Government tobacco policies: the butt of a bad joke

By Mac McKerral
08/27/08
18 comments

For the purpose of transparency, I want to stipulate that I do not smoke cigarettes and never have.

But I think Americans who use tobacco products—and many who don’t—have similar and increasing levels of frustration when it comes to the U.S. government and its policies on tobacco products, especially cigarettes.

Cigarette smoking kills people. No one successfully argues against that point—not even the tobacco companies.

So, why does government allow companies to sell a product that kills people? Easy answer: Tax revenue for the federal government, all the states and even municipal government in the form of sales tax.

We have a product that kills people and that results in massive lawsuit awards against tobacco companies—lawsuits brought in many cases by government—and the product remains legal so that government can make money from it. Does this make any sense?

The Food & Drug Administration—an agency created to protect people from harm—wants to “regulate” tobacco products. I take that to mean the FDA wants to make sure the killing takes on a properly regulated form.

And now this nugget comes from the Federal Trade Commission.

Under a proposal from the FTC announced a few weeks back, tobacco companies could no longer imply “government approval” when they advertise cigarettes as “light” or “low-tar.”

The FTC wants to bar manufacturers from using a test known as the “FTC method” to support claims that a cigarette is low in tar or nicotine. The FTC no longer believes that its measurement accurately gauges risk (duh) and does not want the public to think some cigarettes are safe (huh?) .

So, after decades of lawsuits and the government impugning smoking, the FTC finally decided to change a policy that allows tobacco ads to cite tar and nicotine amounts “per FTC method”—a policy in place since 1966.

About time for the policy change, I’d say.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for an anti-smoking group proclaimed that if the agency changes the policy, the FTC could sue companies that mislead the public using the old FTC standard.

Great, more lawsuits brought by government.

Now about those taxes.

They have reached levels that now drive people to steal cigarettes rather than cash. And they have created a thriving black market.

This comes from the National Association of Convenience Stores: “The convenience store industry’s effective cash management practices have made robbery for cash a harder task. Robbers are now shifting to ‘bootlegable’ merchandise. These aren’t smokers, these are traffickers who are stealing cigarettes, and they are often part of a larger organized retail theft ring. Cigarette theft is not theft for personal consumption. Cigarettes are lucrative commodities with an extraordinarily high resale value.”

So, how about this policy change: Until the government bans the sale of all tobacco products in the United States, people can smoke them, chew them, dip them, sell them, advertise them and do whatever they want with them—and no one can sue tobacco companies or their agents for anything related to harmful effects or misleading practices.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Filed Under: smoking, government, FTC, FDA, anti-smoking

18 comments so far. Add a Comment

3 days ago WKUAnonymous commented:

well you could say that

5 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

you know why the government does not ban this. it’s every ones right. but you better hope they don’t all quit cause our government will take all the taxes off of them and hit the rest of us with them. they are not going to give up that much taxes. it’s all about money.

5 weeks ago mmckerral commented:

Yes, you are right. They don’t want to give up the cash cow. And I suspect you are correct in deducing that if that tax revenue goes away, government will find new tax revenue to replace it. Thanks for chipping in. Mac McKerral

8 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

It’s everyones Right to use any tobacco product they want without having someone step in and tell them they can’t. You are just wanting to take away another freedom that we have. You all are nothing but communist. why don’t you grow up, people die everyday you can’t stop death. I don’t smoke but everyone has the right to that freedom.

8 weeks ago mmckerral commented:

Thanks for the post. I am all for freedom. But again, I am not advocating a smoking ban. I do think that the government ought to get out of the business of suing tobacco companies and allowing suits against them at the same time it reaps huge financial benefits from taxing the products they produce. That’s a shell game. It’s a legal product. Tax away, smoke away but no lawsuits — unless you are willing to make it an illegal product. As for “communism” or “socialism,” please read Monday’s blog about the government running the U.S. banking, investment and loan businesses. Mac McKerral

9 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

How surprising. I find this odd indeed. Let the people decide what to do for themselves, if in fact we really are a democracy.

9 weeks ago mmckerral commented:

I am unclear as to what you mean by your post. Can you elaborate? Thanks- Mac McKerral

10 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

OK, I’ll follow the trend and state that I am not a smoker and I don’t have a vested interest that smoking continue to be legal. But I can not agree with you that smoking should be out right banned. I’ll make two arguments.

First, let’s make a distinction between the effects of second hand smoke on others and the effects of tobacco in all forms on the individual using it. The government should not be making laws to protect us from ourselves. Users of tobacco have been given plenty of warning about the harmful effects of their habit and if they are not able to or don’t want to break the habit, then it is something they will have to live with and suffer the consequences of. What possible reason could there be for my tax dollars going toward enforcing a law that protects people from themselves? So, when we talk about outlawing tobacco use, let’s take the non-second-hand-smoke producing forms out of the discussion.

