135 



and understand have known it for years even before, long before 

 the initial Surgeon General's report. 



This being said, I believe that we must view some of the issues 

 before us as a matter of personal choice. We hear that word in the 

 halls of Congress constantly, except we use it when it is convenient 

 for us. 



Millions of Americans now do smoke with knowledge of the risk 

 involved. They have adopted smoking as part of their lifestyle and 

 there is only so much government can and should do, in my opin- 

 ion, to protect people from themselves. Our government can never 

 become so omnipotent that it tries to dictate the habits of individ- 

 ual Americans. Our government has no intrinsic right under the 

 Constitution to tell people how to run their lives. Ours is a govern- 

 ment of limited and enumerated powers and we should be ever 

 mindful of that fact. 



We should also be wary of the slippery slope we place ourselves 

 on when we try to regulate the food products, vitamins, drugs, and 

 other items that people consume. Of course, we must regulate some 

 of these items because government does have a valid role in pro- 

 tecting the public health and in guarding against harm, but then 

 we have to ask ourselves, where is the line drawn? 



In the name of public health, should the government decide how 

 much milk, butter, eggs, bacon or hamburgers a person can 

 consume? Can the government do this simply because those prod- 

 ucts have a high cholesterol content and we have evidence linking 

 cholesterol to heart disease and other illnesses. Should people be 

 penalized because they are overweight — and I would be one of the 

 first probably to be penalized for that — and refuse to exercise? 



These questions are not so absurd as they may seem. Once we 

 begin to actively regulate products on the basis of their perceived 

 health risks or because they may or may not meet the legal defini- 

 tion of a drug, we set a standard for intervention that is realisti- 

 cally applicable to other products. In other words, if we regulate 

 one substance because we have evidence it is in some degree harm- 

 ful, how can we not regulate other items where there is evidence 

 of significant harm. 



Let me quote from a recent Roll Call article by Morton 

 Kondracke, "The Center for Science in the Public Interest claims 

 that 445,000 Americans die prematurely each year from poor diet 

 and lack of exercise compared with 420,000 per year from tobacco 

 use. Guns kill around 40,000 a year. Alcohol abuse kills around 

 100,000. Drug abuse kills 20,000. Dangerous sexual behavior, 

 30,000, mostly from AIDS. And auto accidents, 44,000. Abortions 

 claim 1.3 million fetuses per year. 



"These are too many deaths and the government should step in 

 to do something about all of them mainly to make clear to citizens 

 what the dangers are and to invoke reasonable regulation to pro- 

 tect the public health and innocent lives." 



Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that our citizens appreciate that 

 there are risks associated with smoking. It is also my belief that 

 our citizens have the ability to make choices for themselves. During 

 the Flag Day weekend, I spoke at two different Elks Clubs. Many 

 people there — and I can't tell you how many — approached me and 

 said, don't take my rights to smoke away from me. 



