As Of Yet Untitled

Corruption in New Jersey politics is not a new phenomenon. Rather, it is a part of everyday political life in New Jersey, the lard that keeps the densely packed population from grating against each other. The topic has even been touched upon in the Johnsonville Press in months past. Even so, never in my time in New Jersey have I seen the hailstorm that is Jersey politics reign down so openly and violently as it has in July, 2009. Rallies, races and arrests are converging on our tiny state, making for a near perfect political storm. The weather, at least, seems to be in agreement; is it coincidence that we’ve had two tornados in two weeks this month in the Jers, or are there dark forces at work here…

I was driving home to Johnsonville last night, lightning flashing all around me. I was enjoying a particularly relevant NPR piece on the recent arrests of five New Jersey politicians among 39 other community and religious leaders throughout New Jersey and New York. These included the Mayors of three major New Jersey metropolises: Secaucus, Hoboken, and Jersey City. The commentator, with a slightly smug tone, was discussing the implications of these arrests for upcoming gubernatorial race between incumbent Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie of the State Attorney General’s office. He did not fail to note that nearly all of the politicians arrested are in fact, Democratic Party members, and speculated that this would have a negative effect on Corzine’s campaign.

“Thanks, tell me something I don’t know, you smug bastard”, I said to my radio, as I am prone to do. To date, Chris Christie still leads in the polls, demonstrating New Jersey’s skepticism with Jon Corzine, and their willingness to support a new candidate, even (gasp!) a republican! But what I find really interesting is not so much that New Jersey is fed up with Corzine (he’s so easy to hate) but that his strategy for reclaiming office has seemed so impotent. He came out in the primary days with the decision not to involve himself in Republican infighting that would inevitably occur in the grab for the nomination. This gave Christie the chance to get his face and name out there as an alternative to the norm (that is, to corruption) uncontested and unchallenged by the Dems. And now, Corzine finds himself in the awkward position of trying to reinstate himself at the top of the polls with a late start.

Perhaps the most surprising piece of the puzzle is that Corzine’s trump card, President Barack Obama’s visit to PNC Arts Center to rally for Corzine, has had little effect on the voting population. In fact, the forty minute unorganized rally in the sweltering heat seemed more to concern health care reform than Corzine’s reelection. It’s as if the Corzine people just figured that bringing Barack to Jersey would spell an automatic win, reenergizing the grassroots and solidifying the association between Corzine and Obama. Forget the fact that Corzine was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton for President; for all we should care, these two are longtime buddies.

Of course, that is not the case; but what fascinates me is that this sort of standard political hypocrisy failed to have the desired effect on this occasion. Perhaps it’s the fact that Corzine is one of the most disingenuous public speakers I’ve ever had the distaste to listen to. Perhaps it’s that Celebrity in Chief’s slipping popularity just doesn’t have the same pull it did six months ago. Perhaps it’s the fact that Obama chose to talk more forcefully about Healthcare reform than about Corzine’s positive characteristics (are there any?). Or perhaps it is simply that this new corruption scandal has drowned out any excitement over seeing the President step onto Jersey soil. One question I have: in light of this new scandal, shouldn’t Obama keep Jersey at arm’s length? Truly, he can hardly afford further attachment to the state. One thing is for sure, demonstrated by his very visit to an old rival: Democrats are loath to give up New Jersey, an old stronghold of the Democratic Party.

About halfway home to New Brunswick, it started to rain enormous drops on my windshield, just a few massive splashes here and there. The sky was bright with sun AND lightning, and other drivers were beginning to nervously slow down. At that moment, my radio switched over to the obnoxious cascade of static and beeps that is the Emergency Broadcast Station. Steven Hawking’s computer interrupted the beeping to inform me that I was driving directly into a tornado area and that for my safety I should proceed to the nearest basement. My third story attic-apartment would have to do.

As the AM kicked back on, I was drawn sharply away from my weather-worries at the mention of a landmark I’ve known well for the past several years: Robert Wood Johnson Hospital. Among those arrested in the NJ-FBI sting were some Rabbis who had been using the black market sale of organs to facilitate their money laundering ring. Apparently, some of these transplants had been taking place in New Brunswick! To date, we do not know anymore about how this was allowed, and so speculation as to who if anyone was involved will have to wait. But, for me at least, it came as a shock to find out that this massive piece of national news was unfolding, in part, just blocks from my residence. What effect, if any, this will have on the upcoming Mayoral race in New Brunswick in 2010 remains to be seen. But we can rest assured that the FBI will push the probe as far as it will reach.

Rounding a turn in the road, my mind was violently forced back to the weather. Before me, about 50 yards down the road, I faced a massive wall of water. It was as if the cloud had very specific boundaries; I could have stood one foot in the rain one foot out…had it not been for the hail the size of grapes pounding along with the rain. I smashed into the wall at 60 miles per hour and immediately began to skid. Pumping my breaks and slowing to 15, I corrected the slip and turned on my hazards. On the other side of the wall, seeing more than 10 feet in front of me was impossible, causing most cars to pull over to the side of the road, next to bikers hiding under bridges. Not being most drivers, I continued, though in serious fear that I would soon hit some nervous driver in front of me, or perhaps that a well placed tree would take me out from above. The carnage was brutal and frightening….and short-lived. Minutes later, I was on the other side of the storm, speeding onwards towards my goal at a revived 70 mph. Having weathered the storm, I was rewarded with a clean and empty road, all for the taking.

The perfect storm of New Jersey politics is forming now. As the economy continues to falter, the bacon fat that has always greased the gears of power in the most densely populated state in the country will start to burn up. I expect to see much more political reorganization in the near future. The question is, after the storm is over, who will step up to grab the reigns? Certainly not those with connections to the old, defamed guard…Young blossoming politicians should be at the ready; weather the storm, and you may well meet an open road in front of you. It will be entertaining to watch the changing of the guard in NJ over the next few years.

]]> http://johnsonvillepress.com/politics-as-usual-alex-giannattasio/feed/ 17 http://johnsonvillepress.com/cap-and-trade-do-we-need-it-alex-giannattasio/ http://johnsonvillepress.com/cap-and-trade-do-we-need-it-alex-giannattasio/#comments Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:55:57 +0000 Alex G http://johnsonvillepress.com/?p=430

As Of Yet Untitled

Alexander Draine’s most recent column in Draine On Society entitled “Carbon-based Lifestyles” opened up the debate on climate change and HR2454 (“Waxman & Markey”) from a perspective which had hitherto not been discussed on the Johnsonville. In approaching the issue from the angle of population growth—and consequent economic expansion—Mr. Draine hits upon the key issue that, in my opinion, is driving the debate. Mr. Draine’s argument follows thusly:

1. Global warming, resultant from anthropogenic (human-produced) carbon emissions, will likely lead to unpredictable climate changes in the not-too-distant future.

2. Prices for fossil fuel consumption have been kept artificially low, essentially hiding the true cost of the industrial lifestyle.

3. Oil and other fossil fuels are in finite supply (non-renewable), while current infrastructure and lifestyle in America and other industrialized nations is designed to accommodate fossil fuel consumption.

4. Therefore, it behooves our nation to push forwards with initiatives that result in decreased dependency, not only on foreign oil, but oil itself. Doing so will give America a head start in the march towards a future capable of accommodating even current levels of productivity, let alone increases.

I agree with much of what Mr. Draine has to say on this issue. His conclusions make use of good logic, and are supported by several factors, even some which he does not mention here. Even so, I’d like to begin my commentary with a few minor nitpicks I had about the article itself. Then I’ll proceed to discuss in some detail a few extended features of this issue. But let’s get the nitpicks out of the way first.

Mr. Draine says “It is ludicrous that a gallon of gasoline, refined from petroleum that is found in finite supplies, is cheaper than a gallon of milk, which can be produced as long as we have cows.” This argument has a lot of intuitive merit; but I think it may be an essentially flawed one. The demand for milk in America far exceeds the number of resident cows. Since our country can really only afford to accommodate so many cows, the only way to make milk supply to the American public in line with demand is the burning of fossil fuels associated with transporting, feeding and upkeeping cows and the milk they produce. In other words, if gas prices were NOT as low as they are, milk prices in America would not adhere to a national standard, and much of the demand would decrease drastically. Even so, the point is well taken.

Mr. Draine also states, “We appear to have already passed peak global oil production – supply will be going downhill from here on.” I would only like to say that the question of whether we have reached peak oil yet is debatable; some studies report that peak oil might not be reached for several decades yet. In particular, this becomes more believable considering the resultant drop in production the global economic crisis is likely to produce. And yet, it seems in relatively little doubt that the oil supply will inevitably dwindle, along with other fossil fuel reserves, in this century, making preparedness for an end to fossil fuel consumption essential to the preservation of society as we know it (and the avoidance of a second Feudal Age). Clearly, there is a desirable advantage to be had here, one any nation should strive for.

So much for the nits. Next, I’d like to address Mr. Draine’s argument, as outlined above. Point (1) sent me researching global warming as a theory. I’ve cited below a list of videos I found useful and informative,[1] I found that the debate was two sided, but ultimately, I was forced to conclude the following: that global warming has direct links to anthropogenic carbon emissions, and that warming in the years ahead is expected. This I considered unfortunate, as I have a distinct distaste for all-things-Gore. But Mr. Draine and I agree on one essential thing: that climate change as it will occur in the near future will be the result of and directly analogous anthropogenic carbon emissions.

However, Mr. Draine’s article neglects one particular nuance of the global warming debate. One major point of contention over climate change derives from the fact that, in the past, temperature increases on earth have largely preceded the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; historically, higher atmospheric CO2 levels have been the result of higher temperatures on Earth, not the cause. But in fact, industrialization has produced an unprecedented cause of rising CO2 levels, without the impetus of natural warming, in the human burning of fossil fuels. This leads us to a crucial point: that the effects of man-made global warming cannot be viewed by looking at the historical record; in fact, what the results of this unprecedented situation literally cannot be known before they occur. We are dealing with a wholly new animal here, and this accounts for the real heart of meaningful controversy over global warming: the wide disparity between predictions about the future consequences of climate change. Knowledge of these consequences as they will effect populations and societies is essential to taking the right course of action now. But in fact, while consensus on the necessity of climate change in general is broad, no such unity exists on what specific climate changes can be expected. Since such knowledge is in fact uncertain, political will to act in any number of ways is dispersed.

What this means is that, in order to pass a major piece of legislation capable of having an effect, one must convince a majority of the Congress that such actions are necessary. Waxman & Markey is just such a bill, if only by the slimmest of margins. The sort of political compromise entailed in Waxman & Markey has many activists, including those at Greenpeace, upset that measures don’t go far enough in attacking global warming and potentially inhibit future possibilities, as told in a recent New York Times article.[2]

As to Points (2) and (3) of Mr. Draine’s argument, I am in complete agreement that energy prices must necessarily in the near future, and that unsustainable carbon emitting fuel sources are in finite supply. In light of these facts, the question is raised as to whether Waxman & Markey is the kind of bill that we need to incentivize renewable, sustainable society in America. The bill is sweeping in the reforms it provides for. From the strategic planting of trees to the market regulation of carbon credits to the updating of infrastructure to the carbon sequestering subsidies, Waxman & Markey seeks to promote the green move by means of government regulation, central planning, and intrusion. Now, some will say this is not a failing point of the legislation, perhaps government insentivisation and administration of green tech will be a good thing. I submit that my faith in the ability of government to successfully administer anything beyond social policy is limited. But even so, I feel it is in this specific instance relatively unnecessary. Here’s why.

