Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, tobacco industry leaders are under attack by nearly everyone. A tobacco-friendly tax provision that was hidden in the settlement was quickly removed by the Senate and the House once the public became aware of it. But without a tax benefit or higher cigarette prices, or both, there is no way the industry can afford the astronomical $368.5 billion settlement they have agreed to pay over the next 25 years. The industry makes only $8.4 billion annual pretax profit.

The tobacco companies deserve every bit of grief they are receiving, but for reasons other than commonly assumed. It is true they profit from selling a dangerous product, but so do automobile, airplane, and gun manufacturers as well as food producers, drug companies, and coffee farmers. When we boil it down, any product used incorrectly or excessively is dangerous. Even oxygen used incorrectly can be dangerous. And most people know tobacco is dangerous without the benefit of the nanny-state inspectors and the bureaucrats' warning label.

Tobacco company executives symbolize much of what is wrong with corporate America and our corrupt system of special interests, favoritism, and interventionism. For decades, Big Tobacco lobbied for and gladly accepted subsidies and trade benefits, while anyone with a grain of common sense knew smoking was a bad habit that adversely affected some people's health. It is no secret that young people could easily become addicted to nicotine.

There were specific gains to be realized from the charade that surrounded tobacco sales. Pretending that smoking was a benign habit made it easier to collect benefits from the nonsmoking taxpayers. And the alternative, arguing for personal responsibility, was hardly in vogue.

Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk incrementally has been shifted from the individual to the State. As we moved further from a free society toward a managed welfare state, responsibility for nearly everything began to be systematically delivered to someone else through the State and its growing army of bureaucrats. The tobacco industry was a willing accomplice to this betrayal of individual responsibility.

The failure of Big Tobacco to fight Government's requirement to put warning labels on cigarettes while accepting agricultural subsidies allowed the entire smoking industry to be invaded by the Federal Government.

Tobacco put the welcome mat out for big Government. Now it is only a matter of time before nicotine will be declared a drug and more FDA regulation will inundate us. Unfortunately, this will only compound our many problems with nicotine.

Madam Speaker, smoking should be treated no differently than compulsive eating, chocolate addiction, or driving too fast. But the way the tobacco corporate leaders are acting in cahoots with big Government, one would think they are conspiring to prevent this.

Madam Speaker, the question is who has responsibility for our well-being? Who should make decisions regarding risk-taking and personal habits, the Government or the individual?

During the Clinton health care debate, tobacco, and nearly every other industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was Government's responsibility, Federal and State, to provide medical care for everyone, as if it were in itself a constitutional right.

When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to reflect the cost of habits like smoking, sky diving, overweight, and medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance goes out the window and everybody gets everything paid for and no one can be discriminated against.

Persons who have harmed their health by smoking have learned they can coerce those with good health into paying for the consequence of their bad habit. In fact, many who harm themselves through their chosen lifestyles, not just a single bad habit, religiously believe they have a right to be taken care of by someone else. This group of individuals, not only those who smoke, but those who drink too much or perform sexual acts which increase their chance of acquiring AIDS or hepatitis, or who will not diet to take care of diabetes or heart conditions.

It is this abdication of personal responsibility, this misconceived notion that the State is responsible for us, that drives counterintelligent drug laws, which inspires the use of dirty needles, which serves to further spread AIDS and hepatitis. And instead of legalizing the right to buy a clean needle for a few pennies, the bureaucrats insist on making it the Government's responsibility to coerce nondrug users into paying for free needles so the addicts can keep using their illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre.

This lack of understanding responsibility, rights and subsidies has led the tobacco industry leaders to further compound the problem by not fighting the trumped up obligation to pay for any health care that may have arisen from smoking.

Not once have we heard a tobacco industry leader defend his right to sell something that is risky to someone but not others, which is the case with tobacco and most other products.

• Tobacco industry leaders are under attack by nearly everyone. A tobacco-friendly tax provision that was hidden in the settlement was quickly removed by the Senate and House once the public became aware of it. But without a direct tax benefit or higher cigarette prices, or both, there's no way the industry can afford the astronomical $368.5 billion settlement they have agreed to pay over the next 25 years--the industry makes only $8.4 billion annual pretax profit.

• The tobacco companies deserve every bit of grief they are receiving--but for reasons other than commonly assumed. It's true they profit from selling a dangerous product. But so do automobile, airplane, and gun manufacturers, as well as food producers, drug companies, and coffee farmers. When you boil it down, any produce used incorrectly or excessively is dangerous. Even oxygen used incorrectly can be dangerous. And most people know tobacco is dangerous without the benefit of the nanny-state inspectors and the bureaucrats' warning label.

• Tobacco company executives symbolize much of what is wrong with corporate America and our corrupt system of special interests, favoritism, and interventionism, For decades, big tobacco lobbied for, and gladly accepted, subsidies and trade benefits while anyone with a grain of common sense knew smoking was a bad habit that adversely affected some people's health. It was no secret that young people could easily become addicted to nicotine.

