Is Ban on Sale of Tobacco Products Justified - Assignment Example

History is a testament to the undying prevalence and pervasiveness of tobacco use, whether it is smoked, chewed, or otherwise. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The believing we do something when we do nothing is the first illusion of tobacco”. On this view, tobacco is the great denominator in the waste of man’s time, and a symbolically dangerous force in his life. An opposite view was described in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: “I like to think of fire held in a mans hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind—and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression” (Rand, 1999, p. 61). In other words, tobacco is the great denominator in the greatest moments of human inspiration, and provides a symbol for man’s enormous progress throughout history. However, tobacco use falls into neither of these extremes: it does have a long symbolic history due to its age in human affairs, but it is not merely a symbolic danger. It is a real danger, and this real danger is no more invisible than that of an oncoming train. Insofar as it is the responsibility of a government to protect the rights and health of its citizens, smoking contravenes on this goal: it causes irreparable, unnecessary damage to societies and individuals who have no intention of being either harmed themselves or being forced to pay for the consequences of those who do choose to harm to their bodies. It is the responsibility to protect the rights of these individuals, which are being threatened by the continued use of tobacco in society, and thus its responsibility lies in banning these products in the same fashion that harder substances, such as heroin, are restricted by the government agencies of the executive branch. Opposition to tobacco use in society as a whole can be founded upon utilitarian arguments. “Utilitarian”, in this context, refers to an ethical system which says that what is best (or morally good) is a matter of what consequences maximize the utility, or happiness, of all moral agents (Kessel, 2006). We are then committed under this framework to contemplate what will lead to the most happiness of all people and act accordingly. Of course, being happy presupposes that one is alive to experience that happiness. However, smoking is the most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. It leads to about 438,000 deaths each year, which surpasses the combined effects of alcohol, drug abuse, murders, suicides, fires, and AIDS/HIV combined (Guilford County Department of Public Health, 2007). Any ethical system requires us to place an extraordinary value on the fact of human life, and that any force which prematurely ends it is by its nature morally evil. On a utilitarian system of ethics, of course, tobacco’s adverse effects on people’s health and freedom forces us to admit of its ethical complications. When we recognize that life deserves a high value, we must also recognize that happiness deserves one as well. Happiness might primitively be defined as the absence of pain, which is a condition clearly flouted by the practice of smoking, which causes immense suffering not only to the victims of “active smoking”, but also to the victims of “passive smoking” and those who have to assist in providing healthcare to those who chose to make consciously bad health decisions. Once we recognize that life and happiness are the two highest values, we can just as easily recognize that it is ethically wrong to continue smoking. It would be wrong to consider a smoker’s claim that he “enjoys smoking” to belong on the same par as someone else’s claim that she “dislikes smoking”. The act of smoking does not include impinging on the interests of others, and therefore it is unnecessary for one’s enjoyment. Either as a matter of rule or of act, we must say on utilitarian grounds that smoking is an ethically condemnable act. This means that the act of smoking in any circumstances, regardless of that context, is morally questionable (Holland, 2007, p. 14). One might object to this approach by saying that there is a utilitarian argument to be made against the consequences of destroying freedom of choice: namely, the freedom of choice to smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, or do anything else that may potentially damage one’s health. Firstly, it needs to be said that there is no right to infringe the rights of others when pursuing things “that may potentially damage one’s health” as smoking does. Racing a vehicle down a crowded highway is not the right of anyone in a society when the rights of others might be easily violated. Secondly, there is no “choice” in the proper sense of that term when we refer to tobacco. Nicotine has been identified as a substance equally as addictive as heroin or cocaine (Schelling, 1992), which is fact that will become important shortly. The alleged “choice” that smokers have over choosing whether not to buy and consume cigarettes on the market is equal to the choice that victims have in giving an attacker their possessions when being robbed. And there is also the matter of the “passive smoker” at stake: what freedom does he or she have to avoid the harmful effects of another person’s actions, whether in the workplace or in a social setting? Smoking tobacco constitutes a violation of another person’s rights, and it is never a proper part of freedom to be allowed to do so. Studies indicate that second-hand smoking causes nearly 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) develops plagues in arteries that resemble the damage observed in human victims of arteriosclerosis. