Column: Outside Looking In

In the summer of 1995, I worked a three month internship at The Warroad Pioneer, which I'm sorry to say has since ceased operation. This was the first professional newspaper that I worked for in my career, and it turned out to be a wonderful experience. I had only worked at Bemidji State University's newspaper for about a year and half before landing the internship. At The Pioneer I gained experience in sports, feature, beat and government reporting. I designed pages, took and developed photographs and was responsible for community relations. The best part is that I remain friends with the owners nearly 30 years later.

July 18, 1995

By Devlyn Brooks

This past week, the Food and Drug Administration released reports stating that nicotine is a drug that needs to be regulated. The FDA said that they would like to regulate teen smoking as a "pediatric disease."

I guess being a non-smoker I didn't find this such a bad idea. It confirmed my thoughts when I found out that 90 percent of this nation's 50 million smokers started before the age of 18.

However, I understand the reactions from members of Congress that hail from tobacco-growing states was not as supportive. I don't suppose it would be.

The tobacco industry is a big lobbyer on Capitol Hill, and the only appropriate answer from those faithful congressional delegates who work for the tobacco companies would be to vehemently disagree with the FDA. How else would they refill their election coffers?

Our prestigious Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said that the actions of the FDA were just an example of "Big Government interfering." Interfering with what I ask, his re-election campaign? The question is probably mute considering that Gingrich is a representative of Georgia. Do you think there's money in "dem dere tobacco hills?" I do.

Gingrich also said that the FDA shouldn't be tackling the problem of smoking when "we haven't won the far more serious fights about crack and heroine." So, let me get this straight Newt, the 400,00 people who die every year from smoking related causes are a minor problem? Evidently Newt doesn't think that those 400,000 lives each year are that much to pay as long as he can sit on Capitol Hill continuing his (dis)service to the American public.

I guess there is another thing that I don't understand. The FDA's commissioner announced that their focus "is to find ways to discourage children from starting smoking in the first place." That sounds reasonable to me. However, the same night the FDA released their statement the Phillip Morris company, a producer of cigarettes, released a statement in which this sentence appeared: "As committed as Phillip Morris is to preventing youth access to cigarettes, we are equally committed to ensuring that adult smokers can continue to purchase cigarettes in a free market."

Well then, if they are committed to preventing youth access to cigarettes, why are they so afraid of the FDA focusing on keeping cigarettes away from children? We all know why. Phillip Morris knows that most of their lifetime smokers start when they are younger than 18. It wouldn't behoove them to fight teenage smoking whole-heartedly.

Another line that I find enjoyable in the Phillip Morris press release is, "And it is, in fact, the states to which Congress has given responsibility for curbing youth access." Well now, I guess that right there absolves them of any moral responsibility from stopping teenage smoking now doesn't it?

Not once in their entire press release does Phillip Morris provide a sound reason as to why the FDA shouldn't be allowed to target nicotine as an addictive drug.

The press release does, however, provide some eloquent examples of bologna and passing the buck. Such as this one: "Commissioner Kessler's continuing crusade against the tobacco industry also raises serious questions about FDA priorities and its management of scarce tax dollars. Should the FDA be attempting to add to its regulatory burden while it is being scrutinized for its inability to meet its current obligations to approve new life-saving drugs and medical devices and ensure the continued safety of the food supply?"

So Phillip Morris isn't saying that the FDA should not regulate smoking because it would be wrong for them to do so. No, Phillip Morris is saying that the FDA shouldn't regulate smoking because it raises serious questions about the FDA's priorities. Sounds like horse pucky to me.

The press release goes on to say that the FDA shouldn't regulate cigarettes because Congress has "reserved to itself the major decisions regarding tobacco regulation ..." Yea, I'm sure Phillip Morris supports Congress regulating tobacco. The members of Congress are probably cheaper to buy than the FDA officials.

Finally, the press release states that Phillip Morris will "vigorously oppose" anymore "government regulations from Washington."

I'm sure they will, and they will continue to pass the buck as well as they have for this many years.