Smoking: On the Path to Prohibition?

Mr./Ms. President,

You can save more lives than any other ruler in history! Think of it. By permitting the Food and Drug Administration to classify nicotine as a drug subject to strict regulation, you will enable millions of people who would otherwise die in miserable prematurity to live longer and happier lives. And make no mistake about it, the likely victims of smoking are poorer, less educated, more female and less white than non-smokers. Smoking is becoming a class issue -- an addiction that preys on those who are most in economic or psychological need. To declare victory in the war against smoking and quit the field with about a third of the population still hooked would be shameful. Yes, a black market in cigarettes would develop. Yes, obesity would increase. Yes, a smoking ban would have all sorts of unintended consequences. But no sum of projectable bads would equal the sum of certain good -- more life! -- of strict regulation leading to an outright ban.

Finally, yes, Prohibition did not work. But it did not work because drinking was not socially stigmatized. Prohibition was a top-down affair. Political activists used the World War as an opportunity to legislate morality wholesale. Politics-created, Prohibition was not aided by social pressure as a ban on cigarettes would be. It is not just political elites who hate tobacco smoke but millions and millions of its potential victims. Society, not just government, is against smoking; the comparison with Prohibition won't work.

Philip Morris wants a compromise: if you agree to call off the FDA, the cigarette companies will get out of the business of hooking American kids. The company recently announced that it would support legislation that would limit cigarette advertising and marketing and ban cigarette vending machines in an effort to curb teenage smoking. While this plan lacks the teeth of the FDA plan, it has one advantage -- a chance of getting passed.

Realistically, Congress, supported by millions of dollars of tobacco lobbying funds, will fight the proposed FDA regulations. What's more, there's some question whether the FDA even has the authority to regulate tobacco. In 1972 FDA commissioner Charles Edwards testified that his agency did not have the authority to label or ban cigarettes. Also, foes of tobacco have tried several times over the years to introduce bills that would give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco -- in effect conceding the FDA's lack of authority. The FDA is proposing to regulate nicotine as a drug -- but how long will an agency devoted to public health regulate something it knows to be unsafe before it seeks a ban?

While Philip Morris's plan is not out of the goodness of their hearts (the American market is becoming less important to them as the Third World market grows), it is a good starting point for a middle-of-the-road policy. Don't forget that the 50 million people who smoke have already been told they can't smoke on planes, in many of their offices, even in bars. Now that nonsmokers are generally protected from secondhand smoke, smokers will have little patience for ever-stricter legislation.

Support Philip Morris' plan with the addition of a rule penalizing stores that neglect to card young cigarette buyers just as they card young alcohol buyers, and you will have taken a big step towards curbing youth smoking. Push for the unlikely FDA plan, and you may lose your chance to increase tobacco regulation. You can't do anything to force adults to stop smoking. But you should take this opportunity to do something about the younger generation.

The first amendment of the Constitution establishes some basic rights for the American people. If you continue farther down the path of legislating when and where people can smoke, where tobacco products are allowed to be advertised, and what those advertisements can say, you will seriously infringe upon those freedoms. Aside from the drinking age, there is little legislation on when or how much one can drink, even though some would argue that drinking has worse effects on the lives of people and their families than secondhand smoke. The airwaves are full of beer and wine commercials, and Absolut Vodka ads are exponentially more popular with teenagers than Joe Camel could ever hope to be -- yet one hears few complaints about children's exposure to alcohol ads.

Why are the tobacco companies being hounded mercilessly for wrecking peoples' health while companies producing 151 proof alcohol, cars that can go 150 miles per hour, and lethally fatty foods seem to escape censure? Smoking is a personal right that the government should not be able to legislate away. Yes, smoking is bad for you. But it's not the government's job to play the parent reprimanding a child for stupid behavior.

Anti-smoking advocates say you should support new and stricter legislation on cigarette advertising and promotion, along with warnings on ads such as "about one out of three kids who become smokers will die from their smoking," and "cigarettes -- a nicotine-delivery device." Maybe they haven't heard that despite increasingly heavy-handed anti-smoking ad campaigns and regulations, teenage smoking has increased seven percent in the last four years. The ads and regulations only make smoking seem like the forbidden fruit.

The anti-smoking lobby complains that smokers are costing society money -- to support coverage for the expensive diseases that smoking causes. In fact smokers cover their own medical costs and then some both through the 55 cents a pack they pay in taxes and, well, because many die before they collect what they have paid into Social Security and Medicare.

Nonsmokers have the right to smoke-free places. But smokers also have the right not to be chased out of offices and restaurants. Do not bow to public pressure to regulate smoking more than it already is. You have other, far more important issues to concentrate on. Persuading 50 million Americans to give up a bad habit is not worth your time -- and, besides, like Prohibition, it won't work. Social pressure, not government regulation, has caused smoking's decline for many segments of the population. A non-smoker's refusal to sit at one's table is much more persuasive than anti-smoking ads plastered on subway cars. The best thing you can do to discourage smoking is to let society, rather than the government, create an atmosphere in which smoking becomes less and less desirable.