For years, the harms associated with cigarette smoking have been well known, and over time, society has responded with measures intended to dissuade cigarette smoking and inoculate the general public from its corrosive effects. It began with restrictions on marketing cigarettes to teens, then included restrictions on the types of advertising mediums tobacco companies were allowed to utilize, and over time has come to include substantial taxation on a single pack of cigarettes and surgeon general warnings on cigarette packs. More recently, the FDA has been considering the addition of ‘shock photos’– graphic images depicting the damages of smoking to further discourage cigarette smoking.
On the way to work this morning, I was listening to the news and heard a report citing that even one cigarette can result in severe artery blockage or a heart attack. While the report was taking place, the host asked a simple question: why are tobacco companies still permitted to sell cigarettes in light of these revelations? It was not an unreasonable question to ask, and in fact, the reporter himself agreed and pinned the blame on ‘big tobacco lobbyists’ for keeping cigarette distribution active and in place.
Though an interesting point, I believe the broader question is one of government and its responsibility to its citizenry. Promoting the general welfare has long been a staple of governmental ambition, and the wording itself is listed as one of the chief objectives of the government within the Constitution. But what does that mean in real terms? How does such promotion take place? And at what costs?
Last month a report was released by a team of drug experts stating that the most harmful drug- evaluated on the basis of 16 different criterion, 9 related to the harms of the drug and 7 related to the way the substance harms others- was alcohol. Yet little to no restriction has been enforced on organizations that actively market and distribute alcohol. Regulatory bodies have long insisted that alcohol marketing was to be restricted to those mediums where over 70% of the audience is over the legal drinking age, but they have not prohibited alcohol advertising on television, branded beer cans with the same surgeon general warnings imposed on tobacco products, or created an environment where alcohol consumption is met with the same disdain as smoking tobacco.
The double standard is difficult to defend, and it sheds light on the growing dichotomy between permitting sales of harmful substances and the call for government regulations banning them. There is a need to determine an acceptable level of regulation for substances that cause harm to society, and whether or not a cookie cutter approach should be adopted, or a flexible approach that responds to each substance differently is still subject to debate. The fear is that government oversteps its bounds, enforcing regulations that restrict the freedom of individual choice and conscience. The argument is that individuals should be able to choose their lifestyle, and Michelle Obama’s recent legislative proposal to stem childhood obesity by regulating school nutrition is an embodiment of what many would consider governmental overreach.
I, for one, believe that this question requires further examination and needs to explore the various creative outlets that can be utilized to make harmful substances socially unpopular- social unpopularity being driven by the collective dictates of society and not the result of legislative proscriptions. The reason being that enforcing any legislative rule hinges on the level of concurrence society places on the rule. The prohibition of the 1920’s didn’t fail because of poorly trained police officers. It failed because people loved drinking too much to give it up at the insistence of the state. Once the culture surrounding a substance is collectively changed, so too will the regulations permitting or prohibiting its use.
This behavior is even more evident when looking at societies attitude towards marijuana. Peoples opinion of marijuana is getting progressively more accepting. It has already been decriminalized in twelve different states when being used for medicinal purposes, and in the coming decade I wouldnt be surprised to see a resurgence of legislature intended to ease current regulations on medicinal marijuana from the other states across the US, and in the long run, perhaps a full decriminalization.
As Muslims, part of working towards creating a culture of social unpopularity is grass roots work and hoping that grass roots efforts reach the mainstream. The other part is awareness- campaigns designed to engender an environment where the harmfulness of a substance is detested as much as tar in ones lips from smoking- an example would be a campaign to exhibit the negative effects of alcohol and to characterize drunkenness as foolhardy, immature, and destructive to one’s physical and mental well being. Once that message begins to resonate with people, attitudes will change, and society along with it.
And Allah Knows Best.
Leave a comment