Mr. Draine and I, as I have said, are in perfect agreement as to the reality of the fossil fuel situation. As the supply inevitably diminishes, demand will necessarily rise, and with it price (unless controlled by means of military and economic hegemony, as in the past). But this is the true process by which incentivisation of alternative energies will occur; not the expensive set of incentives provided in Waxman & Markey. On the other hand, the measures that Waxman & Markey do call for are going to cost quite a bit of money, largely at the expense of the consumer; for this reason, many have correctly referred to this as the Cap & Trade tax. Now, it seems to me that if the incentives required for businesses and citizens to turn over towards renewable energies are already present as a result of the free market system, why should we contribute to that the government regulation of the process by which the turn over takes place? What incentive do we have to let the government administer the change over? I myself prefer the organic development of free market incentives to the costly and inefficient procedures of government oversight.

Mr. Draine concludes that the nation which gets a head start on such greening initiatives will be better placed in the geopolitical world than those that took long. But I submit that it is really not the nations at all that will win or lose out in the future, but the companies that catch on to the inevitable death of oil early. The companies, not the country, will market the products. Is it likely that American factories will produce these technologies in future? Not particularly, considering that computer parts used in the states are predominantly of Asian manufacture. So I think that argument fails to constitute a legitimate justification for Waxman & Markey.

Of course, the climate change argument provides, in the end, the only argument for acting immediately. For surely, energy consumption issues could be dealt with in good time, over a matter of a year or two, rather than immediately. But supposedly, the fight against global warming can’t wait that long. If unsuccessful, the bill could potentially seriously degrade the ability of the United States economy to recover from the recession into which it has sunken. Some activists have posited the idea of comparing economic catastrophe to environmental catastrophe to be ridiculous, for instance, Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth and Paul Krugman in a recent New York Times article “Boiling the Frog”.[3] Surely, such voices say, the economic catastrophe is infinitely better than the environmental. I contest that this comparison is a false one. In fact, if economic catastrophe occurs, the likes of which is yet to be seen, our ability as a nation to do anything about global warming will have been completely obliterated.

A better solution to the climate crisis would be to allow the free market to function, by disentangling fossil fuel prices from their artificial price controls. If American military spending was drastically reduced, massive savings to the people and the US government would ensue, which could be utilized to ease the effects of free market fossil fuel prices. Immediately business would have an incentive to go as green as possible, and these industries would proceed organically, with unfettered, unlimited potential. Even a carbon tax would be rendered unnecessary. In any event, I do not look forwards to the extremely hot, expensive days ahead.

Last week, I had the pleasure to debate Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania on the merits of the new Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, or HR 1256, which has recently reorganized the way tobacco is manufactured and sold in America. The debate was hosted by publicsquare.net, a political blog focusing on “uncommon debate”. Indeed, it is uncommon that I, a libertarian at heart, would disagree with Rep. Ron Paul and argue in support of a regulatory bill, while Mr. Godshall, a staunch anti-smoking advocate, argues for the opposition. Thanks to Norah Shipman, an editor at Public Square, for putting the whole thing together. Below, you will find the complete transcription of that debate. I encourage you all to comment on it as you see fit. Enjoy!

—Alex Giannattasio

Introduction to the Debate

President Obama signed into legislation the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act on June 22^nd. This new law, which aims to keep children from starting to smoke, gives control of tobacco to the FDA and allows it to regulate the content, marketing, and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The law also forbids advertising toward children, lowers the amount of nicotine in tobacco products, bans sweetened cigarettes, and prohibits labels such as “light” and “low tar,” according to The New York Times.

The new legislation brings up many questions, such as:
Is it a good idea to give the FDA so much control?
Should the sale and marketing of tobacco be so heavily regulated in the first place?
Will the legislation help keep children from smoking?
Is the law too easy on the tobacco companies?
What else can be done to keep youth from smoking?

Guest bloggers Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania and Alex Giannattasio of The Johnsonville Press will address some of these questions as they debate the effectiveness of the new tobacco legislation and whether or not they support it this week on Bloggerheads. Bill Godshall will take the side of not supporting the legislation, and Alex Giannattasio will argue why he does support it. Check back late today to see the opening arguments for each side.

Norah Shipman
Editorial Assistant

In Favor of HR 1256

The American legislative process, I believe, can be better understood as a positive force than a negative one. By that I mean, when we judge a piece of legislation as citizens, we should be as or more concerned with what that bill actually does to change our society than with what it fails to do. With this in mind, I propose to focus on the positive (productive) changes established by HR 1256, or the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, of which there are several.

To begin, the Act deals explicitly with the rights of manufacturers of tobacco products, as opposed to tobacco producers, or farmers, thereby bringing all major cigarette corporations in America under the federal regulation of the FDA. It is important that the regulations only apply to manufacturers; revocation of the freedom to farm a crop, particularly one which has so drastically contributed to the growth of this country, would be an appalling abuse of power by the federal government, thoroughly un-American, and a slap in the face to the 45 million Americans who freely choose to smoke. Prohibition, as we should all know by now, is not the answer—and luckily, this Act does not seek to prohibit tobacco.

The Act’s main goal is to dramatically limit the ability of such manufacturers to add harmful foreign substances to their tobacco products—substances other than tobacco, nicotine and tar, all of which will be found in an organic tobacco product. According to this BBC article, any of at least 600 foreign substances and chemicals may be present in various commercial cigarette brands. The offshoot is that by regulating and prohibiting non-additive-free tobacco products, many of the negative health effects associated with smoking can be avoided altogether. In fact, I would wager, without having any supporting evidence on hand, that the majority of tobacco-related ailments in the non-senior population are caused by foreign additives in manufactured tobacco products. Smoking tobacco has been around for centuries and I guarantee that it provides no real threat to the fabric of society. But the nefarious practice of adding foreign chemicals to tobacco, without so much as labeling the product, is less than a century old. THIS practice does pose a serious threat to society’s health, as the health repercussions of such chemically treated smoking sticks are far worse, far more serious. The chemical additives present in cigarettes are to my mind the main culprit.

As an added bonus, the legislation actively denies tobacco companies old and new the use of misleading marketing tactics directly aimed at the recruitment of young (adolescent) smokers. If used to its maximum potential, HR 1256 will dramatically improve the health of stubborn cigarette smokers, saving billions in healthcare costs in the process, simply by substantially limiting the tobacco industry’s right to lie. That the bill fails to out-rightly prohibit tobacco production, manufacture and use is no failing point; rather, it is a victory for both American freedom and bipartisan compromise. As you can see, I generally support the measures taken in HR 1256…

Opposed to HR 1256

Ever since the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” was negotiated and agreed to by Altria and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and introduced by Senator Kennedy and Representative Waxman in 2004, Smokefree Pennsylvania has opposed the legislation (and has advocated amendments to improve public health), because it:

- does very little to reduce adult smoking, while duping the public to believe otherwise,
- does very little to prevent youth smoking, while duping the public to believe otherwise,
- prohibits the FDA from issuing truly effective tobacco regulations to reduce smoking,
- protects cigarettes from market competition by less harmful smokefree tobacco products,
- perpetuates the widely believed myth/fraud that smokefree tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarettes,
- perpetuates the widely believed myth/fraud that some cigarettes are less harmful than others,
- includes provisions (perhaps many) that violate the 1st Amendment, which almost certainly will be struck down by the courts, and
- reduces cigarette manufacturer risks in ongoing and future litigation.

New law does very little to reduce smoking

While supporters of new FDA tobacco law have claimed the new law will significantly reduce smoking and save millions of lives, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will reduce youth smoking by only 11% during the next decade, and by just 2% among adults.   In comparison, youth smoking declined by 50% to 70% (depending upon age group) during the past decade, while per capita adult cigarette consumption decline by 30%.

Most reductions in youth and adult smoking during the past decade were due to state/local smokefree workplace laws, state/local cigarette tax increases, the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between States and tobacco companies, and state/local tobacco marketing restrictions to protect youth.  There is no evidence that any of the provisions in the newly enacted FDA tobacco law (except for Senator Mike Enzi’s amendment to require color graphic picture warnings on 50% of cigarette packages, which was advocated by me and was opposed by supporters of the new law) will reduce smoking.

The recently enacted SCHIP legislation (that increased the federal cigarette tax $1/pack will do far more to reduce smoking among adults and youth than the new tobacco law.

Smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes

Fair and effective regulations adequately inform consumers of relative and comparable product risks, encourage the development of and transition to lower risk products, and gradually phase out the most hazardous products.  In sharp contrast, the new FDA tobacco law protects the most hazardous tobacco product (cigarettes), the largest cigarette company (Philip Morris) and the largest cigarette brand (Marlboro) from market competition from far less hazardous smokefree tobacco products by misleading consumers to incorrectly believe that smokeless tobacco products are just as hazardous as cigarettes, and by prohibiting smokefree tobacco product manufacturers from truthfully informing cigarette smokers that smokefree products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Cigarettes kill 50 percent of addicted smokers (about 400,000 Americans annually), and up to 63,000 nonsmokers from secondhand smoke.  In contrast, smokefree tobacco products are attributable for no more than several hundred oral cancer deaths each year, and pose no harm to nonusers.  The tobacco smoke (or more accurately, the repeated inhalation of tobacco smoke), not the nicotine or tobacco, is the leading cause of disease, disability and death in America.

Smokefree tobacco products also pose significantly fewer risks for oral cancer than cigarettes.  Although cigarettes and smokefree tobacco products are similarly addictive, cigarettes are 100 times deadlier than smokefree tobacco products.  Swedish smokefree tobacco products (snus) and other new low nitrosamine smokefree tobacco products pose even fewer health risks, as do electronic cigarettes and nicotine gums, lozenges and skin patches.

Smokers who switch to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduce their disease, disability and death risks nearly as much as occurs by quitting all tobacco/nicotine use.  Millions of smokers in American and Sweden have already switched to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products, and the percentage of nicotine obtained from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products in the US has increased from 10% to 20% in the past decade, with smokeless tobacco products accounting for the vast majority of this change.  Unfortunately, 85% of smokers inaccurately believe that smokefree tobacco products are just as hazardous as cigarettes.  I coauthored a report delineating these issues “Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers” at http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37

But the new FDA tobacco law protects cigarettes at the expense of public health and far less hazardous smokefree tobacco products by requiring even larger misleading warning labels on smokefree tobacco products that state “This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes,” and “This product may cause mouth cancer.”  The new law also fails to inform smokers that smokefree tobacco products are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and specifically prohibits any tobacco company from truthfully informing smokers that smokefree tobacco products are less hazardous alternatives.
Although Section 911 of the new tobacco law includes provisions for FDA to approve the marketing claims for “modified risk tobacco products”, it is highly unlikely that any application (under this provision) would be approved by the FDA (even for far less hazardous smokefree tobacco products) because the manufacturer also would need to demonstrate that the product wouldn’t discourage smokers from quitting tobacco use and wouldn’t result in use by non tobacco users.

New law perpetuates the safer cigarette myth/fraud

Section 911 of the new FDA tobacco law also requires the FDA to promulgate regulations for tobacco companies to apply for making “reduced exposure” claims for cigarettes, which would perpetuate (under FDA oversight) the 60 year old myth/fraud that reducing exposure to a some of the many thousand constituents in tobacco smoke (including more than 40 carcinogens) can make cigarettes less hazardous.  During the 1950’s and 60’s filters were added to cigarettes to make smokers believe that they were less hazardous, and since the 1970’s cigarette companies have similarly marketed low-tar, light and ultralight cigarettes.  Surveys consistently find that about 85% of smokers inaccurately believe that light and ultra light cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarettes, which explains why light and ultralight cigarette brands account for most of the US cigarette market share.

The new FDA tobacco law also authorizes and encourages the FDA to establish cigarette emission standards for various smoke constituents, which are based upon similarly inaccurate and unreliable smoking machine tests that were relied upon to fool the public into believing that low-tar, light and ultralight cigarette brands were less hazardous than other cigarettes.

