www.SmokingFeelsGood.com Pleasure up!

<a href="http://www.smokingfeelsgood.com/node/57">This article can be discussed in the forums (click here.)</a>

<strong>What's this all about?</strong>

Congress is currently working on a bill to put cigarettes into the jurisdiction of the FDA. One of the most troubling aspects of the bill is a provision that bans flavored cigarettes.

Although health advocates are in favor of banning all flavored cigarettes, it doesn't appear to have much support among the American people. On news sites that allow readers to comment, posts are overwhelmingly opposed to this measure and in many instances, to FDA regulation of cigarettes in general. (Go to Google news, use the search term FDA cigarette, and take a sampling of news articles that allow for comments.)

The argument for banning flavored cigarettes goes something like this:

1. No one should smoke because it can be harmful to one's health.
2. Availability of flavored cigarettes increase the chance of underage smoking and underage smoking must be reduced.
3. The availability of flavored cigarettes reduces the desire of current smokers to quite.

Therefore, flavored cigarettes should be banned from sale.

There are significant flaws to this argument as all of the premises above are problematic.

1. No one should smoke because it can be harmful to one's health.

Consider the following statements,
No one should ride a motorcycle because it can be harmful to one's health.
No one should drink beer because it can be harmful to one's health.

Many statements like this can be written, but, in a free society, we view these activities as a choice that people must have the right to choose or not to choose. That the rights of the individual, when not impeding on the rights of others, trumps the interest of the state. It may be more dangerous for a person to drive a motorcycle than a car, but it is the choice of the individual. Smoking fits into this category.

2. Availability of flavored cigarettes increase the chance of underage smoking and underage smoking must be reduced.

The first part of the statement may or may not be true. Consider, during the 50's and 60's for example, more underage smoking occurred than today without flavored cigarettes being readily available. Are the tastes in the 50's and 60's so much different than today?

Wouldn't enforcement of current laws be a much more successful way of significantly reducing underage smoking? Consider how much excise taxes are collected on each pack of cigarettes. If 5 cents of each pack was given to local law enforcement to combat underage smoking, the problem would be significantly reduced, much more than banning a particular flavor. Please see our Tobacco Public Policy Statement on a more comprehensive Tobacco Control Program.

3. The availability of flavored cigarettes reduces the desire of current smokers to quit.

This appears to be a true statement insofar as the more pleasurable a product is, the more desirable it becomes. As a consumer, I appreciate choice. I am informed about the dangers of smoking and it is my decision to continue to smoke or to quit. As long as the added flavorings do not increase the risks of smoking, the consumer must be able to choose which product he or she wishes to purchase. The tobacco companies should also have the freedom to make the products people want to consume provided that the current risks associated with smoking are not increased.

<strong>Menthol Exemption</strong>

Currently the Bill is exempting menthol flavored cigarettes and a huge debate over this exemption has ensued. The Congressional Black Caucus is arguing that the menthol exemption is raciest against blacks since 75% of African Americans choose menthol brands and that menthol should be included in the ban. It is a logical argument insofar as, if you are going to ban flavored cigarettes, why leave any out? But indicating that it is raciest, may not be so logical once you take a look at the numbers.

In many online articles, you'll find statements similar to:

"Unfortunately, an overwhelming number of menthol cigarette smokers are African-Americans -- 75 percent. One-quarter of white smokers use menthol cigarettes. Health officials have repeatedly stated that menthol is the entry to cigarette smoking for untold numbers of people, especially blacks." From: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/OPINION11/805150314/1004/OPINION

It is true that 75% of African American smokers choose menthol cigarettes and only about 25% of whites choose menthol cigarettes, but when you look at absolute numbers, more white people than African Americans smoke menthol cigarettes. The opening line of the above statement is completely false, the overwhelming number of menthol cigarette smokers are white.

US Population:
White: 237,854,954 (From US Census)
21.9% smoke = 52,090,234 smokers (From American Cancer Society)
25% menthol smokers = 13,022,581
Black: 37,909,341
23% smoke = 8,719,148 smokers
75% menthol smokers = 6,539,361

<strong>Conclusion</strong>

The act of banning flavored cigarettes without any evidence that the flavoring adds to the health risks of smoking is fundamentally immoral considering the principles this country was founded on. No, there isn't a constitutional right to allow the sale and manufacture of flavored cigarettes, but intuitively, we all know that banning them is like taking a pair of scissors and cutting a section out of the of Bill of Rights. In a free society, consumers must have informed choice and banning any cigarette flavorings denies that choice. Children should and can be protected simply by enforcing current laws. How much freedom are we willing to give up for temporary safety?

Health advocates believe they would be doing good by banning all flavored cigarettes. In fact, almost all health advocates would believe they are doing good if they could completely ban the use of all tobacco products. It is the health advocate's station in life to advocate health and it is not their job to protect individual freedom of choice, but to discourage anything that may be harmful to one's health. I do not denounce health advocates for informing the public of potential health risks associated with certain behaviors, but rather praise their efforts. On the other hand, I do condemn those health advocates who believe they know what's best for the people and turn towards legislative means to remove personal choice.

Contact your legislators and tell them to vote no on FDA regulation that includes banning of flavored cigarettes.