• There were specific gains to be realized from the charade that surrounded tobacco sales. Pretending that smoking was a benign habit made it easier to collect benefits from nonsmoking taxpayers. And the alternative--arguing for personal responsibility--was hardly in vogue.

• Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk has incrementally been shifted from the individual to the State. As we moved further from a free society toward a managed welfare state, responsibility for nearly everything began to be systematically delivered to somebody else through the State and its growing army of bureaucrats. The tobacco industry was a willing accomplice to this betrayal of individual responsibility.

• The failure of big tobacco to fight Government's requirement to place warning labels on cigarettes, Government intervention into distribution, while accepting agricultural subsidies, Government involvement in production, allowed the entire smoking industry, from production to distribution, to be invaded by the Federal Government.

• Tobacco put out the welcome mat for big government. Now, it's only a matter of time before nicotine will be declared a drug and more FDA regulations will inundate us. Unfortunately this will only compound our many problems with nicotine.

• Smoking should be treated no differently than compulsive eating, chocolate addiction, or driving too fast. But the way the tobacco corporate leaders are acting in cahoots with big government, you would think they are conspiring to prevent this.

• The question is: Who has responsibility for our well-being? Who should make decisions regarding risk taking and personal habits--the government or the individual?

• During the Clinton health-care debate, tobacco and nearly every other industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was the Government's responsibility--Federal and state--to provide medical care for everyone as if it were, in itself, a constitutional right.

• When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to reflect the costs of habits like smoking, sky diving, overweight, and medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance goes out the window, everybody gets everything paid for, and no one can be discriminated against.

• Persons who have harmed their heath by smoking have learned they can coerce those with good health into paying for the consequences of their bad habit. In fact, many who harm themselves through their chosen lifestyles, not just a single bad habit, religiously believe they have a right to be taken care of by someone else. This group includes not only those who smoke, but those who drink too much, or perform sexual acts which increase their chances of acquiring AIDS or hepatitis, or those who won't diet to take care of their diabetes or heart conditions.

• It's this abdication of personal responsibility--this misconceived notion that the State is responsible for us--that drives counter-intelligent drug laws, which inspires the use of dirty needles, which serves to further spread AIDS and hepatitis. And instead of legalizing the right to buy a clean needle for a few pennies, the bureaucrats insist on making it Government's responsibility to coerce nondrug users into paying for free needles so the addicts can keep using their illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre.

• This lack of understanding responsibility, rights, and subsidies has led tobacco industry leaders to further compound the problem by not fighting the trumped-up obligation to pay for any health care that may have arisen from smoking.

• Not once have we heard a tobacco industry leader defend his right to sell something that is risky to some but not others--which is the case with tobacco and most other products. One pack of cigarettes a year never hurt anyone. Everyone who smokes doesn't become addicted. Ninety percent of smokers never get a smoking-related illness. Absent fraud, the user is responsible for the risk he assumes, not the seller of any given product.

• It has been suggested by some that smoking cigarettes provides certain immunity from some diseases. I personally cannot stand smoking, and even as a child I knew it was dangerous. It was a time when parents had a lot more to do with assuming the responsibility for teaching children about all dangers--like fire, chemicals, heights, crossing highways, sharp objects, guns, and smoking.

• We still don't hear a principled challenge to the demands of the various states to be reimbursed by the tobacco industry for the costs of smoking-related illnesses. States should not be in the medical business in the first place, let alone be extorting funds from the producers of tobacco products.

• Yes, the business leaders in the tobacco industry deserve sharp criticism. Once this precedent of paying medical bills is set, the manufacturers of automobiles will then be liable for all accidents even if the drivers are speeding and intoxicated. Chocolate addicts can then sue Hershey, fat people can sue cattle ranchers. The whole notion that tobacco companies should pay for tobacco-related illnesses is absurd.

• The tobacco deal does great harm, because it further undermines the principle of self-responsibility. The spread of this concept will not only push up the costs of medical treatment and the products involved, it could actually encourage the use of dangerous products. The response of potential users will be, `If I'm unfortunate and become ill or injured, the seller or the Government will be made to take care of me'--a very common reaction in a welfare state. To the extent one can lower the cost of one's own risky habit by socializing it, one is less likely to worry about consequences and more likely to engage in that dangerous behavior.

• If this attitude toward consumer risk is not changed, the free society that we once had cannot be restored.

• I'd like to see a spokesman for tobacco come forward and insist on recognition of the moral principle that individuals have responsibility for themselves and a duty to make choices and assume the consequences of the risks they take. My advice to him would be to give up the subsidies, demand freedom, and fight the social misfits who argue for collective guilt and collective responsibility. Any other course of action will lead to more evils.