While the new FDA law wisely bans the use of low-tar, light, ultralight and mild cigarette brand descriptors, the new law fails to inform smokers or the public that these brands (which will remain on the market) are just as hazardous as other cigarettes, and requires the FDA to perpetuate the myth/fraud that less hazardous cigarettes can and will be made under FDA regulatory oversight.
The new law also authorizes the FDA to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes (and other tobacco products), and proponents of the new law have touted this as an effective way to reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes.  Yet, there is broad scientific consensus that smokers of cigarettes with lower nicotine yields puff more intensely, take more puffs and/or smoke more cigarettes in order to obtain a similar level of nicotine that they are accustomed to receiving, which is known as “nicotine compensation”.  As such, any FDA regulation to reduce nicotine amounts in cigarettes almost certainly will make cigarette more hazardous, not less.

New law contains unconstitutional provisions

Another problem with the new FDA tobacco law is that some (and perhaps many) of its advertising/marketing restrictions are virtually certain to be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating a manufacturer’s First Amendment right to communicate with its adult customers.  In 2001 the Supreme Court (in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly) struck down a Massachusetts regulation because it prohibited outdoor tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.  And yet, that same 1,000 feet outdoor advertising restriction is contained in the new FDA tobacco law.

The new FDA tobacco law also bans other forms of tobacco advertising (e.g. large outdoor tobacco billboards, sports events, magazines with few youth readers) that could similarly be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the 1st Amendment.  While the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, agreed to by 46 State Attorneys General and the large tobacco companies, prohibits these types of tobacco advertisements, a Supreme Court ruling striking down these provisions as unconstitutional could even result in some (or all) tobacco companies withdrawing from that settlement (in order to resume those types of advertisements that are seen by many youth, and in order to avoid annual payments to states that totally about $8 billion).

Other provisions in the new FDA tobacco law that could be ruled in violation of the 1st amendment of tobacco companies include prohibiting them from truthfully claiming that their products are regulated by the FDA, and from truthfully claiming that smokefree tobacco products are less hazardous than cigarettes.

Since 2004, Altria (the world’s largest cigarette company, which spent many millions of dollars lobbying to enact the FDA law) has claimed that it too believes the court will strike down some provisions of the law for violating the 1st Amendment.

New law denies FDA authority to effectively regulate tobacco products

Effective product regulations also allow regulatory agencies unfettered authority to issue regulations that reduce use of and access to the most hazardous products.  But the new tobacco law explicitly prohibits the FDA from issuing many of the most effective regulations to prevent and reduce cigarette smoking, including:
- eliminating cigarette sales in retail stores frequented by youth,
- increasing the minimum age for cigarette sales above 18 years,
- requiring prescriptions to buy cigarettes (as FDA requires for other harmful drugs), and
- eventually removing cigarettes from the market.

Although supporters of the new FDA tobacco law claim that it protects youth from tobacco and from marketing by tobacco companies, the law prohibits the FDA from banning the sale of cigarettes (and thus, their advertising as well) in hundreds of thousands of retail stores that are frequented by youth because it specifically prohibits the FDA from banning tobacco sales in any of the many different categories of retail outlets.  While cigarette consumption has declined by 50% since 1982 in the US (from 32 billion packs to 16 billion packs), the number of cigarette retailers has remained about the same.  The new law ensures that virtually all youths will continue to be exposed to tobacco advertising and marketing.

By prohibiting the FDA from increasing the minimum age of tobacco sales above 18 years, the new law allows tobacco companies to legally market their products to virtually all 12th grade high school students, which ensures easy access to tobacco products by most other high school students.  Just as raising the legal minimum age for alcohol sales to 21 years significantly reduced youth drinking and automobile injuries, increasing the minimum age for cigarette sales to 19, 20, or 21 could significantly reduce youth consumption.  Can anyone imaging Congress passing a law purported to protect youth from alcohol that allows alcohol to be sold to 12th grade high school students?
More manageable liability risks for cigarette companies

While the new FDA tobacco law doesn’t give tobacco companies any specific protections from lawsuits, the impact of the new law is likely to indirectly do so by reducing the likelihood that judges and juries will impose punitive damages on losing cigarette company defendants (as punitive damage awards are intended to punish losing defendants for their egregious behavior), or require any product changes (e.g. the verdict in the DOJ case against cigarette companies banned light, ultralight and mild cigarette claims).  The new law is also likely to result in fewer lawyers and lawfirms being willing to file expensive and risky lawsuits against cigarette companies in the future.

Summary

Although the new FDA tobacco law contains several sound public health policy provisions (e.g. requiring color graphic warnings covering 50% of cigarette packs, and banning of light, ultralight cigarette descriptors), there are many other provisions in the new law that protect cigarette markets at the expense of public health and less hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine products.

But perhaps the biggest problem with the new law is that Congress and the public have been duped into believing that the new law has resolved and will sharply reduce the nation’s leading cause of disease, disability and death.   This will make it far more difficult during the next several decades to successfully advocate public policies that truly reduce smoking, which is a big win for Altria and cigarettes.

Smokefree Pennsylvania is a nonprofit organization founded in 1990 which has worked to protect people from the involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette prices, preserve civil justice remedies for injured tobacco victims, increase tobacco prevention and cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Bill Godshall

Executive Director, Smokefree Pennsylvania

First Response to Mr. Godshall

I want to thank my esteemed opponent for his comprehensive analysis of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. As I sat reading his opening remarks (coincidentally, as I enjoyed an additive-free cigarette) I found myself perhaps surprisingly in agreement with many of the claims Mr. Godshall promotes. Broadly speaking, cigarette smoking is the leading cause of disability and death in America; children should be protected from the coercive sales tactics of cigarette companies; and smokefree tobacco products seem to provide a healthier alternative for nicotine users than cigarettes and other smoke-producing tobacco products. Further, we can agree that cigarette smoke and advertising should be banned from indoor public places, especially in proximity to children; that over-taxation is the most effective means of reducing tobacco use; and that this legislation protects the industrial production of tobacco. However, I do not believe that any of these claims provide a basis for the rejection of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. On the contrary, the legislation, in conjunction with other measures both past and future, not only provides for the right balance of federal regulation and personal freedom–the very balance that has allowed our country to flourish in the past–but largely stands on constitutionally solid ground.

Tobacco use, as I have said, is an old practice. People have been using and enjoying tobacco for centuries; and why not? For those of us who choose to smoke, even in light of the associated health risks, smoking is a highly enjoyable practice, one for which we are willing to pay exorbitant prices to engage in. And provided we hurt no one else in the process, why should we be prevented from doing so?

Of course, it has been argued that secondhand smoke kills. I am willing to accept this claim, and the resultant conclusion: that our freedom to smoke should be curtailed when it begets harm to non-smokers, who have actively and freely chosen to avoid the practice, in other words, that smoking should be prohibited in indoor public areas, for the benefit and safety of non-smokers. However, smoking out of doors, which has a negligible if any effect on others, does not fall into the bounds of this claim. Even less does smoking in the privacy of one’s own home, where the individual, not the population, not society, is king.

It is NOT the federal government’s role to dictate nation-wide standards on what we can and cannot consume, as individuals. Such practices are paternalistic and reprehensible. However, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act does not, as Mr. Godshall agrees, do this. Rather, it specifically gives the FDA authority to regulate additive products and chemicals used by tobacco companies to increase the addictive nature and aesthetic quality of their smokes. THESE additives, not the tobacco itself, are the most serious culprits of tobacco-related ailments, and further, they bring little to no benefit to the smoker. It is my feeling that, if asked whether they would object to the illegalization of, for instance, rat poison in cigarettes, few smokers would object. Additive-free tobacco will be exponentially healthier than current cigarettes, albeit still a generally unhealthy practice. To reiterate: SMOKING IN GENERAL IS UNHEALTHY. SMOKING ADDITIVE FREE TOBACCO IS HISTORICALLY MORE HEALTHY THAN SMOKING INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS. As a smoker, I commit my personal experience to this fact.

I see no reason to believe that smokefree tobacco products would be as harmful as smoke producing products. In fact, it seems only common sense to assume that they would be infinitely healthier. If 85% of the population, as Mr. Godshall claims, are under the mistaken impression that smokefree products are as unhealthy as cigarettes, I would be tempted to point the finger of blame at overly-zealous antismoking advocates, who prefer sweeping statements of condemnation for all smoking (and smokers) to reasonable scientific analysis. Let me add that I do not place Mr. Godshall as among these. But in fact, I do doubt very much that Mr. Godshall is correct in this statistic, and would like to see his source.

Further, Mr. Godshall claims that the FSPTCA commits the sin of condemning smokefree tobacco while protecting cigarettes. We can, I believe, agree that the slogan “This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes” is mistaken when applied to smokefree cigarettes. But I can think of some very good reason why such new products need to be thoroughly regulated by the FDA. For one, they provide an extremely efficient drug delivery system to the public, prescription free.  In the foreseeable future, such devises could be modified to include other chemical elements beyond nicotine. If this was done, the chemical regulation problem addressed by the FSPTCA could potentially be circumnavigated by manufacturers. As I have stated, it is my belief that it is the additive chemical constituents in cigarettes that serves to make them so lethal, and if steps are not taken to avert the open consumption of poisonous, toxic chemicals (of which organically produced and manufactured tobacco is not one) health in America will potentially be dramatically damaged, as it has been in the past 70 or so years by inorganically manufactured tobacco.

Further, I will add that I do not see in smokefree tobacco products the end-all solution to the “smoking epidemic” that Mr. Godshall sees. In fact, as a smoker, as a consumer, I can say that such products are widely inferior to the actual experience of smoking. In all likelihood, many Americans will inevitably prefer to consumer a tobacco cigarette than a vaporized hit of nicotine. I would also suggest that it is the smoke itself, and the act of smoking, which is more the source of addiction than nicotine itself, which has been compared to caffeine. As such, consumers are unlikely to make a sweeping switch to smokeless tobacco. In addition, smokefree tobacco products, being less pleasurable for consumption, will more likely act as a gateway into cigarette smoking than an exit from it. If the act of smoking itself is as addictive as the chemicals, then getting an individual used to the process of smoking is likely to open the door to other tobacco products. I feel only a non-smoker could see salvation from cigarettes in these nicotine inhalers. Personally, I find the mechanism too effeminate for my tastes. But that’s just me…

Another mistake Mr. Godshall makes is his comment on the age limit applied to smoking. He seems to believe that cigarettes, like alcohol, should not be sold to 18 year olds, but only to 19, 20 or 21 year olds. The reason he sites is the availability of cigarettes provided to high schoolers of all ages through the senior connection. This claim is completely unsound. To begin with a common and well known argument, American citizens old enough to fight and die in war should be allowed the right of control over their own personal consumption–in this country, what is control over their own lives.Further, alcohol and cigarettes are incomparable substances; how many car accidents are caused by smoking and driving? Drunk driving deaths are the legitimate reason for the alcohol age increase, but the same can not be said of cigarettes, which are far less damaging in the short run. But even further, the policies Mr. Godshall seeks to impose are exceedingly paternalistic. Perhaps it’s the fact that I am closer to that age group (I’m 21) than Mr. Godshall, but I can say definitively that regarding younger people, prohibition only serves to tantalize. The best proven way to avoid teen smoking is not through the legislative process, but rather by truthful, honest education. Adolescents need less protection than we tend to give them credit for; all they really need are the tools to make the right decisions, and often they will. In this case, the tool is truthful information. Legislation above and beyond what is now in place will not serve to prevent teen smoking. However, the FSPCTA does address serious concerns about big tobacco’s ability to advertise to our youth, which is akin to undermining honest educational programs, and appeal to children with candy flavored smokes, which is a reprehensible practice.

Mr. Godshall appears to promote these forms of regulation, which I quote from his article:

- eliminating cigarette sales in retail stores frequented by youth,
- increasing the minimum age for cigarette sales above 18 years,
- requiring prescriptions to buy cigarettes (as FDA requires for other harmful drugs), and
- eventually removing cigarettes from the market.

