u235

For once this isn't a rant "per-se" but rather a highlight on an interesting topic. The news event that spawned this commentary is that the Supreme Court's rejection of a lawsuit by the tobacco industry. R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard had claimed that their first amendment rights were violated by California. It seems that California has been taking cigarette taxes and using the money for anti-smoking campaigns. Of course the tobacco industry is aghast that not only is the state making money on their product, they're using the money to potentially decrease users.

It's an interesting, if not amusing, situation. It clearly puts tobacco in the 'parasitic' category of human vices. The more people that buy the product, the more taxes, the more anti-tobacco advertising... and visa versa. While tobacco will never actually go away, it's clear that it can be significantly reduced by burdening prevention and medical costs to the people willing to pay for the right to kill themselves.

Apparently California had a particularly offensive (to the tobacco industry) message in one of their most recent ads. They had children being showered with cigarettes on a playground, with the accompanying message informing people that in order to remain profitable the industry had to get new smokers... their children. While it's clearly a nasty message, it's not really a lie. Given that we have now publicly recognized that tobacco has harmful health effects, it's in the interest of the state to want to protect it's populace through education, since that and taxes are their only defense.

So tough shit R.J Reynolds. You and your buddies can continue to make money off of smoking addicts, but as time goes on your attempts at a fashionable veneer will be publicly stripped away. Someday not even the image of being 'tough' or 'bad' will be sufficient inducement if kids and parents are taught the cost of addiction.

I look forward to that day.