Anti-TOBACCO vs. anti-SMOKING (July 23, 2007)

[Note: I am copying this old post more for historical purposes than action. Much has occurred on the legislative front in four years. Still, the philosophical distinctions and approach to the topic in general remain sound. --me, May 3, 2011.]

Current mood: hopeful

When talking about smoking, here's another important distinction to make: Someone who is anti-smoking is one who wants to reduce the amount of tobacco smoke he/she has to deal with, i.e., on a personal level. Someone who is anti-tobacco wants to eliminate use of tobacco products on a different level, typically societal rather than personal.

That distinction forms the basis between Wyoming senator Mike Enzi's anti-tobacco legislation, and Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy's FDA regulation bill which claims to be anti-smoking.

Enzi's is better, plain and simple. Kennedy's bill would cause virtually nothing to happen to reduce tobacco use, which is exactly what the tobacco industry wants, which is why they are for it. Enzi's bill would come at the problem a whole different way, and over the course of a generation, reduce markedly the amount of tobacco used by Americans.

All I can say is, it's about bleeping time something like Enzi's came along. It points out the serious distinctions between What Sounds Good versus What Will Actually Work.

Remember, absolutely every time that the tobacco industry likes something, it's a damn good idea to shoot it down, and conversely, anything they oppose should be passed. They like Kennedy's bill. They even helped draft it.

See details of Enzi's bill here.

'Nuff said.