While the proponents of the tobacco industry are rejoicing, anti-tobacco organizations are regrouping in the wake of Tuesday's U.S Supreme Court ruling that the Food and Drug Administration does not have the authority to regulate tobacco as an addictive drug. Many North Carolinians expressed relief at the good news for the state's top cash crop.
"Tobacco is a way of life for the people in North Carolina," said Dean Rouse, chair of Friends of Tobacco. "Without it, our people have no way of making a livelihood."
Rouse explained that he saw the FDA's interference in the tobacco industry as a threat to the well-being of the citizens of North Carolina. "That's how we make our living... by growing a legal product," he said. "The FDA would be putting our people out of work."
Members of anti-tobacco groups, however, vehemently disagreed with the ruling. "I hate to be pessimistic, but this definitely was a disappointment for us," said Tim Filler, program manager of America for Nonsmokers' Rights. "They won this stage of the battle on the war against smoking."
Across the state, tobacco proponents were pleased that the industry was receiving a brief respite from increased regulations.
"This is welcomed news for the tobacco industry at a time when it seems everyone in the world has turned against this legal crop," said N.C. Agriculture commissioner Jim Graham in a statement.
In Tuesday's 5-4 ruling, the court said the FDA reached beyond its delegated authority in its attempts to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
The FDA stepped up efforts against tobacco in 1997 after U.S. District Judge William Osteen ruled that the agency could regulate nicotine as a drug.
In 1998, the tobacco industry sued and a federal appeals court in Virginia ruled that Congress had not granted the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco; Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Court upheld the district court's ruling.
Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C. expressed his surprise that the ruling was 5-4 because of what he considered to be the clarity of the law. "Just looking at the facts, it appears obvious to me that the FDA should not be regulating tobacco. If you gave the FDA the power to label cigarettes as 'medical devices,' that could lead to the banning of cigarettes," he said.
Coble said the president's allocation of the regulatory authority to the FDA was outside the executive branch's power. Instead, Congress traditionally dictates this type of jurisdiction.
President Bill Clinton did not address this point in his statement Tuesday, but said that he hoped Congress would pick up where the FDA was forced to halt.
Clinton called upon Congress to enact the provisions of a five-year old proposal the FDA presented to eliminate advertising aimed at children and curb minors' access to tobacco.
"So today I call upon the leadership of Congress.... I believe that by working together across party lines, we can protect our children and save lives," he said.
Already, several members of Congress have introduced bills to expand the FDA's authority to cover tobacco. "The Congress now has the ball in their court," Filler said. "Traditionally, Congress has been tobacco's friend. I hope that the congressional leadership will do the right thing and give the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco." Filler said his California-based organization would be stepping up education and outreach efforts to members of Congress.
Maura Payne, a spokesperson for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company disagreed, saying that earmarking Congress as being friendly to a certain industry is misleading because of the wide diversity of opinions in the legislature.
Rouse, of Friends of Tobacco, said he did not foresee Congress giving the FDA more regulatory authority. "I can't see that [Congress] would try and overrule [the Supreme Court's decision]. I hope this will be the end of it," said the chair of the Kinston based organization.
Filler added that he hoped Congress would not feel it needs to extend any compensatory benefits to the tobacco industry if it decided to allow the FDA to regulate it.
Although the Supreme Court ruling could have ramifications in the future, most experts agreed that the decision will not significantly affect the lives of average citizens. "Many of the provisions of the FDA's original proposal had to do with preventing teenage smoking and these had already been put into place as part of the Master Settlement agreement from November 1998," Payne said. "Much of what the FDA sought to pass had already come to pass."
Payne pointed to restrictions such as the ban on cigarette brand sponsorship for events with a significant youth audience and document disclosure as FDA proposals that had already been implemented.
Jim Martin of the North Carolina Tobacco Prevention and Control acknowledged that state laws would still prohibit minors from smoking and keep most cigarette vending machines in adult-only areas. Nevertheless, Martin said, without the FDA's regulation the state no longer receives federal money to enforce state tobacco laws. "We will need to fill the void left by the loss of federal funds," said Martin, the state adviser for preventing teen smoking.
Officials across the nation seem to agree that the ruling means local action will have to strengthen in order to prevent teen smoking. "The governor never thought it was the FDA's responsibility to regulate tobacco," said Reid Hertzog, spokesperson for N.C. Gov. Jim Hunt. "The decision means we're going to have to do our part to reduce teen smoking."
Although Clinton asked Congress to work on this issue, many state officials said local efforts would be most effective. "No one is discounting the need to eliminate teen smoking, but this can be handled best on a state and local level as opposed to regulation by a federal agency," said Graham, the agriculture commissioner.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.