Such regulations are completely contrary to the American way of government. Tobacco is a recreational and relatively benign drug, in that it takes scores of years to produce serious health impacts on most users. Further, tobacco provides few medical benefits to users, and so prescriptions are simply a ridiculous concept for cigarettes. Further, the removal of cigarettes from shelves in certain stores is discriminatory, and restricts freedom in unacceptable ways. Further, removing cigarettes from the shelves is extremely illegal and unconstitutional, in that it restricts our freedom to grow and consume a naturally occurring plant, as is currently the case with marijuana. These unfortunate, fear mongering prohibitions serve to undermine the American spirit, and would be completely unacceptable to the approximately 50 million smokers in this country. I would remind Mr. Godshall that the purpose of American Democracy is to protect the rights of the minority, rather than to impose the will of the majority. For that reason, it is unacceptable for the federal government to impose paternalistic standards of lifestyle upon any members of its population, be it in the restriction of fatty foods, car use, or cigarettes, all of which, when used in moderation, can have negligible health effects. What we need is more communication, more discussion, more education, more freedom, less prohibition.

In contrast to the sort of sweeping federal regulations Mr. Godshall seems to support, I would suggest that the legislative process at the state, or even local levels, are the fairest places for the legislation of tobacco use. If a specific town or state finds it suitable to prohibit tobacco sale in their area, it is no skin off of my nose. Nearly all regulation should take place at the state and local levels, and I applaud lawmakers for enacting a law which does not overstep its constitutional bounds. In fact, it will be local governments, in tandem with local organizations, such as the one to which Mr. Godshall belongs, which are the most acceptable regulators and educators about tobacco use, not the broad and cold network that is the federal government. If Mr. Godshall’s policies were accepted, I, and many other smokers would take serious issue with our sudden inability to disagree with him.

In conclusion, I would remind Mr. Godshall that death is an inevitable part of life. We are all going to die some day. Some of us will die in car and plane crashes, some of us will die from diabetes. Some of us will die young, and some of us will die old. Some of us will die from smoking, and some of us won’t. But the choice of how we live should be our own. I had dinner with my grandfather the other day, a man of 83 years of age, and a smoker of 30. Clearly, the choices he has made in living have led him this far. What right do you have to say he made the wrong choices?

Alex Giannattasio

The Johnsonville Press

Reply to Alex Giannattasio

In this posting, I’ll address arguments presented in Alex Giannattasio’s posting and his rebuttal to my posting.

While the new FDA tobacco law’s greatest impact will be on manufacturers, it will also affect growers, leaf processors, wholesalers, distributors, retailers and advertisers.

The three largest cigarette manufacturers (Altria, Reynolds, Lorillard), which collectively have about 88% of the US market share, will be able to comply with the new FDA regulatory requirements at a cost of about $.02/pack. But compliance with the new law will costs hundreds of small tobacco manufacturers more than $.50/pack (with comparable compliance cost differences for small cigar, smokeless and smoking tobacco manufacturers), which almost certainly will result in most of the smaller manufacturers going out of business, with just several large manufacturers ones remaining.

As applied to cigarette manufacturers, the new FDA tobacco law would be more appropriately called the Altria Monopoly Act, as Altria’s 52% cigarette market share is likely to continue expanding at the expense of hundreds of small cigarette companies.

I strongly disagree with Mr. Giannattasio’s statement “The Act’s main goal is to dramatically limit the ability of such manufacturers to add harmful foreign substances to their tobacco products,” as there is no evidence that cigarettes made from organically grown tobacco pose fewer health risks than other cigarettes. But this myth has become increasingly popular among cigarette smokers who are vegetarians, eat organic foods and/or espouse “green” political views. The smoke emitted from the combustion of any tobacco product (or any other type of organic matter) is similarly harmful to health when inhaled.

Somewhat similar claims (made by proponents of the new FDA tobacco law) that cigarette companies put additives (especially candy flavored additives) in cigarettes to make them more addictive are also unsubstantiated by the evidence. And in fact, the additives banned by the new FDA tobacco law affects fewer than 1% of cigarettes in the US market share, with clove cigarettes from Indonesia most affected. In sharp contrast, menthol, which was exempted from the FDA laws’ cigarette additive ban, accounts for 28% of the US market share. The claim that the new FDA tobacco law would eliminate cigarette additives was yet another gross misrepresentation of fact made by proponents of the legislation to demonize cigarette manufacturers in order to gain votes of naïve members of Congress.

I also take issue with Mr. Giannattasio’s statement “It is NOT the federal government’s role to dictate nation-wide standards on what we can and cannot consume,” as that is the primary role of the FDA in regulating food, drugs and other products, and that is what Congress has just authorized the FDA to do with tobacco products. While the new law doesn’t allow the FDA to ban cigarettes, it authorizes the FDA to establish standards for specific constituents of cigarettes and cigarette smoke emissions (the latter of which would be based on inaccurate and unreliable machine tests), despite the fact that there is no evidence that increasing, decreasing or eliminating various constituents in cigarettes or cigarette smoke can make cigarettes less hazardous to health.

I partly agree with Mr. Giannattasio’s statement “If 85% of the population, as Mr. Godshall claims, are under the mistaken impression that smokefree products are as unhealthy as cigarettes, I would be tempted to point the finger of blame at overly-zealous antismoking advocates.” But “anti-tobacco”, “anti-nicotine” and “abstinence-only” are far more accurate terms than “antismoking” to describe the extremists (including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Dental Association) that have demonized and grossly exaggerated the health risks of smokefree tobacco products.

These organizations adamantly oppose tobacco harm reduction (i.e. cigarette smokers switching to far less hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives), and instead prefer smokers to either quit all tobacco/nicotine use or continue smoking and die. The old anti-smoking movement of the past four decades has split into two distinct factions: pragmatic public health advocates whose goal is to reduce cigarette smoking, and abstinence-only anti-tobacco/nicotine extremists whose ideological goal is to eliminate all tobacco/nicotine use.

This latter group of extremists also are opportunistic prohibitionists, as CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA joined forces with GlaxoSmithKline in 2002 to unsuccessfully petition the FDA to ban Star’s Ariva and Stonewall low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco lozenges

(that are nearly identical to GSK’s Commit nicotine lozenge, that is marketed as a smoking cessation aid). Several months ago, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA urged the FDA to ban recently introduced smokefree nicotine inhalers called “electronic cigarettes”, claiming that these products have not been proven to be safe or effective (as smoking cessation aids). And yet, e-cigarettes don’t emit any smoke, and are at least 99.9% less hazardous than cigarettes. Similarly, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA insisted that the new FDA tobacco law ban all new smokefree tobacco products (while leaving cigarettes on the market) until/unless the FDA approves the new product (which those groups almost certainly will oppose).

Mr. Giannattasio’s support for strict regulation of smokefree tobacco products (while simultaneously espousing the pleasures of cigarette smoking) indicate a selfish bias (for his tobacco product of choice) instead of product regulations based upon scientific evidence or concern for public health.

Sweden now has the lowest cigarette smoking rate (and correspondingly lowest lung cancer, COPD and heart disease death rate) in the developed world. The primary reason for Sweden’s dramatic decline in smoking (and smoking morbidity/mortality) is that a huge majority of cigarette smokers (especially males) switched to a smokefree tobacco product called snus during the past several decades. Snus now comprises 50% of all nicotine consumed in Sweden (with cigarettes now accounting for just 50%).

As I pointed out in my previous posting, smokefree tobacco/nicotine products now account for 20% of nicotine consumed in the US, up from 10% a decade ago (with cigarettes declining from 90% to 80%). A critically important public health goal (and one advocated by Smokefree Pennsylvania) should be to increase that percentage to 50% (as is the case in Sweden) in the next five or ten years, as achieving that goal also would sharply reduce cigarette consumption, diseases and deaths in the US.

Unfortunately for public health, a stated goal of CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, as well as the Centers for Disease Control, is to reduce the use of smokefree tobacco products, which would ensure that the overwhelming majority of nicotine consumed in the US would continue being obtained from cigarettes, and that cigarettes would remain the leading cause of disease, disability and death in the US.

Smokers have a human right to be truthfully informed that smokefree tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and smokers have a right to legally access less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. Unfortunately, the new FDA tobacco law tramples on those rights.

While tobacco harm reduction has the potential of sharply reducing cigarette consumption in the future, other policy changes also can/will further reduce smoking (especially cigarette tax increases and further restrictions on indoor smoking).

The examples I cited (on my previous post) of regulations that the FDA is prohibited from promulgating don’t necessarily indicate my support for those regulations (although I’ve long advocated raising the minimum age for cigarette sales above 18 years to prevent youth addiction), but rather exposed additional inaccurate and hypocritical claims made about the new law by its proponents.

In sum, the greatest potential for additional declines in cigarette consumption during the next decade won’t come from the new FDA tobacco law, but rather from other policy changes (that the new FDA tobacco law will make more difficult to achieve).

Bill Godshall

Smokefree Pennsylvania

Second Response to Mr. Godshall

This constitutes my second response to Mr. Godshall.

I. Consequences of the FSPTCA for Small Businesses

In his last statement, Mr. Godshall purported that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would, “almost certainly will result in most of the smaller manufacturers going out of business, with just several large ones remaining”. This, he supposes, would result from the relatively high cost-per-pack to small tobacco manufacturers for abiding by new FDA regulations. He claims the cost to small manufacturers would run about .50 a pack, as opposed to .02 per pack for the big three (Altria, Reynolds, Lorillard).

I take issue with this claim for three reasons:

1. First, Mr. Godshall should provide citations alongside such strong statistics as these if we are to believe them. Would it really cost small companies 2500% more than large ones? Considering that the primary actions of the Act are the regulation of additive materials to manufactured cigarettes, and the addition of more warning signs to some of the packaging, this seems a suspiciously high cost estimate.

2. But even accepting these widely disparate costs, I see no reason to assume that they would result in “most smaller manufacturers going out of business”. If anything, wildly increasing taxation has jeopardized such companies to an exponentially greater degree (cigarettes in New Jersey now cost upwards of $8.00 a pack). What is more, considering that consumers are still willing to purchase cigarettes from such small manufacturers after nearly two decades of steadily increasing taxations, I wonder at Mr. Godshall’s confidence that a mere .50 cost increase would spell their doom.

3. Further, the bill has made provisions to deal with such a possibility:

The Act “requires the Secretary to: (1) provide a reasonable period for manufacturers to conform to good manufacturing practices; and (2) not require any small tobacco product manufacturer to comply with such regulations for at least four years. Allows the Secretary to grant exemptions and variances from such regulations under certain circumstances.”

Small tobacco is defined by the bill as a manufacturer of 350 employees or less. I contest that the act provides fairly for these businesses by granting them the time they need to adjust to the new standards. In other words, I suspect that this bill will not be devastating to small tobacco companies, as Mr. Godshall contests.

Mr. Godshall also states that the Act will “will also affect growers, leaf processors, wholesalers, distributors, retailers and advertisers”. Surely it will, as markets will have to adjust to new standards. But in all likelihood, that effect will be negligible, compared to the effects of steadily declining sales—the result of twenty years of moral war waged against tobacco companies. If this bill affects the aforementioned industries, it will only be as a result of even fewer sales (to children) which this bill will hopefully produce. We can at least rest assured that the United States government is not moving to take action against the freedom of these business to operate as they do today, as in the case of growers here:

Sec. 4 (b) Agricultural Activities- The provisions of this division (or an amendment made by this division) which authorize the Secretary to take certain actions with regard to tobacco and tobacco products shall not be construed to affect any authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under existing law regarding the growing, cultivation, or curing of raw tobacco.

And in the case of advertisers here:

Sec. 2 (32) The regulations described in paragraph (30) impose no more extensive restrictions on communication by tobacco manufacturers and sellers than are necessary to reduce the number of children and adolescents who use cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and to prevent the life-threatening health consequences associated with tobacco use. Such regulations are narrowly tailored to restrict those advertising and promotional practices which are most likely to be seen or heard by youth and most likely to entice them into tobacco use, while affording tobacco manufacturers and sellers ample opportunity to convey information about their products to adult consumers.

