Recent Smoking Legislation is Wrong
64Obama recently signed a bill aimed at preventing smoking in youth. The bill aims to accomplish this in three ways: regulating (especially misleading) advertising of tobacco, banning flavored cigarettes and making warning labels more prominent.
I'm all for stopping misleading advertising. Personally, I don't
remember seeing ANY advertising for tobacco, ever, in my life, because it has been regulated and frowned upon for a very long time. Warning labels too, I'm fine with that; everyone should be educated about the risks of tobacco. However, disallowing
certain types of tobacco is still a case of the government taking away an individual's right to do what he chooses, providing he doesn't hurt anyone else with his choice. I don't endorse smoking in anyway, in fact, I think it's a stupid habit. However, I think it is more important to respect an individual's constitutional right to liberty over his own body then to force him to make a decision that I (or a majority) think is right, no matter how strongly I believe in the rightness of the decision.
Regardless of how this bill effects our liberties, I think it will be ineffective. I highly doubt that flavored cigarettes influence an underage person's decision to start smoking. When someone underage smokes, it's either because they think it will make them cool and help them fit in, or it's because they enjoy the nicotine buzz that smoking gives, or because it helps them relax and deal with stress. I don't think that any teenager (almost all of whom know the risks of cigarettes thanks to DARE and other school drug education programs) is going to choose to start smoking because a cigarette tastes like a strawberry.
Also, have you ever seen a strawberry or chocolate flavored cigarette,
or even any flavored cigarette besides a menthol (which isn't covered
by the bill btw)? With the exception of cloves, I haven't. Flavored cigarettes are not popular things and are not
readily available. It's hard enough for a teenager to get a
pack of regular cigarettes from a 7-11 (though I know alot of them do). It
would be much harder for them to get, or even know about, specialty
cigarettes they have to buy from a tobacco store. Another important factor is why these cigarettes are rare. Fruit flavored tobacco tastes awful. I've never had a fruit flavored cigarette, seeing as I've
never seen one, but I have tried fruity cigars, and they are quite
possibly one of the nastiest things on the planet. If anything, a
fruity cigarette could convince kids to never try another cig. All the
law does is treat the few people that like them unfairly.
Another thing the law bans is kretek cigarettes, which are made from a blend of cloves and tobacco. Admittedly, kreteks do not taste awful. However, compared to regular cigs,
kreteks are rare and are significantly more expensive than
regular cigarettes, making them less available to minors. Furthermore,
most people don't like them. Teenagers include most people.However, there are still many adults that do enjoy the occasional kretek cigarette and will soon lose their right to do so.
This law is basically saying "to hell with your right of choice" to the small percent of people that smoke Kreteks and flavored cigarettes to provide the illusion that our government is saving our youth.
I do not
think that it is a good idea for anyone to start smoking, BUT, I think "protecting" people is less important than giving them the right to choose what they do to
their own bodies. It is not the government's place to tell someone how
to run their life. Education, not legislation, should be used to solve our country's smoking problem.
- Justin Thurston
CommentsLoading...
As long as I have to breathe the same air that a smoker pollutes with their cigs then I am all for any bill that will help stop someone from smoking or stop someone from starting! If someone wants to kill themselves it is a shame, if someone kills me it is murder! Smoking Kills and not just those who smoke!
I agree with you. However, in someone's own home, smoking effects only them. There is already a smoking ban in public places. This law will not limit second hand-smoke, but will limit people's freedom to choose what type of cigarettes they smoke in private.
Justin - I agree. The government is clearly over the line on this one. But that's how they get other similar bills passed. They try out the concept on something that most people will accept and then voila! - bans are all over the place because the precedent is set. It's a sh*tty tactic and they use it all the time. Ever since the idea of the income tax in 1912, which was only "for the rich"!
Madame X is so correct its scary! I started smoking when I was 15, 30 years later I still smoke and had a heart attack at the age of 41. I knew the dangers of smoking then and I still know the dangers but I have not quit! I live 20 miles from the most liberal city in Texas, when I say liberal I mean LIBERAL! The liberal city council voted to ban cigarettes in bars, this city bills itself as "The live Music Capital of the world" so when I say there are a lot of bars I mean it, for some reason the bars are not as full as they once were and the city can't figure out why!
My point is that once the government declares something bad they just can't seem to stop declaring things bad, sometimes to its own detriment! Good Hub!
![In Answer to Opinion Duck about TARP and the Stimulus, the Debt, and the Deficit (updated 3-5-2011) [47]](http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4727165_50.jpg "In Answer to Opinion Duck about TARP and the Stimulus, the Debt, and the Deficit (updated 3-5-2011) [47]")
W. A. Grasmeder 2 years ago
I agree with you, fully! That said, perhaps flavors are more popular in other parts of the country that I can't identify with. Perhaps the flavors do entice children in, say, Montana or New Mexico, or Hawaii, or something. Perhaps that should be the state's job? Obama is all about letting the state deal with Marijuana, but not Tobacco?