From an editorial Friday in the Los Angeles Times:
In 2009, a new law authorized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes and reduce their terrible toll on the nations health. Even though less than 20 percent of adult Americans smoke, its still the No. 1 cause of preventable death. But the law set up a basic conflict: On the one hand, it established a regulatory regimen designed to make smoking more dislikable and distasteful. On the other, it clung to the basic tenet that smoking is a personal choice adults should be allowed to make for themselves.
No wonder that just about every attempt to regulate the contents and marketing of cigarettes runs into troubling contradictions.
Now the FDA is turning its attention to menthol, and it is running into similar complications. The minty flavoring doesnt make cigarettes more likely to cause disease or death, but it masks the harshness of the smoke, which makes developing a smoking habit easier. It may also make cigarettes somewhat more addictive by acting on the same brain receptors that respond to nicotine. Anti-smoking groups have called on the FDA to ban the flavoring.
Far more science is needed. But even if the addiction theory proves true, a menthol ban would only tinker around the edges of smokings dangers while reducing the options of adult smokers who prefer a particular kind of cigarette.
The big problem with cigarettes isnt menthol or the design of the packaging; its smoking, period. If the government is going to allow tobacco companies to sell cigarettes, whats the logic of requiring those companies to make cigarettes taste worse?
Maybe its time for this country to reopen the tough, underlying debate of whether cigarettes should be banned outright. Perhaps the costs and dangers outweigh the importance of personal liberty and individual choice. But if its determined that adults do have the right to make this potentially deadly personal decision, regulation should be limited to three main missions: consumer information, such as government-sponsored anti-smoking campaigns and better labeling on cigarette packs that include ingredients and health warnings; protecting minors with crackdowns on marketing and sales targeted to them; and protecting the rights of nonsmokers by banning smoking in places where secondhand smoke can harm others.
The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.
Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email email@example.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.Read moreRead less