for years, but I hope Americans from all around our country will urge their Representatives to take the Pledge. The tobacco industry's influence would be dramatically reduced if real campaign finance reform were enacted.

Additional Comments:

Smoking and related illnesses

I lost my dad, an otherwise healthy man of 62, to smokers' emphysema and related pneuonia in 1984.

I've often wondered, what would be the most striking change he would note if he were to return by some miracle? Certainly the prevailing use of computers would be noteworthy, but the decline in public acceptance and tolerance of smoking would be the greatest change.

I believe it would please him on several counts. When we were teens he worried about the impact of drugs on us and society as a whole. Yet despite being legal and until recently an acceptable norm, smoking has declined. Though people have the choice to smoke or not smoke, they are smarter than my parents' generation in not doing so.

That the tobacco vendors negate this choice of children and teens by slick advertising and marketing is truly evil. If it can be proved that they manipulated nicotine levels in the interest of profits I would support any and all measures to bring these criminals to justice, and allow the addicts the freedom to quit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lynn Brielmaier, Houston, TX:

Tobacco products are here to stay. The Government and the Tobacco Industry must find some way to co-exist. Alcohol Prohibition failed miserably; we cannot simply ban tobacco products. The alcohol distribution model serves as a good vehicle to mold future tobacco policies.

In this respect, the Tobacco Industry needs to accept more stringent distribution policies, to restrict access to those under 18 years old. Nowhere in the nation (that I know of) can alcohol be bought in a vending machine. The laws need to be strenghtened against retailers who vend tobacco to minors. (I propose) if one sells alcohol to a minor, one risks losing a license to sell alcohol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randy Rentschler, San Francisco, CA:

Joe Camel

The advertising issue, in my mind, is the fundamental issue. While smoking should always be legal, it is outrageous that we allow the use of cartoon charactors to promote this vice.

Other than the predators who promote smoking, who doesn't really believe that cartoons are the world of children, and not adults?

The promotion of smoking must be replaced with a national program modeled after the California anti-smoking campaign, one that is funded with a cigeratte tax.

Forget the regulatory debate. It's a loser. As long as kids are encouraged by cigarette promotions to channel adolecent energy, rebellion, and the need to be seen as "grown-up" by lighting up, all regulations will fail.

Take promotions off the highway, the race car, the ball game, and most of the problem will go away.

And why would millions of dollars be spent if the strategy was not working?

Advertising works!! That is why it is so pervasive in our society.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Backes, Seattle WA:

Regulation of tobacco companies

Background: I am an ex-smoker.

I believe that tobacco companies should be strictly regulated with respect to what they claim about their products, and even if they can advertise them.

At present, I think they are justly liable for damages from individuals and institutions because they promote falsehoods in order to turn a profit.

(Nonetheless) if, and when, they are banned from promoting their products and making false claims, they shouldn't be held responsible for what everybody should know by now: that tobacco is an addictive and dangerous substance. My answer is ban tobacco advertising, and require full disclosure of the risks, and after that, lawsuits should cease.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew McCormick, Bellevue, WA:

Government and tobacco

Because I believe that most drugs should be decrminalized, I think the government should not regulate cigarette use. However, the government should not support it either. All federal and state subsidies for tobacco companies should be eliminated. I also think that advertising of tobacco products should be prohibited, and that if tobacco products are used in motion pictures, a warning should be posted.

Cigarettes should also be taxed heavily, both to discourage their use and to raise funds to help pay for the medical costs of those who smoke. I also have no problem with insurance companies charging higher premiums for people who smoke cigartettes.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to see a Forum Menu.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.