Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
C. Everett Koop was a Reagan appointee and there were plenty of Southern Democrats in Congress until the 1994 midterm elections, so I doubt the Democrats were seen as the anti-tobacco party in the 1980s and early 1990s.
C. Everett Koop was a Reagan appointee and there were plenty of Southern Democrats in Congress until the 1994 midterm elections, so I doubt the Democrats were seen as the anti-tobacco party in the 1980s and early 1990s.
That's an interesting question. It seems as if the Democrats have had a long-standing interest in health care and a long-standing wariness about big business, so it makes sense.
Easy. Big Tobacco was a big contributor to Republicans. Tobacco growing states were in the south too. Put 2 and 2 together and you can understand why Dems became "anti-smoking."
When did the Democratic Party start being perceived as the anti-tobacco party?
Pro-people party - pro health party.
1,300 Americans dying of cancers related to tobacco use every day is something to be concerned about. What other industry can kill off 440,000 of their best customers every year and still thrive with astonishing profits?
When modern large corporations are selling an addictive drug that causes cancer, the people should at the very least least be informed. The global corporations, of course, tried to block the results of the research from becoming public.
When modern large corporations do studies which tell them these products are dangerous and also addictive and then hide the facts from the general public, including their best customers, it's just plain wrong. Especially when they lobby with lies to keep the number of addicts rising up in each new generation.
Second hand smoke can be dangerous to non-users of tobacco as well. Nearly one in ten victims of the tobacco industry do not purchase or use the product (about 40,000 additional deaths). That is actually more people than are killed on the nation's highways every year! These people do not make the decision to smoke themselves and they avoid dependency on the drug, but often become victims anyway.
Regulation of that industry is appropriate. This should not be a partisan issue, but it is because the industry will support favorable politicians with donations. More often than not these days it is Republican politicians who will accept that money and advocate for the industry. The contrast can give the impression that the Democrats are anti-tobacco, but they are simply pro-health and well being of the common people.
Last edited by Hesychios; 05-19-2019 at 09:28 AM..
C. Everett Koop was a Reagan appointee and there were plenty of Southern Democrats in Congress until the 1994 midterm elections, so I doubt the Democrats were seen as the anti-tobacco party in the 1980s and early 1990s.
I was not aware anti- tobacco was a partisan thing. Seems to me positions on smoking are as non- partisan as it gets.
The 75 year tobacco subsidy ended in 2004, when the Federal Government offered $10 billion to mostly corporate farms, to switch crops.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
