Let There be Light

There are always people who tell you what to do, aint it? During childhood we were constantly reminded about the bad effects of eating chocolates, but did we give up on this exotic pleasure? You would have exerted restrain but you would also love to be able to exercise your right. Every single day in our lives is about choices.  We expect to be treated as adults, in the sense that we ought to be given platform to exercise our very own choices. This is what defines the new generation. Now think about this, smokers are adults, and they deserve to have their informed choices respected by others.

It is no brainer that smoking is bad for health. It is because of this very reason that tobacco companies have been mandated to follow variegated consortium of stringent restriction - abnormally high taxes, pictorial representation on packets, warning messages in movies, minimum smoking age, ban on cigarette advertisements, blanket ban on public smoking.  

In the movie, Thank You for Smoking, the protagonist emphasizes consumer choice and responsibility and, to the dismay of a Senator, who has launched a vicious campaign against smoking claims that perhaps his state of Vermont, as a major cheese producer, is likewise guilty of cholestrol -related deaths, the top cause of deaths in America. So would he be willing to ban cheese production? Obviously not. Also he points out that unlike cigarettes, major death causing products do not give warning labels and they are given complete leeway.

The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon. It is one of those issues where a group of loud-mouthed individuals allow no space for debate whatsoever and are fixated on achieving their preposterous goals. A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. Usually, people who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an example of the government interfering in people's lives. These persons aren’t defending the tobacco industry, they defend smokers for several reasons:

·         Smokers already pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any cost they impose on the rest of society.

·         Smoking bans hurt small businesses, tobacco farmers and violate private property rights.

·         Punishing smokers “for their own good” is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force. The society is moving towards objectivist movement. This is apparent in the debates on pre-marital sex, euthanasia, opposing ban on pornography and so on.

Moreover, Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path:shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoyment. For example, smokeless tobacco products or electronic cigars For many years, Swedes have used “snus”, a kind of spitless tobacco,and guess which coutry has the lowest rate of lung cancer in Europe.

Now what does this mean for public policy: Electronic cigarettes are reducing smoking rates and hence should not be discouraged by over-regulations

Saying we need high taxes on cigarettes to discourage teenagers from smoking is hysterical, since most teenage smokers don’t buy their cigarettes, and get them instead from parents and adult friends. It is unfair to impose dramatically higher taxes on the adults who buy 95 percent or more of all cigarettes sold in order to make cigarettes less attractive to the few teenagers who actually pay for their cigarettes.

According to Micael DeBow, a professor of law at Cumberland School of Law, litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse. Tobacco companies put great effort in exposing the harmful effects of smoking. Even after that, people keep on suing these companies for their choice. No tobacco company points a gun at someone and forces smoking. Consumers ought to bear responsibility for their own actions rather than blame corporations. This might resonate to people who have watched South Park and Boston Legal. South Park is famous for prodying issues, most of the time taking a stand that resonates with people who have not been able to give out their “radical” opinion due the inability of the other side to listen. It featured an episode – Butt Out. Reiner classic This Is Spinal Tap was an inspiration for the creators.Rob Reiner, the Hollywood actor is shown constantly eating, pointing out that although fast food is as dangerous as smoking, it is overlooked. "You just hate smoking, so you use all your money and power to force others to think like you. And that's called fascism, you tubby(in reference to the iconic  Yul Brynner youtube video) . Cartman, a spoilt brat says that that Rob goes on imposing his will on everyone, so he is my hero.

Let us think about this in terms of economics. Now, If enough people want to go to non-smoking bars, there is an inherent market opportunity and companies will follow suit. But there are no non-smoking bars, this suggests that very few, a negligible percent want a ban on smoking in places such as bar. A ban on smoking will drive many pubs, bars out of business; which are important socializing places. They also provide jobs for people bereft of skills. Also, there is this case of outright banning of smoking in all places of work. I say, workers and management should be given the prerogative in this issue. After all some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. Instead of shoveling a rule of complete ban of smoking in their throats, the issue should be left to management to tackle. For instance, setting up of restricted smoking zones during break, installing ventilation fans.  

Also, think about this. Tobacco companies would not want young kids to die, they would be losing customers. Infact it is the anti-smoking organizations that ride on the death of youngsters, to increase their budgets. Tobacco companies spend billions of dollars on anti-smoking campaigns. Yes you heared it right. Tell me how many industries do this?

I would like to end by giving a sapid, straight forward argument -  If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior “for their own good,” we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors ? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day? So, if you feel that you want to take the weighted risk of putting that smooth blended cigar between your lips and savour the puff as you relax on your couch after a day of hectic work, go ahead do it, it is your call and should remain so. As the saying goes - Let there be light.

 PS: I am in no way affiliated to any tobacco or related industry at the time of posting this piece.Also, I aint a smoker. I choose to exercise my choices