For these reasons, I believe Mr. Godshall’s claims are vastly overblown when he states that, “As applied to cigarette manufacturers, the new FDA tobacco law would be more appropriately called the Altria Monopoly Act, as Altria’s 52% cigarette market share is likely to continue expanding at the expense of hundreds of small cigarette companies.” The bill provides for small business adequately; and besides…what is it to Mr. Godshall which companies succeed, if some teens are prevented from smoking; what does Altria’s market share matter, if the overall market base is drastically reduced; most of all, what does this matter to an individual or organization that would prefer to see cigarettes banned? Perhaps my last question is overstated?

II. Additives and Regulation

Mr. Godshall goes on to decry my hypothesis that added chemicals to cigarette tobacco increase the incidence of disease in smokers, claiming there is no evidence to support the idea. I must admit, I have a hard time not believing it; not because I’m a smoker somehow deluding himself into thinking that additive free tobacco is going to allow me to bypass the health hazards of smoking, but because, as an experienced smoker, I can taste and feel the difference between chemically treated tobacco and additive free tobacco. I base my claims on pure experience of the physical and chemical effects of the two. But if further evidence need be provided, I have already cited this article, which granted is ten years old, but which I believe relates the common sense point that smoking chemicals is necessarily going to devastate the body to a greater degree than simple tobacco: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/background_briefings/smoking/281167.stm. I admit that the act of smoking itself is a health hazard and risky business; but I must say, and you should admit, that if one is to smoke, one should smoke additive free tobacco over chemically treated. I don’t believe I could be convinced otherwise…

Regarding my previous statement that “It is NOT the federal government’s role to dictate nation-wide standards on what we can and cannot consume,” I must hold to it. In fact, this is NOT the primary role of the FDA to regulate CONSUMPTION, but rather only the MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION of foods, drugs and cosmetics, which is not the same thing. An outright ban on the production or manufacture of cigarettes is unjustifiable, as this is tantamount to regulating what individuals may and may not consume. But regulation of manufactures means that corporations can’t lie about their products, or sell someone something they don’t know they’re buying, as was the case with cigarettes prior to this bill.

Regarding Mr. Godshall’s claim that:

“And in fact, the additives banned by the new FDA tobacco law affects fewer than 1% of cigarettes in the US market share, with clove cigarettes from Indonesia most affected. In sharp contrast, menthol, which was exempted from the FDA laws’ cigarette additive ban, accounts for 28% of the US market share. The claim that the new FDA tobacco law would eliminate cigarette additives was yet another gross misrepresentation of fact made by proponents of the legislation to demonize cigarette manufacturers in order to gain votes of naïve members of Congress.”

The Act grants the FDA the authority to regulate ANY AND ALL ADDITIVES, excepting tobacco itself, and menthol. This stipulation is broad enough, I believe, to empower the FDA to regulate any and all additive components as it decides to. As my cited article states, that list of potential legal additives might be 600 or more components long. Further, the Act requires the FDA to put out, on a yearly and bi-yearly basis, information outlining all additive components of cigarettes of each and every kind and brand; to conduct studies of its own concerning the negative or negligible effects of each ingredient; and to make all of this information available to the public. One might consider the Act a “Tobacco Manufacturer Transparency Act”. With regards to Menthol, I suppose simply too many people smoke it to ban out right. And there are explicit stipulations in the bill for the FDA to immediately begin studying the effects of menthol in cigarettes (even down to the effects it has on minorities and the underprivileged). It’s not such a bad compromise really. The cigarette companies are allowed to stay in business, on the condition that they not hide information from the public, and that they operate in complete transparency. Clearly, this speaks doom for tobacco use in this country, for all but the hard-core smokers, and additionally provides anti-smoking activists with honest information about smoking for the use of educating the public.

I also want to add that Mr. Godshall would do well to remember that the binding stipulations in this Act are aimed at producing a lasting long-term change. Over the course of the years, more and more will become known about tobacco, and more and more changes in the way it is consumed will be implemented. FDA regulation moves us a huge step along that path. And we should also keep in mind that this bill has been ten years in the works. All things considered, it comes as little surprise that it took so long to be passed through, but that is how the legislative process works (sometimes), and if that’s what it takes to implement the right changes and controls, so be it. Given time, this legislation will prove immensely effective. If it is slightly behind the cutting-edge of the anti-smoking movement, upon which Mr. Godshall sits, it is no less beneficial for that.

III. Mr. Godshall’s Alternative Plan

In truth, Mr. Godshall’s alternative to the Act, as advanced and advocated for by Smokefree Pennsylvania (cited below), is an admirable one: it seeks to make perfectly clear the true and widely accepted science behind tobacco use; we can at least agree that smokefree tobacco products are in fact less dangerous than cigarette smoke. Mr. Godshall advocates for a more pragmatic approach to legislation; tobacco products would be classified according to type, and then addressed individually on the basis of danger to human health. Some alternative nicotine or tobacco delivery methods which can be shown as an effective aid in quitting the most deadly habit of smoking cigarettes would be encouraged, so as to wean the American public onto a lesser of two evils. One can’t help but be reminded of methadone treatment for heroin addicts…though they say quitting cigarettes is harder than heroin.

Although Mr. Godshall’s plan does, I believe, come from a good, more compassionate and pragmatic place, I would suggest that there are two sides to the story. Many antismoking advocates purport a view which holds smoke-free tobacco to be a gateway to the further use of other tobacco products, including cigarettes. It’s a form of the “gateway” theory: much as marijuana is sometimes taken to provide a gateway to other, harder drugs, so smokeless tobacco could acclimate an individual, especially a young individual, to be comfortable with tobacco use, and addicted to nicotine. This behavior, quite obviously could lead to cigarette use. This is the position that the Act takes, and to which Mr. Godshall objects, when it states that smokeless tobacco is not a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. The provision is NOT inserted as a compromise with Altria and Big Tobacco; rather, it’s a pragmatic attempt at avoiding further teen smoking. At the very least I should make clear that in my last response, while I did proclaim my “selfish bias (for [my] tobacco product of choice)”, my main point regarding smoke-free tobacco was that the issue is two sided, and if we are willing to accept that smoke-free products can and do lead to cigarette smoking or other, more harmful behavior, there is reason to accept strong regulation of it.

As I’ve said, I DO believe Mr. Godshall’s plan is a good one, aimed as it is at educating the public with truth and honest. But at the same time, I do not find the action taken in the Act to be unjust or nefarious. I would suggest that Mr. Godshall’s plan would complement the FSPTCA quite well, so long as he would not completely ban tobacco products outright, nor tax them to an unreasonable degree. But for the most part, it deals with a different realm of concern, one of public education, and so does necessarily overlap with this one, which is regulatory in content and spirit. In other words, there is no reason Mr. Godshall’s ideas about educating the public should interfere with the philosophy behind the smoke-free tobacco stipulations in the FSPTCA (perhaps better, more explicit and mutually acceptable phrases should be applied to such products).

In sum, I maintain that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, while not perfect, will produce far more beneficial consequences than negative ones; that it does seek to accomplish admirable goals; that in conjunction with other legislation and the work of nonprofit advocates like Mr. Godshall, it will accomplish these goals; that it is not an unholy, unjustifiable concession to cigarette companies, but a pragmatic and unabashedly forceful compromise. I do believe that Mr. Godshall’s “alternative” ideas are worth considering, but I do not think them a real alternative to this legislation, nor one in conflict with or contrast to it. Mr. Godshall’s solutions are perfect for short-term activity and results—we can agree that his view is superior to the extremist viewpoint he speaks of. But, mark my words, this Act will prove invaluable to organizations like Smokefree Pennsylvania 10 years down the road. I applaud his enthusiasm for the cause, and wish him all the luck in the world in the future. Just don’t take away my smokes!

[1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdIhj2:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|

[2] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111YCYlXQ:e1365:

[3] Ibid

]]> http://johnsonvillepress.com/full-transcription-of-last-weeks-debate/feed/ 0 http://johnsonvillepress.com/to-the-reader-alex-giannattasio/ http://johnsonvillepress.com/to-the-reader-alex-giannattasio/#comments Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:24:22 +0000 Alex G http://johnsonvillepress.com/?p=401 As Of Yet Untitled

With June all but behind us, and the Fourth of July just around the corner, I can finally say that summer is here in force. This is an interesting time for us Johnsonvillians. School has ended, and with it a major vibration of hustle and bustle has left the town. Thousands of Rutgers employees and students have migrated to their summer homes, leaving only a few summer-scholars to pepper the otherwise sardine can style streets. Children are also more seldom seen, no doubt enjoying the opportunity to rot their brains on uninterrupted television-watching stints. With the loss of so many regular residents, all but a few professions have slowed in response to the summer shuffle. Add to that the profuse levels of rain we’ve experienced in recent weeks, and business in New Brunswick has reached a crawl relative to its fall and spring counterparts.

But there is one profession in Johnsonville of which it seems the reverse is true; construction. I’ve lived in New Brunswick as a Rutgers student for four years now, and in that time, the number of expansion projects we’ve heard about has continued to grow. Rutgers, for its part, has been raising, rearranging and retrofitting buildings since I got here. The football stadium, the College Avenue greening, the Livingston student center, the new wing of the business school, the Biomedical Tech building on Bush, the Solar energy plant and the massive extension to the Chabad House have all been started (but most not completed) on my time here. Going to a four-year college during a transitional phase, as Rutgers is in now, is somewhat ironic–we are always being pitched projects that we will never get to enjoy, even as we pay for them.

But the city has also contributed to the construction site scene. A second round of demolitions recently happened on the site of the new Gateway building, in front of the train station. But route 18, especially, has been a plague to many local commuters, clogging the streets and cramping our style. Finally, as my time in New Brunswick begins to run short, we are starting to see progress on that God-forsaken road. It’s actually looking pretty good, and the adjacent park promises to be pleasant in future…you can be sure the property value of those luxury apartments overlooking the highway will get a boost too…The pictures seen below, shot from the Cook/Douglas overlook by Dan Bracaglia show a recently completed section of Rt. 18, paved smooth as water. I hope you get the chance to drive it with no traffic.

As I’ve mentioned, there certainly does seem to be an abundance of water in Johnsonville lately…or at least rain. In fact, I’ll admit that driving across the Albany Street bridge the other day, I was struck by how low the Raritan’s water levels seemed to be—how could they be so low after two solid weeks of rain? Perhaps I was hallucinating? If anyone noticed the same phenomenon and can corroborate the observation, I’d appreciate it. At any rate, I hope I’m not losing it.

At any rate, one thing you may have noticed reading this week’s issue of the JVP is the abundance of poems we’ve received. And not just poems, but poems about RAIN. I’m not sure what it is about the rain that so strongly impacts, not just a person, but a population such as ours. I only know that two weeks of rain in Johnsonville have apparently impact several of our poets, and all at the same time. Perhaps it is simply in the poets’ nature to be more attuned to the natural processes of the Earth. Our perhaps this rain is simply so uncharacteristic of the June climate in New Jersey that a subtle impact, measurable perhaps in poetic inspiration, has settled on our community. At any rate, I hope you enjoy reading poetry…

And this much rain is uncharacteristic; I almost can’t help but wonder if such odd weather-patterns have anything to do with global warming. In fact, it has become my habit, and the habit of many, to speak casually of weather anomalies, and the weather in general, as the product of Global Warming. Such is the staying power of the Global Warming scientific theory and the fasionability of the Green Movement. Interestingly enough, these highly volatile weather conditions in the US, and at least in New Jersey, are providing the backdrop for the debate over President Obama’s new climate bill.

