In the June 5 commentary, "Congress proves it's good at blowing smoke," tobacco-policy analyst Michael Siegel suggests that because the legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration control over tobacco products is not perfect, it is therefore fatally flawed. He ignores the fact that for years Congress (both Democratic- and Republican-controlled) has given protective and preferred treatment to the tobacco industry.

Senators from both sides of the aisle had spoken against the bill, not because it is flawed, but because science and health, not politics, would rule.

It is unfair and misleading for Siegel to remotely suggest that it is a minor concession on the part of the tobacco industry to support Food and Drug Administration control of its products. It is a major breakthrough for the industry to concede that its product, like every other product in the U.S.A. that is consumed, rightfully should be governed by food and drug safety laws of the United States.

True, if tobacco products were treated in a totally scientific manner, all tobacco products would be banned in the United States. Tobacco is dangerous in any form. It is addictive. It costs millions of lives, and causes millions more in debilitating diseases. This has been the crux of the debate for two decades in Washington and among members of the health community — to ban tobacco or control it?

Some senators representing some of the outliers of the industry are fearful the FDA with its power over public health safety will eventually ban nicotine outright in the production and sale of tobacco. The bill before Congress allows the FDA to lower the level of nicotine, but will prohibit an outright ban of nicotine in tobacco products. It is necessary to persuade Congress to give up its direct control of tobacco. With the exception of tobacco, Congress has never had control over the safety standards in the production of goods, services, products.

It is a good thing for now that the FDA cannot ban nicotine outright. If at some future date the FDA commissioner feels that this limitation needs to be examined, the commissioner could certainly bring the issue before Congress. However the debate will have to include the overall public good and the law of unintended consequences. The risk of reducing nicotine to a level that is too low is that of creating a demand for black market products. The FDA will have to continuously balance public good. This will be much more complex than dealing with its history of passing on safe products. Tobacco in any form will not be safe; it may in some form only be less dangerous. Trust the scientists at FDA to make the balanced call. Don't trust the Congress or the industry to do so.

Tar is a nasty, harmful part of tobacco. That is the bad news. The good news is that tar is not addictive. Nicotine is. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin. By slowly reducing nicotine content you have a good chance of slowly loosing the bonds on the addict. Hundreds of thousands of smokers will find it easier to quit. The young people who try tobacco for the first time will be far less likely to become addicted smokers. Those who label themselves "social smokers" will be far less likely to become chronic smokers.

True, it is not perfect. As Siegel points out in his commentary, there will be some who will address the future by lighting up more often. The history is clear on this issue. But the greater good is still served. The number of tobacco users will materially decrease, if for no other reason than the product will not as likely trap first-time smokers to a lifelong deadly addiction.

Simply forward thinking this issue should make it clear. Reducing nicotine will reduce the number of addictions, deaths, disabilities and therefore health care costs.

In 1998 we were within a whisker of getting legislation passed by Congress. Ironically, it did not happen because some of my associates fought against any compromise that was not an outright ban on tobacco.

They wanted perfection. What they got was 11 years of delay. Delay no longer.

Santa Fean Dudley Hafner is the retired CEO of the American Heart Association, and a member of the Koop/Kessler Commission on the state attorneys general settlement of 1997. He was chairman of the Robert Wood Johnson Smokeless State Committee from 1993 to 2001.