Secondly, for cigarettes, I believe the largest use for tobacco, yes it produces harmful second-hand smoke. Yes people are dieing because of it. And the cost of that is being put back on the tobacco companies and more so tobacco users in the form of higher prices. It’s basic economics that as prices rise demand will, eventually, decrease. Smoking will put itself out, if you’ll pardon the pun. To make an analogy to another industry, there are a huge number of fatalities from being driving cars. We don’t outlaw cars, but we have made them more expensive. The added safety features, road improvements, and regulation costs are passed on to the consumer who ultimately decides if the added benefit is worth the cost.

In my opinion, the outlawing of tobacco is one of the most blatant instances of government trying to force people into a decision when they should instead be making sure that costs are assigned to the proper party and let the market decide when the costs are too high.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Nate Baxley

10 weeks ago mmckerral commented:

I am enjoying the discussion, too. However, several threads in this discussion have implied that I support a government ban on tobacco products. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My position is that unless government is willing to do that, they should not be party to or allow lawsuits that punish the smoking industry. I agree that if adults don’t know the killer by now, they operate at their peril. Children are a different matter.
Mac McKerral

11 weeks ago wku_alexfortson commented:

I understand there is a legal mess as a result of the legality of tobacco products as well as a lot of misleading signals form the government, FTC, and the tobacco companies themselves, but I do not think the products should be made illegal. This may only be my views on legalities in general, I am typically for more freedoms, even the freedom to harm yourself by smoking. I used to be much more upset with the whole situation until recently when tobacco products were not allowed to be marketed on television and were cut from many magazines with a youthful readership. They are a harmful group of products but making them illegal will only create a 1920’s prohibition type of calamity. Also, lets not forget that smoking has come a long way, partly for the marketing restrictions I mentioned above but also because of new public laws on smoking. For instance, in the states where I have spent the majority of my life: Florida and California, smoking inside public places is illegal. When you go into a restaurant there is no smaoking or non question. There is only non smoking sections. Now Kentucky failed to pass this law when it went through its state legislation, but kentucky has a lot of social progress to make in many areas. Maybe these are the types of things to raise an eyebrow to?

11 weeks ago wkusainlar commented:

Feeling stressed out why not have a cigarette? Had a few drinks, why not engulf your body with a few poisonous toxins? That’s what millions of people think everyday. In the U.S., smoking kills more people than cocaine, heroine, alcohol, fire, automobile accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS combined, stated by costkids.org.
There is a misunderstanding that people who dip or chew our free of lung cancer because they don’t smoke. In the case that might be true but they have a higher risk of lip and gum disease. All tobacco products contain some sort of chemical in there that can kill you. Now I agree that tobacco should be banned or put at a ridiculous price to help people quit the habit, it still causes a problem. Tobacco farmers, factory workers, and distributers for these companies would lose jobs and lower our economy. However the only way to truly stop someone from beginning this habit is by education. The same education that is used with drugs and alcohol. They can all kill you and cause a detriment to your health. Tobacco companies face million dollar law suits every year, but still have an ultimate profit from the people they get hooked and kill every year. But you can’t blame the government and the tobacco companies for killing you. They don’t make you light that cigarette.

11 weeks ago wku_schauermatt commented:

Certain professions seem to breed addictions. When working in a restaurant, as a server, the only way to relax during a shift is to take a cigarette break. It also amazes me that many people in health services get a fix through cigarettes. What I don’t understand is how the users of a legal, but potentially deadly product, continue to support the company that is killing you. When the hospital bills begin to stack up, the lawsuits multiply.
I am all for a policy change, that won’t allow someone to sue tobacco companies for their personal decisions. It doesn’t seem possible to completely ban the use of tobacco products, but more regulations and increased advertising on the negative effects of cigarettes is definitely in order. If a Surgeon General warning doesn’t get the point across, maybe a picture of a black lung will. To “regulate” tobacco products, hopefully means to keep them out of the hands of someone that may not understand the harmful effects – kids. Anyone else that chooses to continue smoking, chewing or selling tobacco should be on their own.

11 weeks ago wkubrendan.sullivan commented:

Everyday people struggle to do nothing but live for the moment and at that one moment in time they crave a cigarette. I think it is a positive movement by the government who is gradually banding smoking in public places, hopefully saving the healthy people from second hand smoke. Making smoking illegal is a great long-term decision but in the near future if that were to happen I feel it would cause an avalanche of chaos. In the future if this were to come in affect, the people who are driven to smoke will smoke regardless if it is illegal or not. The money the government is making from cigarettes taxes would disappear but also would the countless amount of deaths, health care, and lawsuits caused from smoking. This could possibly save the government lots of money in the long run. This might cut back on the amount of money they put into health care and treatments. The government isn’t going to stop selling them because there making lots of money they don’t even have to work for. The tobacco companies aren’t going to speak up and stop their sales because that would put them out of business. Everyone is willing to sacrifice the lives of people to make money, hard to believe. We need to get our priorities straight.