And the debate is as intense as the weather. Last week, the House of Representatives passed HR 2454, or the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by the exceedingly narrow margin of SEVEN VOTES, or 219 – 212. House Minority Leader John Boehner gave an impassioned hour long speech on the many reasons not to vote for the bill, the most prevalent of which was the fact that a 300+ page amendment was added to the bill only hours before the vote was set. This video will not only give you some good information on the act as it currently stands before the Senate, but shows the viewer an excellent, revealing, and dramatic glimpse into the process behind American democracy. I seriously suggest you view it: http://usaguns.net/patriots/boehner.html

There is much to be said about this debate, and this legislation. It has some of the most serious implications for this country of any legislation yet proposed. In fact, if passed into action, this bill will DRAMATICALLY change the fabric of American society. THIS is the change we American’s elected; the fact that it is so controversial in a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats just goes to show how very important and drastic the change will be. As Boehner says in his speech, this is probably the most important legislation ever to pass before Congress. I very much hope that some of our readers and writers take initiative in exploring the topic further and reporting their findings back to us here at the Press. I for one will also be exploring this issue. As I have said, the changes this legislation plans to implement will be extreme for America…if they pass. Some say the bill will build a road to the 21st century on green initiatives; other say this will be a substantial blow to America’s poor and American freedom.

That in mind, look into this issue, draw your own conclusions, and please, at least take the time to comment at the bottom of the article to tell us what you think about the legislation. After all, with the upcoming celebration of our freedom at hand, what better way to celebrate then exercising your right to learn, right to know, and right to speak. We hope you all have a Happy Fourth of July, from the Johnsonville Press. Cheers!

New Brunswick Triptych by Dan Bracaglia; see more of his work at www.thelondonbroil.com

On June 11, 2009, Congress passed HR 1256, or the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. A milestone in the fight against tobacco-related health issues, this legislation brings manufactures of tobacco products under the broad regulatory supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. In a press release addressing the bill, the President had this to say: “My administration is committed to protecting our children and reforming our health care system – and moving forward with common-sense tobacco control measures is an integral part of that process.”[1]<!–[endif]–> The legislation’s full text can be found here, on the Library of Congress webpage.

Of recent legislation passed on Obama’s watch, this bill was by far one of the easiest to pass. Introduced in early March, the bill was passed a little over three months later, with 79 members of the Senate and 307 members of the House in its favor. The bill faced very little opposition, and enjoyed widespread bipartisan support—it seems that very few individuals would deny the negative characteristics associated with tobacco use.

I did, however, find one outspoken voice in opposition to the bill (one not employed by Big Tobacco, I mean). I’m speaking, of course, about my hero, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The good doctor stubbornly bashed the bill, as objectionable, pervasive, and unconstitutional. In one of his weekly updates, Congressman Paul said: “Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States. It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry. It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good. Such is the condescension of Washington.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> As a smoker—for better or worse—I decided that I should look into this matter myself, rather than take the word of a Congressman or the President. So let us consider some of the main points regarding this freshly printed legislation.

For one, the bill does not empower the FDA to regulate the production of tobacco, that is, the growing of tobacco. Rather, it specifically deals with the process of manufacturing the product for the purposes of commercial retail and consumption. Minimally, it stipulates limitations on the level of pesticides that can be present in or on a tobacco product if it is to be manufactured for retail purposes. But for the most part, FDA regulation of the product will take place at the level of the manufacturer, not the farmer.

This, for me, is an important point. There are two kinds of tobacco farmers in the United States: small plot farmers, who tend to relatively small tobacco farms, and corporate industrial farmers, who tend thousands of acres of generic tobacco plants for mass consumption. The former farmers do not generally manufacture their own tobacco products, but sell their produce in-the-raw at market. Any draconian attempt to regulate these farmers further than they already are would be insidious and outrageous; doing so would likely drive them out of business, violating their rights—and at no benefit to the American people at large. However, by regulating at the manufacturing level, corporate-industrial tobacco farms would be regulated, as these are owned and operated by tobacco manufacturers (Philip-Morris, R. J. Reynolds, etc.).

The primary purposes of the bill are two-fold: to reduce the health risks associated with smoking tobacco by assessing and regulating the legal content of all marketed tobacco products and to undermine Big Tobacco’s ability to sell their products to children. As such, the FDA is empowered in two major ways. First, they will regulate what tobacco manufacturers can and cannot add to tobacco products. Hopefully, this will translate into substantially lower foreign chemical content in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Many of these additive chemicals are used for asthetic or flavor characteristics, but significantly contribute to the cancerous and degenerative effects of smoking. Second, the ability of tobacco manufacturers to advertise will be significantly reduced, with the FDA advising how and when tobacco advertisements are appropriate.

These two broad goals result in some interesting consequences. For one, any flavor additive to a cigarette other than tobacco or menthol will soon be made illegal, including fruit-flavored and clove cigarettes. The writers of the legislation apparently consider these products a means of getting kids hooked early by appealing to their fruitier natures. I can’t say I disagree with them—such flavorings help to associate cigarettes with candy. Also interesting is a section of the legislation where the FDA is made to investigate further “the impact of the use of menthol in cigarettes on the public health, including such use among children, African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial and ethnic minorities”. Apparently, the writers are well aware that the majority of menthol smokers seem to be, for some reason, minorities. Why is that anyway? Well, maybe the FDA will figure it out…. Further, descriptors such as “light”, “mild” and “low-tar” are to be banned on cigarette packs, as false advertising. It will be interesting to see how manufacturers respond to this little piece of regulation.

Some restrictions upon these powers do apply. For instance, the FDA will not be allowed to stop the sale of tobacco all together. Nor will it be allowed to limit sale to certain kinds of retailers, making it OK for some stores to sell it, but not others. Nor will the FDA be allowed to reduce the legal nicotine content of a cigarette to zero (although reductions in nicotine content are stipulated). Finally, small cigarette manufacturers will not be required to conform to the requirements of the new legislation for the next four years, allowing for a gradual turnover that will minimize negative effects of the legislation upon small-timers.

Congressman Paul objects to the bill for several reasons. For one, he finds government regulation of anything to be nefarious, as an invasion of personal liberty and freedom. Specifically here, he considers tobacco use to be a bad habit and a health issue, one which should be treated with education and information. “Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in health care to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country”. Congressman Paul states further that “Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it. In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry. One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.” <!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>

Unfortunately, I cannot help but disagree with Congressman Paul on this issue. For one, I do not believe that this specific bill goes so far as to challenge the personal freedoms of the American people. Rather, it challenges the freedoms of large, sometimes multinational corporations, entities (or rather non-entities) which are not entitled to the American ideals of natural rights. In fact, I feel that every step should be taken to confront large corporations, as a means of putting the people on a level with and capable of opposing if necessary the consolidated power of a small group hiding behind a corporate self. Corporations like Philip Morris are not individuals, and do not have individual natural rights, and so should be treated accordingly.

Further, I do not object to what some might deem the paternalistic elements of this bill. First, the fact is that it does largely seek to avert the ability of cigarette companies to appeal to the legally immature minds of children; we need only check the bill’s content to see that. But also, cigarette companies have until now had the ability to put whatever they want in their cigarettes, without reporting to the consumers on what it was exactly that they were consuming. Under the new legislation, the FDA will be required to make public on an annual basis the specific contents of each brand and class of cigarettes sold in the US. Such progress, it seems to me, is clearly in the interest of the consumer.

Further, I see no reason to suspect that a black market in tobacco will follow from the contents of this bill; nor do I see it as harmful to small farmers—in fact, I suspect that the legislation, which primarily seeks to hinder Big Tobacco, will have a positive economic effect on small tobacco, by enabling fairer competition between the two.

If there is anything I do not appreciate in this legislation, it is the wrongful regulation of nicotine. Nicotine is a relatively benign chemical substance; it has been found to have a mild stimulant effect on the brain, sometimes compared to caffeine. However, most experts agree that while consumption of nicotine might not have many negative health effects in most individuals—mostly it’s the act of smoking which produces these—it does have an addicting effect. This, of course, is the standpoint of the writers of H.R. 1256. Because addiction can lead to abuse of the product, the legislation justifies regulating this specific chemical. Personally, I find the regulation of a chemical which has been found to produce no negative health effects unwarranted. Clearly, I do not consider addiction itself to be a negative health.

This, I believe, speaks to the broader issue with this legislation: that it gives full right to the FDA to regulate which chemicals we may or may not consume. I feel a more pragmatic, justifiable solution would be to only allow for the regulation of those substances which have been proven to produce negative health effects in humans—and further to provide against the full banning of these products, excepting extremely lethal substances. The guiding light of this legislation is consumer protection; let us hope that it does not cross the fine line of the revocation of freedom. But to avoid such circumstances, there is a solution: grow your own tobacco! If the government won’t let someone sell you a product, at least they can’t stop you from producing it for your own consumption. It’s not all that hard, and you can accomplish it in your own home or backyard, if it means enough to you. For more info on that topic, take a look at this nice new blog: http://www.growtobacco.net/.

This week, I decided to explore a topic with which I am not very familiar, but which I hope to learn more about in the course of our discussions. My topic will be currency. The continued economic forecasting by leading libertarian thinkers including Lew Rockwell, economist Peter Schiff, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are deeply concerned with currency, and warrant further investigation. Said predictions include impending super-inflation and a near-worthless US dollar in America, as well as a deeply worsening global financial situation. If correct, these predictions give way to a rapid divergence between the richest classes of the world and the rest of the population. Such a situation would not only drastically unhinge any embedded institutionalized egalitarianism, or what David Harvey has called “embedded liberalism”, in governments around the world, but could potentially produce a global environment unable to sustain increased, or even contemporary population levels. Such horrendous dooms day claims warrant some degree of investigation before we accept them lightly. Ultimately, I believe the validity of such predictions hinge upon how currency functions. Herein, I will pose to you my initial reflections on the issue. Please include your own at the bottom—mine are by no means exhaustive.

I’ll start from the beginning. Currency, or coined money, began as a tool for facilitating trade. As a replacement to the barter system, it constitutes an extraordinary mathematic, technological and economic achievement for humanity. For the first time, trade could take place to an extremely minute degree of accuracy: instead of two and a half goats for a cow, a goat could cost 4 gold coins, a cow 10. The result would be a massive technological and social expansion, the likes of which human kind had never before seen.

Of course, in the early days, the technology used was some kind of hard material, gold or silver coins, usually made and distributed by a ruling government. This provided a standard upon which the markets could operate functionally, allowing for wealth accumulation and economic growth. But there can only be so much gold in the world, and as accumulation continued, it soon became clear that something other than hard minerals themselves would have to be developed.

This led us to paper money. Bills of currency, literally representations of a hard asset (in the US, gold and silver) were distributed to further facilitate trade. However, these bills, while themselves literally worthless paper, were completely backed by the hard assets they claimed to represent (at least in theory). Issues arose in the early American colonies when each state devised its own standard of paper money, its own notes. This resulted in a huge hindrance to interstate trade. Eventually, a continental dollar was devised to standardize currency, and enable trade across state lines.

Up until the 1940’s in the US, you could literally trade in cash for gold at your local bank. That mechanism was withdrawn by F. D. R. for reasons related to the war. Then, in 1944, the Bretton-Woods conference was convened. Here, world leaders (read Western leaders) assembled to discuss a new economic model for world order. According to the plan, all world currency would be pegged to the US dollar, which in turn was to maintain a stable gold-exchange rate of $35 to the ounce. Economic order was to be propped up by US military strength. The Bretton-Woods plan had major implications for the global economy. For one, it immediately elevated the US to the pinnacle of global power, by making the US dollar the world’s reserve currency. For another, it provided America with enemies in any nation unwilling to comply with that order—most obviously the USSR. But, as a system, it was also essentially flawed. It would not allow for pressures on the dollar’s exchange rate, including the necessity of an expanding money supply, and some nations, prominently France, began trading US dollars in for gold, as a means of “hedging their bets” as it were. Finally, in 1971, President Nixon removed the US Dollar from the gold standard altogether, severing the last remaining link for the dollar to any hard currency. Today, every global currency is what we call fiat, Latin for let it be. That is, global currency is backed by nothing.

