Scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health today characterized the soon-to-be-announced proposals by the Clinton Administration to reduce teen smoking as more smoke than substance, saying that the measures would do little or nothing to improve public health or prevent children from taking up the smoking habit.
"We would support any plan that would limit the access of children to cigarettes, as that is the only way to eventually reduce the pandemic of cigarette-related diseases in the United States," stated ACSH president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. "Unfortunately this plan, while making the Clinton Administration look serious about reducing tobacco use, does not hold industry accountable for the health consequences of their product, as is the case with every other industry - that is the only type of plan that would work. Instead, the proposed restrictions on advertising will be tied up in court battles for years, while more children continue to begin smoking."
In regards to specific aspects of the Clinton plan, ACSH offers the following analysis:
- it aims to restrict "advertising in publications with significant youth readership" - but how is this to be measured? Children read numerous magazines that are purchased by their parents. Additionally, when similar restrictions were introduced in France, the cigarette companies responded by pulling their "cigarette ads" - but replacing them with ads for products such as clothing, cosmetics, and cigarette cases with brand labels.
- banning vending machine sales is a good step - but will not be a significant impediment to childrens' access to cigarettes.
- banning outdoor ads near schools is meaningless - at present, trucks drive around New York and other cities with huge cigarette ads on them, and pass by schools at times when children congregate outside - how can that be prevented?
- requiring cigarette companies to fund anti-smoking television ads might be effective - but this will probably be ultimately overturned by the courts.
"The main effect of the Clinton plan is political," noted Dr. Whelan. "It makes Clinton looks like he cares about the issue, while he can paint his opponent as pro-tobacco for not having a plan. So now we are faced with one candidate who dares not address this issue, and the other who has a plan which cannot work.
"The one proposal that would work would be to end the exemption from liability that the tobacco companies have enjoyed ever since the federal warning label was imposed. Stripped of such protection, the industry - not small store owners - would be legally responsible if their product was sold to children, and facing such a threat, these companies would finally take serious action to prevent their product from being used by minors."