Tobacco.org

SMITH: HUFF & PUFF  

It's only a matter of time, sooner rather than later, that an editorial will appear in The New York Times advocating the prohibition of tobacco products. At least that's what any rational reader would take away from the paper's two latest broadsides against the mammoth industry, which were pegged to the not so shocking revelation that "light" cigarettes are just as dangerous as "full-flavored" brands, and a study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health that found the amount of nicotine in a cigarette has increased an average of 10 percent since 1998.

At this point in the early 21st century, any person who believes that smoking is a harmless habit is a moron. As with any addiction, whether it's alcohol, crack or heroin, gambling, fast food or speed-racing cars, it's up to the individual to make a decision about the risks and then proceed at will. As a longtime smoker, I'm certainly aware of the hazards to my health and yet I've foolishly continued the habit, knowing that even though my lungs are so far miraculously spotless, that could change as soon as next year's physical. It's a cross to bear, and hard to justify to my wife and kids, which is far more upsetting than the busybodies who wave their hands in the air even as I smoke outside.

The Times, on August 28th ("The Safer Cigarette Delusion") and Aug. 31st ("Raising Nicotine Doses, on the Sly"), in a departure from the usual diatribes about President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Joe Lieberman and other perceived enemies of the United States, wastes space on the obvious. Still, no Times article would be complete without insulting its readers' intelligence. . . .

I have no delusions about the tobacco companies, although I wouldn't echo the Times editorialists in labeling them as "rouges" or "rapacious," and realize that the advertising--that which still exists--is probably misleading and deceptive. . . .

Pointing to Mass- achusetts' Department of Public Health study, the paper lamented that the tobacco industry could not, at least currently, be properly punished. An excerpt: "But hemmed in by an earlier decision, [federal Judge Gladys] Kessler concluded she could not order the industry to hand over billions in profits and instead prohibited it from using terms like 'low tar' or 'ultra light.'"

Jump to full article »