In the United States around 21 percent of the population smokes or uses a tobacco based product. To this near quarter of our population, I propose the following question: would a picture of a rotting lung on a box of cigarettes deter you from purchasing the pack?
While this might seem like a grim question, it is now a legitimate question as within the coming years, you are likely to see such grisly pictures on all forms of tobacco products.
This is due to a new bill recently passed by both the House and the Senate. Endorsed by the president in June, this new bill gives the Food and Drug Administration sweeping powers to regulate tobacco products.
The methods they are likely to employ are a slap in the face to the free market, and the smoking population.
According to the contents of the bill, the FDA will now have the power to regulate everything from advertising to the manufacturing of tobacco products which, while to many anti-tobacco lobbyists this may be a major step forward, it is a major step backwards for personal liberties and the tobacco industry.
Countries like Canada and Germany have already implemented such programs, and if we are planning to emulate them like the bill proposes, our tobacco using population is in for a slideshow of black lungs, decaying teeth, dead babies and other similarly morbid imagery.
But is it really necessary to subjugate people to something like that?
I mean, beer doesn’t come bottled with labels depicting decaying livers, and cars don’t come covered with pictures of car accidents, warning us about seat belt safety. Concepts such as drinking responsibly and proper car safety are considered common knowledge.
Should the dangers of smoking not be considered common knowledge as well?
If your high school was anything like mine, you spent entire weeks dedicated to say-no-to-smoking programs. A guy in a dog costume probably gave a speech and handed out ribbons.
And this is not just in our schools. You see anti-smoking ads all over TV, radio and the newspapers.
Because of the strong presence of the anti-smoking groups, we all know the dangers of tobacco use. Now even though we all know these dangers, it is inevitable that some people will choose to ignore them, and they have the right to do so.
Or do they?
If you took a look around the typical American town, you would not think so. The smokers in our population are outrightly discriminated against. We have kicked them out of restaurants, bars and public places. Smokers have become a large portion of our population that are treated as second class citizens just because they partake in a certain activity that many of us deem unhealthy.
And it is not just the tobacco using population that we treat with incivility, but the tobacco industry itself. The bill will interfere with the tobacco industry’s ability to market their products. Many flavored cigarettes will be banned under the legislation, and some congressmen are even looking to ban menthol, a common additive to some cigarettes that makes for a milder smoke. On top of all this, the bill requires the tobacco industry to pay for its own shackles.
Using mandatory fees, the Congressional Budget Office believes that they will make $500 million every year from the tobacco industry by the year 2013.
Essentially they are extorting private sector tobacco companies in order to fund the destruction of the tobacco industry. So while we waste our money on bailing out auto makers and other failed businesses, we turn around and attempt to destroy an industry that, if left alone, would be fairly successful. This is insane.
All in all, this bill is an infringement not only on the rights of the American people, but a direct violation of the free market. It marks a huge step by the government into an industry that is already knee-deep in trying to appease non-profit organizations.
Some would say that we are far behind countries like Brazil and Canada in our efforts to end the tobacco industry once and for all, and to that, all I can say is let’s hope it stays that way.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
dio 2 years, 8 months ago
There is one simple way to show how inane this column is: simply replace the word "tobacco" by "crack cocaine".
Ashley11 2 years, 8 months ago
Y our argument that regulating tobacco products and the tobacco industry takes away a smoker's right is offensive...that argument fails to acknowledge that nonsmoker's have rights. I have the right to go eat or play in a park without being exposed to deadly carcinogens. The US Surgeon General reported that there is no safe or risk free amount of exposure to secondhand smoke so every time you advocate for a smoker's right to light up in a doorway that I have to pass through or a park where I have softball practice I urge you to consider my right to do those things without having my health put in jeopardy.
It also turns my stomach to read your words defending the tobacco’s industry’s right to market as they choose and your analogies are so far off they are almost comical. FDA regulation and labeling is nothing like a scene of a car crash placed on a car. Tobacco products are one of the few consumable products yet to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Unlike almost everything else we put in our bodies we don’t get a list of the ingredients in a tobacco product label; why because the tobacco industry doesn’t want to tell you arsenic is in the product. The American public might know that tobacco use is dangerous but they don’t know how dangerous. Most Oklahomans don’t know ammonia, arsenic, polonium-210, benzene, etc are in their cigarette and they couldn’t tell you 750 Oklahomans die each year from secondhand smoke because most people, like yourself, have yet to realize how dangerous secondhand smoke is.
There is “knowing” something is “bad” for you and “understanding” what that really means. FDA regulation is going to put that information out there. It is going to, like with every other consumable products, put appropriate warning labels and ingredient information on packaging. This is hardly excessive regulation. This regulation only seems that way because the tobacco industry has gotten away with not having to follow the same rules as most other companies that produce consumable products for decades. Poor Big Tobacco!
Gee it’s a good thing they have stand up guys like you to defend their right to market, it isn’t like PMI (Philip Morris International) isn’t already too steps ahead of the regulation here in the United States and marketing to children, 11 years and younger in places like Indonesia and Mexico. Tell me how these children have the ability to make sound decisions on whether they should or shouldn’t use a product, that when used as intended will kill them? It’s not as simple as you make it, it isn’t about a smoker’s right vs. a nonsmoker or an industry’s ability to market, we are talking about saving lives and there is a real lack of education in this country and other’s about how the industry deceptively markets their product and what deadly substances are inside those products.
asuran_alex 2 years, 8 months ago
First of all, I don't understand your use of the word "deem" when referring to the health risks of using tobacco. I guess you are right, nearly half a million deaths a year caused by tobacco use doesn't seem to prove that it is a health risk at all.
Secondly, why don't you think about stepping in your opposition's shoes for a moment. Try explaining to your ten year old brother why he has severe asthma due to smoking during pregnancy, while he lies in the hospital from yet another severe attack. I suppose we should ban him from being able to eat in a restaurant, or play in a park, because it allows smoking, and the smoke will trigger a severe attack. Its his fault right, not tobacco's.
Before you empathize with greed, think more carefully about those who have to suffer from a choice they didn't make. If you had to suffer, what would your decision be? Maybe the dollar bill should out weigh the right to pursue life, or at least a healthy one.
"...if the guilty do not pay, then the innocent will have to pay it"
-Alex
kdbp1213 2 years, 8 months ago
the anti-tobacco bill is another example of living in the USSA, the United Socialist States of America.........
it's freedom of choice, folks. don't smoke, stay away from smokers, & stay away from smoking areas if you dislike smoking. is somebody forcing you to smoke? last time i checked, smoking was an option in life. guess what? i'm a non-smoker.
along with the tobacco industry, let's regulate the you-know-what out the porn, soda, candy, and fast food industries. supposedly, those items are bad for us, too.
i tell you what, let's just have Big Brother make all of our decisions for us & we'll become 1984-drones.