Contact
Subscribe


Tobacco And Me

Jun 12, 2009
By .
Food, Politics & Current Events

Unlike many libertarians, and for that matter many smokers, I do not consider the passage of a law allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco to be a major affront to my freedom.

Or, for that matter, my smoking habit.

I do not self-indentify as a cigarette smoker.  I am not proud of the habit, which I wish I'd never taken up.  I smoked occasionally, socially, in college and law school at parties on Friday nights and the like.  Infrequent smoking provided a head rush, a pleasant buzz that lasted for about five minutes and no longer, and many of the cool kids in the social circles I moved in did it.  I knew it was foolish, but to paraphrase, "Foolishness, thy name is young man."

Of course, as happens to many infrequent smokers, I ran into a stressful period (studying for the bar examination), and smoked more frequently to alleviate that stress.  Passing the bar, as it turned out, was easy.  Dealing with the addiction to tobacco that resulted?

Well, I'm still a lawyer, and I'm still smoking.  And I'll continue to smoke until I can't bear it anymore, no matter what the Food and Drug Administration has to say about it.

I've heard from many that quitting smoking was easy, or that it should be easy.  For some it is, I'm sure.  For others, people of a certain personality type or perhaps neurochemistry, breaking the tobacco habit is anything but.  A jury trial, an appellate argument, is far less stressful, for me, than trying to go a day without a light.  So far the gum and the patch haven't worked, and I'm self-aware enough to know that I'm not a good candidate for hypnosis or wackier treatments.

And while I wouldn't support a prohibition of cigarettes, just as I don't support any other drug prohibition, cigarettes are indeed a drug, just as alcohol is.  Like alcohol, the only thing that keeps tobacco legal in a country where possession of a few joints can send you to prison is that tobacco was discovered (by white men) 500 years ago, rather than 50 years ago.  Even in its newest form, the cigarette, tobacco is an old cultural inheritance.

An inheritance which is sold in convenience stores (or vending machines if you live in the right state), and whose sole purpose, at least as far as the companies that market it are concerned, is to get the consumer addicted to the point where, like me, he cannot stop without a herculean effort, or hearing "I'm sorry to tell you this…" from someone wearing a white coat.  I'm afraid I just can't get too worked up about the free speech rights of cigarette companies to advertise their products unfettered by the heavy hand of government.

First they came for RJ Reynolds…

Considering the many more stringent impositions government makes regarding victimless crimes, activities which are substantially less likely to kill me than smoking, such as driving without using a seatbelt or getting married at a farm, I'll abandon principle. I'll save my libertarian outrage for some other threat.

For instance, the fat nazis, who are already grinning in anticipation.

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White

11 Comments
Tags

11 Comments

  1. Ken  •  Jun 12, 2009 @12:45 pm

    Though I think perfectly good libertarian arguments can be made for sparing government regulation of drugs in general, I have yet to hear a good argument why cigarettes should enjoy an exemption from the regulatory scheme impeding the sale of food and drugs. The notion that the FDA should be able to regulate candy cigarettes but not real cigarettes is ridiculous.

  2. matt  •  Jun 12, 2009 @1:14 pm

    when i was little i used to love candy cigs (i never picked up a real cig in my life nor do i drink, so there goes that argument)

  3. Charles  •  Jun 12, 2009 @2:25 pm

    Matt, the FDA can regulate candy cigarettes because they are candy, not because they are cigarettes.

  4. Mike  •  Jun 12, 2009 @3:09 pm

    Great post; and what Ken said.

  5. matt  •  Jun 12, 2009 @5:48 pm

    i understand that charles i was refering to some arguements i have heard before that kids who eat candy cigs will grow and smoke lol (i have no problem with the fda doing their job)

  6. Dave  •  Jun 12, 2009 @10:20 pm

    I absolutely love Senator Burr's comment: "It is ridiculous to ask the FDA, which is the federal government’s primary guarantor of safety and efficacy, to regulate a product that is fundamentally and undeniably unsafe."

    Seriously, Senator? What a ridiculous statement.

    Just to poke one hole in his statement, the FDA regulates a whole host of drugs and medical devices that are "fundamentally and undeniably unsafe." They're called prescription products (such as…chemotherapy drugs).

    And Senator, if not the FDA, what other agency should regulate tobacco? No other public health agency is intimately familiar with labeling issues, and is equipped with the in-house scientists and the compliance/inspection staff you would need to regulate such products. Plus the funding for this could easily come from…user fees, which pay for a great amount of the CDRH and CDER.

    Good lord.

  7. Marty  •  Jun 13, 2009 @6:29 am

    good argument, BUT… this is about securing philip morris' market share, not consumer safety. electronic cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and pipe tobacco (which are MUCH safer than cigarettes) are being restricted and forced underground by overzealous tobacco nannies. New (safer) tobacco products will never see the light of day.

    This isn't about consumer safety, it's about control and power. No one's died from using marijuana, yet millions of lives are destroyed by our overzealous govt. There will be no reasonable moderation in the tobacco crusades, either.

  8. Patrick  •  Jun 13, 2009 @7:03 am

    I quite agree that there was probably some nodding and winking between Altria/Phillip Morris and the FDA/Congress on this, for the simple reason that Altria supports the bill. And, as you say, it's interesting that the FDA is moving to ban "electronic" cigarettes, which deliver nicotine but none of the "tar," on grounds that it isn't known whether they're a hazard.

    Of course the FDA knows, and any doctor knows, and any smoker knows, that it's the "tar" that kills people. And cigarettes will continue to be sold.

  9. Pat  •  Jun 14, 2009 @7:22 am

    I am a smoker. I am neither proud of the fact or ashamed of it. I smoke because I want to. I smoke because I enjoy it and I resent a government that tells me when and how to smoke for what I am paying heavily. This used to be the land of the free – now we have so many restrictions that our forefathers wouldn't recognize the place. Now that they feel that they have won the tobacco fight, they are starting with the lobbying against obesity, food and diet, including carbonated sodas like Pepsi, Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper. Soon the government will tell me when to exercise and how, what to eat or not, when to sleep and when to get up. I've had it. You can manipulate the blogs, websites, articles and the media "for our own good" but next election I will vote them out. I want my freedom!

  10. Patrick  •  Jun 14, 2009 @8:11 am

    No one manipulates this blog Pat. We're far too small to matter to the sort of people who manipulate blogs.

  11. U.S. Government  •  Jun 14, 2009 @8:29 am

    Patrick: Your check is in the mail.

    Thanks again for all of your good work.