WATCH OUT FOR THE LURKING TOBACCO POLICE

Things have gone too far in controlling what is a legal substance.

Last fall, Ross Volbrecht was to play his final high school football game.
As rites of passage go, a senior playing his last game ranks high on the
list. It's safe to assume that Ross relished the idea of going into battle
one last time with his teammates in Nashville, Ind.

Unfortunately, Ross was barred by school officials from playing. He wasn't
failing classes, running with a gang or guilty of cheating. No, Ross
Volbrecht was kicked off his high school football team because during a
routine drug test for student athletes, a contraband substance was found:
nicotine.

Ross had taken up chewing tobacco. The nicotine put him in violation of the
school's no-drugs policy. It didn't matter to school officials that Ross,
18, was legally of age to purchase and use tobacco.

Ross was punished for using a product that the administrators decided was
bad for him. Some feel that Ross got what he deserved because in order to
play football, he was required to sign an agreement not to use drugs or
alcohol.

This reminds me of a case in Fairfax, Va., where a 12-year-old honors
student was almost suspended for possessing Advil. The school board
rethought the suspension after deciding that she had not violated the
spirit of their drug policy.

Ross, too, adhered to the spirit of his school's drug ban. He was not using
illegal drugs or drinking. He had nicotine in his system, not "drugs." If
all such "drugs" are contraband, why doesn't the school suspend athletes
for caffeine use as well?

Ross Volbrecht is just one of the latest victims of a "nanny culture" that
places its vision of public health--defined by any number of special
interest groups--ahead of the right to personal choice. From the efforts of
parents to stop drug use among students, this campaign has grown to extreme
and bizarre proportions, as in the anti-smoking activists' crusade to ban
tobacco products in the U.S. Ross' story would have been improbable 10
years ago.

Today, with tobacco squarely in the sights of the public health fanatics,
his predicament was inevitable. Public attitudes toward smoking have
recently been shaped by campaigns against "second-hand smoke" and the
crusades of states' attorneys general.

The original campaign against cigarettes lost steam when many people simply
stopped smoking. Those who refused were tucked safely away in smoking
sections. That's when the coalition of public health gurus found ways to
turn smoking from a personal risk to a societal hazard. Second-hand smoke
is now considered a major health problem despite quality studies pointing
out it's more hype than fact.

This insanity won't stop with tobacco. It seems we can't go a day without
hearing about the dangers of fatty foods or problems with meat and poultry.
Even perfumes and colognes are being banned in some parts of the country.
The need for control is so great, the president recently made it part of
his legacy to outlaw smoking in front of many federal government buildings.
If you're wondering what the New World Order looks like, this is it.

Some states, including Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas, have
already passed laws fining minors up to $1,000 and suspending their
driver's licenses for trying to purchase tobacco. In Idaho, that offense is
enough to be jailed for six months. While no one supports underage smoking,
isn't spending time locked up more damaging than puffing a cigarette or
chewing tobacco?

Those leading the charge against tobacco once scoffed at the notion that
cigarettes would one day be a concern of the police. Today, there are
communities where police officers waste their time writing tickets for
smoking.

If you don't think the loss of personal freedom is a pressing issue, ask
Ross Volbrecht. My guess is he'd tell you it's worth worrying about.