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.
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.
You have some interesting ideas you allude to in this posting, but I think the idea of banning cigarettes outright will hit many obstacles and roadblocks as you have pointed out. In a perfect world, everything that is bad would be banned, there would be no crime, and everyone would live in harmony. Unfortunately though for us, we do not, and will never, live in a perfect world. If we extrapolate the idea of making something illegal that has always been legal, we can see it runs into many philosophical and political questions.
ReplyDeleteI think when the issue is broken down to the core; we can see that is reliant merely upon ones political views. Some think that everything should be legalized – every drug, every crime, everything, and that society will naturally balance itself out. I guess the idea is that we have too many laws today and that no restrictions are better than a million and one restrictions. Others believe that everything should be outlawed, and that if it is not generally accepted it needs to be banned. And then, there are those who stand somewhere in the middle, which I believe to be a good amount of persons. I think the problem with outlawing cigarettes is that we get into a sort of “slippery slope” argument here, and if we make cigarettes illegal, what’s next? Is the government going to outlaw me using Mac’s because some people don’t like the environmental policies of Apple? That counterexample may seem silly right now, but I think that sort of fear resonates with a lot of us deep down.
Another issue with outlawing cigarette smoking is that it’s an established industry that contributes a lot to our economy and GDP. Tabaco planation’s took off in the Americas well before our country was even officially formed, and to this day the wield a tremendous amount of power – both in politics and with capital. All in all, I think if there were ever a nature like that on the ballot, it would be lobbied heavily against and fail to be approved. I think the farthest any ban will go is relative to its social acceptability, and I am finding that more and more with our generation it is the norm, and accepted to smoke cigarettes. Also, tax hikes have already been imposed on smokers, and this is most apparent in my home state, New York, where packs of cigarettes go over $10, compared to $5 in Maryland. Did it deter smokers? Maybe some, but the effects of such legislation merely translate into more tax dollars, not less smokers.
Anand,
ReplyDeleteYour topic is definitely a sensitive one. It is difficult to see from all angles, considering some people are smokers and some are non-smokers. Those who do not smoke may not be able to speak on the topic the way those who are addicted to smoking can.
I for one am not a smoker, but I have had several family members who have suffered an addiction. When I was four years old, my grandpa was put in the hospital. I never understood the numerous visits I had to make to the hospital. I never understood his sickness. I never understood why he couldn’t come home to play war with me over a deck of cards and some iced tea.
I understand now. I understand that smoking can become an addiction, one that no matter what, cannot be escaped. I still remember wondering why he continued to smoke in the hospital, even when my mom told me the cigarettes were what were killing him. I understand now.
It is definitely a sensitive topic and a difficult one to argue. I partially agree with your professor, and partially agree with you. I understand that the first cigarette, or the first couple of cigarettes, are a choice, but all the rest become an addiction. However, I do believe that the human mind is powerful enough to overcome any circumstances. For example, my uncle has also been a smoker, an addicted smoker, for most of his life. However, one Christmas, my seven-year old cousin gave him an ashtray as a gift. In the bottom of the ashtray, she wrote, “Please stop smoking Daddy, I love you too much.” After receiving this gift, my uncle suffered months of withdrawal. However, his love for his daughter was much greater than his addiction to cigarettes, and finally my uncle is proud to say that he is cigarette-free.
I’m not sure if it is right for stores to eliminate the sale of cigarettes all together. I speak for those who smoke cigarettes, because I am not one who smokes. However, I do think that people should take more power in their choices. I think that all people should empower themselves to make smart decisions for their health and their futures.
Anand, First I would like to say that i really enjoy reading your blogs because you always provide very interesting arguments. So well done!
ReplyDeleteThe idea of banning cigarette smoking all together is a great idea...but very far fetched. You say it yourself "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." For alot of people quitting smoking is not a choice. They are to deep into the addiction, to deep into smoking 2 packs a day. People like this are the reason smoking will never be banned. Why would the government want to take away one of the largest cash crops in the country?
Another reason why smoking will never be banned (and this is my own opinion) is because the addiction of smoking is not all due to the nicotine....obviously most of it is....but alot has to do with the motion of smoking. Many former smokers have told me that the thing they miss the most is the act of smoking something. Just having a cigarette in their hand makes them feel more relaxed. This can be a problem....If cigarettes were banned, smokers might try and substitute a different type of drug in place of the occasional cigarette. Desperate for a puff on something...previous cigarette smokers could move onto marijuana...which has been proven to be healthier...but is still illegal in 48 out of 50 states in the U.S…..this idea is obviously a personal idea and there is no proof it could actually happen. Just a thought.
Overall, I think you covered all the main issues that are encountered when talking about banning cigarettes.
One quick point to think about….If cigarettes were banned what type of punishment would you receive for possession of cigarettes? And would a huge underground trade of cigarettes rise across the nation? It would be quite the turn around to see marijuana legalized across the nation while cigarettes are banned.