I'm With Stupid on the Tobacco Control Act

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Virtually every story you read about the impending signature of President Barack Obama on the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act mentions our president as a reformed or ex-smoker, or someone who's been trying to quit. Usually this vital conflict is right there in the lead paragraph, as if it were some kind of surprise that Obama of all people would support such a move.

If anything, I'd think smokers and ex-smokers would be most amenable to new regulations. I'm a smoker, and I know I am.

(In fact, it seems that the main determining factor of opposition to tobacco regulation is how much money one receives from Big Tobacco, not whether one "has struggled to quit smoking.")

The thing non-smokers don't often understand about smokers is that we're not stupid. We know how terrible smoking is for us, and we wouldn't wish tobacco addiction on our worst enemies. Any regulation that aims to reduce the chances of other people smoking is a good thing.

No, it's not ignorance or idiocy that makes us light up. We're addicted.

I started smoking regularly at age 16, which was stupid. But is there anyone who can claim to have been wise at that age?

By the time I was 18, I was working at a smoke shop and my paychecks were coming (tangentially at least) from Big Tobacco. I sold smokes to people with severe breathing problems. I saw how popular flavored cigars and cigarettes were with people my age. Sure, I felt terrible, but I would have felt worse working for McDonald's. At least I was employed at a small business, I reasoned. And I could smoke at work!

Once I graduated from college and was eligible for a job that didn't have "server" or "clerk" in the title, I was relieved to get out of the tobacco business, no matter how insignificant my role was. I didn't want anything to do with Big Tobacco, because I was smarter than that.

Except I didn't quit smoking.

I've lived in two different cities during their passage and implementation of  smoking bans. Initially, Libertarian-type urges rose up in me, and I argued that bars and restaurants should be able to choose whether or not to ban smoking in their individual establishments. But the plight of those in the service industry quickly changed my mind. My own personal experiences also made a difference: Once I realized how much less I would be smoking if I had to brave Midwestern weather to do so, I became a supporter of public smoking bans.

I have in the past been opposed to tax increases on tobacco, but it has very little to do with my own pocketbook. Sure, I dislike paying $8 a pack, but I'm capable of making a budget. If I couldn't afford to smoke, I wouldn't smoke.

The problem is, there are people who can't afford to quit. Overall, it's a regressive tax that is less efficacious than logic would predict. A recent study found that low-income smokers are not generally persuaded to quit by price increases. Another study indicated that poor smokers who don't have enough money for food tend to smoke more than those who who are "food secure."

Now, if higher tobacco taxes went to free smoking-cessation programs for the poor, I'd change my tune. But often the taxes fund other people's healthcare (as in the case of SCHIP earlier this year) or go to programs that are entirely unrelated to health. Sometimes it seems that lawmakers strapped for cash are simply tapping into a universally-despised industry to fund pet projects or balance a budget, and are not trying to curb smoking in the least.

After all, if smoking were severely curtailed, tax revenues would decrease markedly as well. Does that mean the funding of children's health insurance relies on adults' continued smoking?

I also have misgivings about the tobacco bill headed to the president's desk. After studying the many problems with funding and oversight at the Food and Drug Administration, I am skeptical that the stretched regulator can take on an industry as strong as Big Tobacco. But if that's what it takes to get truth in advertising and reduce nicotine levels, so be it. I just hope they're up to the challenge.

Ultimately, smokers aren't unreasonable. The vast majority of us want very badly to quit. And you won't see us protesting increased regulation or lawsuits against Big Tobacco. Some of us are more angry at the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel than non-smokers could ever be.

In his announcement of the tobacco bill from the Rose Garden Friday, the president's remarks were devoid of personal narrative; he merely said he's happy about the new legislation and looking forward to signing it.

In fact, Obama has been pretty much mum about his personal smoking habits of late. Toward the end of last year's presidential campaign, he admitted to having a smoke periodically, but said he was cutting himself some slack, as the campaign was certainly a rigorous one.

As for me, I'm trying to quit. I'm generally down to where Obama was back in 2004 when he admitted to smoking "about three Marlboros a day" (though I smoke Parliament Lights, which are made by the same company). But I don't have Michelle Obama breathing down my neck, telling me she hates that I smoke, a sure motivator for the president.

Regardless of the First Lady's absence in my personal life, I know I'm going to quit eventually. Because I'm not stupid, I'm just addicted.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Image courtesy of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Technorati Tags: Analysis tobacco cigarette smoke smoking obama FDA regulate industry bill tax ban flavor nicotine addict stupid ad