Scientists already know that nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs next to heroin. Those who are dependent on cigarettes on a daily basis are at risk of being labeled drug addicts. But how easy is it to tell the difference between drug addiction and choice of habit? And what is our obligation as a society to help those who are addicted and prevent others from getting hooked?
It isn’t just that smoking cigarettes is addictive; it is deadly too. And when we start seeing loved ones dying early due to lung cancer then the issue becomes more and more urgent to address.
There is, however, a distinct hypocrisy in how the U.S. government is trying to manipulate others to quit smoking.
On one side of the coin the government knows and propagates much information on the hazards of smoking cigarettes through different ad campaigns, as well legislation that requires cigarette companies to print warning labels on every pack. They recognize it as both a highly physical and psychological addiction, and rightfully so.
Many smokers understand that smoking is bad yet they still can’t quit. But what then does the government do to deter people from this nasty habit?
One popular choice is to raise taxes. President Obama signed a law earlier this year to raise taxes from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack of cigarettes and from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound for chewing tobacco, making it the single largest cigarette tax hike in our history. But how effective is this strategy and in what ways does it have unintended consequences?
For many in our country, cigarettes are not felt to be a luxury but a necessity. In economic terms, we would say cigarettes have a low elasticity in demand, meaning individuals are usually willing to pay more for the same quantity. We know full well how difficult cigarette withdrawals can be, we know how addictive nicotine is, yet government puts individuals in a situation where they are forced to fork more money out of their pockets to sustain their addiction. Some of these people are already experiencing difficult financial troubles. Is this right?
Raising taxes on cigarettes does more harm than good. Sure, some may grow the courage to quit. In fact, according to the Washington Post, 17.5% of New Yorkers quit after the first tax increase and ad campaign in 2006, but it doesn’t distinguish which was actually more effective: the tax increase or the ad campaign?
We can’t necessarily trust government pseudoscience on whether or not tax increases actually lower smoking rates. But even if tax increases do help some to kick the habit, the majority of smokers are being taken advantage of. It is even worse for those who are addicted the hardest.
This is no way to help people.
I would like to see society focus more on helping others through education rather than tax coercion. This means respecting others free will and free choice, but still looking out for their best interests.
To start, I appreciate the efforts of both profit and non-profit ad campaigns, education programs, and treatment facilities that help those who are willing to seek it.
But what about those who aren’t yet willing to seek help but may in fact need it? To what extent do we have the right to intervene on someone’s personal habits?
We then find ourselves back at the original question posed earlier: To what extent are individuals smoking by their own free choice, and to what extent do they need to be saved from themselves? What right do we have to intervene? And how much intervention is too much if we want to continue living in a free society?
These are the types of questions that we need to ask ourselves as a society. The answers will have major implications on future government policy – not just with cigarette smoking – but other health risks such as poor eating habits and the obesity epidemic.
How helpful is government force in correcting these problems while still respecting others’ free choice?
Or are there more effective (and less harmful) ways we can move society to a better state of health?
In 1987, the American economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell wrote the book “Conflicts in Vision: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.” In it Sowell describes American politics as broken down into two distinct visions: the constrained and the unconstrained.
Those with a constrained vision believe that human nature is flawed, but fixed. They, like our founding fathers, acknowledge that humans are greedy and self-interested by nature, and that power always corrupts. A constrained vision is at strict adherence to federalism and the idea that a healthy government needs a separation of power in order to limit the damages done by human nature.
Those with an unconstrained vision believe that a government can be as powerful as it needs to be in order to make the world just. As long as the right people are in office then the government can rid the world of the problems caused by human’s flawed and greedy nature. They believe that human nature is not fixed, but malleable: “There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” – this is the shared attitude of the unconstrained visionary.
Sowell was recently interviewed on these old ideas and was asked how they relate to the politics of today:
In this interview he expands on his ideas regarding the unconstrained vision, which he believes is like a disease slowly taking over America, and especially those who are currently being led by the most unconstrained visionary ever to be President of the United States: Barack Obama.
Sowell warns us that the Left is almost always seeking some unconstrained vision. It is a vision never rooted in the reality of men, but in the dreams of idealists. Instead of protecting the freedoms that this country was founded on, they will utilize government intervention until there is not equal opportunity, but equal outcomes. They believe they can achieve a Utopian-like society as long as they are given the power to do so.
“Ask not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Barack Obama
Our President will grab as much power as he can until his vision is fulfilled. And the unconstrained American people are willing to give it to him – as much as he wants in fact – because we believe Obama is the right person to do it.
But the constrained are saying “Stop!”
They understand power corrupts, and more power is almost never a good thing. Even if Obama is half as noble as the unconstrained believe he is, then what happens when the next president comes into office? What happens if he is corrupt? Or the next guy after that guy is corrupt? Eventually someone is going to step to the floor with all of these new powers – and we will be doomed. By giving government these new powers we are only setting up a time bomb for our own inevitable destruction.
Sowell believes that the unconstrained are the same kinds of people that believe communism would have worked – if only Stalin wasn’t in power. They fail to understand that a system like communism only brings people like Stalin into power. The same is true for all other forms of Fascism and Socialism that have failed in the past. Power corrupts – this is human nature – the constrained understand this.
In an economic environment, the unconstrained visionary believes that the powers of the free market only appeal to particular interests instead of focusing on the public interests. And Obama, as well as other unconstrained visionaries, have taken it upon themselves to define what “public interests” even means.
They fail to understand that man only has one mind, and by nature there are only individual interests. Only the conglomerate of actions done by individuals, driven by their own one-minded interest, can create the outcome of the “public interest.” There is no one-minded man that can possibly know what is in the interest of the public. Obama with his unconstrained vision is ignoring his senses, and the limitations of his own mind, in replace of his dreams. This is dangerous.
When Sowell is asked why he voted for McCain, his answer was simple: “I wanted a disaster over a catastrophe.” Sowell believes that Obama’s presidency is going to offer a good demonstration… of how government intervention, as a result of an ever encroaching power, almost always messes things up.