Clinton Orders Smoking Limits for Teen-Agers

President Clinton on Thursday ordered new rules to curb the “deadly temptations” of teen-age smoking and was immediately met by congressional protests and tobacco-industry lawsuits--indications of the obstacles that lie in the path of his groundbreaking regulatory offensive.

Swimming against this year’s deregulation tides, Clinton approved Food and Drug Administration proposals to require proof of age for cigarette purchasers, to limit cigarette advertising sharply, including on billboards and at sporting events, to ban cigarette vending machines, to eliminate distribution of free samples and promotional merchandise and to require the industry to pony up $150 million for anti-smoking education programs.

Citing an alarming rise in preteen and teen-age smoking, Clinton insisted at a White House press conference that youths must be protected from the “seduction” of “skilled marketing campaigns aimed at their insecurities and uncertainties about life. . . .” “We’re their parents, and it’s up to us to protect them,” said Clinton, whose daughter, Chelsea, is 14 years old.

He said that it was not the goal of his Administration to ban smoking by adults, acknowledging that to attempt to do so would be a fruitless move similar to the liquor ban during Prohibition in the 1920s. He added, however, that further efforts to halt teen-age smoking could lie ahead if the first steps fail to do the job.

In contrast to the outcry from tobacco companies and advertisers, anti-smoking advocates from health groups and in Congress hailed Clinton’s move, with some calling it a historic expansion of the government’s public health role.

“This was courageous, and we know there were a lot of people trying to discourage him,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), one of the leading champions of the anti-smoking cause in Congress.

The FDA plan, announced with publication of 700 pages of proposed federal regulations, culminated years of effort by health groups and other activists to assert more federal control over smoking. The FDA spent 18 months studying whether nicotine is an addictive substance of the kind subject to its regulatory control, concluding earlier this year that it is. Clinton has been studying the issue since early July.

The new rules would:

* Ban outdoor tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.

* Limit tobacco advertising to black-and-white texts, with no pictures, when they appear in magazines with a youth readership of 15% or more.

* Forbid mail-order sales, self-service cigarette displays and such “marketing gimmicks” as sales of half-packs or single cigarettes.

The rules would allow tobacco companies to sponsor sports events under their names but not under the names of their cigarette brands.

In choosing his course of action, the President said that he had decided against proposals in which the tobacco industry would try to curb teen-age smoking voluntarily, contending that tobacco companies have had a poor record of living up to their commitments.

In a challenge to his congressional critics, the President also left the door open for Congress to head off the new FDA regulations by passing legislation that would meet his goals. But most analysts predicted tough sledding in Congress for any plan to curtail teen-age smoking because of the political polarity in both houses on the issue.

The new rules do not require congressional approval but Congress theoretically could use another tactic to stop the President’s plan.

*

In both the Senate and the House, members of both parties began forging alliances to craft legislation that would effectively nullify the FDA’s role in regulating tobacco. Some denounced Clinton for breaking off a recent search for a compromise with the tobacco industry, while others attacked FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler for crusading personally against smoking.

Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.) said that he was working with colleague Wendell H. Ford (D-Ky.) on a legislative “fire wall” that would impose new curbs on teen-age smoking while nullifying the FDA proposals.

In any case, the new rules championed by the President would not take effect until after a public comment period and months of fine-tuning--a process that can take a year or two.

Implementation could be further delayed by litigation, if courts are inclined to issue injunctions while lawsuits are heard. The tobacco industry, which has waged a costly pitched battle to protect its highly profitable business, lost no time opening up the courtroom offensive that some analysts believe could drag on for years.

Five major U.S. cigarette manufacturers filed suit in U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C., where they operate major facilities. Coyne Beahm, an advertising agency in Colfax, N.C., joined in the suit, contending that the new rules impinge on advertisers’ rights.

Industry officials argued that the FDA rules amount to an unwarranted application of food and drug laws that will not halt youth smoking. And they contended that Clinton’s real agenda is confiscating cigarettes from the roughly 25% of American adults who still smoke.

“The lawsuit is not about youth smoking,” said Steve Parrish, a senior vice president of Philip Morris Cos. Inc., speaking for the industry at a noon press conference in New York. “This lawsuit is about whether, in defiance of 80 years of clear precedent, David Kessler and the FDA can regulate cigarettes.”

Clinton, who acknowledged that he smokes about half a dozen cigars a year, noted that the FDA did not find cigars or pipe tobacco to be part of the teen-age smoking problem and did not extend restrictions to their use.

The FDA maintains that it has legislative authority to regulate medical devices. But Parrish of Philip Morris contended that “regulating cigarettes as medicines, medical devices or pharmaceutical products defies logic; it defies common sense, and--most importantly--it defies the law.”

*

An advertising group called the Assn. of National Advertisers Inc., claiming to represent 5,300 manufacturers, retailers, service and financial concerns, called the plan a “crushing censorial regime” and vowed to go to court if necessary to protect its First Amendment rights. “This proposal is unprecedented,” said Daniel L. Jaffe, an executive vice president of the group.

But Clinton heatedly waved off the threat.

“It is illegal for children to smoke cigarettes,” he said, clearly angered. “How then can it be legal for people to advertise to children to get them to smoke cigarettes?”

Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), co-sponsor with Rep. Charlie Rose (D-N.C.) of a proposal to get industry to curb its own practices through a binding but non-regulatory agreement, applauded Clinton for acknowledging the need for tough steps. But, referring to the looming litigation, he said that he feared “the course the President has taken not only does not avoid gridlock, it beckons it.”

One member of Congress who could be key in any legislative solution showed little appetite for such an approach.

Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over tobacco, said that the response to the President should come from the “courts, not Congress.” And an aide said that Bliley is confident that the courts will stop the FDA move in its tracks.

White House officials described the plan as primarily driven by the strong convictions held by the President, Vice President Al Gore, who lost a sister to lung cancer, and others. Aides said it was another expression of the Administration’s interest in children and health.

But aides clearly believe that the politics of the issue could work for them for several reasons, even if it makes winning tougher in the tobacco states. The confrontation--likely to drag on through the election cycle--suggests that Clinton is willing to hang tough against adversaries. And it pits him against two opponents who are not highly popular--the tobacco industry and Congress.

* YOUNG SMOKERS DEFIANT: Southland teen-age smokers say they would get around restrictions on cigarettes. B1

* RELATED STORY: D1