Cool, Refreshing Legislation for Philip Morris

Cool, Refreshing Legislation for Philip Morris

Why it’s politically impossible to ban menthol cigarettes, even if they’re the most addictive.

Posted Monday, June 8, 2009 - 2:56pm

Menthols accounted for a quarter of the roughly 370 billion cigarettes smoked domestically in 2006 and are more popular here than anywhere else in the world. So far, neither Waxman nor Sen. Ted Kennedy, who shepherded the Senate version through his Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, has specifically defended the exclusion of a menthol ban. Waxman notes that after an FDA study, menthol could be banned as well but didn't explain why menthol merited a study period and chocolate cigarettes did not.

By the numbers, the menthol exemption practically paints a bull's-eye on the lungs of African-American smokers. So you might presume that African-American Congress members have an interest in exposing the bill's shortcomings. But of the 42 voting members in the Congressional Black Caucus, 20 are co-sponsors of the bill. Philip Morris' parent company has donated more than $1.5 million to the caucus since 2002 and thousands more to individual members, including James Clyburn, the House whip, and Edolphus Towns, chair of the House committee that favorably reported the smoking legislation. Towns has been dubbed the "Marlboro Man," thanks to his long-standing relationship with Philip Morris. And donations must have been easy for Philip Morris to file; a CBC advisory board member, Shuanise Washington, was treasurer of the organization while she was also Altria's (MO) vice president of government affairs. The tobacconist and the caucus even share a graphic designer.

Ten of the remaining, nonsponsoring CBC members hail from tobacco-producing states that oppose the bill primarily because it puts their home-state tobacco companies at a huge disadvantage to Philip Morris. That leaves 12 African-American Members of  Congress who withheld their names from the bill, despite menthol cigarettes' being linked to 14.6 percent of all African-American deaths in 2006. And there are, of course, 217 other co-sponsors, mostly white, ignoring the fact that despite menthol's cultural identification with 4 million African-Americans, double that number of white smokers also partake in the minty tobacco.

The next most popular flavored cigarette, clove, accounts for .09 percent of the market. Those cigarettes will be banned under the bill. Indonesia, which provides 99 percent of the clove cigarettes to the U.S. market, has complained to the U.S. trade representative about the disparity with menthol. If Indonesia brings a protectionist complaint to the World Trade Organization, it would compel our government to prove cloves were banned for health reasons. Namely, the United States would have to show that the flavor of cloves enhances cigarettes' addictive properties. If it can't, the ban could be considered a trade violation.

It's a lose-lose proposition. If the United States proves it banned clove cigarettes strictly for health reasons, it would be admitting that menthol cigarettes, manufactured domestically, are getting a free pass despite their clovelike increased health risks. Which puts the FDA, as the tobacco regulator, in the position of justifying a ban on cloves but not menthols. This is the type of case Siegel refers to when he told me the bill lets "the tobacco companies produce and market the cigarettes and the FDA approve them. The ramifications of this bill go far beyond tobacco control. The bill completely undercuts and undermines the entire system of federal public health regulation in this country."

In other words, the United States will have two choices in the above scenario, both hairy: protect the FDA's independence by admitting it banned cloves but not menthols only to protect Philip Morris' market share or let the FDA manufacture an explanation, contrary to recent studies, by which menthol cigarettes, which are used to lure children to smoke, are just as safe as unflavored cigarettes.

  • Paul Smalera has written for Condé Nast Portfolio, The New York Times and The New York Observer among others. He blogs at true/slant.
Graphic by bamby/Shutterstock.
  • Comment Comment
  • RSS RSS

Comments

  • 4 Total
  • • Pending Comments 0
  • Login or register to post comments

Its amazing!

I think its crazy that these companies can get away with murder. Hundreads of thousands of people die each year to smoking related causes. I have a instruments acoustic guitars website and if my product started killing people imagine how long I would be in business. This is scary, just because these companies have people in Washington that protect their intrests they can get away with this. This is truly amazing!

FDA abuses power

Unfortunately, the FDA is starting to interfere with the rights of Americans by abusing their power. There becomes a point where the FDA stops advising Americans (As is its role) and starts withholding their rights. A perfect example of this is their attempt to ban the electronic cigarette, even though they have the potential to save millions of lives. The FDA feels its within their power to take a product off the market that has thousands less chemicals than traditional cigarettes. Is this not an abuse of power? Informing people of the health ramifications of products is well within reason, removing a product that could save their life is not.

Johnny Blaze

If 80% of all African-American smokers smoke menthol...

then I suppose that there's an 80% chance of a menthol preference for a certain African-American in the Oval Office. That would certainly be a rather, um, large obstacle.

the Philip Morris Aid Bill

Kudos to Paul Smalera. A beautiful and accurate picture of this fraudulent legislation--of, by, and for Philip Morris--which stands a good chance of increasing cigarette-caused deaths in the US. The bill has just been passed by Congress. The next step must be to convince the President not to sign it. That effort can be made by e-mails to his web page, by public statements such as editorials and public letters, and by other means that will occur to inventive readers of Slate. Readers in touch with ongoing efforts to replace this bill by genuine anti-smoking legislation ought to inform the rest of us of their work; we need to join in their efforts. The Senators who voted against this bill ought to speak out. In case the President signs the bill we need a creative and organized strategy to undo it and replace it by legislation that will truly cut into the death toll. The first step ought to be the immediate legalization of electronic cigarettes. They resemble cigarettes in delivering nicotine, but differ from them in delivering no tobacco tars whatever--the cause of the deaths. They resemble the entirely legal nicotine patches and gum in delivering nicotine, but differ from them in mimicking the effect of cigarettes. It is surely no coincidence that the bill seeks to ban the one cigarette replacement that has a chance of large-scale success. Make no mistake. This is a bill that will cost lives. If you have lost a good friend or relative to cigarettes, isn't it worth it to make an effort--in their name--to fight back? I am posting my actual name and email address as a step in encouraging opponents of the Philip Morris Aid Bill to come together and organize. Stephen Voss shvoss@gmail.com

Read more comments