»er 4,1997
ne
an
O The Battalion
PINION
hursday • September 4, 1997
m
Aiming at ads misses target
Robby
Ray
columnist
9ers, old col-1
, family and!
get a handle!
cing.Andyou!
ne is not only
ire but for nJ
are key issues
another great
l else and I’m
senses to do
fmine.”
rbungtomiss
last 36 games
concussions
st season and
eck sprain, a
uired surgery
cracked ribs.
n
k his hand.!
ck doorandj
He gotintoa
■veral other
ranager Wes!
spoken with
ter is notone!
ightly."
ler informa-j
e events, we:
mment,” he
-round draft
88. After two
e was traded!
the Spurs in
gement and
i Graphic: Brad Graeber
M ost Americans
would not place
Ronald McDon
ald in the same category
as Joe Camel, but the tvyo
should be'grouped to
gether. Both characters
are used by big business
to lure young children
into an addiction which
will follow them for their
entire lives and possibly
drive them to an early
grave as victims of
chronic disease.
This claim is not as unreasonable as it may at
first seem. Ronald, the instantly recognizable clown
representing the McDonald’s corporation, and Joe,
the mascot of Camel cigarettes, are both widely
known and familiar characters and were, until re
cently, the imaginary representatives of very large,
very real corporations.
It may seem that Happy Meals and cigarettes
have little in common, but there are surprising
similarities. Cigarettes have been shown to con
tribute to lung cancer, emphysema, and a host of
other respiratory ailments.
Fast food is considered by many nutritionists a
major part of the unhealthy diets of most Americans,
and diet is now known to be a contributing factor in
almost every disease and sickness known to man.
Both products, when used as they are intended
and advertised, contribute to chronic health
problems. In fact, heart disease is still a more
dangerous killer, in terms of numbers of deaths,
than lung cancer. Both products are still legal,
and both are subject to increasing attacks and at
tempts at regulation by government agencies and
health organizations.
There are differences, however. Burgers are not
being attacked in lawsuits by the attorneys general
of 39 states, as well as by politicians of all persua
sions and any other group of public figure who
needs a rallying cry.
The state of Florida recently approved a settle
ment with three of the tobacco giants worth $11.3
billion, in which the companies agreed to severe re
strictions on their advertising. The problem is that
these restrictions will do little, if anything, to reduce
underage smoking, which is the aim of the restric
tions. A recent comic tells the story brilliantly. Two
kids are talking and one says to the other “Ever
since they banned joe Camel, I’ve lost all desire to
smoke.” The other responds, “I know, and I don’t
want to drink either ever since they stopped using
the Spuds McKenzie ads.”
The point is this: advertising is not the reason that
kids start to smoke, so changing the ads will not pre
vent them from smoking. The settlement will also
serve to increase profits of the companies by reducing
their overhead and eliminating much of the expense
of advertising in the state of Florida. That money can
then be pumped into other states which haven’t
reached similar agreements, other countries, or other
profit-generating enterprises.
Consider the response if fast food chains were be
ing forced to advertise against their own products
and pay the states astronomical sums of money sup
posedly for the medical treatment of those harmed by
their products. Such a policy would be unthinkable —
wouldn’t it? It is no longer certain.
Advertising is not protected by the First Amend
ment as free expression, even though the courts
have traditionally given advertisers wide latitude to
advertise. They have recognized that advertising is
an essential part of the American economic system.
An individual or company realizes that there is a
need and acts to develop a product to fill that need. In
some instances, a product is developed with the un
derstanding that the advertising will supply the need;
such is the power of some ads.
But advertising is the principle method used by
business to inform the public of the existence of its
products and of their superiority over those of the
competition. It is still the responsibility of the con
sumer to determine which products are beneficial
and safe to purchase.
