In Friday’s Albany Herald, there’s a letter to the editor from a cancer survivor calling for the Food and Drug Administration. Basically, his argument is that tobacco is a dangerous substance with all kinds of dangerous side effects like cancer. The writer calls out “Big Tobacco”, as most anti-tobacco crusaders do, and ask that Uncle Sam step in and do something.
It’s just a shame that the letter doesn’t lay out all the facts.
To start with, the claim is that tobacco is “one of the only products that is not regulated by the FDA”. This may or may not be true, but there are plenty of other products not regulated. Vitamins and herbal supplements are others. In fact, these are often argued to be better, healthier treatments for disease than the medicines the FDA does regulate. Science, however, doesn’t really seem to back that one up in most of those cases. As such, I argue that these products are even more dangerous, since no one things tobacco is safe but they mistakenly believe that some of these “natural” cures will make them healthy.
Since 1964, cigarette companies have been required to put warnings on their product explaining the health risks. In 45 years, there has been plenty of information laid out that smoking is bad for you. And yet, as the writer points out, 3,500 kids will try their first cigarette and 1,000 of them will become addicted to cigarettes. Of course, the fact that the law here in Georgia already prevents the sale of tobacco products to anyone under age seems to be irrelevant.
In the last 45 years, it’s been common knowledge that tobacco was dangerous and yet people like the writer started in anyways. There are thousands of them. Militant ex-smokers who want to erase every vestigate of tobacco from the planet. They take on a righteous tone of indignation whenever the topic of tobacco comes up like they themselves were the victim of a great conspiracy. After 1964, they aren’t.
I am sincerely greatful that the writer survived cancer. I wish there were many, many more who had. But this is yet another example of claiming the role of victim for actions of your own choosing, and then asking the government to step in. Any addition to the FDA list of regulated products will, necessarily, lead to an increase in required funding for the FDA to do it’s job. Where do you think that funding will come from?
It’s easy to sit around and scream “the government should do something”, but what exactly should they do? Overstep their constitutional bounds yet again just to prevent people from making a poor choice? If that’s the case, then maybe the government should require us to run all our choices past them before implimentation. Maybe my desire to hike the Appalaichan trail doesn’t meet with the government mandated safety standards so I don’t get to do it. Maybe your desire for a convertable doesn’t meet them either.
Is tobacco bad for you? I honestly don’t think there’s a great deal of argument on this one. But do we honestly need to government to regulate it when there are already laws on the book designed to stop kids from smoking?
Perhaps it’s just better if people start taking responsibility for their own actions, expect others to do the same, and let the government get away from it all. Besides, the FDA is to busy harassing Cheerios.