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that “widespread exposure to ETS in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact” (Stone, 1994, p. 30). The EPA has labeled ETS a known human carcinogen, based on the strength of a metanalysis of thirty-one different epidemiological studies taken over the past couple decades (Trotter & Chapman, 2003). The dangers of passive smoking are no less capable of producing widespread adverse health effects than any more immediate threat like a hurricane or earthquake. It is absurd to think that second-hand smoke does not pose a serious danger to thousands of Americans at this very moment. For a government not to seek to provide protection to these individuals or to look the other way is a clear contradiction. The purpose of a government is to protect the same rights of its citizens that are being violated. The situation is analogous to other cases of government-initiated recalls of dangerous products. If a company were to put a product on the market that the government knew would cause harm to consumers, it would of course be the responsibility to force a removal of these products. Apparently, the case of smoking is somehow a different case. There is an arbitrary distinction made between the case of tobacco and the case of all other dangerous products. In 1978, recognizing the threat that lead paint poses to families in the United States, the Federal government issued a ban on all lead paint. From 1970 to 2005, the amount of children in the U.S. with elevated levels of lead in their bloodstream has decreased from eighty-eight percent to a mere one and a half (Toppo, 2007). However, the threat that lead paint posed to young children (leaving out the other segments of the population) was, and is still, dwarfed by the enormous threat of ETS and active smoking. Philip Landrigan of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York has called the banning of lead paint “one of the great triumphs in public health in this country over the last 20 to 25 years” (Toppo, 2007). If that is the case, imagine the consequences of banning tobacco as a “harmful product”, just like lead paint. The amount of lives saving and suffering prevented would make such a “triumph” seem hollow in comparison. Since tobacco and all related products are poisonous and potentially lethal, it is perfectly reasonable to ban these products on the basis that they pose a significant health risk. To draw the arbitrary distinction between tobacco products and other harmful products like lead paint is not based on any solid reason, besides tax revenue on the lucrative tobacco industry. The problem we face in getting tobacco banned and laws against it enforced is that the same institution which would carry out this legislation is inseparably linked with the tax revenue derived from taxing these products. A significant portion of government tax revenue continues to come from the sales tax on cigarette and chew products that so many are addicted to (Evans, Ringel, & Stech, 1999). If the government carries out a ban on these products, this revenue would be lost. This problem seems intractable, considering the extent to which we depend on these taxes to fund the government. State governments continue to raise these taxes as government spending soars. Customers in New York pay the most with a state surcharge of $2.75, taken in conjunction with a $1.50 city tax and a recent $1.25 state tax hike (Altman, 2008). These exorbitant prices are surely forcing many to quit involuntarily. However, for many they are not enough and simply take away more of their financial resources. The government needs to recognize and admit that they are putting all of its citizens in danger by allowing the practice to continue and that it is profiting from doing so. State governments must find other sources of revenue, perhaps raising sales taxes on other inelastic goods, to make up the difference. It is an undeniable fact that our government is as hooked on cigarettes, just as any other lifelong smoker. The question we must ask is who is going to force the government to quit? The issue of smoking, as mentioned beforehand, is not a case of the “freedom of choice”. Nicotine, as numerous studies and common knowledge show, is a highly addictive substance which makes cigarettes nearly irresistible to those caught up in its spell. Studies have shown that the smoking habit begins in a vast majority of cases in the younger population, who are then hooked on the substance for a large portion of their lives (Maziak & Mzayek, 2000). Banning tobacco is the