While I'm on a roll, I'm going to post some of my other better papers,
here's one on a right-wing, pro-tobacco PAC, not one of my greatest, but
slightly interesting, perhaps.(?)
John M.
Burke
April 20,
2004
Political
Ideologies
Dr. Hohlt
F.O.R.C.E.S., a Pro-Tobacco PAC, a
Dying
Breed
A
controversial issue that has recently been the discussion of many offices and
businesses, especially on the west coast, is the issue of cigarette smoking in
public spaces. In recent years, legislation has been enacted on the state and
local levels in many municipalities on the west and east coasts as well as in
other areas. In response to this legislation, groups across the country have
formed in advocacy of those who smoke and in order to fight these ordinances.
One such group, a political action committee, is called F.O.R.C.E.S., which
stands for Fighting Ordinances & Restrictions to Control & Eliminate
Smoking. According to their mission statement, specifically, they formed in
response to increased smoking restrictions in California, New York, and abroad,
and, in their minds, government hate campaigns about the effects of tobacco use.
Their mission is to inform smokers about this purported scientific fraud used by
publicly funded anti-smoking interests (an issue that will be addressed in the
following pages), and they are committed to providing information on the
political efforts to eliminate smoking (F.O.R.C.E.S. International
web).
This group is incorporated as a
non-profit educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Virginia. They also maintain a charitable tax exemption status. They are
funded by their membership and sponsors, and run by volunteers only. They do
not claim to receive any direct or indirect support from the tobacco
industry.
They maintain
non-affiliation with any one political party and claim to support any party that
will stand in favor of the rights of smokers and the right of choice. As most
pro-tobacco lobbies, the contributory funds are spread across the board to many
different candidates from multiple parties in the hopes of receiving support in
return.
On the actual issue of tobacco
use, they do not support the act of smoking, but only the liberty to do so.
They believe that smoking tobacco is only potentially harmful and that it has
not yet been proven to be dangerous. They believe that smoking is pleasure and
people are entitled to pleasure if, when, and where they choose. They also
believe smokers are entitled to enjoyment of smoking while performing normal
social functions. This is their main argument, that people have a right to free
choice, including when and where they smoke (F.O.R.C.E.S. International
web).
Not surprisingly, F.O.R.C.E.S.
is not in support of the present educational programs in place in schools that
teach dangers of tobacco use. They feel education about substances and
behaviors is to be left to the parents, who have the right to teach children
according to their own values. They consider “tobacco education” to
only be anti-tobacco propaganda.
Given
their stance, they would however support a reformed tobacco education program if
certain criteria were present. First, tobacco education should take place
outside of the scholastic environment. Secondly, they feel it should provide
information on real and verified potential dangers and not what they describe as
“propaganda”. Thirdly, they feel it should be taught with a neutral
and detached attitude. Lastly, they feel comparisons should be made to the
greater and ever-present danger of heavy drugs and risky
behaviors.
When it comes to
legislations involving tobacco, F.O.R.C.E.S. is adamantly against all-out
smoking bans as legislated by state governments. They seek to repeal all-out
smoking bans, which are already in effect. They are against direct or indirect
government funding of special interest groups that target specific groups of
citizens and they are against anti-smoking organizations advocating removal of
the right of choice. Lastly, they are against any state interference in the
lives if citizens (F.O.R.C.E.S.
California).
Historically, tobacco
PACs have been an integral part in the continued flourishing of the tobacco
industry. They have had enormous success in the past in getting Congress either
to oppose or not act upon certain legislation that might be unfavorable to
industry interests and it is basically all about money.
Tobacco companies and their Political Action
Committees (PACs) contribute to the campaigns of nearly half the members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives. During the period of January 1, 1991
through June 30, 1992, tobacco contributions to senators totaled $578, 390 of
which 88% went to the 27 senators seeking reelection in the fall of 1992.
