It's nearing the years end and you will probably be going to a New Year's Eve Party. Undoubtedly, there will be the opportunity to engage in some frivilous politcal banter with your fellow party-goers. You may find this short discussion of the legislation and debate concerning two of the most popular vices, tobacco and alcohol, helpful in giving you some fuel for thought. This opinion article will shortly disappear into the abyss of the library collections from past months/years. Consequently, I will not attempt to waste time trying to dig up exact figures, but I will work from my splendid memory!

We have all experienced the increased attention that is being paid to TOBACCO legislation. Democrats have tried to villify Republicans concerning this issue, by citing large contributions by the tobacco companies to Republicans. This is a bit of hypocrisy happening here! Legislators from both parties have accepted rather large ' donations ' from these same sources. The Democrats are just crying sour grapes, as after the 1994 election cycle they were no longer in the majority. The majority party always seems to get the biggest bucks from most special interest groups, including the tobacco and alcohol industries. Prior to 1994, I believe Richard Gephardt was getting the most money from the tobacco lobby. No stranger to tobacco, Vice President Al Gore was receiving a pile of loot from them to! Gore in fact had a speech shortly before the 1992 presidential election, where he said something like, " I've grown it, I've shucked it..." ( you must remember those video clips, as they were in high rotation ). So, Democrats are still getting money from these lobbies, but the Republicans get more, because they are the party in the majority. They don't get more money because of some nefarious scheme!

Legislators from both parties have engaged in massive amounts of rhetoric on the subject of tobacco, from medical benefits to people suffering from tobacco related illness, to under age teen smoking. I am not going to regurgitate those old arguements. Let's just agree that smoking is habit forming and does cause physical problems. Keep in mind though, these problems only involve the person smoking the product, him or herself ( THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. )

I think the legislators have over looked, intentionally or otherwise, the problems associated with the other big vice, ALCOHOL! I don't know how the numbers of teen smokers match up with the numbers of teen drinkers. What I do know is, teenage drunk driving is the number one cause of teen deaths nationally. Perhaps more important, is that an under age teen driver, driving drunk, endangers other motorists on the road. Unlike teen smoking, teen drinking effects other citizens and not just the under age drinker, him or herself ( THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ).

Both tobacco and alcohol consumption by children are legislated illegal as of this date. Why the silence on the alcohol problem? To me, it is the far worse problem. Smoking only effects the individual. How many times has a cigarette smoking teen had this as the root cause in a horrendous multiple fatality automobile accident? How many teens smoke too many cigarettes and engage in dangerous conduct, resulting in the death and injury of other people? On the other hand, teens routinely hurt or cause the death of others, when they consume illegally purchased liquor!

They made a big deal about Joe Camel and ads targetting under age smokers. What about alcohol ads that may target teens? Spuds MacKenzie, those Budweiser frogs, and a host of scantily clad very young women, beckon the under age drinker to find romance through alcohol consumption. If you watch the ads from both tobacco and liquor labels, the liquor companies seem to be more agressively targetting the youth market, to me! I just bet the medical costs relating to alcohol are considerably more than those relating to smoking. You have diseases related to alcohol. You have rehabilitation clinical costs. These two may or may not be equal to the smoking related medical costs. The one big difference is that drinkers cause death and destruction on the highways, and the wide variety of medical and material costs involved ( not to mention the loss of innocent lives )!

Why don't you hear any loud voices raised on the subject of teen alcohol abuse? The answer may be political correctness. Somehow, it is fashionable to scare or bait voters into passing a new tax on tobacco products, but not liquor. A proposition just passed this year in California under the auspices of spending the money on teen anti-smoking campaigns. This was a sham, as less than ten percent of the money collected by the fifty cent per pack tax actually will go to the schools for these programs. The Democrat who pushed this propostion ( Reiner ), was just taking advantage of the current hue and cry. We all know Democrats have never met a tax they didn't like! So what's the deal, man. Where's the big deal on teen drunk driving and minor consumption of alcohol? Do they see the fictious claims of second hand smoke inhalation, as more dangerous to the public than drunken driver related deaths, that amount to thousands every year? If you follow the recent liberal attempts to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for gun related deaths ( now that's a doozey ), why not sue liquor companies for drunk driving related deaths? I don't condone this twisted view of reality, but let's be equal opportunity twisters, okay? Or, are the legislators just too busy mixing their martinis and popping off the beer bottle caps, to care?

- Bongo ( How about a dollar per six pack of beer or bottle of hard liquor tax, for MADD or anti-teen drinking programs? )