DATE: Sunday, April 6, 1997                 TAG: 9704040008

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J5   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Opinion

SOURCE: MARGARET EDDS

DATELINE: RICHMOND                          LENGTH:   80 lines

BEYER VS. GILMORE PROTECTING CASH CROP IS NO LONGER REALISTIC

His hope, Attorney General James S. Gilmore III was telling a luncheon crowd the other day, is that his two boys will never start smoking.

On the other hand, he added in almost the same breath, he feels compelled to protect the state's leading cash crop, one that produced $3.5 billion worth of exports in 1994.

Never mind that these are, fundamentally, contradictory positions. Tobacco has moved front and center in the governor's race between Gilmore and Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr., and to varying degrees, each is trying to have it both ways.

Gilmore wants to protect the pocketbooks and health of Virginians, with the emphasis on the economy. Beyer wants to protect the health and pocketbooks of Virginians, with the emphasis on health.

In a year when there are, as yet, few stark differences between the gubernatorial candidates, tobacco is supplying what passes for contrast and drama. Not only does the leaf require the candidates to sort out conflicting values along the jobs-vs.-health divide. It also taps into deep-seated, regionally divisive attitudes about states' rights and tradition-vs.-change.

While both candidates are struggling to strike what may be an impossible balance between pocketbook and health, it was Gilmore who seemed most in danger of slipping last week. His trip to New York to collect $50,000 from Philip Morris executives on the eve of the Liggett Group's historic admission that smoking causes cancer was at a minimum poor form.

Even Gilmore's stalwart ally, Gov. George F. Allen, acknowledged that the trip raised questions about the attorney general's enforcing public policy and running for office at the same time. And the editorial pages of The Richmond Times-Dispatch, where Gilmore usually finds comfort, offered this disparaging review:

``Much more of this, and Jim Gilmore might as well thank everybody for playing - and, remaining attorney general for the duration, close out his career.''

That's surely an exaggeration. For one thing, while polls show a majority of Virginians favor tougher regulation of the tobacco industry, that doesn't mean a majority will vote based on the issue. It could be that the people who feel passionately enough about tobacco to walk the walk are mostly on Gilmore's side.

That's what happened four years ago when Mary Sue Terry made gun control a centerpiece of her campaign. According to polls, most Virginians agreed with her. But it turned out that the people who let the gun-control debate determine their vote were mostly gun-rights enthusiasts. Terry lost much of her rural base, as well as the election.

Nor is Beyer Simon-pure from the perspective of an anti-smoking crusader. The Democrat has accepted tobacco money in both this and prior campaigns, although none has come his way since he endorsed regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration.

Beyer also thinks Gilmore was right not to join 22 other state attorneys general who have gone to court to force tobacco companies to help pay tobacco-related Medicaid costs. Where the pair differ is on whether the states or the federal government should wage war on underage smoking.

Gilmore, who says proposed FDA regulations are a first step in deliberately killing the tobacco industry, has pushed for tougher state monitoring of cigarette purchases by minors. He backed legislation beefing up enforcement and upping the maximum penalty for underage sales from $50 to $500.

Meanwhile, Beyer says federal monitoring is preferable. That's because the proposed FDA regulations, which Gilmore is fighting in court, go further than the state's plan to limit teen smoking. For instance, the federal regulations ban vending-machine sales (a notoriously easy way for teens to get cigarettes). They require vendors to I.D. any purchaser who appears to be younger than 27. And they toughen the rules involving cigarette advertising.

Conventional wisdom is that Beyer's position is a strong sell in Northern Virginia, while Gilmore's will garner votes in the tobacco-growing regions of the state and in the tobacco-manufacturing base around Richmond. It is unclear what the attitude of voters in Hampton Roads will be.

As they bob and weave on tobacco, both Gilmore and Beyer would be well-advised to add another plank to their platforms: doing all they can to diversify the economy of the tobacco-growing regions of the state.

Even Philip Morris, through its acquisition of Kraft Foods and the Miller Brewing Co., has subtly acknowledged that tobacco has a market shelf-life. Those who aspire to set public policy should be no less realistic. MEMO: Ms. Edds is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu