Federal Restrictions and Guidelines in Smoking and Politics by A. Lee Frischlet and James M. Hoelfer

Although bureaucracy’s have a significant amount of power over the United States most important decisions and laws they cannot always execute or perform certain actions. Two particular forces who oversee and control bureaucratic agencies are congress and the president who is part of the executive branch. Both congress and the president are constantly competing for agency control (Lecture 7 10/24/16). They both have their own individual and unique sets of strategies they use such as using congressional control, appropriations process, privatization, executive order and management of agency budget in order to seize complete command. The main goal of these two means of control are to ultimately limit the discretion of bureaucrats and to also if possible shrink the size and number of bureaucracies.

Throughout the rigmarole of political history of the United States of America, the growth of the “fourth branch of government”, the Bureaucracy, has been a prominent, controversial topic. Peter Woll, in his article “Constitutional Democracy and Bureaucratic Power”, and James Q. Wilson, in his article “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, discuss this developing administrative branch. The Constitution has no written mention of an “administrative branch”, and today’s Bureaucracy is often tedious, corrupt, and even undemocratic. But such a branch’s development and expansion is necessary in order to keep par with an evolving and changing society.

Every year, there are over 400,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States. A large percentage of these are due to lung cancer, whose leading cause is smoking. However, not all deaths are smokers themselves. Anyone in the vicinity can fall victim to second hand smoke. These people, through no action of their own, can have their lives threatened.

During the 1920's, smoking tobacco had been documented as hazardous to peoples health as studies had linked lung cancer patients were more commonly smokers. Since the 1920's various other studies had significant evidence to claim other health risks with pregnant women, children and the affects of second hand smoke on others. After all these studies came the debate on whether smoking should or should not be continued in a workplace.

Tobacco was in crude form since the early 1600s, and was mainly used for pipe-smoking ,chewing tobacco and snuff. In the early 1800s, is when cigarettes began to become widely popular in the United States. The fact that tobacco was bad for human health was not known around the time European had proscribed it to the Native Americans. At this time the physicians thought it would be an effective medicine. Around the 20th century is when they found that smoking can cause extreme health effects. In the 1930 is when a researcher in Cologne, Germany made the connection between smoking and the causation of cancer. A Doctor by the name of Raymond Pearl reported that people who smoke do not live as long as individuals who do not smoke. In 1944, the

“The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” This quote by Woodrow Wilson fits perfectly with the topics that will be discussed. The major theme of this paper is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy refers to an administrative system in which agencies staffed largely by non elected officials perform specific tasks in accordance with standard procedures. The work of the bureaucracy involves implementing laws and procedures. Does this sound familiar? That is because most bureaucrats work for the executive branch of the government. The executive branch is the one that enforces the laws. Some of these law enforcing jobs include mail clerk, police officer, fireman, and first responder. These jobs are essential to our lives as Americans and are greatly appreciated. This paper will expound on the history, usage, and the Cabinet

Winning the war against cigarettes. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2015, from American Cancer Society: http:www.cancer.org

For both the pro and con sides these facts are presented in order to support each paper's opinions. One opinion of the pro side is that the market of cigarettes is a market for disease and death. At one point the paper states, "Outrage at an industry that has made billions selling sickness and death" the paper enforces this opinion later by saying, "For decades, Big Tobacco has made a profit by selling the instruments of disease and death." Another opinion is that tobacco industries are the only companies that manufacture a product which causes serious illness and kills. The pro side quotes Edward L. Kaven, author of Smoking: The Story Behind the Maze as saying, "the only industry which produces a consumer product that is likely to kill and render human beings seriously ill when used as intended." I believe that these opinions are exaggerated ones. First of all, the tobacco companies are not the only companies that sell a product that is unhealthy and even has devastating affects on people.

