The present situation
In the last few years, it really seems that the deepest desire of all North American anti-smokers
is the elimination of tobacco from the face of Canada and United States. This appears to apply
to the White House as well, since the present Administration - and Mrs. President in particular
- have launched an unprecedented campaign against smoking, while foreign heads of state are
forced to smoke outside the White House.On the heels of the U.S. 's classification of nicotine as
an addictive drug, Canada -- big surprise -- has promised new, tougher regulation of smoking.
As an observer, I am pleased to see that both Canada and the United States of America are
obviously so free from international and internal problems that they can afford to devote so much
time and money to the promotion of this persecutorial campaign at home and - in the case of the
U.S. - even financing it abroad!
Differently from Europe -- which is much more keen to find accommodation to respect basic
freedom of choice -- the U.S. and its Canadian satellite think nothing of walking all over civil
liberties and human rights, blinded by their own do-gooder persecution of smokers, and the
"protection" from what seems to have become the most dangerous thing after plutonium
contamination: tobacco smoke!
Civil liberties aside, the economic benefits deriving from the manufacturing of tobacco products
are completely ignored -- at least publicly -- by the U.S. & Canadian governments, as well as the
government-backed anti-smoking movement. The billions of dollars collected yearly by these
governments, by merchants selling tobacco, as well as the hundreds of thousand of jobs created
directly and indirectly by the tobacco industry -- all this is brushed aside by a mindless
persecution intended to remove tobacco from any place where it can be possibly consumed. In
some areas of the U.S., it is now considered forbidding to smoke in the house, the last sanctuary
of the individual.
So far, the tobacco companies have struggled to defend themselves, their products and interests
and -- indirectly -- the right of choice of smokers. Let us say here and now that this writer does
not believe for an instant that tobacco companies -- any more than any other big corporations --
are really concerned with the civil liberties issue; but it is a fact that what they do to protect
themselves protects the rights of smokers as well. So far, however, the job done by Big Tobacco
leaves much to be desired.
In general, the tobacco companies have taken an official attitude of quiet, almost passive
resistance, and they seem more concerned in lobbying high-level government, while allowing the
anti-smokers to persecute, and spit their poison on the layman smoker who is the backbone of
their industry.
A change of strategy
We believe that this attitude should change from an under-ground, almost guilt-admitting
behaviour, to one of more active confrontation.
We submit that one very effective way to fight would be to give to the anti-smokers exactly what
they preach.
Overnight, all manufacturing of tobacco products should stop.
Workers would be laid-off, the supply of product to merchants suspended, tobacco-producing
states and provinces would be left without a market -- their economy severely damaged, and the
central government would be left without the billions of dollars of monthly revenue. In a few days,
the smokers would run out of cigarettes.
This should be done swiftly and without warning, in order not to give time to the system to adjust
and compensate.
The tobacco companies should then sit back, and wait for things to happen.
It would be interesting to see how the political zealots in the Canadian and American
governments -- so concerned with public health and citizen "protection" -- would deal with the
simultaneous hits of lost revenue, unemployment, and quite possibly riots from very nervous
smokers. Perhaps the Ministry of Health should handle the situation!
In the United States, this would be particularly effective in this election time.
It is high time for both tobacco companies and smokers to flex their muscles, and show their
economic weight and power to both the governments, and smoke prohibitionists. So far, scientific
evidence, common sense, rationality, courtesy, nothing has worked against a decision made in
the political stratosphere by people who have given ample evidence of being disrespectful of the
freedom of personal choice and -- for that matter -- any choice. What is perceived to be good for
our "protection" is imposed by force and without
compromise. No accommodation options, zero
tolerance. Thus -- unfortunately -- zero tolerance and force is the only response available when
any other attempt fails. Sad day for liberty in democracy.
There are precedents to this scenario. Two years ago in Italy, in the wake of a U.S.-style national
ban of smoking from all public places and transportation, 13 million Italian smokers, represented
by the Italian Smokers Association, threatened a "smoke strike". This would have created a tax
"hole" of over 100 million U.S. dollars each month in the government's coffers. Moreover, Italian
smokers got to the streets in demonstrations that blocked traffic on major highways, thus
paralyzing the normal flow of activities. They made it quite clear that they were ready to fight back
any attempt of physical "crowd control" from the government during the demonstrations.
Less than a month later, negotiations on accommodation were well on their way, while the ban
was repealed and disregarded. Now a law proposal regulating the rights of non-smokers and
smokers in a fair manner is to be discussed in parliament this year.
The financial impact in North America
Without claiming to be an expert in national economy, anyone can roughly calculate the financial
impact of suspending tobacco production in North America. To compensate for the direct and
indirect loss of revenue, unemployment, and loss of business due to the collapse of tourism --
another important battleground -- each U.S. household would have to be additionally taxed in
excess of $400 per year. In Canada this extra taxation would have to be about 50% higher.
Arguments about savings in health care would be irrelevant at this point, for even assuming that
health care savings estimates are not flawed -- and they are -- the benefits in reduced costs
would not be felt for several years.
In a time when taxation, employment, and economic stability are such big issues in the public
eye, this would have a tremendous impact. In spite of the propaganda, each time a smoker lights
up, he/she contributes 8 to 12 cents to the state's income. In North America, smokers are lighting
up over 1,3 billion times a day, or 475 billion times a year.
The settlement
In the wake of this reality, we are ready to bet that an understanding on fairness and
accommodation would be found very soon, and the tobacco companies would be in the driver
seat during negotiations.
Smoking bans would be quickly lifted everywhere, and a well-packaged, face-saving policy of
accommodation -- fair to both smokers and non-smokers -- would then be pursued by the
Canadian and American governments, suddenly and miraculously becoming aware of civil
liberties and human rights. The plug would be pulled on the financing of hate-spreading anti-
smoking organizations, thus saving many millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Tobacco companies
and smokers could then go about their business as they should, while continuing to be important
contributors to the state's economy, productivity, and culture.
Without the fuelling of the state, popular hysteria would subside. Education and free choice,
instead of repression, would then take care of reducing smoking, as is happening in Europe.
The persecution would end.
To achieve this goal, the investment required by the tobacco companies would not be greater
than probably one or two months of revenue in North America. A very small price indeed to settle
this nonsense for good, while setting an example for the rest of the world.
One more thing would be indispensable for the tobacco companies to achieve this result: to have
balls.
Do you have them, Philip Morris?
Comments
Critics may consider this approach simplistic and naive, while consumed businessmen and
politicians may concede a patronizing smile. Perhaps they are right. But eliminating smoking
(forgive -- the politically correct term is "controlling", or "protecting from") is equally naive.
Tobacco has been in our culture for over 500 years, and it is here to stay. Prohibition will simply
elevate it to a very desirable illegal and truly uncontrollable substance, and -- worse -- to a
symbol of personal liberty. Tobacco-related crime will fill our newspaper pages and TV screens.
Prohibition will lose in the end. It always has.
There is, however, a terribly sad aspect to this proposal: the consideration that the North
American concept of liberty has deteriorated so much, we now have to rely on corporate interests
to uphold justice, freedom, and civilization, instead of relying on ourselves as citizens, truly an
obsolete word in the wake of "progress".
We are indeed at the end of the rope.
Gian Turci
