Up in Smoke.
President Obama has just signed a bill into law that will give the Federal Drug Administration power over tobacco. The new law will allow the agency to regulate and restrict cigarette advertising, sales and contents.
The law is probably a good thing, but I seriously doubt that it will accomplish much. It will probably lead the FDA to attempt restricting tar and nicotine in tobacco products. This will likely lead to battles, with the tobacco industry trying to lobby their friends in congress and ultimately dragging the FDA into court. In other words, the law - like most government measures - will prove to be far more expensive and far less effective than originally thought. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill. And ultimately little of substance will be accomplished.
Although the agency will now have the power, I doubt that the FDA will expend much effort in restricting substances added to cigarettes. Everything from ammonia to oak chips has been know to be added and some of the substances contain powerful carcinogens. And I would be surprised if the FDA will concern itself with contemporary curing techniques for tobacco. At least one study maintains that speeding up the process by heating the tobacco, which I understand is a widespread procedure in tobacco processing nowadays, creates some extremely deadly carcinogens. This replaces the old process whereby tobacco was allowed to simply dry in the barns.
A possible alternative to FDA regulation would be to outlaw tobacco altogether. This would probably cut down on smoking, but would also add another drug to the already long list of illegal drugs. Nicotine addicts - AKA smokers - would still be purchasing tobacco products, only now it would be from the local drug dealer instead of the local drug store.
It would, however, eliminate one strange phenomena: cash subsidies to tobacco farmers. There's an old axiom that states, "If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, then tax it." When it comes to tobacco, the US federal government does both.
I believe I have a better idea than either offering more power to another federal agency or putting people in jail for smoking cigarettes. The bill would basically outlaw the sale of tobacco, but would allow citizens to smoke anything they grow themselves. In other words, it would be a "you grow it, you smoke it" bill. You can smoke all the tobacco you want, as long as you grow it yourself. However, you can't sell the surplus crop. You can give it away, but you can't barter or accept money for it.
This would accomplish several things. (1) It would likely cut down on tobacco use. Getting a cigarette would no longer be as easy as walking down to the local convenience store. (2) It would put the tobacco industry out of business, thus eliminating their substantial lobbying power. And (3) It would eliminate the need for subsidies to tobacco farmers. After all, who is going to bother farming a crop they can't sell. The taxpayers would no longer be seeing their hard earned money go to subsidize lung cancer.
Nearly as important, the move would not give more power to the federal government, cost more taxpayer money, or create a whole new class of criminals in the form of tobacco users.
Perhaps more controversially, I would also extend this bill to cover marijuana. Just as with tobacco, the policy would be: you grow it, you smoke it. Procession would not be illegal. Smoking would not be illegal. But don't get caught by your local police trying to sell your product. To do so would be to face a hefty fine. Get caught enough times and you could do 90 days in your local jail: in other words, strong enough measures to discourage sales, but not self-defeating measures that would fill our prisons with long-term felons.
I recognize that the devil is often in the details and that there would be unforeseen consequences. But, I believe that a "grow your own, but no sales" tobacco/marijuana policy would ultimately do far more good, and save far more taxpayer money, than federal oversight, subsidization or outright prohibition.
The law is probably a good thing, but I seriously doubt that it will accomplish much. It will probably lead the FDA to attempt restricting tar and nicotine in tobacco products. This will likely lead to battles, with the tobacco industry trying to lobby their friends in congress and ultimately dragging the FDA into court. In other words, the law - like most government measures - will prove to be far more expensive and far less effective than originally thought. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill. And ultimately little of substance will be accomplished.
Although the agency will now have the power, I doubt that the FDA will expend much effort in restricting substances added to cigarettes. Everything from ammonia to oak chips has been know to be added and some of the substances contain powerful carcinogens. And I would be surprised if the FDA will concern itself with contemporary curing techniques for tobacco. At least one study maintains that speeding up the process by heating the tobacco, which I understand is a widespread procedure in tobacco processing nowadays, creates some extremely deadly carcinogens. This replaces the old process whereby tobacco was allowed to simply dry in the barns.
A possible alternative to FDA regulation would be to outlaw tobacco altogether. This would probably cut down on smoking, but would also add another drug to the already long list of illegal drugs. Nicotine addicts - AKA smokers - would still be purchasing tobacco products, only now it would be from the local drug dealer instead of the local drug store.
It would, however, eliminate one strange phenomena: cash subsidies to tobacco farmers. There's an old axiom that states, "If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, then tax it." When it comes to tobacco, the US federal government does both.
I believe I have a better idea than either offering more power to another federal agency or putting people in jail for smoking cigarettes. The bill would basically outlaw the sale of tobacco, but would allow citizens to smoke anything they grow themselves. In other words, it would be a "you grow it, you smoke it" bill. You can smoke all the tobacco you want, as long as you grow it yourself. However, you can't sell the surplus crop. You can give it away, but you can't barter or accept money for it.
This would accomplish several things. (1) It would likely cut down on tobacco use. Getting a cigarette would no longer be as easy as walking down to the local convenience store. (2) It would put the tobacco industry out of business, thus eliminating their substantial lobbying power. And (3) It would eliminate the need for subsidies to tobacco farmers. After all, who is going to bother farming a crop they can't sell. The taxpayers would no longer be seeing their hard earned money go to subsidize lung cancer.
Nearly as important, the move would not give more power to the federal government, cost more taxpayer money, or create a whole new class of criminals in the form of tobacco users.
Perhaps more controversially, I would also extend this bill to cover marijuana. Just as with tobacco, the policy would be: you grow it, you smoke it. Procession would not be illegal. Smoking would not be illegal. But don't get caught by your local police trying to sell your product. To do so would be to face a hefty fine. Get caught enough times and you could do 90 days in your local jail: in other words, strong enough measures to discourage sales, but not self-defeating measures that would fill our prisons with long-term felons.
I recognize that the devil is often in the details and that there would be unforeseen consequences. But, I believe that a "grow your own, but no sales" tobacco/marijuana policy would ultimately do far more good, and save far more taxpayer money, than federal oversight, subsidization or outright prohibition.
posted by dlh | 5:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home