It was in 1964 that the Surgeon General of the United States first published a report on the ill-effects of smoking cigarettes, and within a year the first law requiring health warnings on cigarette packages was in effect. From that point, the government has slowly, but continually, imposed more and more restrictions on the use of tobacco products. Throughout the 1960s, 70's, 80's, and 90's, the both individual jurisdictions within the State of California, as well as the entire state, continued to impose tougher and tougher restrictions on smoking cigarettes until 1994, when California became the first state in the union to pass a law which completely prohibited smoking in most enclosed workplaces. ("Secondhand Smoke Exposure") This law, which took effect in 1998, restricted smoking in all enclosed places of employment including offices, factories, bars and restaurants. But by the early 21st century, the current restrictions were not enough for California's lawmakers and a push was started to ban smoking in all public places. Since the passage of these restrictions in the 1990's, there has been a great deal of change in the state with advocates of the smoking ban pointing to the increased health benefits for the citizens of the state, while opponents focus on the economic damaged in the business community caused by the restrictions. It is therefore necessary to examine the State of California and its ban on smoking and how it has

I am humbled and honored to be a member of the Lumbee Tribe, the largest tribe east of the Mississippi River. Brooke Medicine Eagle once said, “Being Indian is an attitude, a state of mind, a way of being in harmony with all things and all beings. It is allowing the heart to be the distributor of energy on this planet; to allow feelings and sensitivities to determine where energy goes; bringing aliveness up from the Earth and from the Sky, putting it in and giving it out from the heart.” From Medicine Eagles’ words, energy is forever flowing within nature. In my health profession experience I have seen the heart damaged from lack of good health practices, for instance cigarette smoking.

There had been discussion on how to give FDA the control to regulate tobacco ever since Surgeon General released a report in 1964 that smoking caused cancer and heart disease. However, this discussion only took place during the time Dr. David Kessler was FDA Commissioner (1990-1996). In order for FDA to take control, evidence was need to show that nicotine in tobacco products was a "drug under federal law." Therefore, in 1992, Dr. Kessler headed a research on the tobacco industry. A Congressional hearing took place in 1994, which included the CEO of the major U.S. tobacco companies who swore under oath that nicotine not addictive. After hearing from both parties, in 1995, the FDA came to a conclusion that nicotine was a "drug under the terms

One of the best known consumer protection acts was the first of many regulations imposed on the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry flourished during the Baby Boomer years, but were soon to be curbed by the federal government. Beginning in 1965, the U.S. government first mandated cigarette warning labels and, “as evidence of cigarettes' harmful health effects grew, it battled the tobacco industry more and more vigorously,” (Strain, 2016). Congress pushed the issue further in 1967, by passing the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, requiring cigarette packages contain the statement, “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Hazardous to Your Health.” “This advertising was also restricted and culminated

In “A Silence that Kills” Lyndon Haviland expresses the idea that the public must confront the social inequities of tobacco use. Haviland believes the communities must communitcate a sence of urgency and engage all Americans in the battle against tobacco use. The author expresses her ideas thoroughly by concentrating on certain fact of tobacco use or second hand smoke affect, the epidemic in out current communities, the silence of the government, and the concern for public health. With the constant repetition of unity and a well-organized, concentrated article, the author easily captures the attention of the reader and the intended American audience. However, the author lacks information on

The use of tobacco is a very controversial topic here in the United States. The harmful side effects of tobacco are well known and consequently, many believe that it should be outlawed. Though this has not yet occurred, constant regulations on the industry and

     The war on smoking has existed for decades. With the advent of more tenacious laws prohibiting smoking in public locations, and most recently Minnesota’s historic tobacco settlement, many actions against “Big Tobacco” have become more successful. Anti-smoking campaigns have become more confrontational, directly targeting tobacco companies in an effort to expose its manipulative and illegal marketing tactics.      On the surface, last November's $206 billion settlement agreement between the tobacco companies and 46 states looks like a serious blow for Big Tobacco. In addition to the money, it contains some important concessions: a ban on outdoor advertising, limits on