CONGRESS NEEDS TO RESIST DRUG LOBBY

President Clinton hit the coffin nail on the head Tuesday night. The
tobacco companies are targeting young people through a massive media
campaign designed to make cigarettes seem attractive.

The cost in health and lives will be incalculable. The cost of treating the
illnesses cigarette smoking causes will run into the billions of dollars.
Much of that will fall to taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid.

The president isn't going to take that sitting down.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday he said, "I ask this Congress to
resist the tobacco lobby. Together, let's reaffirm the FDA's authority to
protect children from tobacco, hold the tobacco companies accountable, and
protect tobacco farmers."

Bravo. The tobacco companies need to be held accountable because they
produce an addictive product that carries dangerous, long-term effects.
Through advertising, they constantly seek new customers to replace those
who die from tobacco use.

And tobacco farmers need to be protected because they carry political
influence disproportionate to their numbers and contributions to society.

There's only one problem with Clinton's vision as stated Tuesday. It
doesn't go far enough.

Drugs -marijuana, hashish, cocaine and heroin - also inflict a massive
physical, spiritual and financial toll on the country.

Vast and well-funded organizations exist to package and distribute these
dangerous substances. Forces in the media make them seem attractive to
young people.

I ask this Congress to resist the drug lobby. Together let's reaffirm the
government's authority to protect children from drugs, hold the drug
cartels accountable and protect the drug farmers.

While they may not wield the political clout of the tobacco farmers, those
who grow marijuana, coca plants and heroin poppies still deserve
protection. They live largely in Third World countries where economic
opportunities are scarce. Depriving them of the ability to survive on the
land that their fathers farmed before them would be unconscionable.

President Clinton's stance on tobacco. Tough but fair. Now we just need to
broaden it to include other harmful substances.

[Newshawk note: The following portion is in italics] (Editor's note aimed
specifically at readers who thought Mr. Batten's Dec. 31 column was meant
as an actual defense of Judge Brenda Wilson in her ongoing difficulties
with the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. This column, as that
one, is an example of a literary form known as satire. Webster's defines
satire as "the use of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, etc. to attack vices,
follies, etc." Further, sarcasm is described as "a taunting or caustic
remark, gibe or jeer, generally ironical."

Mr. Batten does not really believe marijuana farmers deserve protection,
just as he does not really believe it is OK for Judge Wilson to lie to
investigators. The mention of marijuana farmers and their ilk is meant to
draw attention to the irony in President Clinton's plan to attack tobacco
companies for their production of a dangerous product while at the same
time proposing to protect the farmers who grow the substance.

The point is that if tobacco is so harmful, and Mr. Batten does not dispute
that it is, then why is it even legal to begin with? And given that it is
legal and likely to remain so, why is there such concern for the protection
of the farmers who grow it?

We hope this clarifies any potential confusion and allows readers to enjoy
this column in the spirit in which it was intended.)

For feedback, write to Brent Batten at bebatten@naplesnews.com.