A Stitch in Haste

It's a basic tenet of First Amendment law that speech (particularly pornography) cannot be restricted for no other reason than because children might be exposed to it. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), (the government cannot "reduce the adult population…to reading only what is fit for children"); cf. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 ("Reno I") (internet access in public libraries cannot be restricted merely because children might use the computer).

Now, the acts of producing, selling, purchasing and smoking cigarettes are not "protected speech" under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, shouldn't the same kind of reasoning apply here?

Congress is considering a bill to prohibit the sale of flavored cigarettes as are New York, Minnesota, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas.

At least one tobacco company, Reynolds American Inc., has already stopped advertising them. Another, Altria, doesn't make candy- or fruit-flavored cigarettes and supports a ban.
...
Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American does not target minors in its marketing but decided to stop advertising flavored versions of its Camel brands -- Mandarin Mint and Dark Mint -- after meeting with Sen. Charles Fuschillo, a sponsor of New York's bill, said company spokesman Fred McConnell. The brands will still be sold, however. "We recognize use of certain names on Camel Exotics have resulted in unintended concerns," he said.

McConnell said the company opposes legislation to ban flavored cigarettes because it would also ban conventional cigarettes. "Ingredients like cocoa, sugar, licorice and menthol have been used in cigarettes for 100 years," he said.

First, let me point out that the hack politician mentioned in the story, state senator Charles Fuschillo, is no stranger to A Stitch in Haste – I previously smacked him down in this post regarding his rights-trampling proposal to raise the smoking age in New York State to 19 from 18. (See also this post.)

And, like those anti-rights proposal, here too we have the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. An entire category of product is to be banned to all, even adults, for no other reason than because "children might get access to it"? If that's not sound reasoning for pornography, then why should it be sound reasoning for cigarettes, which are already forbidden to children anyway? But of course sound reasoning isn’t necessary -- all that matters is that the politicians "did something." Any collateral damage to businesses or adult customers is incidental.

(Notice also the Politics of Pull: Altria, d/b/a Philip Morris, is already the largest producer of cigarettes in the world, so is it any surprise that they favor a ban of a product they don't make? How charitable and health-conscious of them.)

Yes, tobacco is sui generis. Yes nicotine is highly addictive. Yes cigarette makers have a less than perfect history regarding marketing to children. But that all tiptoes around the real issue regarding flavored cigarettes: Is it fundamentally fair to prevent businesses from selling, and competent adults from buying, an entire category of product for no other reason than because children might get access to it?

If you buy that argument, then you must, by definition, also support the complete prohibition of all tobacco generally. And that would just be the beginning.

That thought leaves a far more bitter taste in my mouth than any tobacco product ever could.

POST SCRIPT: Just a reminder that this hack politician is a Republican. Remind me again why there's a libertarian wing of that party?