But it’s interesting to consider what could happen in a society where technology could potentially make coined and paper money completely obsolete. The inventions of the computer, the internet, the magnetic -swipe card, and the SmartChip allow for just such a potentiality. Since the rise of plastic credit and debit cards, paper money has, more and more become obsolete, to the point where, in theory at least, all monetary exchanges could take place in society without the use of paper money. Let’s consider this claim: as I see it, there are two major kinds of legitimate transactions people can undertake. The first major set already takes place today in this way, between consumers and established business. In almost any store in the US, credit and debit cards can be used to purchase an item. There is another set of legitimate transactions which, at least as far as infrastructure is concerned, the US is not yet set up to deal with: those between consenting private individuals. If the government didn’t print money, how could we be expected to play poker every Saturday, or pay our local “lawn technicians”? Clearly, without cash, such transactions seem impossible.

But there is a solution. If cell phones were engineered to accept SmartChips, these sort of casual transactions could take place—perhaps even to a greater degree of security (imagine having to activate voice recognition and/or fingerprint analysis on your phone in order to make a transaction). Of course, the implementation of such a model would not happen overnight—it would take time, like the transition to EZ Pass on the highways. But it is a model of which we are capable today.

Why would we want to adopt such a model? Well for one, by digitizing money, the population dissolves the necessity of governmental monopoly of the money supply. Because everyone would possess the technological capability to make transaction, the requirement of a standardized currency would be lost. As a result, sellers could accept currencies of any form, simply at the swipe of a card. This would lead to the establishment of independent currency suppliers, who could back their currencies with…whatever they wanted, leaving the consumer to decide which to use. Further, competition between currencies could temper situations of financial chaos, by providing alternatives to the standard; consumers would have the option of a safe-haven in other currencies not necessarily backed by a government, but by private accumulation, and so avoid pervasive runaway inflation. A problem with one currency would not translate to the entire nation, and so efficiency would be improved. Today, the quality of a nation’s currency can be considered the make-or-break factor in the livelihood of its people. Citizens of a nation with a strong national currency will have higher quality lives, while a volatile national currency evokes a volatile living condition for its citizens. But competition between currencies could alleviate this stress on the nation. In addition, such systems could facilitate exchange between countries, which in so doing would facilitate the move to a global community heralded by increased globalization.

But there are reasons for not wanting to proceed in this fashion. For one, the changeover could produce situations of unprecedented chaos. Serious and thorough efforts would be needed to regulate currencies in such a system, in order to provide for the safety of the population. Perhaps such matters are better left in the hands of governments, which are (sometimes) accountable to the people—perhaps more so than corporations. In addition, paper money provides the consumer with a very valuable feature: privacy. All transactions which take place between individuals in cash are virtually untraceable, especially when compared to computerized transactions. This reason, more than any other, makes me take pause.

Much more can be said on this topic, and so I’m going to further explore it in future articles. But for now, I think it functions as a fine introduction to a topic we should all be talking about. I’d like to know what you all think about my points, and raise any others of concern to you. In this way, we will address the issue further, together.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; margin-top:0in; margin-right:-1.0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:-1.0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

In New Jersey politics, the machine-mentality is the norm. Perhaps it’s the overwhelming population density characteristic of New Jersey communities, or perhaps it’s simply the deep seeded heritage of gang-politics that New Jersey boasts; whatever the reason, last week’s municipal elections bore serious implications for two old guard NJ political machines—those of Edison and New Brunswick. In Edison, incumbent Mayor Jun Choi was beaten back from his electoral victory four years ago by now Mayor-elect Toni Ricigliano—by a tiny margin of approximately 600 votes. For some, Ricigliano’s victory came as a surprise, considering her well-known ties to the old Spadoro gang, ousted by Mayor Choi in 2004. For others, it was not so surprising, considering the endorsement the 72 year old mother of eight and grandmother of many received from the Edison Police Department. For more on that election, read columnist Carl Peter Klapper’s article “Populism vs. Popularity”.

But in New Brunswick, a different sort of upset took place. Mayoral elections in New Brunswick are scheduled for 2010, but this year’s cycle was still very significant for Hub City residents—it marked the first contested race for the county Democratic Committee seats in a decade. Committee members serve as liaisons between the local population and the county branch of the Democratic Party. They are responsible for mobilizing the voting base, as well as collectively nominating a mayoral candidate. Essentially, they draw the major party lines in city elections.

Democrats for Change (DC), the local grassroots organization you’ve all heard of, perhaps better known as Charlie Kratovil and the Empower Our Neighborhoods crew, slated 50 candidates against T. K. Shamy and the old guard’s 53. DC walked away with 25 of those seats, 3 seats short of half the committee vote. All said and done, that equals 910 votes for the DCs, against the old guard’s 1,100. Incumbent Mayor James Cahill is reported to have visited the Democrats for Change headquarters to congratulate them on, or as Kratovil would have it, “concede” to them their victory. On Monday evening, an “organizational meeting” will take place for the newly elected committee. Shamy, who in addition to being the old guard’s campaign manager serves as the party chairman, is expected to be challenged for his position. It is well known that the Democrats for Change have largely opposed the current city establishment, lambasting Cahill and crew for many of their policies. But whether this recent victory will bear real administrative fruit is yet to be seen. More on that story as it unfolds.

As a Hub City resident, I can tell you this: the two campaigns differed very little. I received calls and junk mail from both sides. I saw signs picketed on lawns for both crews. I received highly suspect promises from both campaigns, and I met none of the candidates in person. But if any factor speaks to the reality of this election, it is the voter turnout, which, while higher than in previous years, still only rose to a meager 2,000 in a city of 50,000 people. In other words, only one in twenty-five Johnsonvillians actually cared enough to turn out—hardly a showing of popular support for either side of the struggle.

Democrats for Change are often quoted as working against the New Brunswick political machine. But what is a political machine, really? I would suggest we define it as a small group of individuals who work together to consolidate and maintain political power over a larger non-political or semi-political population. Typically, a political machine can function only in the midst of a politically apathetic population. Well, clearly that is the case in New Brunswick. What follows? A battle between an old machine and a new aspiring one?

The Democrats for Change have won a major victory. But they have also opened themselves up to much more difficult conflicts in the future, and with these the possibility of much more devastating failures. By running in this last election, they have made a commitment to the city, one which may not easily, or at least gracefully, be shirked. What happens when the Democrats for Change student members graduate, as Charlie K. did this year, and Martha Guarnieri does next year? If the group collapses under the weight of its own self-imposed commitments, the call for hope and change they have latched onto is bound to be pestered by cries of hypocrisy, cries which will follow the more politically minded members of the group in future races. The challenge posed to the DCs is to awaken the possibility of a popular government in New Brunswick. But in order to do so they must mobilize a group of largely apathetic, disinterested, or, dare I use the word, transient peoples. If they fail to generate a genuine degree of support, I fear the city will simply be plagued by a perhaps continuous battle between political machines on BOTH ends.

If you ask me, the key to their success must be technology, that is, the internet. The difficulties of finding the time for local participatory politics can be circumvented by an efficient, online solution. Efforts must be made to consolidate the New Brunswick community and its local organizations into a cyberspace community, the kind which all residents would have easy access to. Such a community could be administered directly through the city, or through an outside organization. It would give community members and community organizations an easy and efficient means of interacting with each other and deciding on what would be best for the community itself. The JVP might not be a bad place to start…This sort of model stands in direct opposition to the machine model, which largely adopts a corporate-managerial structure for administrating government. And most importantly, it provides a means of gaining real and meaningful support from constituents. If they fail to gain any strong support from the community, the DCs risk turning into the very thing they sought to oppose: a machine.

As Of Yet Untitled

Last week marks the graduation of the 11,430 members of the Rutgers class of 2009. Convocation was not one cohesive event; at Rutgers, each of the many sub-schools has traditionally held its own commencement ceremony, and this year was no different. Rutgers actually hosted 27 convocation ceremonies over the course of the week by my count.[1] Being a member of Rutgers College, I was joined by 2500+ fellow liberal arts students on the lawn of Voorhees Mall last Thursday. I’ve attended the State University of New Jersey for four years now, years spent as Student Number 010004747. I must say, if I had any pretentions of being treated as an individual by the administration before the ceremony, I had none by the time I arrived. I went out like I came in: just a number among thousands.

Originally, 2009 was intended to be the last time that Rutgers-New Brunswick would accommodate separate ceremonies. Starting in 2010, every graduating member of RU-NB was to be herded together into the what would be then, newly completed football stadium for a massive one-time commencement ceremony. Rutgers, determined to exhibit the product of its $100million+ stadium expansion plan, would honor its graduates in the same manner it entertains them: with spectacle. But if you were hoping for your name to be read out loud, or your hand to be shaken, or your parents to be able to pick you out from the 10,000+ strong crowd (that is, if you were hoping to graduate with dignity) you would have been \ fresh out of luck. In the last months of the past semester, the Daily Tragum’s opinion pages were peppered with articles about the commencement consolidation, not a single one in favor of the goal. This was one issue where the Targum was wholly successful in presenting students’ sentiments of anger and frustration. After significant student protest, climaxing in the presentation of a petition to President McCormick, the University agreed to grant the class of 2010 the honor of traditional, individualized ceremonies by school. I applaud the University for heeding the voices of its students. But after experiencing the traditional graduation myself, I have to question whether the hullabaloo was really all that necessary. Let me show you what I mean, by recounting some of my experience.

The day began for me, as for many, with a private parent-arranged photo session in a friend’s backyard. We stood around smiling in our black robes, exchanging nervous complements, as the sun (with the temperature) rose. By the time we set off for the ceremony, it was pushing 75 degrees. Who ordered those stuffy black robes anyway?

When we arrived at Olde Queens campus for our pre-ceremony instructions, we were shepherded into rows and organized alphabetically. I was astounded by the efficiency with which the administration handled the task: each student was given an index card with his or her name on it, along with a place number. That day, I was #815. Remarkably, we were organized in a timely fashion, and began the procession at 1:45 sharp. It took us a good 45 minutes just to get all the students seated, the whole time in a sweltering heat. A covered stage faced us, flanked by two jumbo screens for the purpose of making our sweaty faces visible to the audience.

Dean Carl Kirschner, perhaps the least funny man at Rutgers, acted as Master of Ceremonies (the President was nowhere to be seen). But unfortunately for all of us, he decided to adopt the role of a standup comedian. From where I was sitting, he drew only tired groans from the audience; one of the more obnoxious jokes he tried regarded the recent swine flu crisis. Fearing the potential of a Rutgers graduation ceremony to spark a new ground zero for the widely expected epidemic, the traditional hand shake from the dean was to be discarded, and so Dean Kirschner thought it would be appropriate to present a few options for avoiding the contagion. He pulled out a series of gloves, and proceeded to sport them for the audience: latex, rubber, a Mickey Mouse hand, and finally, a red foam sports finger. That joke in particular was received with a sweeping sigh and a collective eye roll from the students.

The convocation speaker, Mary Baglivo, class of ’79, sought to encourage Rutgers students by recounting her time at Rutgers. Her main thesis was this: “Rutgers is Grit, Guts, and Genius.” Let’s disregard the fact that such a trite and simplistic marketing metaphor makes very little sense to begin with. And forget about the fact that Baglivo boldly assumed that every Rutgers student in front of her had voted for President You-Know-Who (I certainly didn’t)– I have another problem. The program listed Baglivo as CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, an international advertising company. What it failed to mention was that Baglivo also happens to be a Dean at Rutgers, as well as a member of the Board of Governors. I thought key note convocation speakers were supposed to be off the University payroll. I suppose at least they managed to save a few bucks by using her…

Two student leaders also were given the chance to speak to the audience: Melody Wilding and Dymir Arthur. In the student section, impressed oohs and ahhs for Melody’s 4.0 GPA were quickly replaced by mocking sniggers at the announcement of her majors: American Studies and Psychology. At Rutgers, the students at least know which majors constitute real work, and which constitute mostly movie watching. Both of Melody’s majors are of the latter kind. I thought Dymir, for his part, did an excellent Barack Obama impression; but for my part, I’d rather not have heard about how we should all be jumping on the change-train now that we’re graduated. This is Rutgers, not Notre Dame. Politics should be kept out of it.

