Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science smoking and politics smoking and politics Political policy-making within the bureaucracy is a constantly changing the face within the American government. Previous to the birth of administrative law, elected officials such as legislatures, executives and members of the judicial branch handled these decisions. Roughly, ninety percent of “Laws”, governing our everyday life are not even laws. Rather, these are the products of rule-making for quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative administrative agencies. Obviously, administrative decisions affect millions of people. Yet, few if any are able to understand what has been branded the fourth branch of government. Some scholars have even concluded that administrative agencies are the headless fourth branch of government, accountable to no one. These are the major concerns of Theodore J. Lowi, brought to the table in his classic political science book, The End of Liberalism. Among these Lowi says governmental growth is an outcome of a constantly complexity of society. This growth of government has led us to the birth of administrative agencies which are unable to plan for the future. Perhaps, Lowi was right, and that’s why agency regulation is retro-active as opposed to pro-active. Despite this harsh criticism, administrative branches have forged ahead tackling tough issues. In, Smoking and Politics, authors A. Lee Frischlet and James M. Hoelfer examine the federal restrictions and guidelines brought forth my government agencies on corporate tobacco. Through this examination one is able to see the inter-workings of administrative law and the creature of agency policy making. As recent as the early 1900’s when medicinal evidence suggested a positive relationship between smoking and health related illness. Few however, played much attention to the findings previous to the 1950’s. When information was released to the public in 1939, tobacco companies found ways to discredit, and silence the public concern. In fact, previous to this tobacco manufacturers claimed an increase in health and medicinal properties for tobacco products. With the formation of the Council for Tobacco Research, in 1954, a direct link was sought between smoking and health related problems. Upon the finding of such evidence major cigarette manufacturers unite. Under the unified front of The Tobacco Institute, big tobacco sought to change government from within. As stated in the book, “Those who want to initiate change in policy have come to recognize that their cause will succeed only with hard work, careful strategy, and large portions of luck (37).” With the help of former Senators and previously and elected officials tobacco had the ear of government. One such example of this would be former Senator Earle C. Clements of Kentucky. Clements former constituency base of Kentucky had afforded him the experience of dealing with tobacco, as Kentucky and North Carolina are the primary producers of tobacco within the United States. So with this inside knowledge of previously working in Washington, combined with his work in Kentucky, Clements rightfully proposed a compromise between Federal Trade Commission and the six largest cigarette manufacturers he was hired by in 1964. In January of 1964, the Surgeon General issues the report of the Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. The report was key not only because it would be the first in what would become a stream of reports for later down the line. But, “Ultimately, the impact of the Surgeon General’s report on the political system was just what the antismoking interest had hoped for: It provided the Federal Trade Commission with an opportunity to make its move. The Advisory Committee, by bringing up the issue into focus, gave the subsystem a blow that was to prove fatal. The bureaucracy was given the backing it needed to spring into action. But before the bureaucracy could succeed in implementing its policy., congressional resistance had to be overcome (45).” Clearly this is what Lowi, meant when he stated administrative law could not plan for the future. Under Article One, Section Eight Congress has the power to oversee the activities of administrative agencies. Because Congress created these agencies, authority can be delegated to them. At the same time Congress, even with the tool of oversight, has a hard time controlling the actions. This is due in part to the process of formal oversight. The overlooking of the subcommittees pulls the focus away from Congress. Rather the views of a few congressmen are accentuated over those of Congress as a whole. Controversy between Congress and an agency is typically something that both parties want to avoid. Yet the Surgeon General’s report did just the opposite. Instead, it encouraged the commission to take a stance that would invoke Congress. Therefore, the health-warning requirement that did not pass Congress became statutory law with the passage of the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (CLAA) of 1965 (86-88). This process of rule-making has led to the