Pipe Smokers Intelligencer

By Zacque Hitchcock

PSI Writer

 The United States since its conception has been dependent on tobacco.  It has been an integral part of the overall country’s economy and the relaxation of its citizens. For a period of time, tobacco was actually used as a viable form of payment in the colonies.  In addition, a majority of the founding fathers either grew or used tobacco in one form or another. Recent legislation, however, aims to limit retail and consumption of tobacco to certain types of tobacco products.   

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act provides “a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke from being sold in the United States.” 

It does not outlaw tobacco blends which only contain pure tobacco or a mentholated tobacco which do not fall under the ban.

 This ban demonstrates a violation of one’s autonomy and “Pursuit of Happiness”. Specifically it is an example infringement upon a person’s ability to make his or her own decisions regarding their well being.  

Ben Franklin’s words, “They, who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security,” personify the main argument in a few words.  As the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control act is in essence attempting to save children from the temptation of smoking.  Logic should dictate that laws which are already in place prevent persons under the age of majority from purchasing any tobacco products or related paraphernalia.  After all, as Bob Dole said, “We know smoking tobacco is not good for kids, but a lot of other things aren’t good.”

An adult smoker’s choice to smoke or not, is a decision for his/her well being.  

This is further explained in the Declaration of Independence when it states, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Family Smoking Protection and Tobacco Control Act does not allow for the happiness of all Americans.  As there are approximately 47.1 million smokers in the United States according to the American Heart Association’s website.  While a majority of persons in the United States do not smoke, those who choose to smoke should not be limited in their choices on how they choose to consume tobacco.  The action to remove selected products comes directly from the elected representatives of the citizenry.

This action to outlaw flavored cigarettes came from the Congress rather than the FDA.   The FDA would need to argue, with scientific evidence, that flavored cigarettes are a greater health risk versus normal tobacco products.

Congress however, does not have to meet the same criteria when passing judgment on controversial issues.  The evidence found for this essay, through the National Youth Smoking Cessation Survey (NYSCS), states that 22-23% of smoker’s age 17-19 years had “used” flavored cigarettes, compared with 9-10% of smoker’s age 20-26 years and 11% of smokers age 25-39 years.  In addition flavored cigarettes are used by, at most, two out of 10 young smokers and aren’t even their usual brand, which is unflavored which was most often a Phillip Morris USA product. 

Phillip Morris USA, one of the major cigarette manufacturers in the United States was a major supporter of the Family Smoking Protection and Tobacco Control Act.  Phillip Morris does not manufacture any flavored tobacco products. 

However, they are a well-known producer of mentholated tobacco products, which are not outlawed by this ban.  Studies have shown that smoking mentholated cigarettes are a harder product to quit when compared to normal un-mentholated tobacco products according to medicalnewstoday.com. This evidence would suggest that this ban is motivated more by opinion in its current incarnation rather than facts.

The rebuttal for the argument in support of the ban comes in two forms, the tax revenue for tobacco sales and the lawsuits against tobacco companies of the late 1990s. The tax revenue covers a majority of the costs for the extension of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  This provides federal funding to match an individual state’s funding to provide insurance to those children whose parents have a modest income, which would be too high to qualify for Medicaid.  This program’s extension cost the average cigarette smoker an additional $.62 per pack of cigarettes according to the SCHIP-info.org website. 

The lawsuits as of Nov. 23, 1998, show that 46 states settled their lawsuits against the nation’s major tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related health care costs, and joined four states — Mississippi, Texas, Florida and Minnesota — that had reached earlier, individual settlements. 

The majority of this money from the settlements was supposed to help the states pay for health care, notably SCHIP, and anti-smoking campaigns. Instead, much of it — even payments that aren’t due for 20 years — has already been spent on politically popular tax breaks complicated borrowing schemes initiated by Wall Street investment banks as shown in an article from MSNBC’s red tape series. 

The investors convinced 25 of these states to borrow against the future payments. Overall intended settlement money only allows for 3% of the total funding for smoking cessation or smoking education. 

What is worse, the average health care costs of a smoker on Medicaid are approximately an additional $500 million annually, if the state has a population near that of Ohio.  Overall, a majority of this money goes to funding state based health care where moving more of it to smoking cessation would lessen the burden that health care plays in a state budget.

Due to the economic and social ramifications of a ban on flavored cigarettes, it is easy to see the outright ban should not occur, as it is a violation of an individual’s autonomy.  As cigarette smoking poses a significant health risk to all who partake of the substance regulation should occur, but as the previous evidence suggests the focus of the current ban may be misplaced.  It is with that in mind one should heed the words of the founding father, Ben Franklin, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” 

Essentially citizens of the United States receive only temporary security with the recent ban on flavored cigarette tobaccos as the increase in tax revenues, which fund programs for the good of the majority.