Future of cigarettes

As an activist author I must concede that, at the very practical outset, cigarettes are here to stay. Cigarettes are here to dawn the shelves of shopping outlets, here to consume people to their deaths, here to neurologically haunt people, here to force young naive minds into pitiful life-long addiction, and are here to painfully numb the already weak and fragile to terrible disease-stricken deaths.

But, really, what does the way going forward look like?

To answer that question, let me share my experience as an author writing about this subject over the past three months. My intended objective has been that researching and raising awareness about the ills of a topic as horrendous as cigarette smoking would, in turn, give me the motivation to quit smoking. I have both good and bad news: While I have had all the motivation, I still haven't been able to entirely quit the habit. I am still tempted to light up "the one extra smoke" at a college party or when I'm comfortably unwinding with my clique on a relaxed Friday night. I have largely resisted the urges; over the past 90 days, I have learnt how terrible this habit can be and how little the government can pragmatically do to prevent people from taking on the habit. It is a matter of free unprovoked individual choice. And my choices have not always been the right ones.

The paradox remains: Despite all efforts to disincentivize people---labeling tobacco products, ban on smoking advertisements, increasing taxes to maximum rates, ban on smoking in public (partly), etc---people are still undeterred.

Some soul-searching needs to be done at this point: Where do we want to, philosophically, go as a society? Do we want evils to wander freely and potentially hijack the lives of your young ones? Or how much further can intervention go beyond which the signs of authoritarianism overshadow those of liberty and freedom?

In my previous post on this very blog, I emotionally urged a blanket ban on all forms of tobacco products. Some of my friends sympathized with such arguments but very appropriately argued that those adverse initiatives would never see the end of the tunnel. Such radical governance (even if for the good of the people) undermine the value systems of a democracy. Let me briefly describe how;

I spent part of my Thanksgiving in the United Arab Emirates, just a few days ago. The Emirates flight that I had boarded had bold imprints: "Smoking tobacco is banned in the UAE." To confirm, I saw the same signage plastered over the walls of wherever I went to in Dubai. Even though that is the dream in terms of where I'd like to see the tobacco industry go, it is a freedom-stifling form of governance. I prefer the luxury of choice and free will that I have in the United States of America over the authoritarian diktats of the Sheikhs of the oil-world.

So if cigarette smoking ultimately boils down to a matter of choice, it is that what we must target if we are to curb the habit en masse. If the demand dries up, basic economics teaches us that so will the supply. Efforts to influence, by the means considered legal in a democracy, people to make better informed choices must continue. More so, the disincentives apparatus currently in place should remain as it is, and if possible tightened where loose.

But as I've realized over the past three months, what is most important is influencing ones own self. Take care of yourself, and so will the world of itself. As an educated citizen, I know the pros and cons of the subject, yet I choose to indulge. Until I clean the dirt from my own heart, my telling other people to clean the dirt from their own will remain ineffective. 

Can we ban cigarettes altogether?

I discovered, this semester, who my favorite professor is after more than two years in college. He is a professor of Environmental History at the University of Maryland. Over the course of the previous two months, he has forced me to think beyond what I previously thought to be my intellectual limitations. Every class is a gripping and intellectual roller-coaster ride; and I admire him.

But he said something very peculiar the other day that I am now analyzing, probably, beyond his intended meaning. He said, "cigarette smoking is a choice. Smokers choose to kill themselves." Somehow, I just could not then, and cannot now, agree with his gross generalization of the problem. According to me, choosing to smoke the first cigarette may be, indeed, a matter of choice. OK, let's say smoking the first few cigarettes can be still considered a matter of choice. But beyond that, it becomes an addiction. As I previously examined in my posts, the marginal cigarette -- or the one extra smoke -- becomes very difficult to not indulge in.

So, initially, choosing to smoke is a choice -- and it could be a choice out of many reasons. But beyond that it is nicotine and addiction; and addiction is by no means a choice. A very horrible, but true,  analogy should bring home the point: One can choose to steal for the first few times. But one does not get chemically addicted to stealing. Even though it may seem the easy way out that robbers may continue to resort to, if someone chooses to adopt a life of work and labor instead, it is humanely possible for the person to make that transition. In the case of tobacco, what can you do when your mind pangs the rest of your body in restlessness until you have the "one extra smoke?"

Which brings me to my thesis-question: Should cigarettes be banned from markets? The hazards are apparent and there is evidence that quitting the habit is not an issue of morality but an issue of chemically-induced addiction. From this point on, the scientific community should establish and promote evidence for the same. If sound evidence exists, which I'm presuming can be established, politicians should make efforts to ban tobacco products from the shelves of the 7-Elevens, CVS' and so on.

I advocated for such a harsh position after hearing the story of my friend's aunt from Salisbury, Maryland. Elena's [name changed] aunt had an operation over the summer and had many health problems, including bronchitis, that surfaced during that time. What should her own response to her problems have been? Well, if she wants to get any better (considering the amount of tobacco she has smoked over many years, the damage she has inflicted on her body is irreversible), she should quit the habit, right? But Elena told me otherwise. She told me that her aunt just cannot give up her "one extra smoke" and continues to puff away a packet of cigarettes a day. I don't feel mad at her aunt, as Elena naturally felt. In fact, I can only sympathize with the poor lady. What reason would abandon a person on his or her deathbed? The level of addiction shrouds reason, logic and, unfortunately, even common sense.

My initial position on the issue had been that the government ought to impose certain incentives that would reduce the consumption level. The suggested incentives were as follows: impose tax rates that reach tax-ceilings, ban smoking in public areas and heavily penalize celebrities found smoking. Due to the practical limitations of what the government can and cannot do, it seemed unfeasible to impose a blanket ban on the product. I hope the government can really implement those incentives. It will really be an immense help to society. Further, I hope, I hope with all my might, that the government pull a miracle off and somehow ban tobacco products entirely without jeopardizing the freedom of the people or the values of the constitution.