|
Using tobacco ... to limit freedom
The Washington Times
Wed, Apr 08 1998
The tobacco legislation approved by the Senate Commerce
Committee last week represents the largest and most dangerous
expansion of government during the entire Clinton presidency. With
active support from Republicans and Democrats, the deal is going to
boost the size of government, reduce individual freedom, and create
frightening new precedents for further bureaucratic control over
our lives. Consider what this deal means to America:
* More taxes. By agreeing to raise taxes (probably by $1.50 a
pack when the dust has settled), politicians will seize at least
$65 billion more in resources from the productive sector of the
economy. With the tax burden already at an all-time high, seizing
more than 38 percent of an average family's income, Congress should
be cutting taxes rather than increasing them. At the very least,
any new revenues from tobacco taxes should be used to finance other
tax cuts.
* More spending. Instead of using the new revenues as an
offset for tax cuts, politicians intend to spend the money. The
only suspense is whether the new money is used to finance Medicare
spending (the Republican approach) or used to fund other types of
domestic spending (the Democratic plan). No matter who wins,
taxpayers lose. States, meanwhile, will get direct payments from
the tobacco companies, allowing them to go on their own spending
sprees.
* More regulation. The deal gives the Food and Drug
Administration sweeping new powers to regulate tobacco as a drug
delivery device. As a result, the agency whose mismanagement and
bureaucratic delay keeps life-saving drugs off the market will now
be able to divert its attention to engaging in a holy war against
cigarettes. What is next? Will lawmakers give the FDA the power
to regulate Big Macs? After all, obesity-related illnesses cause
nearly as many premature deaths as smoking.
* Less freedom. Perhaps the most disturbing feature of the
agreement is that it undermines the freedom of people to make their
own decisions about life. Yes, smoking is dangerous, but so is
skiing, driving a car, drinking beer, hang-gliding, and having sex.
Most Americans presumably believe they should make those decisions
for themselves, but the tobacco deal represents a substantial
erosion of the principle of self-determination.
* Interference with parental responsibility. Borrowing a page
from our empathizer-in-chief, lawmakers argue that this must happen
to prevent children from smoking. This, however, is the role of
parents. From the father of three pre-teen children, you can rest
assured they are receiving strong messages about right and wrong -
including why smoking is a dumb thing to do. How likely is it, by
contrast, that the same government that has trouble getting the
mail across town is somehow going to convince kids not to smoke?
In all likelihood, the campaign will backfire by making the habit
more alluring to teen-agers looking to rebel.
* Subsidizing the enemy. Part of the agreement surely will
result in big payoffs for trial lawyers. These are the same trial
lawyers, incidentally, who are among the biggest contributors to
left-wing candidates and campaign committees. Needless to say, it
makes absolutely zero sense for the Republicans controlling
Congress to finance their own destruction (though they at least get
credit for consistency, since they already are giving taxpayer
money to labor unions, the American Association of Retired Persons,
environmentalists, and other GOP opponents).
* Destroying the rule of law. The tobacco legislation is the
result of extortion that first began when state attorneys general,
acting in concert with trial lawyers, sued tobacco companies
seeking money to help pay for state health care costs. Their logic
was bizarre: Some individuals, despite the well-known risks, are
dumb enough to smoke. As a result, they sometimes get sick.
Government, in its infinite wisdom, then decides to shield people
from the consequences of their dumb decisions by paying for their
health care.
According to the tortured reasoning of the lawsuits, the
tobacco companies should be held liable for the fact that both
people and governments make silly decisions. By the same logic,
the states should sue sellers of high-calorie food to recover the
cost of obesity-related illnesses. Even though the cases lacked
merits, tobacco companies felt they had to settle because state
politicians could have continued the lawsuits indefinitely.
* Undermining the first amendment. Although the politicians
have not quite figured out how to avoid legal challenges, they
fully intend to restrict the free speech rights of tobacco
companies to advertise and market their wares. Needless to say,
the first amendment is supposed to apply to everyone, not just
those in the good graces of politicians. Indeed, the tobacco fight
illustrates why the Founding Fathers were wise to include the Bill
of Rights as part of the Constitution, thus ensuring that our
rights would not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.
The upcoming legislation is a huge defeat for individual
freedom. And although they are big losers as well, the tobacco
companies do not deserve much sympathy. They attempted to strike a
Faustian bargain. In exchange for giving hundreds of billions of
dollars to the politicians, they hoped to get legal changes
shielding them from endless lawsuits. Not surprisingly, the
politicians are taking the money, but not delivering on the other
half of the bargain.
One is tempted to say the cigarette companies got what they
deserved. They failed to fight on principle and thought they could
enter into good-faith negotiations with the least trustworthy
people in the country. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be the
real losers. The politicians now have a precedent allowing them
unlimited ability to restrict our freedom and control our lives.
Daniel J. Mitchell a contributing writer at The Washington
Times
(Copyright 1998)
_____via IntellX_____
Copyright 1998, The Washington Times. All rights reserved.
Republication and redistribution of The Washington Times content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of The Washington Times.
The Washington Times shall not be liable for errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
| 
