(McClatchy-Tribune Information Services) -- Is the tobacco tin half full or half empty?

Opinions of the new federal tobacco act, signed into law this week by the smoker in chief, President Barack Obama, tend to divide depending on how one thinks the government ought to treat a product that's always been legal but which eight decades of research have increasingly proved lethal.

The law for the first time gives the Food and Drug Administration power to regulate tobacco. It arrives at a dramatic moment for Nebraska, whose own Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in most of the state's public places, took effect just three weeks ago.

Yet advocacy groups that have long lobbied for tougher controls gave mixed reviews to the new federal law. Some hailed it as a historic step. Others saw it as half-hearted, a sellout to the tobacco industry, particularly its largest player, Philip Morris USA.

"I really think it set back our tobacco-control movement about 30 years," said Mark Welsch of Omaha, president of GASP, or the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution.

Welsch said he feared the law would give tobacco-industry lawyers ammunition against liability lawsuits, by allowing them to argue that blame lies with the FDA, the agency now regulating the product, rather than with manufacturers.

He also said the law was apt to freeze development of less-harmful tobacco products because they would face FDA testing requirements. He said the law's ban on some flavorings, such as strawberry and grape -- an attempt to blunt tobacco's appeal to kids -- is "racist in its nature" for omitting menthol, a flavoring that's disproportionately popular with African-Americans. The law defers the issue of menthol for further study.

More broadly, Welsch said, the FDA -- whose core mission is ensuring food and drug safety -- ought not be distracted by trying to regulate a fatal product.

"I believe we could have gotten a much better bill," said Welsch, whose 20-year-old group focuses on rousing grass-roots lobbying from its Nebraska mailing list of about 4,000.

"It's the Philip Morris bill," he said, echoing some national critics who see the law's effect as locking in that company's dominant market share.

After a decade of wrangling in Congress over tobacco-regulation efforts, Philip Morris broke with other cigarette makers and backed the legislation, calling it tough but fair.

Other anti-tobacco groups working in the Midlands saw the new law in a positive light.

"It's not a compromise. It's not a bill written by Philip Morris," said Michelle Bernth, spokeswoman for the American Lung Association in Nebraska. "We're very happy with the result."

One cannot ignore that the "landmark" law for the first time will subject the formulation of tobacco products to federal oversight, Bernth said.

As the FDA draws up details, she said, her group especially looks forward to seeing full disclosure of those products' ingredients and greater control over how marketing campaigns affect children.

Other veteran tobacco antagonists reacted similarly.

"We're very supportive of the bill," said Brian Krannawitter, advocacy director for the Midwest region of the American Heart Association. "...No legislation is perfect. That being said, we think this is significant progress."

"Any time legislation like this is passed that will make Nebraskans healthier, we're supportive," said Mike Lefler, a Nebraska spokesman for the American Cancer Society.

Government regulation of tobacco -- "that is monumental," said Kerry Wise, spokeswoman for the American Lung Association in Iowa, which has been lobbying for that outcome for 18 years. Her group, she said, is eager to see how the FDA will translate the law into rules for nicotine content and flavorings -- including menthol.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, which last summer adopted a public-spaces smoking ban similar to Nebraska's, the anti-tobacco crusade moves forward with the launch of a registry of smoke-free apartment buildings, she said.

Copyright (C) 2009, Omaha World-Herald, Neb.