development of several other “laws”. One example of this could be the ban started in 1971 excluding all cigarette advertising on radio and television. Also in the same year the Surgeon General proposes a governmental initiative to ban smoking in public places. This proposal was due to the evidence of second-hand smoke and its effects upon other around smokers. This proposal led numerous ramifications years down the line. The first of which was the establishment of “no-smoking” areas within different area, leading up to a ban of smoking on all airplane fights, and more currently to the ban of smoking in public restraints such as McDonalds, Taco Bell and White Castle. To the present day, bans of smoking have continued on this basis. To answer the criticisms of Lowi, in our text Warren suggests a few ways for improvement within administrative law agencies. The main suggestion beginning with an early attachment of standards and guidelines to the rule-making process, along with improved oversight. Along with this Warren recommends improved oversight and rigorous record keeping. So if smoking is so inherently bad why do people keep doing it? Is it simply that nobody has told them it was bad for them? That is highly doubtful. Although, David Burton of Kansas City, KS would probably argue the subject with you. Burton started smoking in 1950 when he was a teen and quit in 1993. Burton however had to have his legs amputated because of a circulatory disease. Burton claims that smoking brought upon his disease. Burton’s attorney, Kenneth B. McClain has argued Burton was “unaware that at the end of the road, eh could lose his legs.” Rather McClain says, “In 1954, he’s 19 yrs old, he has no idea what (smoking) has in store for him. The tobacco companies do (Freed).” Consequently on February 22nd, Burton was awarded nearly $200,000 in compensatory damages. This prompted Daniel W. Donahue, the senior vice president for Reynolds Tobacco to state, “The Company has no obligation to warn about risks that are commonly understood, and there is certainly no obligation to warn about risks that are not yet known (Hollingsworth).” Obviously, Burton’s case was previous to intervention of administrative law, and the constraints placed upon tobacco. Dennis Leary, offers some insight into why people smoke on his first CD entitled No Cure For Cancer. He says the warning don’t work, “like suddenly smokers everywhere are going to be like, ya I got some cigarettes here, holy *censored*, these things are bad for you, I thought they had vitamin C in them and stuff.” Continuing Leary says, you could even have a pack of cigarettes that were called Tumors that came in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones and smokers would be lining up for a block waiting to get them. We all know this is true but what keeps people coming towards tobacco? Simply put in Dennis Leary terms, “They are a drug, we are addicted. ” So why do people start with tobacco? For me it simply seemed as something to do. I have always seen it as a manly thing to do, chewing tobacco or dipping snuff while working outdoors. So what influenced me to start? It was not the advertisements, because U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. does not advertise directly or indirectly people under the age of 18. At the same time it is the only smokeless tobacco company that does not advertise outdoors, by way of billboards, or signs in stadiums. Also, it does not offer sponsorship of concerts, sporting events or events in which youths are a significant portion of the audience or participants. In fact, in the process of this report I learned why I have not been able to find a spittoon with a Copenhagen logo on it. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. does not distribute non-tobacco merchandise bearing the brand name, logo, or trademark of a tobacco product to the general public. Simply, I don’t know what made me start, I just did. No influence of one thing has let me to dipping. The best explanation of why I use Copenhagen, and most people use tobacco; can probably be summed up by the lyrics of Pat Green. In the song, Here We Go, he sings, “After 12 yrs with the Copenhagen, I found out I was mistaken. Its not gonna be something to add years to my life. And that’s why I am still dipping it today and each and every morning I hear momma say, that’s *censored*s gonna kill you if I don’t get you first.” Bibliography: Works Cited Freed, Josh. “Trial Begins in Kansas Man’s Tobacco lawsuit.” Associated Press 5 Feb. 2002. Green, Pat. “Here We Go.” Rec. 13 Feb. 2001. Here We Go. Green Horse, 2001. Hollingsworth, Heather. “Jury Orders Tobacco Companies To Pay Kansas Smoker Nearly $200,000.” Associated Press 22 Feb. 2002. Leary, Dennis “Drugs.” Rec. 1993. No Cure For Cancer. Uni/A&M Duplicate Numbers, 1993. Lowi, Theodore. The End Of Liberalism New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 1979. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. “Corporate Responsibility.” Accessed 26 Feb. 2002. @ http://www.ustobacco.com/ Word Count: 1553
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.