The government, though, has decided to take that
responsibility from us. Right now, it’s just the state of
Florida, but the national settlement comes up for ap
proval this fall. Soon Uncle Sam, in all his regulatory
wisdom, will be telling us what to smoke, eat, drink, and
look at. Goodbye Ronald and Joe, hello Big Brother.
Robby Ray is a senior speech
communications major.
ncreased smoking regulations hint at totalitarianism
G;
feb
i 1
od bless tobacco and the manufacturers
who produce it. Texas and other states
ith RortlandJVJ have filed suit against the tobacco indus-
jn\,prompting a $368.5 billion settlement to be
approved by Congress. As the industry’s right to
lobusiness is threatened, so are the rights of
ericans to live without oppression, endan-
[ering smokers and non-smokers alike here at
exas A&M.
^ Spurred on by what they perceive as a public
ealth crisis, tobaccophobes Michael Moore,
lississippi’s Attorney General and Florida Gov.
awton Chiles portray the tobacco industry as a
orde of amoral, money-grubbing barbarians,
hey paint images of coldhearted blue-suited C T.( )s
^■1 atching sinister plots to secretly poison Americans
■ ■ ith deceptive advertising and lies about tobacco's
Vfl ealth risks.
If this were 1967, their conspiratorial theories
tight carry some weight, but over the past 30 years
refutable evidence has linked tobacco use to nu-
lerous ailments. Children are warned of smoking’s
r isidious effects beginning in preschool, and the
lealth dangers are common knowledge. People
nake a conscious choice to smoke, and their rights
aust be defended. »
Tobaccophobes assure worried civil libertarians
Donny
Ferguson
columnist
the right to smoke is in no danger.
Recent events prove otherwise. In
Chicago, one man is suing in federal
court to ban his wife. Richard J.
Thomas claims tobacco smoke is a
toxic pollutant and should be
banned from homes under the
Clean Air Act. If Thomas is success
ful, the federal government can bul
ly Americans in their own homes.
As their absurd actions prove,
Thomas and more extremist anti
smoking cheerleaders believe the
only way to save lives is to trample
the rights of free persons.
Tobaccophobes do not intend to stop at banning
smoking. One “public health advocate” has encour
aged the creation of the Fat Tax, hiking prices on
junk foods to discourage Americans from eating
anything without the word wheat germ on the label.
The Health Police have also teamed up with envi
ronmental extremists to launch a full-scale assault
on the meat industry, exploiting recent outbreaks of
E. Coli at a Hudson Foods factory and British “mad
cow” disease to terrorize the public into adopting
their vegetarian ways. PETA, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (not to be confused with
PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals) compared the
poultry industry to Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust,
and beef producers to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.
These and other assorted wackos intend to exploit
the anti-smoking health wave in their quests to ban
meat. Smoking may be nasty, filthy and about as
healthy as licking a toilet in a Texaco restroom, but
libertarian statecraft mandates its protection. To
ban smoking would be un-American, setting a
frightening precedent.
The most troubling aspect of the tobacco crack
down is the fact government cannot justifiably take
away rights, it can only protect them. As recognized
by the Declaration of Independence, our rights are
bestowed by God, not the state. Even as recently as
1961, presidents have acknowledged the origins of
our rights. “The rights of man come not from the
generosity of the State, but from tire hand of God,”
President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural ad
dress. When rights are granted by God, government
has no power to take them away. This is why Ameri
cans have enjoyed two centuries of freedom, while
atheist nations like the Soviet Union and post-revo
lutionary France suffered brutal oppression. Anti
tobacco lawmakers failed to realize societies create
governments to protect God-given rights from in
fringement, not to promote their infringement.
Wfhen Congress approves rollbacks on smoking
rights, they abandon their duty as a libertarian
watchdogs and take on the role of totalitarians.
Cancer, emphysema, heart disease and prema
ture deaths are tragic, but the death of freedom is
more insidious. Once well-financed tobacco is van
quished, nothing can stop Big Brother from banning
beef, salt, MSG, Howard Stern or anything else
deemed unhealthy by our omniscient Nanny State.
