• Option A
  
• Option B
  
• Option C
  

President Jonathan Nebeker, Republican:

Regulate, yes -- ban, no! I would prefer that you would simplify options. I often find that I agree with part of an option but disagree with the rest. A Chinese-menu approach would be better and still manageable statistically.

I found that these options A & B were interesting in that they define a completely different tobacco problem: public health and personal liberty. Option B is not a solution and is terribly problematic for enforcement. As an internist I am biased to protect personal and public health. I find the other diseases such as obesity, fatty diets, etc to pale in comparison with the damage that smoking causes. The three top causes of death: heart disease, cancer, and stroke all have smoking as a major determinant.

Option A also begs the question of how to regulate toxic but popular drugs. I feel that a ban is not the answer. Perhaps this may be the subject of another Executive Decision.

President Roger Rathke, Republican:

I smoked 3 packs a day for 35 years. Nicotine IS addictive, and it is delivered in an extremely harmful product. Arguments about other products that may be harmful are irrelevant. Ban it.

President William F. Almand Jr., Democrat:

I began smoking in my teens and stopped several times, once for ten years. The last time I stopped was in January, 1992. I will never start again because it is too difficult to stop. Yet I feel the urge to smoke every day. I know I am addicted to nicotine. It is a powerful drug. The tobacco companies have done a masterful job of developing and holding an addictive market. My struggle with this addiction is a daily one. I will win it, because I remember the pain of my close cousin who just lost a major postion of his right lung and four ribs -- from lung cancer. Fortunately, I do not have that problem -- yet!

President Norm Nelson, Democrat:

Easy as pie. This is a public health decision of the highest import. Choice of B or C would be just like banning vaccinations against disease for children, and would cost probably as many lives. Would you encourage the growth of malaria-causing mosquitos just because the richest corporations in the world told you to?

President David Mayer, Independent:

I think that the FDA should regulate but not ban tobacco since the government has subsidized tobacco growers for so long . It's not fair for the government to participate in getting people addicted to tobacco, then turn around and ban it.

President Laura Sell, Independent:

I am in favor of regulating nicotine as a drug, but not in favor of banning it. As many anti-smoking adovcates say, cigarettes are the only legal product which causes death if used according to package labels. Obviously such a dangerous product should be controlled, but banning it might be counter-productive and could encourage black marketeers.

President T. R. Levin, Democrat:

You neglected to mention another important option: Tax the hell out of it and use the increased revenue to fund research and/or medical care. You could earmark it for anti-smoking education/research or research/clinical care for people with "smoking-related conditions" like heart or lung disease or cancer. Or just use it as a blank check to add the NIH research budget.

President Michael J. Cykana, Independent:

The decision is not hard at all. With over 400,000 Americans dying of complications due to tobacco use, more than all illegal drugs combined, we have to send a message to "Corporate America" that GREED is not an acceptable reason to mistreat our children and citizens.

In addition to regulation the tobacco companies should be required to provide smoking-cessation and medical treatment for every smoker and nonsmoker harmed by their product. Serious consideration should also be given to revoking charters of incorporation of the tobacco companies for reckless, dangerous, and dishonest behaviour.

Michael J. Skarpelos, Independent:

As a virulent anti-smoking advocate, I feel tempted to choose option A. In politics, however, you have to make the best deal you can. Without serious campaign finance reform, I don't think option A has a chance of passing, so I opt for choosing option B. Hopefully, this will at least save the next generation if not our own.

President Evan C. Allen, Democrat:

This is a very difficult decision because the scourge of tobacco is something I see every day in my job as a family physician. I feel that people do have rights to do things that have negative health consequences, however, and that the key to stopping this addiction in our society is rationally explaining to children why smoking is bad for them, then making it nigh unto impossible for them to get addicted. The primary problem is that the lower-middle class and lower classes are heavily overrepresented in smoking profiles. This means that the *real* key to stopping smoking is getting people more generally educated and bringing up people's socioeconomic levels so that smoking will cease to be part of the "risk-taking" culture that marginalized lives seem to be more apt to enter.

President Cliff Bergman, Democrat:

Smoking has been with us too long for a simple ban to have any lasting effect. I don't find the arguments in Option A, that a smoking ban is more likely to succeed than was Prohibition, to be persuasive. Ultimately, if a law does not have the support of an overwhelming majority of the population, it is destined to cause more harm than good to society. Society must, above all else, respect the law of the land, and a smoking ban would diminish, rather than enhance, that respect.

