Yes, I have some extreme political views that are way out there. And my support for Prohibition is one of them. I think the case for Prohibition is actually a really simple and just plain commonsense one.
Before I type another word, I should clarify that although I'm using the term "Prohibition," I'm not exactly advocating a return to the same type of Prohibition established by the Eighteenth Amendment. I don't think alcoholic beverages should be outlawed at all. The target of my new Prohibition is tobacco products.
To me, it's just common sense. The Food and Drug Administration carefully monitors certain consumer products to ensure they are safe for public use. Any substance that contains anything harmful is banned, and aggressively chased out of the marketplace. Take, for instance, the pesticide DDT, which was banned when it was found to be potentially toxic and, worse, cancerous. Or, the recent influx of lead-tainted toys into the United States from China: the FDA oversaw the strict inspection of imported toys to ensure they were safe.
What I'm saying is, the government's job is to protect the people, and one of the ways it does that is through the FDA. Why, then, is a product which is known to contain carcinogens legally allowed in the marketplace? If DDT is illegal, why aren't cigarettes? I'd say that the FDA is failing in its responsibility to the American people.
There are, of course, practical ramifications of banning tobacco that the US would have to contend with. Tobacco is a massive industry. Tobacco famers rely on it to pay their bills and feed their families. Tobacco corporations ensure lax government regulations over their deadly products through their lobbyists in Washington. But despite it all, I say strike down the tobacco giants, let the farmer find a new crop to grow, and, most importantly to actually achieve Prohibition, kick lobbyists out of Washington. I admit, this is the sticking point of the new Prohibition plan, since lobbyists are so ingrained in Washington's culture; if they keep making "contributions" to Congresspersons, little incentive will exist for lawmakers to do anything about it.
Arguments for the economic benefit of tobacco don't impress me much. The billions of dollars lost from the fall of the tobacco industry would be more than made up for in the money saved in the medical and insurance industries (after all, smoking related deaths constitute the second highest type of prevantable deaths in this country). Besides, we'd all be healthier for it- and that's worth any price.
Now, many people (especially tobacco lobbyists), would argue that the government has no business regulating tobacco use- whether or not a person smokes is a matter of personal choice. I agree that the government should not interfere with citizens' personal lives, but there is one major exception: people are not legally permitted to do harm to themselves.
The best example of this is suicide. If a person attempts suicide, and fails, they have their freedom taken away and are forcibly placed in mental health facilities. True, in most states, attempted suicide is not technically a crime, but nevertheless, if a person is deemed a "danger to themselves," their rights are hedged.
However, to return to the subject of alcohol, my critics may argue that these same regulations would have to be applied to alcoholic beverages. In response to this, consider the fact that alcohol is not in fact deadly. When used in moderation, it is perfectly safe, and, as some studies suggest, even healthy. Really, anything used in excess can be dangerous- like over the counter medications or fatty foods. In the case of tobacco, the poisonous substances exist even in the very first puff of the very first cigarette- tobacco used in moderation still has potentially lethal effects on health.
So, relying on the above arguments, Prohibition, specifically for the outlawing of tobacco, should be implemented because it is the government's job to ensure the health of the populace by banning dangerous products, and no person has the right to choose to harm themselves.
Perhaps someday this type of commonsense idealism will find itself written into law.
When I first saw the post, I thought "I feel this way, but about cigarettes". Then I read on to see that that was your topic. It is good to know that someone thinks like me! And I agree - I understand that people sometimes smoke because they are addicted, but I really don't see a point to smoking or why it should be allowed.
Arg...I am going out to smoke now.
:-P
I totally have mixed feelings about this but nice blog and well thought out.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
"the government's job is to protect the people"... "no person has the right to choose to harm themselves."
Oh those quote just send chills down my spine. Should the government also regulate my right to date men depending on how "healthy" the relationship is? As it of course is well known that stress greatly affects one's physical health. I harm myself on a daily basis and I LIKE it. You're definition of "harm" can actually be a psychologically beneficial thing.
Have you ever read 1984, or perhaps ever The Giver??
It is the government's job is to SERVE the people. I thought everyone knew that. It's the principle that our founding fathers SPECIFICALLY built this nation on.
When you start deciding what IS and ISN'T healthy for the people, and then what they CAN and CAN'T do, people will riot, and the bill won't pass, because you're ideal world might work for some far off, secluded and oppressive society with limited genetics, but the people here on Earth that like to party and have fun will never go for it. (GO LEGAL MARIJUANA!!) As and Ideal, your idea works, but as an application, never.
Also, nice format. Well written.
I would disagree with your assessment that government is meant to serve the people. I think that's a common misconception, especially in a liberal society like ours, and your mention of the intentions of the Founding Fathers demonstrates that misconception.
There are many theories of government, and I'm sure you've heard of Rousseau's social contract. It states that the people give consent to the government to exercise control over them for their own good. That means, despite the fact we live in a free and democratic society, the government can and does control us through laws.
I have read both 1984 and The Giver, and neither book is an accurate representation of this situation. Prohibition is not totalitarian and only affects negative aspects of society. Also, you may like something, but that is certainly no reason it should be acceptable, unless you are a proponent for anarchy. If you are, then there isn't a point in having this discussion in the first place.
The “health” of a relationship cannot be objectively and scientifically determined the same way the unhealthy effects of tobacco use can, so the government would not be able to justify regulating something like that, even if it is a legitimate health concern.
May I point out that there already is a form of Prohibition in existence that the people allow? Judging from your marijuana comment, I'll guess that you know perfectly well about it: the prohibition against narcotics, be it cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and so on. You can't legally use those substances, so I say you can't legally use cigarettes, either.