ANDREA HOPKINS: Big Tobacco's Unholy Influence On Congress Is Waning

Just before heading out on its long summer break, Congress took a bold step with regard to tobacco.

A veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the highly addictive and deadly product as a drug. It’s about time. Now, the Senate needs to do the same.

That tobacco escaped such regulation for so long is a testament to the power of the industry. In particular, it bears witness to the industry’s remarkable ability to cultivate congressional allies by spreading its blood money around like steaming manure on freshly plowed fields.

Tobacco industry contributions peaked at more than $10.5 million in 1996, according to OpenSecrets.org, the Web site of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The lion’s share – $8.6 million – went to Republicans.

The purveyors of smokes aren’t quite so generous these days. Industry chieftains (and their political action committees) only contributed $2.8 million to candidates in this election cycle. Perhaps this reflects their rising unpopularity in the wake of tobacco litigation that unmasked them as reprobate liars – willing to suppress scientific research and to say anything to continue selling a product that was a confirmed killer.

The beneficiaries of this year’s tobacco largesse include most of the presidential primary contenders – Republicans and Democrats. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, is a notable and laudable exception.

Unfortunately, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, the Republican and Democratic presumptive nominees, took the money. They should stand up for the health of the American people and give it back.

McCain pocketed $78,000 and is the No. 2 recipient overall this year (just behind Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.). Obama took more than $25,000.

Other notables on the list include Rep. Eric Cantor, a Richmond-area Republican, who received $49,000 and ranks eighth overall. The tobacco folks might want a refund; Cantor, whose wife serves on the board of directors of our parent company, Media General, voted in favor of FDA regulation on Wednesday.

Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, both R-Tenn.; Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; and Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn., also are on tobacco’s “friends” list. Boucher probably won’t be getting a Christmas card from his donors; he still voted in favor of FDA regulations. On the other hand, Davis, who is a respiratory therapist by training and should know better, voted against the bill.

Alexander and Corker and their Senate colleagues have yet to vote. Will they cast their lot with big tobacco – an industry that makes a lethal product and that needs new young smokers to continue to profit? Or will they take a stand for better health?

Tennesseans still smoke at a rate higher than the national average. Southwest Virginia, too, is an island of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking. This, in turn, leads to higher rates of heart and lung disease, disability and early death.

Disturbingly, young people in Tennessee and this part of Virginia continue to take up tobacco use at a much greater rate than their counterparts elsewhere. Is this the legacy we want for our children?

The legislation that passed the House would give the FDA the authority to crack down on marketing ploys that target children. Tobacco advertisements would mostly disappear; fruit-flavored cigarettes, which help hook youngsters, would be a thing of the past.

But that is not all. The industry would be required to release a list of all the chemicals (some of them bizarre and many of them carcinogenic) that are in their product and provide scientific research on the effects of those chemicals.

Cigarettes aren’t just burley leaf rolled in a paper. At a minimum, they contain hundreds of chemicals; some sources indicate there are as many as 4,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Further, the FDA could require reduction of nicotine to non-addictive levels and could require the elimination of some other harmful ingredients. The industry would no longer be able to market products as “light” or “ultralight” and the warnings on cigarette packs would be far more graphic.

The bill does not allow the FDA to eliminate nicotine entirely or to ban tobacco outright. Nor is such an approach likely to work.

The nation tried prohibition of alcohol, but mostly succeeded in creating a black market for the product. Similarly, the nation has spent much money attempting to stamp out illegal drugs, like marijuana, but has not succeeded.

Stiff restrictions on public smoking, stronger regulations of tobacco and higher taxes on the product are a better approach to tamp down demand. If the burden of smoking becomes too high, some smokers will quit and many teenagers will never start.

In a generation, smoking might be a bad habit consigned to the dustbin of history. But first the Senate must take a bold step of its own and kick the habit of kissing up to Big Tobacco.

Andrea Hopkins is opinion editor of the Bristol Herald Courier. She may be reached at ahopkins@bristolnews.com