Texas Straight Talk

A weekly column

Moving Towards Tobacco Prohibition

Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States.  It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry.  It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good.  Such is the condescension of Washington.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA.  It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment.  It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar.  The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products.  It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco.  As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit.  And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice.  The way to combat poor choices is through education and information.  Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people.  Regulations for children should be at the state level.  Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well.  We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs.  A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana.  Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path.  Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco.  Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders.  How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?

Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new.  It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then.  Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all.  Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it.  In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry.   One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.

Posted by Ron Paul (06-15-2009, 01:32 PM) filed under Civil Liberties, Healthcare

Comments

Comment by Liza
June 15, 2009 01:53 PM
What is it that our elected politicians (as a whole) don't understand about personal freedoms? We elect them to protect us and they "mess" us over every chance they get with few exceptions. As one of the few "good guys" keep up the good fight. Thank you for all you try to do!
Comment by Derek Johnson
June 15, 2009 02:02 PM
"...we join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, 'to be free from freedom.'"

Eric Hoffer

"Collectivism is a doctrine of war, intolerance, and persecution."

Ludwig von Mises

"Liberty is always freedom from the government."

Ludwig von Mises
Comment by Pam
June 15, 2009 02:07 PM
Dear Mr Paul

The States aren;t doing anything about it... Are you? where is your campaign against tobacco or towards educating us about tobacco?

So if you at the state level don't do it... who is gonna do it?

We have been lied to by the media, our congressmen, our government, etc all to protect the corporations who pay for your election campains... Who will face them for us?

I agree with what Obama is doing... It was about time that someone looked after us and not the corporations..

Sorry Mr. Paul but ideology can never overrule common sense and the wellbing of US the People.
Comment by Epicurus
June 15, 2009 02:09 PM
Oh yeah, and let the Chinese sell their poisoned pet food, tainted milk, and their lead painted children's toys free of bothersome FDA government regulations. Let the buyer beware! Let the Free Market deal with it.

This article is a prime example of why the pure Libertarian philosophy cannot garner more than 5 percent of the national vote. The tobacco companies sell a product that, if used as intended, in most cases kills or causes great bodily injury to its consumers. Even worse, the rest of us end up paying the costs of caring for the death and injury caused by these products. I have no problem with people becoming nicotine addicts if they wish, but the tobacco companies need to come up with a better drug delivery device than a cigarette. Evidently, they won't do so unless the FDA forces them to.

One principal role of government is to protect the health of the citizenry.
Comment by John in NM
June 15, 2009 02:23 PM
Thank you, Dr. Paul, for all you do. While I believe there should be oversight and enforcement with regard to false, misleading and /or fraudulent activities in the tobacco industries, I think the tobacco industry should be subject to already-existing laws covering these activities, and not be singled out for special treatment by expanding the duties of an agency already hard-pressed to handle its mission. Keep up the good work.--
Comment by jerry t. searcy
June 15, 2009 02:33 PM
Another liberty lost via the D's & R's. Will we ever learn?
Comment by Roger Barr
June 15, 2009 02:37 PM
To the last to people apposing you Dr. Paul, I in turn applaud you!!!
Where was the FDA when lead was found and how many of those toy's where all over the country. Also before the FDA go involved the industry was the one's that found the lead in the paint and took care of the problem.
As far as Tobacco, I am 51 years old and maybe smoked 1 pack of cigarettes of curiosity. And never smoked again. Even at my youn age in the 60's we all new the danger and we all have the choice to make. Those that make these choices must be held accountable to there own choice not all of us!!!! As we all know you give the Govt and inch they will take a mile. What's next the vegetable oil police, sugar police, cigar police, ice cream police. All these things are know to be bad. But we all make choices.
God Bless you Dr. Paul. Free the constitution and free our country for true freedom. Not total government control.
Comment by John L
June 15, 2009 02:39 PM
Epicurus states that "The tobacco companies sell a product that, if used as intended, in most cases kills or causes great bodily injury to its consumers."
Given that the dangers of tobacco products are well known, the "fault" is with the buyers. If there is to be regulation of a personal choice, the Constitution says it can only come from the states or local governments.

He goes on: "Even worse, the rest of us end up paying the costs of caring for the death and injury caused by these products." That's why Dr. Paul has been saying that the "rest of us" should not be paying for others' health care via socialized medicine. Let the smoker pay his own health bills. That's called freedom and taking responsibility for one's actions. Something the nanny-state wants to eliminate.
Comment by Frank Jimenez
June 15, 2009 02:45 PM
Ron, You are dead wrong if you think that the advertising the tobacco industry does falls on deaf ears. Advertising works or else corporationw wouldn't be spending billions yearly on it. We need someone to keep them from spewing murderous drivel. Nicotine kills. Name one good use for tobacco and I'll side with you in your stance regarding the farmers forced out of business. But didn't the Gore family quit the business when Al's sister died of lung cancer?
Comment by Aaron
June 15, 2009 02:45 PM
So the Republican Party is searching for its soul, right? I hope they realize Congressman Paul is that answer. There is mass appeal to recapture our civil liberties. Just go to one of the tea parties.
Comment by John Magee
June 15, 2009 02:46 PM
Hemp was outlawed by the steel and oil industries because it would have hurt their profit margins, and of course government helped. But tobacco has no other quality except to maime and kill. We need to reverse the laws and lies about hemp and create new stronger laws about tobacco. Do you think that they might stop producing tobacco products if the CEO's were held personally responsible for peoples deaths? Or for conspiring to expose children to a dangerous product/lifestyle? What they have done is criminal, and they need to suffer the consequences!
Comment by Epicurus
June 15, 2009 02:50 PM
Do you censor comments you don't agree with? I don't see my comment.
Comment by Jacob
June 15, 2009 03:11 PM
"One principal role of government is to protect the health of the citizenry."

This country was not founded on the idea that the government would take care of us. This country was founded on the idea of individual freedom and tolerance. Our government does not know better than I do how to maintain my physical and mental health. Beware of the slippery slope. For instance: If the government decided that running was bad for your health (which, by the way, is not far-fetched) then runners would be forced to stop running.
Comment by Andy
June 15, 2009 03:14 PM
Pam,
If you are not capable of making your own decisions regarding your life, go live in a nursing home. They will make all of your decisions for you. The rest of us choose to live by own decisions.

Epicurus,
It is absolutely NOT the role of the government to protect us from ourselves. The government's principal (and only) role is to protect our individual freedoms from those who would wish to destroy them. In this case, it is the government who is trying to eliminate our freedom of what we put into our bodies. And you cheer them on, even as they lay waste to the Constitution.
Comment by bob
June 15, 2009 03:14 PM
I believe that the tobacco companies have made additives to cigarettes to make them more addictive due to corporate greed. I think citizens do need to be protected from this. I also feel the previous posts by Ron Paul against the government bailout were wrong. Lack of government oversight caused alot of these problems and to have the government just turn its head at this point is irresponsible.
Comment by Maggie
June 15, 2009 03:16 PM
Pam, I believe you are completely missing the point of Ron's article. I personally don't need my actions and choices to be controlled by 'well-meaning' people or by those with a hidden agenda, whether one exists or not. I much prefer to be treated as an adult and make my own choices. Further, where children are concerned, parents need to parent their children, not the state.
Comment by Maggie
June 15, 2009 03:18 PM
Pam, I believe you are completely missing the point of Ron's article. I personally don't need my actions and choices to be controlled by 'well-meaning' people or by those with a hidden agenda, whether one exists or not. I much prefer to be treated as an adult and make my own choices. Further, where children are concerned, parents need to parent their children, not the state.
Comment by David
June 15, 2009 03:20 PM
It is not at all the prerogative of the US federal government to attempt to protect the health of citizens by offering incentives and disincentives for particular habits such as smoking. The so called protection of the FDA involves taxing a nasty and addictive habit and turning a profit under veneer of caring for our health. Money is the governments real interest, and smokers are a politically expedient group. That we have such a collectivist approach to this issue, as evidenced by people complaining about having to pay for the health care of the smokers, demonstrates one of the problems with collectivism. Since all of us feel like we are forced to pay for and support each other, all of us begin to want to control one another and stick our noses where they do not belong. This is an attempt at using a second wrong while ignoring the first.

There are already laws which protect against lead based paint and tainted food, and in a market undistorted by the government's favored protection of certain politcally connected corporations, the price to pay for those errors would be much greater.

Or maybe some who have posted about how out of touch Dr. Paul is believe that suing city hall, once it controls a sector of the economy, would be easier.
Comment by Peppyflame
June 15, 2009 03:20 PM
Eoucurus, you will change your tune when they pass national health care. Then the Government will have there hooks into everything. Fast food will be a thing of the past. As will all smoking materials To insure your good health you will be required to drive 55 mph again so you don`t have a bad accident and land in the hospital. Anything the Government deems unhealthy will be banned. Listen to Mr. Paul he sees what is ahead. Wake up and smell the coffee. That is before the Government bans it too.
Comment by John
June 15, 2009 03:20 PM
"One principal role of government is to protect the health of the citizenry." If this is true then what is your role in your personal health? Is the government keeping you from eating all the processed food that has been proven to be bad for your health? What about all the artificial sweeteners? It is up to you, not the government to keep you from putting things in your body that are toxic or bad for you, the materials are out there for those who want to educate themselves and it is not up to the government or anyone else to lead you to them. All tobacco products come with a health warning printed on the packaging; what else is needed? People who will use these products will use them (including our current president who smokes). Some of the responses to this article outline exactly what the point of the article is, which is put personal responsibility back in the hands of the people. Is it not the governments job to push you back from the table when have eaten enough or tax your sugar laden drinks and snacks to keep you from over indulging in them, that is your job! People keep looking to government for the answers but there are none to be found there....it is so funny that people put all this faith in what the government can do for them but you ask these same people if they will be retiring on the their social security and they will tell you "NO".
Comment by John Mahler
June 15, 2009 03:21 PM
It is incomprehensible to me that Epicurus and Pam have traded their freedom for protection from a personal choice. You are both Fascists and progressive socialists. You wouldn't be paying for the care of idiots who choose to smoke if there were not Medicare/Medicaid programs in place. I am apalled you campaign against personal choice because you are taxed for the harm tobacco causes its consumers. You should be campaigning against Medicare and Medicaid! I wish smokers would use better judgement and not use tobacco, but I will not yield a particle of my Sovereignty under the Constitution to save one of their foolish lives. If there were no help for victims of tobacco, it would soon go out of favor as a substance. Medicare and Medicaid enable the addiction because people who smoke think their deteriorating health will be treated until they are well and can resume their addiction. Stop opposing Freedom to choose.
Comment by Don Mankow
June 15, 2009 03:26 PM
Dr. Paul, I voted for you for president, and will continue to. You are one of the few people in government that understands our history, and believes in personal freedom, and liberty. I do not want to live in a country whose government believes they are my parents and treat me like a child. Thank you so much for all you do to preserve the liberties that i still have. God Bless You, keep fighting the good fight!!! In Liberty, -Don Mankow
Comment by robert
June 15, 2009 03:31 PM
People such as Pam and Epicur are the reason this country is in the shape it is in today. Next com3es fast foods and sugary snacks.
Comment by John
June 15, 2009 03:32 PM
It is great reading all the comments and seeing some opposition to Ron Paul. We ALL know tobacco products kill and are bad for you. However, do we really need more regulations and more government power at the expense of the taxpayers because of tobacco? The answer is NO and that is what Dr. Paul is stating.
Comment by Jerry M
June 15, 2009 03:33 PM
Dear Rep. Paul,

I find myself in general agreement with you with regard to individual freedoms and liberties, but I'm left wondering about the prudence of legalizing marijuana. Unlike alcohol, there are no reliable methods to measure degree of impairment. I'm concerned that we would have far too many pot heads on the road. I do realize that law enforcement is trained to detect impairments other than alcohol, but lacking physical evidence, intoxication convictions other than alcohol are hard to come by. I can not justify risking lives in the name of individual liberty in this case. Do you have a plan to prevent filling the roads with folks high on marijuana?
Comment by C. L. Brown
June 15, 2009 03:43 PM
Constitutionality aside, detractors of Dr. Paul above make great points.

I think one of Ayn Rands great points is to take what people say as they say it, not to "know what they mean".

Lashed in the face is what we are. Strikes like this against our embodiement of freedom, on paper, are real blows from Congress to us.

Strikingly, I don't see this as a blow to marijuana going straight as Dr. Paul might. He wrote, "A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated.." Sounds here like more regulation is right up Mainstream's alley.

Boo on mainstream in that case.
Comment by Tony Isaacs
June 15, 2009 03:45 PM
First of all, given the way the FDA unconsitutionally restricts access to information and purchases of healing herbs and other natural dietary supplements and serves in effect as a protection racket for Big Pharma to keep dangeous drugs like Vioxx on the market for years after it was proven that it was causing tens of thousands of deaths annually, what makes anyone believe that the FDA will actually protect us from the harmful products of Big Tobacco any more than the FDA currently protects us from Big Pharma?

More than likely, what we will see is the FDA selling out to Big Tobacco and putting up prohibitive barriers to natural, unadulteraated tobacco products (such as the Sky Dancer cigarettes which use natural leaf tobacco, are grown pesticide and herbicide free, and contain no chemical additives) while protecting the products of Big Tobacco products which routinely add chemicals to make them burn slower, stay lit and be more addictive.

Anyone want to place any bets on how restrictive the FDA will be on such added chemicals? As restrictive perhaps as they are on MSG, Aspartame, thimerasol, formaldehyde and aluminum that are routinely added to our vaccines?
Comment by Art
June 15, 2009 03:45 PM
To those who support the continued and increased regulation of tobacco:

BEWARE! The next item to be regulated and overtaxed just may be something you enjoy. Most carbonated soft drinks -including diet versions- contain phosphoric acid which eats through metal and which could contribute to your death if used as suggested by the manufacturer. Are we prepared to let the FDA make up our minds in this matter? Should a people be able to choose what they imbibe?

To those who support the continued and increased regulation of tobacco:

BEWARE! The next item to be regulated and overtaxed just may be something you enjoy. Most carbonated soft drinks -including diet versions- contain phosphoric acid which eats through metal and which could contribute to your death if used as suggested by the manufacturer. Are we prepared to let the FDA make up our minds in this matter? Should a people not choose for themselves what to imbibe?

Regarding the dangers of tobacco, it is rarely mentioned that for decades now, anybody who ever smoked and admitted to it has their cause of death listed as 'smoking'. My great-grandfather worked in coal and pot ash mines for nearly 80 years and smoked an occasional cigar. When he died (at age 101!) his cause of death was listed as 'smoking'! Do we not grow old and die anymore? I do not mean to suggest that we can all smoke and live to a ripe old age; no doubt smoking is the primary cause of many types of cancer but use some common sense when the statistics are brought out.
Comment by OLD OZ
June 15, 2009 03:48 PM
The tobacco regulation is less about health than it is about control. Big governmnet wants to control every facet of our lives and Obama and the other socialists in WDC, will not give up until they have complete control of our lives.
Freedom is dying in this country and very few see it or care.
Comment by Furthermore
June 15, 2009 03:53 PM
Why do people have to be so intolerant? Why deny someone that thing they need in order to get through this dreary existance? Why are there so many bullies who demand we all be like them. People who feel a need to control other people's actions by force. Using the government to make laws because some self-rightous bully says "This is bad for them. Something should be done about this." is no better than beating up a six-year-old in the grade school playground. Furthermore, the comment about smoking costing so much in health care only displays ignorance. Research the subject and you will see that the "healthy" people are the ones who are draining the health care plans. These are the people who have out-lived their bodies by 20 years and now have a plethora of ailments that require medical attention. They are the ones draining Medicare, Social Security and private supplemental health insurance companies. Let us partake of our vice. There is a chance we will die sooner thereby SAVING these institutions tremendous costs.
Comment by Hugh Goetz
June 15, 2009 03:55 PM
All drugs are killers depending on how they are used. I will get to tobacco later. First, a bit of history: William Randolph Hearst was largely responsible for the misinformation about marijuana. To quote one of his many ploys extolling the evils of it, "Marijuana crazed negroes rape white women" His major concern was stopping hemp use to make paper thereby protecting his fortune in forest land for his newspapers. Crimes by alcohol users far out number those by marijuana users, not because alcohol is legal, because the effects of the two drugs differ greatly. When heroin and cocaine were legal in America no one had to steal or kill to aquire them. We regulate alcohol users as to where they may use, how much they can use and at what age they may use and the quality of the product they are using. The same could be done with heroin and cocaine. The price of legal drugs would be less expensive. Controlling the content and ingredients in all drug products not just alcohol would save lives. Even though legal regulation of the distribution prescription drugs is sorely lacking in our country the benefits of legalizing cocaine and heroin would end the drug wars, and at least slow down the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico, Central and South America.
Prohibition of alcohol failed. Prohibition of tobacco may succeed due to the fact that even though both tobacco and alcohol are killers, smoking has become a social pariah. They claim second hand smoke will kill you, drunk drivers will kill you and carbon monoxide will definetely kill you. You had better fight to hang on to every freedom you have. Sex can also kill you.
While our government is regulating everything, why not make WAR illegal?
Comment by Mark Hynes
June 15, 2009 03:58 PM
Jerry,

Marijuana doesn't impair the ability to drive even close to the same extent that alcohol does. Anyhow, the laws on alcohol and driving our fundamentally flawed as is. We shouldn't be prosecuting people for what is in their body while they drive, we should be prosecuting people who drive poorly (break traffic laws), and who cause accidents. The incentive to not drive while intoxicated should come from the increased risk of accident/death, and perhaps from increased fines/punishment. I have no problem with increased punishment for a poor driver who was intoxicated while driving, because they are willingly putting other people's lives at increased risk. If someone had a couple beers and is driving perfectly fine, as some people are capable of doing, I don't see a problem. It is bad driving and accidents we are trying to prevent, not driving while intoxicated. If we were focused on the right thing, your point would be a non-issue. I would much rather see someone who just plain sucks at driving and gets into accidents constantly lose their license over someone who drives fantastically but drunk (or high) all the time.

Submit a Comment


XML BLOG Postings via RSS

Recent Posts

Categories

Authors

Archive