Americans may not know it, but their fundamen
tal liberties are rolled in a small paper wrapper
packed with rich Carolina tobacco. Smokers and
non-smokers alike must oppose anti-rights fanatics
and urge lawmakers to take a more libertarian
stance for tobacco. It may be filthy, disgusting and a
quicker ticket to death than wearing a “Buchanan
2000” t-shirt in Tienamen Square, but smoking is a
fundamental liberty which must be protected. With
smoking soon to be banned by publicity-hungry
politicians ignorant of the origins of freedom, meat,
junk food and other pleasurable vices will soon fol
low. Once tobacco is relegated to the dustbin of his-
tory, the creep towards totalitarianism begins.
Donny Ferguson is a junior political
science major.
Alcohol standards should adhere to tobacco principles
I magine it is the
year 2057.
You’re exiled to
planet Zorgo and
doing geriatric aer
obics in a spandex
suit, since the gov
ernment screwed
up your social se
curity account.
Meanwhile, your
grandchildren are
back on planet
Earth where kindergartners are forced
to watch reruns of America’s Funniest
Home Videos, liposuction is a drive-
thru procedure and the government has
issued a prohibition on tobacco.
Underground smoke-houses are
opened where hip pop-culture icons
hang out to read bad poetry and
smoke cartons of cigarettes. A new
surgence of intergalactic mafia lords,
who smuggle tobacco throughout the
milky way, reign over the nation’s cities
and law-makers. Bored homemakers
grow crops of tobacco in their bath
tubs. Unlikely, right?
Poor tobacco. One of America’s nu
merous whipping boys just coughed up
a wad of dough to Florida this past
Monday — $11.3 billion to be exact.
Few questions beg attention when con
sidering this and other legal reparations
which our nation continues to heap
upon the tobacco industry:
A) Who sees this money? (Could
someone please ring up Florida and tell
them to at least donate money to Mia
mi so they can enforce a law banning
elderly, pasty white males from wearing
speedos with black knee-high socks
and sandals?)
B) What is all this hoopla about the
ethics of advertising really saying?
C) In the end, who can we blame?
Along the lines of the year 1776,
some little colonies rebelled against
their tyrannic government. Yes, patriot
ic men rode throughout towns yelling
such things as, “The Red-Coats are
coming! The Red-Coats are coming!”
while people stood around in their to
bacco fields and said, “What the %#@$
is a red coat?” The No. 1 cash crop of
the year 1776? Ahhh yes, tobacco.
Settlers were rather peeved that
their government, an ocean away, was
levying heavy and unfair taxes upon
one of their hottest commodities.
What’s the point? America probably
would not be able to kick Britain’s butt
today if it were not for Smith and his
peer who discovered that nifty, little,
smokable tobacco plant in North
America. America has had a lengthy af
fair with the tobacco plant, and a large
chunk of our economy contributes to
the proof. In other words, the operative
word here is money.
Americans spend more money on to
bacco and alcohol than they do on edu
cation, and we wonder why a country in
Russia that’s only been a nation for
three days has better math scores than
we do. Financial World magazine ranks
Marlboro brand cigarettes, a product of
the Philip Morris company, as the No. 1
brand-name product in the world with
an estimated value of some $31 billion
and an actual revenue of $ 15 billion.
Other friends on the list include Bud-
weiser, Winston Cigarettes, Camel Ciga
rettes, Heineken beer, Johnnie Walker
Red scotch, Guinness Beer, Smirnoff
Vodka, Schweppes mixers and Hen
nessey cognac. Ten out of the top 25, or
40 percent, of the best-selling brand-
names in the world are alcohol and to.-
bacco products. This means the com
bined images and impressions of
tobacco and alcohol trigger more con
sumer recognition than say, Tampax
tampons or Barbie. The conclusion be
ing that this world is populated by slob
bering drunks who chain smoke.
