What's all this about tobacco these days?

A couple weeks ago the Liggett Group lost that big court case and 'fessed up to all manner of tobacco evil.

When that happened, the anti-tobacco folks were jumping for joy, shouting things like, "We've got them now! We've got them now!"

I asked one of those people. What's the big deal? What have we learned here that we haven't known all along?

"It was the deception," he proclaimed. "The tobacco company officials admitted they were lying to us."

He meant the part about cigarettes being addictive and bad for you. For the first time, a tobacco company admitted those two well-known facts.

But we've known that for years. So what if the tobacco company acknowledged it?

Anybody who has ever smoked more than a few cigs knows they're addictive. And who would argue that sucking a few cubic yards of smoke into your lungs every day is good for you?

But now, armed with this new information, smokers believe they have the grounds to sue tobacco companies and get huge amounts of money.

Maybe, if enough people sue, tobacco companies will all go broke and have to go out of business. Then we will have accomplished indirectly what many people in government have been trying to do all along - eliminate cigs from society.

But remember, no matter how much those anti-tobacco folks in government want to get rid of cigs, they'll never muster up the moxy to ban them outright. That would be tough to do. Especially since the government heavily subsidizes tobacco growers.

It also would be economically counterproductive since cigs generate a ton of tax revenue. In fact, if you take all the jobs and revenue the tobacco industry generates, it probably outpaces the health care costs tobacco foes like to complain about.

One of the most bizarre ideas concerning cigs came when the government proposed partially funding a health care plan with cig taxes. Part of the health care plan was an educational campaign designed to get people to stop smoking.

What a twisted mess, cigs.

But now we know that the cig companies deceived us.

One question. How could they not deceive us? What were their billboards supposed to say? "IF YOU SMOKE, YOU DIE!"

Anything less would be deception.

Have you ever read the side of a cig pack? If that won't warn you off cigs, what will?

If you picked up a bag of chips at the supermarket and it said, "Quitting eating chips now greatly reduces serious risks to your health," would you buy them anyway and chow them down?

The deception runs deep. Look at Joe Camel. If the cig companies wanted to be up front about it, Joe Camel would be on a respirator in all those ads.

I think as long as cig companies are producing a legal product, they should be allowed to advertise it anyway they see fit within the law. If the government wants to eliminate cigs, fine. If not, it should back off.

And those harm-to-society arguments really bug me.

First there's the secondhand smoke argument. But that argument has become almost moot. Smokers have been so successfully segregated it's hardly an issue.

Second is the health care cost issue. Anti-tobacco folks love to point out how much health care costs rise because of cigs.

But I'd be willing to bet a week's pay that fast food causes more heart attacks every year than cigs do.

I realize there is no such thing as secondhand grease, but there certainly is a resultant increase in health care costs from all the fat ingested by people in this country.

And there is secondhand burger envy. When I see somebody walking around with a McDonald's bag, I get hungry.

So should the government impose a ban on McDonald's advertising? Should nonsmokers who get fat and ruin their health be able to sue Burger King?

I can see the trial now. Ronald McDonald is on the stand. The plaintiff's attorney asks, "Do you see the plaintiff over there, Mr. McDonald? He weighs 450 pounds and his life expectancy is greatly reduced.

"Tell us, Mr. McDonald, do you remember a chance meeting with this person when he was a child? No? Well, sir, may I remind you that you gave him a balloon? Isn't it true that you influenced him as a child to eat McDonald's hamburgers? Isn't it true that you knew or should have known he would have been better off eating tofu? Isn't it true that your influence led him to a lifetime of bad eating habits and is directly or at least indirectly responsible for his current physical condition? Isn't it? ISN'T IT?"

Ronald can only break down in tears and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

And while we're on the topic of harm to society, what about booze?

When was the last time some guy came home after a hard night of smoking Camel straights and beat up his wife? Or when was the last time somebody crashed his car and killed an innocent family of four because he had one too many Kools?

Health care costs? How many livers are pickled every year by all the evil alcoholic fluids flowing freely in this country?

What about caffeine? Not exactly a healthy substance.

So when will the government begin a crackdown on all those other legal things that are bad for us?

Probably never, because it's politically correct to have a martini, a glass of wine, a burger or a cup of coffee. It's not PC to smoke a cig.

Let me say for the record, lest readers be confused, that I don't smoke cigs. But I don't think people who do should be demonized by the government.

There isn't a person in this country that doesn't know cigs are unhealthy. They smoke anyway. It's their choice. It's their responsibility.

All the government in Washington won't save them from themselves. And besides, is that really what we want our government's role to be?

[[In-content Ad]]