C. Everett Koop resigns the right way because of Reagan inactivity on AIDS

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/narrative/qq/p-nid/85/p-docs/true
(4th letter)

Dr. Koop also made a lot of anti-tobacco efforts.

The above letter is from the American Heart Association to Ed Meese about the Reagan administration changing its mind about supporting legislation which would require specific and rotating warnings on packs of cigarettes.

*C. Everett not directly involved with this letter, but it was one of the things he was pushing

Of course, a political party is a coalition of interests. And of course both the Democrats and Republicans support business interests.
 
Last edited:
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/narrative/qq/p-nid/85/p-docs/true
(4th letter)

Dr. Koop also made a lot of anti-tobacco efforts.

The above letter is from the American Heart Association to Ed Meese about the Reagan administration changing its mind about supporting legislation which would require specific and rotating warnings on packs of cigarettes.

*C. Everett not directly involved with this letter, but it was one of the things he was pushing

Of course, a political party is a coalition of interests. And of course both the Democrats and Republicans support business interests.
I wonder what would happen in terms of tobacco norms if Koop resigned before he started campaigning against tobacco.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?150122-1/smoking-federal-buildings
 
Last edited:
My guess is much less change post-1980 than OTL. I'd go so far as to argue that Koop wasn't the big change OTL. Bill Clinton was. A Nixon goes to China moment if you will, imo only a southern democrat good ol' boy populist-sounding POTUS could have gone along with/given the various states wanting lawsuits against big tobacco the go. Gore? Too wooden to pull it off and he was the only other democrat who could. None of the others could have.
 
Ironically didn't futurama spoofed that with a cigar named after him in the 3000 years?
With or without tobacco, I’m sure we will have vices in the year 3000.

And then, whatever the vice, it’s hard to explain a vice to someone who does not share the same vice! :openedeyewink:
 
. . . only a southern democrat good ol' boy populist-sounding POTUS could have gone along with/given the various states wanting lawsuits against big tobacco the go. . .
Except it’s going to largely be the courts (cough, cough, I’m somewhat mistaken, please see below). The president can help set the public tone and that is important.

But we may have lost a real opportunities in Congress from ‘97 to 2001.

F1.large.jpg

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/7/4/393

————————

Later edit:
CNN, March 30, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/30/tobacco/
“Money from the settlement is already a big part of the Clinton's budget proposal with the money already earmarked for health research, child care and education.”

So, yes, from this, the federal government and the Clinton administration was at least somewhat involved.
 
Last edited:
McCain Unveils Proposed Tobacco Policy
CNN, March 30, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/30/tobacco/

“ . . . includes a $1.10-a-pack raise in cigarette prices over five years, and a $6.5 billion yearly cap on damages tobacco companies could be forced to pay. . . ”

“ . . . the Food and Drug Adminstration would get the authority to regulate nicotine products. . . ”

“ . . . goals for reducing youth smoking by 60 percent over a 10-year period, along with penalties of up to $3.5 billion on tobacco companies if those goals are not met. . . ”
So, it’s a mixed bag.

Higher prices for cigarettes does discourage teenagers and young adults from taking up the habit.

But it’s also a tax on existing low-income smokers. It’s a tax on everyone, but low-income citizens are affected the most.
 
The best policy would have been no regulation on sale/advertising/usage or taxes whatsoever on cigarettes/booze/pot. I don't hate poor people and so have no reason to support such taxes.
 
This longish discussion on tobacco is good because it illustrates why C. Everett Koop may have stayed in his position even though he was apparently excluded from even discussions of administration AIDS policy.

Because he felt he was doing good in other areas.

————-

And from this Christian website, his lifetime nickname was “Chick,” as in chicken coop. You got to be kidding me! I wondered if he was good-natured about it and liked it?
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/9-things-you-should-know-about-c-everett-koop
 
This longish discussion on tobacco is good because it illustrates why C. Everett Koop may have stayed in his position even though he was apparently excluded from even discussions of administration AIDS policy.

