| Definition: pre• emp'• tion ...to buy before ...taking possession before others ...a prior
seizure or appropriation ...usurpation. State Law
Washington State RCW
70.155.130 Preemption of political subdivisions precludes local
political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing any local ordinance to license and/or
regulate tobacco product promotions and sales within retail stores; or to regulate or
prohibit activities covered by RCW 70.155.020 through 70.155.080 ... chapters having to do
with licensing, retailing, signage, sampling, age limitations and civil infractions.
The preemptive measures of RCW 70.155 do not address the use of tobacco products,
however. (See below)
Discussion
The tobacco industry has responded to the rapidly increasing diffusion of
community-based tobacco control policy interventions by using its political influence at
the state level to promote the passage of state laws that preempt local regulation of
tobacco. This is done by either direct incorporation into legislative bills as they are
written, or by amendment to already popular anti-tobacco bills. This has already happened
in Washington State, as evidenced above. Repeal of these preemptive efforts is truly in
the interest of the public's health, yet only Maine has been able to repeal a tobacco
preemption law (1977).
The Federal Government is even less
likely to act against preemptive tobacco legislation. The US Congress has failed to enact
any tobacco control legislation during the past 25 years that would regulate cigarettes,
restrict the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, or restrict the use of tobacco
products in public places and workplaces. Several studies have demonstrated a strong
correlation between the level of tobacco industry contributions to elected officials and
the likelihood that recipients will vote against tobacco control measures.
Preemptive Legislation is Effective
Victor Crawford, a former lobbyist for the Tobacco Institute,
summarized the tobacco industry's rationale for seeking preemption legislation: "We
could never win at the local level . . . so the Tobacco Institute and tobacco companies'
first priority has always been to preempt the field, preferably to put it all on the
federal level, but if they can't do that, at least on the state level, because the health
advocates can't compete with me on a state level" (from an interview with
Victor Crawford appearing in the July 19, 1995 of JAMA -- Journal of the American Medical
Association Vol. 273 #3 pages 199-202)
Local Control of Public Health
Policy Eliminated
The principle of home rule is predicated on the assumption that problems in which
local governments have legitimate and substantial interest should be open to local
solution and reasonable experimentation to meet local needs. Preemptive law at the state
level precludes local freedoms. The Supreme Court of Illinois has argued that local
governments should be able to develop policy "free from
veto by voters and elected representatives of other parts of the State who might disagree
with the particular approach advanced by the representatives of the locality involved or
fail to appreciate the local perception of the problem." Placing
tobacco control policy under the sole jurisdiction of the state legislature ensures that
the tobacco industry will have a prominent voice in policy development. This makes it
extremely unlikely that effective tobacco control legislation will ever be enacted in
Washington State. (See the paragraph just above.)
Is this preemptive legislation what we want for
Washington State? Can you hear Big Tobacco laughing?
Preemptive Chapter of RCW 70.155
is not all-inclusive:
Local governments may enact and enforce their own local measures regarding the use
of tobacco in public places. . . i.e., "Nothing herein shall be construed to
restrict the power of any county, city, town, or village to adopt and enforce additional
local laws, ordinances, or regulations which comply with at least the minimum applicable
standards set forth in this article." (RCW
70.155.130) This means that we CAN pass ordinances precluding smoking in
public places. We can do this! Of course it would be far more meaningful and
appropriate were the legislature to step forward with a ruling of this nature. So
speak with your state legislators about banning smoking in public places. Isn't it time
for our elected representatives to do the right thing about this, the most preventable
cause of death in our country? Others are responsibly addressing this issue — why not
Washington State? This is a no-cost no-brainer...
Commentary by Roger S. Case,
MD (Health Officer, Island County) March
'98
ADDENDUM: If you've any doubt
regarding the seriousness of smoking on our nation's health, please read the Executive
Summary of the 2004 U. S. Surgeon General's Report: The Health Consequences of
Smoking http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2004/pdf/executivesummary.pdf
Table 1.1 (pgs. 2-6) of the report details the substantiated effects of smoking on one's
health. — 27 May 2004
*Expanded Clean
Indoor Air Act effected December 8, 2005!
Americans for Non-Smoker's Rights
STATE Tobacco Activities Tracking & Evaluation System
Health Officer's follow-on Editorial (May '98): The healthwise answer to this whole tobacco issue
is to authorize the FDA to exercise absolute control over the content of nicotine — a
powerfully addictive
drug (and poison*) — in all processed tobacco, gradually
eliminating nicotine from all tobacco products, thereby making it easy for anyone using
tobacco products in any form to quit without having to deal with nicotine-induced
addiction. This has been the recommendation of the last two President's Commissions on
Tobacco Legislation. According to the FDA, tobacco companies have had the technology
for over 35 years to remove nicotine from cigarettes. But then, who would smoke?
*Nicotine is one of
the most toxic of all poisons and has a rapid onset of action. Apart from local
caustic actions, the target organs are the peripheral and central nervous systems. In the
span of a few hours, a mere 60 mg of nicotine (1/500 of an
ounce) is lethal to a 150 pound human (10 mg of nicotine is lethal to a child
...1/3,000 of an ounce!) The minimum lethal dose (MLD) of tobacco
is 5 gram, or about 1/6 of an ounce... see Nicotine.
Nicotine is the only active ingredient
in some of our most effective insecticides, but its use has been limited because of its
toxic properties. Nine nicotine containing pesticides are registered for use in the U.S.,
and none of the product labels list nicotine at more than 14% (insects have never
developed a tolerance for nicotine).
|