Tobacco interests contributed $1,161,474 to House members during a recent
election cycle with the top recipients being Richard A. Gephardt, former
Democratic House Majority Leader from Missouri, with $26,198, and Virginia
Republican Thomas J. Bliley, a funeral director by profession, with $23,500.
Dan Rostenkowski, who had not been known as the champion of ethics in
government, was the recipient of $17, 000 (Koven
163).
It would be hard to believe that
contributions of over a million and a half dollars to members of Congress would
be without the implied intent of expecting something in return. For decades
these PACs were highly influential and have delayed or killed action on many
proposed measures designed to limit, reduce or end the use and sales of tobacco
products. Only until recently have they managed to block the prohibition of
smoking federal buildings, they still have managed to block the elimination of
the tobacco price support program, they have blocked granting the Food and Drug
Administration limited regulatory oversight over tobacco products for health and
safety purposes, among many others (Koven
165).
In recent years, states have
taken it upon themselves about being proactive against these powerful forces, no
pun intended. “There is as yet no national smoking law. However, in
reaction to nonsmokers’ concerns about the health risks associated with
secondhand smoke inhaled when working in close proximity to smokers, a number of
states have enacted laws that require employers to restrict smoking in the
workplace” (Joel 218). California has led the charge with their
Proposition 99 (Labor Code 6404.5). Enacted into code, it
states:
(a) The Legislature finds and
declares that regulation of smoking in the workplace is a matter of statewide
interest and concern. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
section to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in all (100 percent of)
enclosed places of employment in this state, as covered by this section, thereby
eliminating the need of local governments to enact workplace smoking
restrictions within their respective jurisdictions. It is further the intent of
the Legislature to create a uniform statewide standard to restrict and prohibit
the smoking of tobacco products in enclosed places of employment, as specified
in this section, in order to reduce employee exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke to a level that will prevent anything other than insignificantly harmful
effects to exposed employees, and also to eliminate the confusion and hardship
that can result from enactment or enforcement of disparate local workplace
smoking restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is
the intent of the Legislature that any area not defined as a "place of
employment" pursuant to subdivision (d) or in which the smoking of tobacco
products is not regulated pursuant to subdivision (e) shall be subject to local
regulation of smoking of tobacco products. person shall engage in, the smoking
of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of
employment.
The intention of the code is
to protect employees and those who frequent the places stipulated above from the
harmful effects of secondhand smoke. It is not imposed to limit peoples’
rights of choice, but rather, to protect the health rights of others, a majority
of the population who does not smoke or who does not wish to be exposed to smoke
from tobacco products.
Other states have
taken action on workplace smoking as well. In Washington, D.C., employers must
provide a “written smoking policy; reasonable accommodation of nonsmokers
by using existing barriers and ventilation to minimize effects of smoking in
no-smoking areas. If no accommodation can be reached, employer must make
workplace entirely smoking or nonsmoking according to majority wishes”
(Joel 220).
In New York there is another
code, which encompasses all employers. This code states: “Written
smoking policy must be made available to employees designating no-smoking areas
sufficient to accommodate those who request them (70% of seating capacity is
considered sufficient accommodation; no smoking in common rooms (conference
rooms) unless all occupants agreed smoking is allowed; no smoking in common
areas (elevators, hallways, etc.)). If employer is unable to accommodate
nonsmokers, it must designate entire work area as no-smoking. Employers are
free to designate entire workplace as nonsmoking”, and of course, now
there is a smoking ban in New York City in all bars and restaurants (Joel 221).
The decision in New York hailed
criticisms and accolades alike, but in a Quinnipiac University poll, before the
state legislature imposed the ban, over 57% of residents felt it was something
that should have been enacted into law (Quinnipiac Poll 11/6/03). Other states
that have passed some type of smoking legislation include: Alaska, Arizona,
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wisconsin (Joel Table
13).
Members of F.O.R.C.E.S. claim they
feel smoking is only potentially harmful and if they cannot smoke in places of
their choosing, their rights of choice are being infringed upon. It has been
widely accepted, however, in the health community that there is no question that
smoking is harmful and a very real health risk, not just to the smoker, but to
those who are exposed to second hand smoke from cigarettes.