Because he felt he was doing good in other areas.
It’s interesting that Koop went from being one of the founders of the Religious Right to being a villain in the eyes of the Religious Right and a hero in the eyes of pro-choice soccer moms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...617-99d9-30518e84c174/?utm_term=.7753c11056ed

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-05-17-8803170666-story,amp.html

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-05-17-8803170666-story,amp.html
 
The tobacco scandal: where is the outrage?

C. Everett Koop, speech before National Press Club, Sept. 8, 1998.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/7/4/393

“ . . . a scandal of some in Congress trading public health for PAC money and believing the slick ads of the tobacco industry. This is a scandal of senators, well over half voting “yes” but still losing. This is a scandal of some hiding from the potential to save lives and choosing instead to posture. . . ”

“ . . . decades of the industry hiding its lies and its misdeeds . . . . . exposed some of the most incriminating evidence of lying, deceit, and suppression of science ever. And we learned that the industry was marketing to children as young as 13, that it was really spiking their product to achieve greater addictiveness, and that it was covering up the truth about a range of diseases from infant mortality to cancer. . . ”
So the above bill sponsored by John McCain lost in filibuster. That is, the tobacco industry weathered the storm.

Dr. Koop was born on Oct. 14, 1916, so at this point in 1998, he was 81 years young. And still active! :)
 
Last edited:
The best policy would have been no regulation on sale/advertising/usage or taxes whatsoever on cigarettes/booze/pot. I don't hate poor people and so have no reason to support such taxes.
And many people have similar views.

I don’t. I take a personal liberationist viewpoint and yet still think it’s right and proper, and beneficial, to take on Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Bank, Big “Health” (my term and criticism), and yes, in this case Big Tobacco.

In general, I’m at least equally skeptical toward large corporations as I am toward government.
 
I'm all in favor of destroying monopolies, breaking up the finance sector, changing investment rules so you have companies fighting over customers instead of over who can give more dividends, etc. I just don't believe in trying to "nudge" people into doing/not doing x or in sin taxes.
 
I did not know that.

I just it shows that there’s war time and then there’s peace time. I guess if you’re targeting who you’re pretty damn sure are combatants. Still not crazy about it.
She admitting to having killed three people.
in an interview with Oprah she said she had just gotten out of the concentration camp and needed to get it out of her system,
 
@interpoltomo @GeographyDude I oppose age restrictions and “denormalization”, but I support indoor smoking bans for places that aren’t age-restricted because I remember my parents forcing me into smokey restaurants. I’d support sin taxes if it stopped the laws I don’t support (whether by serving as an alternative to those laws or by making governments dependent on the revenue), but would otherwise oppose sin taxes.

I know that CHIP is funded by tobacco taxes. I wonder how they would fund that if everyone stopped smoking.
 
do a land value tax, wealth tax or financial transactions tax instead of sin taxes or tbh ANY sales/excise tax that isn't for gasoline to fund stuff
 
@interpoltomo @GeographyDude I oppose age restrictions and “denormalization”, . . .
I think adults age 18 should be able to smoke. In certain moods, you might even be able to talk me into age 16.

What’s outrageous is that Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon and Maine have raised the age to 21 ? ! ?

Here’s kind of a flat Rolling Stone article which reports the trend, and itemizes the obvious public health angle, but doesn’t really question the practice.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ro...gal-smoking-age-raising-21-vaping-793604/amp/

And looks like my state of Texas is geared up to do the same.
 
I think adults age 18 should be able to smoke. In certain moods, you might even be able to talk me into age 16.

What’s outrageous is that Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon and Maine have raised the age to 21 ? ! ?

Here’s kind of a flat Rolling Stone article which reports the trend, and itemizes the obvious public health angle, but doesn’t really question the practice.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ro...gal-smoking-age-raising-21-vaping-793604/amp/

And looks like my state of Texas is geared up to do the same.
I’m baffled as to why the fear of loosing tax revenue and Master Settlement money (which is per cigarettes sold) isn’t preventing states from raising the age. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the tobacco companies agreed to the Master Settlement based on this logic.
 
Last edited:
Top