However, I do think that momentum toward social stigmatization is increasing, and we should take advantage of that. The abolition of vending machines would (although I have no statistics to back this up) make a significant dent in the ability of under-age people to acquire cigarettes. We should go further and use the considerable power of the presidency to discourage smoking through ads, information, and continuing to uphold the right of nonsmokers to breathe clean air. So I would grab Option B (better than anything I think the industry would actually offer).

President Wendall Sullivan, Independent:

It would be nice simply to ban tobacco products altogether. Unfortunately, too many people in the South depend on the product for their livelihood, and the business of tobacco has too much money and influence in Congress for an outright ban to pass any time in the near or medium term future. Even the lessening importance of US sales wouldn't help; if the US was allowed to regulate nicotine, other governments might act accordingly. In addition, Republicans and other conservatives in Congress look longingly for the day when they can ban the FDA altogether; public health and safety seem to be of only passing importance to them. Thus, the Philip Morris plan seems to be the most realistic option. With luck, maybe this will provide a foundation that will allow us to creep toward the full regulation of nicotine.

President Mitchell Nussbaum, Democrat:

A complete ban would create hardship for smokers, who have become addicted--with Government approval--to a completely legal substance. Smokers would tend to see a ban as an illegitimate, top-down imposition by busybody elites, and many of them would buy cigarettes on a black market that would take an increased share of smokers' money and put nothing back into taxes. So I think Option A is incorrect in its arguments.

Option B is more likely to be perceived as legitimate, since adult smokers generally regret their addiction, and don't want to see their kids fall into the same trap. There is a general consensus (not shared by 16-year-olds, perhaps) that government can regulate kids' behavior more closely, to reinforce parental authority and protect kids from the consequences of their own immaturity.

President Karen Chapman, Unregistered:

The decision to curb youth smoking was a hard one for me because I am seventeen and I used to smoke, and I have many friends who do smoke. The government must realize that we are going to smoke no matter what the law states, because there is always a way to get around it. Culture is changing and with its emphasis on health and exercise, smoking will soon be eliminated. But my age group is a gap in this frame of mind. Smoking is a way to be different from our health-inspired elders. If the government decides to more strictly regulate smoking, there is a slim chance my generation might come to realize the dangers of excessive nicotine.

President Andrew Kohnhorst:

Since I don't have the benefit of the money paid out to candidates by the tobacco industry, my response is not entirely realistic. An outright ban makes no sense because it will simply increase the black market value of cigarettes (heroin, crack, and cocaine are similar drugs which are banned). Smoking is a personal decision and should be left to the individual. However, society does not have to subsidize growing tobacco and people who choose to smoke should pay the higher health insurance costs that come from smoking.

As someone who watched the US Trade Representative bludgeoning the Thai government into allowing American cigarettes to be sold legally in Thailand, I have very little sympathy for tobacco companies or their advertising tactics. One can always keep the FDA ban as the ultimate weapon to insure tobacco industry compliance.

President Harry Barron, Independent:

People should be able to make their own decisions regarding how they will use (or abuse) their own bodies, provided that: (1) they take responsibility for the results of their actions (financial, medical, etc.), and (2) they do not force others to endure the unpleasant side effects of those actions (in this case second-hand smoke). It is important, however, that young people be protected from the pressures of advertising and easy availability until they reach an age when they can make enlightened decisions for themselves concerning smoking, hopefully after they have passed the age when peer pressure encourages smoking. For this reason I think that all indoor public areas (stores, malls, restaurants, bars, theaters, etc.), and those outdoor public areas where people come together in large numbers (sports stadiums, outdoor concerts, etc.), as well as all modes of public transportation should be, by law, smoke free.

I think the sale of tobacco products should be regulated in the same manner as for the sale of alcoholic beverages, with the force of law to enforce it.

President Bob Warwick, Independent:

Whether to smoke or not is -- and should be -- a personal decision. Repeat, IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. The nannies who would stop you from smoking "for your own good" today will, for the same reason, try to stop me from eating fatty foods or driving faster or doing anything else that doesn't meet their approval tomorrow. But the very essence of freedom is the right not to do what somebody else believes is good for you.

