In a communication sent out yesterday, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids tells tobacco control advocates throughout the country that changes to the FDA legislation that would ban the use of clove and menthol flavorings in cigarettes, greatly improve cigarette warning labels, and give the FDA the authority to actually eliminate nicotine from cigarettes do not strengthen the bill.
The Campaign, referring to the amendments that have been offered to the proposed FDA legislation, states: "All of their amendments fall into two strategies, both aimed at defeating the legislation. The majority would significantly weaken the bill. Others are presented in the guise of being pro-tobacco control ... . ...
If you don't have the votes to kill a bill, add amendments that appear to strengthen it but that proponents of the legislation will find hard to oppose, and, if passed, will divide the supporters of the bill and increase the number of its opponents. It was a tactic that was used successfully to defeat the McCain tobacco legislation in 1998. ...
In this case the amendments that appear favorable on the surface are all being offered by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY). ...
Three of Senator Enzi's amendments to S625 would increase the tax on tobacco products ... . Each of these amendments would supposedly fund an activity supported by the public health community."
The Rest of the Story
The truth is that each of the amendments referred to above would significantly strengthen the bill. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these amendments offer the only provisions in the bill which would actually have a substantial impact on smoking rates.
The current bill will do nothing to cut smoking rates, and will likely increase smoking, as it will create a perceived (and real) FDA stamp of approval for cigarettes.
But the amendments actually do something meaningful: they eliminate an additive which has been largely successful in recruiting African American (and other) smokers; they offer the prospect of the elimination of nicotine from cigarettes (which would clearly cause a drastic reduction in smoking); and they directly reduce cigarette consumption and save lives by increasing the cigarette tax and by dedicating these revenues to smoking-related programs.
So to suggest that these amendments are only favorable on the surface and that they merely have the guise of being pro-tobacco control seems to either show ignorance about the strategies that would actually be effective, or a deliberate attempt to mislead tobacco control advocates in order to get them to oppose these most favorable and most pro-tobacco control amendments.
I would go so far as to say that these amendments are essentially the only meaningful pro-tobacco control provisions and the only meaningful favorable provisions in the entire bill.
"All of their amendments fall into two strategies, both aimed at defeating the legislation. The majority would significantly weaken the bill. Others are presented in the guise of being pro-tobacco control ... . ...
Really? Eliminating nicotine is not really a pro-tobacco control provision? Maybe not, if your criterion for judging a bill is how well it protects the profits of the nation's largest cigarette company.
If you don't have the votes to kill a bill, add amendments that appear to strengthen it but that proponents of the legislation will find hard to oppose, and, if passed, will divide the supporters of the bill and increase the number of its opponents. It was a tactic that was used successfully to defeat the McCain tobacco legislation in 1998. ...
Appear to strengthen it? So eliminating menthol and clove doesn't actually strengthen the legislation? Again, it doesn't strengthen it only if your criterion for evaluating the bill is how well it protects Big Tobacco profits.
And I should add that the amendment that TFK refers to here as weakening the McCain legislation was actually a provision to eliminate tobacco industry immunity from the bill. In my mind, it was a provision that was absolutely essential to even give the bill a chance of being favorable to public health.
In this case the amendments that appear favorable on the surface are all being offered by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY). ...
Favorable on the surface? So again, these amendments are not actually favorable for public health? Perhaps not, if your goal is to protect the financial well-being of Philip Morris.
Three of Senator Enzi's amendments to S625 would increase the tax on tobacco products ... . Each of these amendments would supposedly fund an activity supported by the public health community."
Would supposedly fund an activity supported by the public health community? In other words, the bill is lying and the money actually wouldn't go to the purposes that is prescribed in the printed text? The amendments wouldn't supposedly fund these activities, they do fund these activities. Just read the actual language of the amendments. For example, from Enzi amendment #5: "such amounts [revenues] shall be transferered in such fiscal year to fund the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health." There is nothing supposed about it.
Look - if the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids wants to suggest that Senator Enzi is a fraud and has no actual concern about reducing smoking, then fine, go ahead and make that attack. But don't deceive people into thinking that these amendments are actually changes that weaken the bill and that while on the surface they look favorable, the truth is that they are harmful to the protection of the public's health.
Just tell the truth and admit that these amendments are indeed favorable and they do indeed strengthen the bill, but that you're afraid that with these amendments, the bill will be so strong that it no longer has a chance of passage.
It's not fair to deceive your constituents by implying that these amendments weaken the legislation. Most of these constituents do not have access to the actual amendments, so they are relying upon your information - and solely your information - to make their judgments. Just give them the truth and let them make their own decisions. Don't deceive them in order to mislead them into opposing amendments which many of them probably would actually support. Let them make their own decision. But they can't do that if they don't know the truth.
If the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is going to hide the truth and deceive and mislead people, The Rest of the Story will get the truth out there. I'll make sure that the public understands exactly what the nature of these amendments is and what their actual significance is to the legislation and its strength in terms of the public health protection that they offer.
It's really not that difficult to tell the truth. All you have to do is try.
No comments:
Post a Comment