Cigs as Drugs

In yesterday's edition of The Boston Globe Columnist Derrick Jackson talked about the US House of Representatives voting to give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco.

Back in the day I was not bothered by cigarette smoke.  When you could still smoke on airliners I would sit in the back, with the smokers, because the statistics suggested that that was where the survivors sat.  And, we all knew that smoking was a problem, from Phil Harris to early 1960s fighter pilots:  "Definition of an optimist—an F-105 pilot who gives up smoking because he is afraid of dying of lung cancer."  I heard that in 1961, before Thuds were going "Downtown."

Today second hand smoke bothers me. I am even more bothered by the strange ways we cope with current restrictions on smoking. How is it good for Saints Medical Center to be smoke free and then have their smokers on the corner by the Immaculate Conception School or Christ United or Immaculate Conception Parish. Haven't those smokers ever heard of "field stripping" your cigarette? The right thing to do would be for SMMC to build a small smoking facility, complete with air handling and filters.

But, back to Mr Jackson.  I agree with him that we need to move to blunt "... the influence of Big Tobacco." However, I don't think he has gone far enough.  Given that tobacco will likely soon be in the hands of the FDA and given the odds that the outcome of any action will have unintended consequences, we need to start thinking five, ten or twenty years down the road. We need to think far enough down the road that we can visualize restrictions on tobacco sales getting to the point that smuggling becomes fashionable.  Not all at once, but a little bit, which will then make it socially acceptable to buy from the underground market. Then it will be like prohibition.  This would not be a desirable outcome, especially when we are looking at the Mexican Drug Cartels starting to penetrate into the US.

I recommend that we appoint two commissions.

1. The first Commission is for the Federal Government and its job is to examine the impact of a reduction in smoking.  The statistics seem to suggest that amongst those who stop smoking, a certain percentage will eventually get sick and die.  Will the fact that they stopped smoking be a net plus or a net minus.  A study by Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi suggests that actually for every pack of cigs sold the nation gets a 32 ¢ savings.  The reason seems to be that non-smokers live longer and thus eat up more resources.  I am not saying this is bad—I just want a big Federal Panel to study the issue, tell us about it and make recommendations as to how we are going to adjust Social Security to account for a reduction in smoking.


2. This second Commission is for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and needs to be appointed to provide input to the General Court about changes in revenue as new restrictions are added to tobacco and as tobacco taxes increase.  There should be no doubt about the fact that changes in the cost of tobacco will drive some to give it up and others to go the underground economy route and still others to just "cough" up the money.  Thus, since Beacon Hill is incapable of planning, this Commission should spread the word far and wide about programs that will be cut if we throttle back on cigarette sales.  In addition, I recommend this Commission include both Mr Jackson (he may need the job, depending on how things go at The Globe) and yours truly (I am looking for something challenging in semi-retirement).

We need to realize that the tobacco industry is one that pays wages, perhaps pays health benefits, pays taxes and pays dividends (and thus people pay taxes on those dividends).  None of this is a reason to not reduce tobacco usage.  However, they are all reasons to do this with a little planning.  This is not about branding a group of people evil and letting them suffer the consequences.  This should not be a witch hunt.  It is about figuring out how to transition a Nineteenth Century industry to the Twenty-First Century.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  I labeled this "Drug War" because passing tobacco over to the FDA is about making them drugs.