Neither is it a proper function of government to require business owners to restrict smoking on their premises. If a restauranteur, for example, prefers to cater to smoking clientelle at the risk of losing nonsmokers, he has -- and should have -- the right to do so, just as the customer who does not wish to have his dinner in a haze of cigarette smoke is free to patronize establishments that prefer his business to the smoker's.

President Arthur K. Bernstein, Democrat:

This is an unimportant issue for this election, but a simple one to decide. How can we have a good society with a government that not only allows but financially supports the production and distribution of a drug that kills people -- both the users and the innocent bystanders?

President Janice Young, Republican:

I believe I have the right to smoke as much as I have the right not to. I can smoke three packs or one, ten cigarettes or one per day, month, year or what have you according to my own discretion. Smoking is legal in this country, and I prefer legal vices I can buy and administer myself, rather than this nation's alternative--masses relying on some pharmaceutical agent to legitimize their lives with pseudo-psychoses and prescriptions for Prozac. If you don't like smoking, don't smoke. It's that simple. Do not try to deny another's rights and then cloak it in self-righteous lingo to absolve yourself of the guilt of your own fascist tendencies. If smoking kills me, so be it. I made my own bed. Go DOLE! The man with the sense to treat voters like responsible citizens. I'm rooting for you!

President John Brooks, Other:

Government erodes our freedoms at a great rate. As President I wish to recognize each individual's right to make up his own mind about any issue.

I will require the FDA to continue to publish information about smoking and require the tobacco companies to publicize their research with the approval of the FDA. The public needs to have information available in order to reach conclusions as to whether to smoke or not to smoke. This information would come from the FDA and be promulgated in advertisements, news releases and bulletins.

I will require tobacco companies to make public their studies about the effects of smoking, the content of their products and to eliminate all secrecy about their manufacturing processes and to publicly recognize that nicotine is addictive.

In the end an informed citizen can and should make up his own mind about the conduct of his life.

President F. Mateus, Other:

Until the U.S. government starts to pass stricter laws on alcohol, fast food, and other so-called hazardous activities, I feel smokers should NOT be singled out. If this country had the same government in 1800s as it has today, the western states would never have been settled, due to the fact that so many people died trying to get there.

President Anne M. Knab, Independent:

I do not smoke nor have I ever smoked. I glare at smokers in public places (not yet smoke-free) whose fetid stench I must breathe. However, I believe it is every Americans' God-given right to kill themselves in whatever manner they choose. For almost thirty years it has been no secret that cigarettes are addictive and deadly. The government should not be placed in the position of parent by regulating substances that are bad for you (included in this list are other narcotics and the v- chip -- but that's another story). It's part of the infantilization of society which creates a weak, ill-informed populace. Read 1984.

President Dean Eckman, Republican:

The government is simply involved in too many issues. I don't smoke, and I try to avoid smoky venues, but those are my choices. I prefer having a choice (as I am certain the millions of smokers also do). Let's save the government from this one, and allow them to spend their valuable time and attention on much more important issues.

President Joseph L. Taylor, Democrat:

Smoking is a personal decision. Period. Yes, there are health costs associated with it, as there are with other activities, such as overeating. Are we going to regulate fast food next? Loud rock music causes hearing loss. Shall we prohibit the use of Sony Walkmen? This is a non-issue that can be used to divert our attention from the real issues.

President Marcus Milam, Democrat:

In our society today, smokers are treated less and less like human beings and more and more as though they have some dreaded disease. Lest anyone think I am in favor of smoking, I am not. However, as a country we have always been founded upon the belief that one's individual freedom to choose what to do with their lives is fundamental. While the problem of smokers who are underage is indeed a serious one and should be corrected immediately, we cannot curb the civil rights of all smokers. We must make them aware of the dangers that smoking causes to their health, but we must stop at that. History teaches us that going from peaceful coercion to mandating temperance in smoking does not work. It did not work in the 19th century when reformers tried to do it with alcohol and if we attempt to use that same formula now, we shall find that it will fail us again, this time with smoking. The solution is to create an environment where smokers will be conscious of the needs and desires of those around them, while at the same time staying away from making smokers feel as if the entire country is out to "get" them. I believe President Clinton would have gone the other way on this issue, but the question of the civil rights of America's smoking population to me is, or at least should be, a prime concern.

Click here to return to the Executive Decision index page.