only way to force people to quit and alleviate the symptoms both on their health and on our society as a whole. Only when the supply for said products is completely absent will the demand be forced to respond. At least seventy percent of adult smokers in the United States report that they wish to quit smoking altogether (Guilford County Department of Public Health, 2007). What this suggests is not that placing a ban on cigarettes will contradict the wishes of citizens, but that said legislation will help individuals overcome a vice. In a democracy, seventy percent is a strong majority. When taken together with the large percent of the population that does not smoke (or does not like the adverse effects the practice has on society), we see only the interests of a small portion of people being acted against. Despite them, the issue of smoking is a matter of chemical compulsion, not the freedom of choice. Another problem which might be posed to those who advocate the banning of tobacco from the market might be one of historical concern. The example and historical precedent that the Prohibition set in the early 20th century in America might suggest that it is impossible to stamp out a drug once it has been banned by the government. At first, this might seem like a rather weighty objection. However, they differ in several important respects. Firstly, the Prohibition movement was focused on a substance very much different from tobacco. Alcohol is a drug that many find beneficial in its common, everyday use. In contrast, almost seventy percent of adult users of tobacco want to kick the habit entirely. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a black market will arise for cigarettes after its banishment, or at least a black market with any greater success than that of other harder drugs. If most people do want to quit, and there is this large social stigma against the practice itself, it seems unlikely that otherwise law-abiding people are going to go out of their way to acquire the drugs and risk being caught by the enforcement agencies created not in the 1920s but in the 1970s (Alston, Dupre, & Nonnenmacher, 2000). The fact is that a second prohibition movement, this time one directed at the far more harmful effects of tobacco, can and would work if fully realized. There is also the important question of the degree of the ban. Now that it has been categorically established that a ban on the buy and sale of tobacco products would benefit our society and is a moral responsibility of our government, the investigation must turn to what justifies such a strong curtailment of its use. The purpose of the ban is, of course, to illegalize tobacco drug use altogether. This is intended to force individuals to quit the habit and therefore bring about desirable utilitarian consequences for all members of our society. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have concluded that nicotine, a well-known ingredient of tobacco products, is as addictive as harder drugs such as heroin or cocaine (Guilford County Department of Public Health, 2007). Although the effects of one use of tobacco are nowhere near the effects of one use of heroin, the continued use of tobacco throughout one’s lifetime will bring about the same result as continued usage of heroin or cocaine. As it stands today, the only difference between heroin and tobacco is in how commonly those products are used. Left to individuals and without a ban, heroin’s highly addictive nature would lead to a widespread usage across the population. Even though tobacco products do not damage the user’s body in the same way (which is perhaps why heroin would still be used far less than smoking if both were allowed in the same fashion), they have the same kind of long-term effects, that all citizens of the society must ultimately pay for. Remembering that the purpose of the ban is to force people to quit, we also realize that the purpose of the ban on any harder drug, whether heroin or cocaine, is to force people to quit. The enforcement of drug laws expressing these bans determines how many people stop using these products. Tobacco products should be banned just as heroin and cocaine are for the reason of forcing people to quit, and alleviating the consequences of its long-term use. Just as it is the moral responsibility of our government to keep people from severely damaging themselves with heroin or cocaine use, it is too its responsibility to hamper the supply of tobacco products on the market. Forcing people to quit comes as a responsibility insofar as the continuance of the activity poses a significant threat to the rights and livelihoods of people who have no intention of being adversely affected. Studies repeatedly show that the sections of the population most likely to begin smoking are those that belong to those lower on the socio-economic scales of measurement (Yunus & Gurmu, 2008). Given that the poor and the young are the most likely to begin smoking, it seems necessary to prevent long-term addictions. Smoking bans, instituted by local governments all across the country, have made great progress in getting people to quit altogether. Findings show that bans in airplanes, offices, restaurants, and so on go a long way to increasing the social stigma associated with the habit. As Dr. Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, says, “When you make workplaces, public places, restaurants and bars smoke-free, people smoke less. They sell fewer cigarettes” (Stark, 2005). Workplace bans, in particular, are having a great effect. Glantz continues to report that there have been as much as thirty percent drops in cigarette consumption in members of a smoke-free workplace. The evidence also suggests that public space restrictions are having their fair share of effectiveness. Such bans are in place in over 2,000 cities and counties across the country, in addition to the 680 outdoor restrictions in place. Specifically, smoking bans in San Francisco have contributed to an eight-percent decrease in lung cancer rates in the city, saving citizens millions in tax payer dollars. The next step for tobacco restrictions seems to be smoking in private cars when children are present, which would help reduce the prevalence of ETS-related disorders in children of smokers (Stark, 2005). However, it seems as if these restrictions on where private citizens can smoke do not go far enough in bringing about the kind of change necessary to reversing the adverse effects of the habit on our society. Bans need to force individuals to quit for that reason, and anything less than this means that the government is will to renege on its moral responsibility to protect the individual rights of its citizens and provide for the public good. Cigarettes and smoking contradict this goal and allowing its practice to continue represents a failure. A major obstacle standing in the way of achieving a common prohibition of these products is the use of sales tax revenue on these products to fund state governments. Although this is certainly a problem, it would ultimately be the responsibility of the Federal government to enforce tobacco prohibition laws, and not the states, which would be primarily affected by the loss. For a government to draw an arbitrary distinction between products that are harmful but should be removed from the market and those that should not be removed from the market runs contrary to the utilitarian argument offered above. The government should ban all products that pose a significant risk to public health by virtue of their proper, everyday use, just as lead paint or melamine posed risks to American lives. Objections posed to the view that tobacco products should be banned do not hold water. It is not a violation of the freedom of choice to deny smokers the opportunity to deprive others of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In addition, prohibition of tobacco would enjoy far greater success than that of alcohol, considering that a strong majority of smokers wish to quit the habit altogether. Tobacco products should be banned just as heroin and cocaine are prohibited by Federal law. The purpose of doing so is to force people to quit endangering themselves and others in the process of acting irresponsibly. Not doing so represents not a respect for the “freedom of choice” but of a government’s willingness to let people die for the sake of tax revenue. Works Cited Alston, L. J., Dupre, R., & Nonnenmacher, T. (2000). Social Reformers and Regulation: The Prohibition of Cigarettes in the U.S. and Canada. NBER Historical Working Paper No. 131 , 1-23. Altman, A. (2008, June 6). When Are Cigarette Taxes Too High? Time Magazine , pp. 22-26. Evans, W. N., Ringel, J. S., & Stech, D. (1999). Tobacco Taxes and Public Policy to Discourage Smoking. Tax Policy and the Economy 13 , 1-55. Guilford County Department of Public Health. (2007). Tobacco Use Health Sheet. Retrieved 2009, from Guilford County Department of Public Health: http://www.co.guilford.nc.us/blogs/dph/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/facttobaccouse-and-health-risk-cessation.pdf Holland, S. (2007). Public Health Ethics. New York: Polity. Kessel, A. (2006). Air, the Environment and Public Health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maziak, W., & Mzayek, F. (2000). Characterization of the Smoking Habit among High School Students in Syria. European Journal of Epidemiology 16:12 , 1169-1176. Rand, A. (1999). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Plume Books. Schelling, T. C. (1992). Addicting Drugs: The Cigarette Experience. Science, New Series 255:504 , 430-433. Stark, L. (2005). Do Smoking Bans Really Get People to Quit? Retrieved 2009, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/QuitToLive/story?id=1292456 Stone, R. (1994). Study Implicates Second-Hand Smoke. Science, New Series 264:5155 , 30. Toppo, G. (2007, October 29). For many kids, lead threat is right in their own homes. USA Today , pp. 39-44. Trotter, L., & Chapman, S. (2003). How the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council report on passive smoking. Tobacco Control 12:3 , 102-106. Yunus, M., & Gurmu, S. (2008). Tobacco Chewing, Smoking and Health Knowledge. Economics Bulletin 9:10 , 1-9. Read More