However, an individual cannot sit
around making light of the situation.
People are dying, and the tobacco in
dustry is just mumbling something to
the extent that, “Well, there is a re
mote, albeit slight and very slim
chance, that smoking results in lung
cancer.” We have all lost family and
friends to the ravages of cancer and
disease, most likely brought about by
years of smoking. Moreover, there is
evidence that tobacco companies in
sert addictive additives into their ciga
rettes, complicating matters to senior-
level ethics courses they all must have
missed. Furthermore, opponents of the
tobacco industry claim the advertising
techniques which big wigs such as
Marlboro and Camel use are luring
children into inevitable death.
Okay, people are dying. It happens.
Have a twinkie. Yet, is the tobacco in
dustry the only one guilty of promoting
certain death? As stated earlier, alcohol
is pretty popular. So popular that the
numbers go something like this:
• College students drink an estimat
ed 4.4 billion cans of beer a year. Total
alcohol consumption is some 430 gal
lons which is enough to fill an Olympic-
size pool at every college and university
in America.
• Each year college students spend
$5.5 billion on alcohol; more than
they spend on books, soda, coffee,
juice and milk. On a typical campus,
the average student spends $466 on
alcohol a year (don’t underestimate
those professional drinkers).
• Beer brewers spend an estimated
$15 to $20 million annually to promote
products to college students alone.
These numbers add up to a simple
fact: Advertisements for alcohol are just
as enticing, if not more, as tobacco.
Beer commercials and ad lay-outs have
plasticly enhanced chics wearing tooth
floss and straddling cars. One cannot
deny the out-right attempt by alcohol
manufacturers to promote the image of
the suave, popular bachelor who can
make it with a babe if only he drinks
Brand X beer. What’s worse is that the
gullible American public is the perfect
target for such commercialism, and the
devastating results are as follows:
• 43.5 percent of the 40,155 total an
nual traffic deaths are alcohol-related
crashes.
• 24 percent of the 15 to 20 year old
drivers killed in traffic incidents had a
blood alcohol content of. 10 or higher.
• Alcohol is involved in 55 percent of
all homicides and 65 percent of all seri
ous assaults.
The double standard involved here
is ludicrous.
Let’s step back for a second. On one
hand, we have the tobacco smokers
who, regardless of second-hand
smoke, are for the most part destroying
themselves. By all means, these folks
have a utilitarian right to suck in
enough smoke to turn their lungs into
something which resembles over
cooked spinach, whereas the socially
inept individual who drinks three mar
tinis, jumps into his or her Porsche and
kills someone is violating another indi
vidual’s rights. Yet, where are all the
lawsuits against Bud, Smirnoff, Hen
nessey, Guinness or Heineken? These
alcohol manufacturers are just as
guilty of luring minors into inevitable
death as anti-tobacco groups claim the
tobacco companies to be.
In the end, Americans can only
blame themselves. The individual
makes the choice to light up or have
one too many drinks. The greedy in
ternational conglomerates of death are
just tapping into the true American
drug: commercialism. All the hoopla
about ethical advertising is phooey. If
Americans are hoping to cure modern
morality by cleaning up a couple of bill
boards, they need to do some serious
self-introspection.
With rampant materialism, popular
culture and the ensuing avarice dictat
ing American consciousness, it is no
wonder that the tobacco industry is
bombarded with lawsuits. Americans
are running away from their responsi
bilities and desperately seeking a scape
goat to take upon their conscience. The
individuals who choose self-destruction
must deal with the consequences, not
the devil who sold it to them.
Oh yeah, and who sees the money?
Lawyers.
Michelle Voss is a sophomore
English major.
<U
ItneoaCKer saia It was aim- uiais wnen i learneu lUUiuau was umaiui ivaxe naiiKwiu. saiu nune cunuiuuie as uue ineinuei ui