Time to Make a Deal With Big Tobacco?

Facing attempts by the federal Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine as a drug, Philip Morris USA recently proposed sweeping federal legislation to curb underage smoking.

The company--the maker of Marlboro, a favorite brand of young people--proposes banning vending machine sales of cigarettes, prohibiting billboards advertising tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and curtailing industry sponsorship of some sporting events.

But in exchange the Clinton administration would have to drop attempts to impose tighter restrictions on the tobacco industry through the FDA.

Should the federal government accept Philip Morris’ offer to reduce teens’ access to tobacco in exchange for dropping attempts to impose FDA regulations?

Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude:

“An outrageous, arrogant, greedy bribe has been offered to the federal government by the Philip Morris tobacco company so it can continue to profit enormously by converting our youth to addicted drug users--cigarette smokers. . . . We hear about drug cartels, drug lords and drug pushers--all of these do less harm to the health of the American people than the drug-addictive cigarettes pushed upon our youth.”

Richard Carleton Hacker, Sherman Oaks, author of “The Ultimate Cigar Book.”

“I think it makes sense because it’s taking the leadership of law and putting it back into the private sector. . . . It’s saying, ‘Let the private sector regulate the problem.’ The fact they did this I think is commendable. And even though it is self-serving, it does make sense. . . . [On stopping kids from smoking:] To be honest with you, if someone wants to do something, they’re going to find a way to do it.”

Dr. Raymond J. Melrose, oral pathologist, professor at the USC School of Dentistry and an American Cancer Society volunteer:

“To put it bluntly, it’s a halfhearted attempt on the part of the industry. They’re giving an inch to gain about five yards. . . . We love the idea they would support the ban on vending machines, which is very important. We love the idea of them banning advertisements near schools. But . . . you’re not going to see any less of Joe Camel, any less of the Marlboro Man. . . . I think that it’s so important to them that they avoid this regulation that they are willing to give up things that they have been unwilling to give up before without a fight to the death.”

Barbara Dietsch, tobacco use prevention education coordinator, Los Angeles Unified School District:

“I think it’s pretty slick, because people who are not familiar with their advertising strategies could get sucked in pretty easily. I think what they are proposing is positive because youth access to tobacco is a critical issue. However, they don’t mention anything about education, so I think that’s an interesting omission. . . . I don’t believe they are doing it because they are concerned about whether teens are smoking. . . . I would say this is probably better than nothing. . . . But the regulation of it would be very difficult to monitor.”

On the Issue appears Tuesdays. Please send suggestions for possible topics to On the Issue, Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Or fax them to (818) 772-3338. Or e-mail them to valley@latimes.com. Include your name and daytime phone number.