OPINION: GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE TOBACCO BILL

If US Politicians Truly Care About Underage Smoking, They Can Enforce
Existing Laws Against Smoking By Minors

WASHINGTON--The tobacco legislation recently killed by the Senate was a
monstrosity that deserved to die.

Supporters, led by Arizona's Sen. John McCain, a Republican, piously claimed
that their goal was to stop kids from smoking. In reality, greed drove the
legislation.

Politicians and trial lawyers were salivating over a $516 billion pot of
money and were willing to shred the Constitution and trample freedom to get
their hands on the loot. The bill represented everything bad about Washington.

Not only were politicians trying to enact a giant tax increase, the money
would have created 17 new government bureaucracies with unprecedented powers
to control our lives.

HAD THE BILL been approved, the principle of individual responsibility would
have suffered another blow and the lifestyle nazis would have been given a
green light to pass laws dictating how much fatty food we eat and how much
television we watch.

The tobacco bill was so bad it's hard to peg the worst feature.

Economists would probably say the tax increase was the most harmful
component, provided they could even figure out just how big the tax increase
was.

Politicians, in their lust for other people's money, jammed the bill with
direct tax increases, indirect tax increases and a smorgasbord of
"penalties" that were taxes by any reasonable use of the word.

All told, McCain and his colleagues were hoping to transfer more than half a
trillion dollars from ordinary Americans to Washington.

LEGAL SCHOLARS surely would argue that the bill was odious for the way it
violated the Constitution.

Restrictions on the First Amendment right to free speech (the ban on tobacco
advertising) head the list, but the bill was also likely to face challenges
for violating the "takings clause" and other constitutional restraints on
federal action.

Libertarians would protest the bill's nanny-state infringement on individual
freedom. Yes, smoking is short-sighted, but so what? People should be free
to make their own decisions, even dumb ones.

SOME POLITICIANS argue that smokers impose costs on society when they get
sick, but academic experts calculate that existing tobacco taxes already
cover those costs.

Besides, the real problem for society is not that people smoke but that
society is forced to subsidize the health costs of smokers with cancer or
heart disease.

Supporters of limited government would recoil at the legislation's raft of
new government spending. McCain's bill contained a frightening array of new
government programs, everything from grants for expanding welfare to money
for new government health programs.

Perhaps most amazing was a new foreign aid program that would have sent
millions of dollars to foreign governments to subsidize their anti-smoking
efforts.

PARTISAN REPUBLICANS would object to the bill's massive payoff of America's
legion of trial lawyers. These legal vultures are major political donors to
Democratic candidates.

The GOP was able to add an amendment capping attorneys' fees at $4,000 an
hour, but the lawyers still would have "earned" more in a day than the
average American does in a year.

Law enforcement officials would fault the bill's likelihood of boosting
illegal smuggling. Many countries have experienced increases in black-market
activity following big tax hikes on tobacco. Indeed, Sweden and Canada
reduced tobacco taxes to curb illegal sales.

And since cigarette smugglers already operate in America to avoid high taxes
in certain states, the big federal tax increase would only add to their
business.

FINALLY, Americans who support freedom would take exception to the bill's
reliance on police-state tactics.

The anti-tobacco measure included a mandate that states conduct more than
66,000 unannounced inspections of retail establishments and require those
establishments to register with the federal government if they sell tobacco.

As if small businesses don't take enough grief from government, the
legislation also included a provision holding retailers legally responsible
for adults smoking on the sidewalk in front of their stores.

For every reason imaginable, the tobacco bill would have been a disaster. If
politicians truly care about underage smoking, they can enforce existing
laws against smoking by minors.

Of course, that approach does not give them more money and more control over
people's lives, which is why it's almost a sure bet politicians will
resuscitate some form of the tobacco-bill monstrosity before the year is out.

DANIEL J. MITCHELL is McKenna senior fellow in political economy at the
Heritage Foundation, a public-policy research institute based in Washington.
His views are not necessarily those of Bridge News.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett