TOBACCO AND CIVIL LIBERTIES: DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE?

by

DOMINIC BRODERICK

LACEY ROZINSKY

CHRISTINA GONZALEZ

One of Americas most biggest problems these days have to do with tobacco and the sale of cugarettes to minors. Many restrictions and regulations have been put on tobacco companies to try and prevent young teenagers form starting thes unhealthy and addictive habit. There have been several court cases held to allow the FDA to have the power to regulate advertisements, ban vending machines, limit billboards and several more.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tobacco is the leading killer among alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroine, homicide, suicide, fires, car accident and Aids. Cigarrettes kill people in three primary ways: cardivascular disease, cancer and respiratory disease. Even though it is known that tobacco is harmfull to one's helath, the move to restirict it's use hass become somewhat difficult. So many people are smokers nowadays that they represent a quater of the adult population.

Recently, evidence has come about that tobacco companies might have tried to coonceal whta they knew about the dangers of smoking. This is why many cancer-sufferers have suedtobacco companies for failing to inform them of America's most biggest problems these days have to do with tobacco and the sale of cigarettes to minors. Many restrictions and regulations have been put on tobacco companies to try and prevent young teenagers from starting this unhealthy and addictive habit. There have been several court cases held to allow the FDA to have the power to regulate advertisements, ban vending machines, limit billboards and several more.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tobaccio is the leading killer among alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroine, homicide, suicide, fires, car accidents and AIDS. Cigarettes kill people in three primary ways: cardiovascular disease, cancer and respiratory disease. Even though it is known that tobacco is harmful to one's health, the move to restrict its use has become somewhat difficult. So many people are smokers nowadays that they represent a quarter of the adult population.

Recently, evidence has come about that tobacco companies might have tried to conceal what they knew about the dangers of smoking. This is why many cancer-sufferers have sued tobacco companies for failing to inform them of a known threat to their health. The tobacco industry reached an agreement that would require tobacco companies to pay billions of dollars in damages to these claimants.

The Food and Drug Administration set up a few regulations that would reduce young people's access to these tobacco products, ban vending machines except in "adult only" facilities, and also a ban on "loosies" or free samples.

The tobacco companies felt that these regulations were violating the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Leaders on all sides of the tobacco issue agree that they may be able to find some common ground on some type of regulatory scheme. These tobacco companies have already file suit to enjoin enforcement of the regulations.

The FDA would be able to ban nicotine as a drug if it could prove that such a ban would result in a significant reduction in health risks and would not create a black market in nicotine.

I beleive that people should have the rih=ght to know what is hazardousto their health and at the same time I think it should banned. Nicotine only kills the people that smoke but it also kills the people that are around the smokers. On the other hand people should also have the right to their freedoms, like the advirtisers should have the freedom to advirtise.

Lacey Rozinsky

Political Science 111 section 01

CAmn you imagine what life would be like if we lived in a society where there were standards for food and drugs to reach? We would be free to eat what we want but we would also be risking our lives each time we put something into our mouths. There is an organization thats job is to test the food we eat and the drugs we take to make sure that it is safge for us to ingest. The food and drug administration tests things to make sure that they are safe to be sold on the market. One of the things that is F.D.A approved is Cigarettes (tobacco). If the reason the Food and Drug Administration is around is to make sure things on the market are safe for us then we should ask ourselves why are cigarettes being sold almost everywhere today? There are actually many answers to that question. One of the answers is the split public opinion.

We all know that cigarettes are harmful. Maybe we found out a little too late. Now we are all informed that smoking causes lung cancer and that it is harmful to pregnant women. We know this now because of all of the people who have had these effects. After realizinmg what the Food and Drug Administration should have realized before it allowed cigarettes to go on to the market and killed so many people. The courts ruled that these tobacco products have to carry a Surgeon Generals warning stating the effect of smoking tobacco. A Sergeon Generals warning is on every pack of cigarettes. Not every pack carries the same warning. On a pack of Kool menthol the sergeon Generals warning states that "smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy". On a pack of Misty Slims the Surgeon Generals warning states thatt "smoking by pregnmant women may result in fatal injury, premature birth, and low birth weight". It does not make sense that the warnings are different even though what is inside of the pack is the same. It also does not make sense that it does not state that cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine is a highly addictive chemical found in cigarettes. This accounts for the reason so many people can not stop smoking cigarettes. They are addicted to them. If so many people smoke and can not stop then the tobacco industry will always have a buisness.

Everyone now knows that smoking is deadly but not everyone takes that into account while buying a pack of cigarettes. How could the industry already have gotten them addicted to smoking. What about the population of people who do not smoke? Is it right to have these people suffer from second hand smoke, which have the same effects of actually smoking the cigarettes themselves? No it is not. That is why there is a law now that does not allow smoking in any public places like restaurants, movies, libraries, schools or stadiums. This is great for the people who do not smoke. They are entitled to live in a smoke free environment. For the people who do smoke this is terrible. The tobacco industry has gotten them addicted to a product and now they have to go out of their way to enjoy what they have become accustommed to for so many years. We can blame this on the F.D.A for not requiring warning labels before so many people have gotten ill from smoking. With a split public opinion it should be up to the government to decide what to do with the tobacco industry. They should decide what to do with the best interest of the public in mind. That would be to outlaw cigarettes. The only thing the tobacco industry does is encourage people to commit suicide. The government can not do that for two reasons. One, it is against the peoples rights who do want to smoke and two, the tobacco industry is an industry that makes billions of dollars each year which makes it's influence huge. Since the tobacco industry makes so mauch money it can sposor things like sporting events, Which makes the public depend on it once again. Without t6he sponsorship of the tobaccoindustry we would have to do without things like film festivals, concerts, plays, exhibition, and sporting events. Which would make us loose once again. It is very hard to go against such a big industry that has alot of control and influence on so many things concerning the public. It is also very hard to make a good decision concerning what to do about the tobacco industry when there is such a split public opinion. The fundings that the tobacco industry provides splits the public opinion even more. The people who do not smoke still support ther tobacco industry they need the fundings that it provides.

In conclusion everyone has a right to there own opinion. The public opinion has a great effect on the decisions the government makes. The people have a say in the government but the voice of money is much louder. As long as the tobacco industry gives more than 50 million dollars to the arts and sporting events each year the fact that 430,000 people die each year because of tobacco can be over looked.

THE RIGHT TO SMOKE

Right or Wrong Dominic Broderic

Do we, as Americans, have the right to smoke? In today's health conscious society, that is a very hard question to answer. No where in the Constitution does it give us this right, but it's main goal is to protect thye individual from unwaranted intrusions into his life by the state. The last I checked it was legal for an adult to buy a pack of cigarettes. Why then is it a crime in most places to smoke them? Tenantas have even been sued for smoking in their own co-op in Fort Pierce, Florida, where 75% of public housing is set aside for non-smokers only.

Yes smokers are a minority, but does that justify the fact that they are being deprived of a growing number of basic civil rights? Smoking has been banned in pretty much every public space, smokers don't even have "separate but equal" facilities, in fact, they get pretty much nothing, except the right to smoke on an international flight, only if it longer than two hours. It is prohibited by law to have designated facilities, like train cars for smokers, restaurants, theaters or flights just for smokers. If they can't smoke with non-smokers or with others that smoke as well, where can they go? Smokers are being looked upon as second class citizens. At least in the past, a black man or woman was allowed to ride in the back of the bus.

This ban on smoking is a form of discrimination, not unlike the racial discrimination seen by blacks in the mid-nineteen hundreds. People believe that, the "menace to public health" argument doesn't hold ground because it was used for segregation in the past. It was said that a white man drinking from the same fountain as a black man would become deathly ill, it was also that Italians, Irish and Jews were the "cause" of polio, cholera, TB, and the bubonic plague. These assumptions were just rediculous, but people held them as a fact. It has been proven that second hand smoke is bad for your health, and I agree that smoking should be prohibited in certain public areas, such as, restaurants and theaters, where non-smokers can escape the smoke. But in public parks, out door sporting events, come on now, where's the justification in that. On an airplane a passenger needs 50 to 75 cubic feet of clean air a minute, if the same is true outside, I,m sure there is more than enough air in a park or stadium for people to smoke freely.

As for smoking being banned in your own home, whether you are renting or own it, that is just a joke. How could our government stop us from doing anything in our own home. This is just an invasion of privacy.

Even though smoking can be hazardous to your health, and the health of those around you, it has been accepted for years and only recently have all these limitations been put on it. Who's to say that other activities such as drinking and eating fatty foods might be a thing of the past in the years to come, just because it is bad for your health. This is supposed to be a free country, where we are free to choose what we want to do. We all know the consequences of smoking. People choose to do it. They find enjoyment in it, and who is the government to deny them that right of happinessas long as they are not hurtinh others. Smoking in your home or an open space presents no danger to a non-smoker, so it should be perfectly legal, and once the government denies us these rights to do this they are denying us our basic right of privacy, the right to persue happiness on private property, and ultimately the right to life.