By Chuck Muth
In a recent edition of the Christian Science Monitor, an editorial called for Congress to pass bills giving the Food and Drug Administration more authority, more power, and more oversight over tobacco products. The editorial said such bills were "needed."
Needed? Why? Let's take a look at this from two standpoints.
First, it is suggested that what is "needed" is "FDA jurisdiction over the warning labels on cigarette packages and tobacco products." Again, why? Who in the United States does not already know the Surgeon General's warning already by heart? Will making it bigger, bolder or more colorful really result in higher awareness or lower cigarette use? Not a chance.
And how much more "explicit" could the various warnings possibly be? The one I just found on a discarded pack of Basic Light 100s reads, "Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health." I mean, if you can't understand a warning as simple as that, perhaps your premature death would be in the best interest of the human gene pool.
The busy-body camp of health nannies who want to increase government oversight of tobacco products also wants to give the FDA the authority to ban flavored cigarettes - all in the name of protecting "the children," of course). But again, this is absurd. Are kids really enticed more by the fact that a cigarette might be cherry-flavored than they are by peer pressure? Of course not. Banning fruit-flavored cigarettes is as ridiculous as banning the sale of strawberry- or chocolate-flavored ice cream under the excuse that ice cream is a dangerous cause of obesity and the flavors might "hook" kids at an early age. (Oops. Better not give anybody any ideas.)
And once the FDA gets the power to ban one type of cigarette, how long before "mission creep" leads it to banning all cigarettes? This is "camel's nose" legislation, and everybody knows it.
Second, there's the entire question of whether the federal government is vested with the constitutional authority to pass such "needed"
legislation/regulation in the first place. As the late-Senator Barry Goldwater wrote decades ago in his book, Conscience of a Conservative, "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible."
While I recognize that passing unconstitutional legislation is standard operating procedure in Congress these days, I would hope advocates of such legislation and those in the "save kids from the world" movement would at least cite -- or maybe I'd even settle for attempting to find - the constitutional authority which grants the federal government the right to subject tobacco products to federal control. And please don't trot out that old "general welfare" clause. Everyone knows this is decidedly NOT what the Founders intended by the phrase "general welfare."
And if you do this to cigarettes, what's next? Flavored soft-drinks?
Snickers? Big Macs? Extra Crispy? Once you start down this slippery slope, where does it end?
Advocates of increased government control (which, let's be honest, is what this really is - control), have even gone as far as to use for their "side"
of the argument that Philip Morris, the largest manufacturer of cigarettes, supports FDA controls.
Well, I guess so. As the world's largest cigarette manufacturer, PM is in the best position economically to comply with FDA regulations. The folks who will be hit hardest are PM's smaller competitors. This is a financial windfall for PM which will allow it to continue its dominance of the market while everyone else struggles to jump through all the new government hoops and red tape.
In addition, as a new study by the University of California San Francisco School of Nursing shows, Philip Morris is cynically supporting FDA regulation to "enhance its image."
Study author Ruth Malone (a registered nurse, PhD, and associate professor) writes, "With image-shaping in mind, PM devoted enormous resources to achieving regulation -- but on its own terms." The company, says Malone, sought to separate itself from its competitors and "portray itself as a reasonable and responsible manufacturer of a risky product" in hopes of achieving favorable regulation from a Republican-dominated Congress. The fact that Philip Morris supports FDA regulation is actually an argument against FDA regulation.
The Founders' principle of a strictly limited federal government has been under assault for decades. It's time for citizens and responsible legislators to wake up and say enough is enough. Denying FDA regulation of tobacco products would be a good place to begin re-drawing a line.
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.