According to a recent German study
carried out by Doctor Knut-Olaf Haustein from the Institute for Nicotine
Research and Smoking in Erfurt, tobacco smoking has been recognized as a health
risk for more than fifty years and much of that time the tobacco companies were
well aware of its effects.
Until 1995 it was not possible for the medical
world to gain access to information held by cigarette manufacturers concerning
the mode of action of nicotine, its addictive properties and its harmful effects
on health. In 1994 the State of Minnesota instituted legal proceedings against
the tobacco companies and confiscated millions of internal documents from the
tobacco industry. The – in some respects – anti-social attitude of
this industry sector was revealed in these legally certified documents whose
content related to addiction issues, cigarettes with reduced tar content, and
information on cigarette design and nicotine manipulation. The documents
originated from various tobacco companies, although they were confiscated from
Brown & Williamson, and they also included material relating to cigarette
advertising targeted at children and described attempts to influence tobacco
research. Additionally, the confiscated material revealed the activities of
lawyers in contributing to the manipulation of information (Haustein
34).
Some of these non-disclosure findings
by the tobacco industry lead all the way back to the early 1950s, when the first
confidential meetings within the industry were held after the problem of a
relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer emerged. “For
decades thereafter, the tobacco industry persisted in casting doubts on these
findings, as also reflected in a written statement to cigarette smokers.
Shortly before the statement was published, however, the following sentence was
deleted: ‘we will never produce and market a product shown to be the cause
of any serious human ailment’. It was replaced by the wording: ‘We
accept an interest in people’s health as a basic responsibility, paramount
to every other consideration in our business’, an undertaking which the
tobacco industry has failed to keep” (Haustein
34).
In the scientific world there is no
doubt that cigarettes cause health problems and it is something these large
companies, through their own research, have known for more than half a century.
F.O.R.C.E.S. and other groups like themselves are simply looking the other way
at this evidence and through conspiracy theories, suggest that the evidence for
its harmful effects is nothing more than government propaganda. They do not
represent the interests of free choice and they do not even represent the true
interests of the segment of society that smokes. F.O.R.C.E.S., along with a
network of other PACs just like it across the country only represent the
interests of the tobacco industry itself and serve to fight factions that are
simply trying to protect people from a product that will eventually kill them
and potentially others.
Only recently,
have states intervened and provide protection through legislation, against
smoking, at least in confined spaces. There is no national legislation
regulating smoking, however, this is where most of the PAC efforts have
historically been concentrated. States have broken through and made precedence
and many think it is only a matter of time before some type of national
legislation will occur. These groups’ power is weakening, because
Americans have finally been educated on the implications of tobacco and the
lengths to which the companies have known its ill effects and furthered its
production and consumption regardless. It is difficult to break the cycle of
loyalty and protection that groups with large amounts of money often receive,
however the weight of public opinion does sometimes make a different, but only
after years of persistence can change be made, long over due as it may
be.Bibliography
California
Labor Code Section 6400-6413.5. California State Legislative Counsel.
February 2004
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=lab&group=06001-
07000&file=6400-6413.5>
F.O.R.C.E.S.
California Chapter. February 2004
<http://www.forces.org/californ/index.htm>
F.O.R.C.E.S.
International. February 2004
<http://www.forces.org/index.htm>
Haustein,
Knut-Olaf. Tobacco or Health? Physiological and Social Damages Caused by
Tobacco Smoking. New York:
Springer 2003.
Joel, Lewin G., III.
Every Employee’s Guide to the Law What You Need to Know About
Your Rights in the Workplace and
What to Do If They Are Violated. New York:
Pantheon Books,
2001.
Koven, Edward L. Smoking
The Story Behind the Haze. New York: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc.,
1996).
Quinnipiac University Poll.
“Pataki tops 50% approval for first time this year”.
November 6, 2003.
<http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x8747.xml>
Posted: Sat
- August 28, 2004 at 10:27 AM