After these lackluster speakers had retired the mic, it was time to start filing up to the stage to receive our “certificates of participation” (Rutgers doesn’t distribute diplomas at commencement, a fact that leaves many students wondering why they would want to attend at all). This process took a full two hours, in the by now 80+ degree heat. More than one student actually fainted waiting for their turn to get in line (luckily, there were medics on hand). Dean Kirschner’s request that the students stay seated after having their name called did nothing to stop the majority of students from simply walking out immediately afer, and by the time I had gotten down from the stage, wide swaths of empty chairs glared out at me from the student section. Having my name read out loud by some dean, who learned it for the first time just seconds before butchering it into her microphone didn’t appease me. Fears about swine flu prevented my hand from being shaken; that honor was reserved for the student speakers and excellence award winners. And you can be sure that the only time my family saw my face during the ceremony was on the jumbo-tron.

And so I’m left wondering: if I had taken part in a consolidated commencement ceremony, would anything have been different? Would the speakers have been any better? Would the heat have been any worse? Would the lack of “individual recognition” and a handshake have made for a less dignified exit to college? Would I have been any less insignificant in the eyes of the University? I doubt it. Inevitably, what matters at such a ceremony are two things: family and friends. The presence or absence of these will make or break your commencement, not the format it is delivered in. But still, time will tell if the class of 2011 decides to take the consolidation lying down…

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my time here at Rutgers, it is this: you always get what you pay for. That goes for your education too. Congratulations to all of you members of the Rutgers class of 2009.

This coming Friday starting at 12:00 noon on Bishop Beach at the College Avenue Campus, some of us at the Johnsonville Press will be taking a walk, in commemoration of the late practice of anti-war walkouts at Rutgers. With the rise of President B. Obama and the withdrawal of President G. U. U. Bush, this particular form of protest has fallen out of style, along with civil unrest and disobedience. Our “walk-out-side” will feature a quick stroll from Bishop Beach (where I first touched down at Rutgers) over to the recent site of Rutgers-Ag Field Day, Cook-Douglass Campus. The plan is to tramp through three important stops: the Rutgers University President’s Offices on Old Queens, City Hall, and the EON headquarters. The idea is to give the Johnson Family the opportunity to speak with these public administrators face to face, and ask any questions that they may have. I have a few questions of my own, and I’ll spend the remainder of this column spelling them out. But I strongly encourage any of my readers to add their own to the bottom of the page, particularly if you plan not to be in attendance of the WalkOutSide. We will dutifully relate those questions to their respective interrogatees.

For President McCormick , our first stop on the stroll:

1.      Much has been made of late of the graduation consolidation planned for next year. Several voices have been raised in the Daily Targum against the idea, while none have yet shown support; what is the logic or reasoning behind this move? Why does the University see this as necessary, and would the administration consider relinquishing this plans under any conditions? Is the consolidation strictly a way of saving money and showcasing the stadium? Or is there some other reasoning.

2.      Less has been said of late about the football program expansion, as the issue has faded into the background. Obviously, the University has encountered some setbacks in this area as the economy has declined and the state has decided to withhold even more of its funding. Originally, whose idea was it to expand the Rutgers football program? Do you have any regrets about the direction the University has decided to take as regards this move?

3.      Finally, Tent State got underway last week, and so this question is in honor of that organization. In recent years, the cost to the student of a Rutgers education has shot up. And yet traditionally, a Rutgers education was an extremely affordable option, not just for in-state students, but even for out-of-staters and foreigners. In a state where the economy has been in throws for more than a few years, tuition increase can sometimes seem unavoidable. But now that these increases are well-grounded in place, does the University ever intend to reduce tuition costs to its students, perhaps in more economically prosperous times? What would be the necessary conditions for such action to take place?

For City Spokesman Bill Bray:

1.      The City has over the past several years undertaken the redevelopment and beautification process of New Brunswick. What have been some of the benefits of these projects? What have been the drawbacks?

2.      The coming Gateway Center at the end of College Avenue, in addition to connecting the train station to the University, will contain several apartment complexes. You say the occupants of these will help stimulate the local economy, because people who live on a train line will most likely be using public transportation to get around-that is, they would do the majority of their shopping locally. Do you anticipate any problems selling these apartments in light of the ongoing economic crisis? When was this building scheduled to be built, and will it be completed on time? And finally, who actually owns this building.

3.      Much has been made of Empower Our Neighborhoods, and now the Democrats for Change in New Brunswick, most recently with the conversation you had with the JVP and Charlie Kratovil’s subsequent response. Does the city anticipate implementing the Charter Study Commission they proposed last year, and if so, when?

For Charlie Kratovil:

1.      You became politically active during your time in New Brunswick. But you are not a lifelong New Brunswick resident. To put it short, why do you care so much about New Brunswick?

2.      Much has been made by EON about the relative level of corruption in New Brunswick. Even the EON website quotes Christopher Christie as having referred to New Brunswick as a city of corruption. Can you name a few instances of such corruption in the city in recent history?

3.      After losing their initial court battle, EON was forced to reassess its plans. In your recent article on the JVP, you really took it to City Spokesman Bill Bray; but you did not mention anything about EON’s plans going forward. What are these plans? Have the organization’s goals remained the same? How will they be accomplished?

These questions are a few of those which I hope to present to our administrators during the “WalkOutSide”. It remains to be seen how many will be answered. But my list is by no means exhaustive. In fact, each of you should consider whether there is anything you would like to ask of the people in charge of Rutgers, the City or EON. Post your questions below, and we will relate them to their intended recipients. Someone’s got to…

The fundamental question we’d like to address is the relatively low level of interest in student government at Rutgers. In my last article, I suggested that RUSA should seek to promote more student events as a means to solving this problem. But what kinds of events should RUSA look to promote? As Ben notes, RUSA events in the past have only encouraged the participation of those students with a visceral, preexisting interested in student government, along with the inevitable stragglers looking for some free grub. I’m particularly referring to the events RUSA hosted regarding the drafting of our new constitution. While sponsoring these events constitutes an admirable effort on the part of RUSA, they failed to engage the student body at large. Why is this?

For one, these events were (and still are) designed on an ad hoc basis, as they become necessary. A better alternative would be a weekly or bi-weekly town hall style meeting/discussion group, taking place on a REGULAR BASIS, at an ESTABLISHED TIME AND PLACE. Students could be made aware of the ongoing, continuous nature of these meetings, and so if anyone had an issue to raise, they would know that there is an established, regularly scheduled public setting for the expression of those issues. Think of the regularly scheduled town hall meetings sponsored by the city of New Brunswick (on the first and third Wednesday of every month at city hall). Such a policy would also promote transparency, making representatives answerable to their constituents, and giving the two groups more face time with each other.

Second, at the moment, RUSA relies heavily on the Targum to advertise these ad hoc events. This is obviously a crucial means to getting out the word; but it’s only a first step. RUSA should consider implementing a promotional executive or public relations rep. position into the organization. This person would be responsible for

1. Getting in touch with the media, and keeping them up to date—keeping in mind that relevant media sources are not limited to the Targum; there are several online sources which are neglected, as well as radio stations (such as the Core and www.hearnewbrunswick.com)

2. Designing and posting public advertising, i.e. eye-catching posters and fliers

3. Maintaining and administering a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly RUSA news letter, which could be distributed throughout campus, or perhaps administered through the Daily Targum

I also recommend that a student union would be helpful in mobilizing students to engage their political rights, and indeed, I believe that it could be. Essentially, the problem here is one of organization and mobilization. But a student union is not our only option. For instance, RUSA, if it were so inclined, could take steps to undertake those functions itself. Perhaps this will seem like too much work for an organization beleaguered by accusations and rumors of overworked representatives spreading themselves too thin. If this is, or would indeed be the case, I would suggest that the solution is obvious: a larger representative body, capable of distributing the workload more efficiently.

How could RUSA accomplish this? I suggest the implementation of a RUSA junior rep. on every floor of every Rutgers dorm. In this way, a RUSA representative would be easily accessible to many more students, someone they would know from around the dorm. These junior reps. would be responsible for soliciting and receiving thoughts, complaints, suggestions and issues from students on their floor, and conveying them to full reps. within the actual RUSA body. These junior reps. would act as the foundational support of the full reps., the real link to the people, so to speak. A further benefit of this junior rep. system is that it gives first and second year students a chance to get acquainted with the political process here at Rutgers, without having to commit unknowingly to the burdens of full representation in RUSA. Successful completion of a term as a junior rep. would constitute valuable experience and a meaningful qualification to run for full office later on, replacing the graduating staff with capable students ready and eager to do their job. Conversely, junior reps. who do a poor job will (in all likelihood) not be elected for full representation. Under this system, as I see it, we would have students helping students helping students, by making students answerable to students answerable to students. To implement this system, I would suggest greeting incoming students at orientation with an informational session and/or booklet given by experienced members of RUSA. New students should be strongly encouraged from the start to participate in student government, either by running for office, or simply by making use of their representatives and by voting. For a good precedent of a system like this in action, consider the “big-little” system used in several soroities and fraterneties at Rutgers, where veteran students take responsibility for the mentorship of first years. There is no reason this idea could not be implemeneted on a larger scale by RUSA and student government at the U.

I also suggested the implementation of an “Election Day” holiday at Rutgers. Election Day would also be a great way of engaging the student body; who doesn’t like a day off from classes? But it would have to be done right. Students (and the rest of the university) need to know WHY they were given this day off, and how it should be used. I feel strongly that the current online voting process is too impersonal, and that a physical interaction and an actual voting booth, located in heavily trafficked areas of the school (i.e. dining halls and student centers) would better promote student voting. But this alone won’t cut it. As I stated in my last article, students just want to have fun.

For that, I would turn your attention to the ever popular Hot Dog Day. This has been a very successful event in the past, sponsored by the University, in which students are given several incentives to partake, including free food, games, live music, and a carnivalesque atmosphere conducive to lighthearted social interaction. However, the purpose of this event has thus far been largely arbitrary. I would suggest that we merge Hot Dog Day and Election Day (or rather use the existing infrastructure and funding for that event to replace the former with the latter). In so doing, additional costs to the administration of Election Day would be minimal, mostly mitigated by the sunken costs of Hot Dog Day. In order to accomplish this, RUSA could simply propose themselves as a sponsor to the Student Activities Committee, which is responsible for the leg work at these events. Give the games a student government bent, have speakers explaining the importance of voting, have a candidate speech session– so the candidates could give their messages to a large crowd in a public setting and show their grit, as it were. Also, a condition of participation could be established: in order to get in to the event, you would have to vote at the door.

What goes for the smaller town hall meetings also goes for these larger events: they should be regularly scheduled and established around a certain date every year, so as to give the students the chance to plan to participate. In addition, I’d love to see RUSA co-sponsor Rutgers Day, an event in which the majority of the Rutgers student body participates. Location is also key; by holding the event in a heavily trafficked public place, for example Voorhees mall or Bishop Beach, more students would be made aware that something was going on.

To begin this process, I would suggest that our representative put forward this proposal, or some variation thereof, for RUSA to vote on as a whole. If a resolution were passed, geared towards furthering student engagement, it would give RUSA a precedential base from which to move forward. It is the unfortunate truth that before things get better for student government at Rutgers, some students are going to have to implement change from within. This means longer hours and more work for an already overworked body, and considering the fact that the University has thus far not made the transitions of the campus merger any easier on RUSA, the task is certainly harrowing. Why, even Ben might find himself wondering these days how “he’s going to finish all the work he has to do”.…And so you will forgive me if I am a little pessimistic. But there is still a hope, no matter how slight, that our representatives will do what they were elected to do, and carry through for the students by implement at least some of the changes we need. Don’t look at me, I’m about to graduate (we hope…).