11 weeks ago wkusararomag commented:

The US government ban things and make things illegal for the simple reason that it’s bad for you or it can kill you. Why should cigarettes be any different? Not only is smoking a nasty habit but it is also terrible for you, obviously. Smoking can cause death and disease, however because our country makes so much money on the sale of cigarettes are government won’t do anything about it. People are suing the major tobacco companies left and right and winning. Doesn’t that seem ironic? Why do people insist on suing the tobacco companies for something they are making the choice to do, the facts are out there so it’s not like people think it’s good for you. It just doesn’t make sense that you are inflicting all of the side effects that come with smoking on yourself and then when you get sick or someone in your family dies of a cigarette smoking related illness, you want to sue the tobacco company for wrongful death or whatever…Are you for real? You did that to yourself and the warnings were there all along. Why would our government not put more regulations on the use of, or the purchase of something that has such terrible side effects, one of which could include death?

11 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

First off, I would like to point out that I do not smoke cigarettes and neither does anyone in my immediate family. But, as a member of a family who raises tobacco, I will openly admit that the sell of these products is beneficial to my well being. Although my family raises the main ingredient for cigarettes, I have never tried them and never intend to. I honestly think they are a disgusting habit. I know, hypocritical of me right? If you are going to question the fact that the government allows the sale of cigarettes, you must also ask why the sale of alcohol is allowed. Alcohol kills people just as much as cigarettes do. But you don’t see everyone questioning that.
I know from a personal standpoint that the raised taxes on tobacco have cut down a small percentage on tobacco use. Fewer and fewer farmers are able to raise tobacco crops because the sale price per pound is so low. Smokers know the risks they take every time they light up. The Surgeon Generals warning is on every package sold. If they want to ingest all the nicotine and tar, who are we to stop them? Suing a company for something you know about is ridiculous, but the companies have huge public relations practitioners to deal with it.

11 weeks ago wkualyssaorr commented:

Cigarettes have never made much sense to me. I have never tried them and I have never wanted to. It tends to baffle me just how many of my own friends smoke and how many young people smoke in general. Frankly, not only are cigarettes disgusting, but I also don’t understand what the point of them is. All they do is insert tobacco and nicotine into your system so that you become addicted and it eventually kills you.
And why does it always seem like the most unlikely people to smoke are the ones who do it the most? My roommate, for example, is a nursing major and she smokes all the time.
First of all, I do think that people should just know better than to smoke. But if we can’t help ourselves then that is where the government should come in and help us. If it were up to me I say they should just stop making cigarettes altogether. Forget about raising the price and taxes on them. That is just creating more problems. Obviously both tobacco companies and the government would never do that because they are both making too much money. It is unfortunate that they care more about making money than saving lives. The whole thing just seems so bazaar.

11 weeks ago wku_lmg commented:

Let me also begin by stating that I don’t smoke, and yet I find myself disagreeing with you on some points. Government policies, specifically sales tax, on tobacco products are no doubt a source of frustration for many tobacco users. However, since I don’t fall into this category I am not bothered by the amount of tax revenue the government takes in from the sales of these products. The money has to come from somewhere, and if it didn’t come from sales tax on tobacco, it would have to come from somewhere else. It is a fact that cigarette smoking kills people, and those who choose to do so know very well the risks. For this reason, I agree that no one should be able to sue the tobacco companies for anything related to the harmful effects of using their products. It was after all, their choice. Although I am anti-smoking, I don’t think the government should ban the use of tobacco products in the United States. This has the potential to create more problems that it would solve. For many it is a lifestyle (one that won’t end even if it is illegal), but for others tobacco is a means to a way of life. Tobacco farmers would certainly take a huge hit, and would most likely suffer the most from such a ban.

11 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

I completely agree that cigarettes kill, but I think there are a lot more reasons we should take into consideration before a ban or a regulation increase is to happen, one being the tobacco farmers. I grew up in a very rural family, and aside from dairy cattle, our primary crop was tobacco. The (few) farmers that still grow tobacco as one of their only incomes never seem to come into the limelight on the subject of tobacco regulation. Granted, the majority of tobacco now is mass produced, but if the Government bans tobacco, or even attempt to regulate it more harshly, what will happen to the farmers that are currently growing it? Most likely they will be given compensation for their crops, but the odds of that compensation being anything substantial is slim. For most, it may be the only trade they know. Most of those that still grow tobacco privately are already elderly, so if a ban/harsh regulation were to happen, they don’t have many years in front of them to learn a new trade, and would either face extreme poverty (if they weren’t already poor from tobacco farming being a dying market) or must declare bankruptcy. The government doesn’t look after the blue-collar worker as much as it should, and I think that a ban or severe regulation on tobacco would just add the welfare line.