Opinion

My message to government: Butt out

I am a smoker, and while I do not promote the practice, I continue to smoke
knowing full well the possible consequences. I am also in a position to
commiserate with Rep. James McGovern on the death of his motherinlaw. My
motherinlaw similarly passed away from lung cancer, although she never
smoked a cigarette in her life. On the other hand, as fate would have it,
my mother, who is now 82, has smoked about four packs of superlong
cigarettes a day for most of her life. Her worst problem is that she
occasionally forgets which brand she smokes. But that is not the question,
of course. The question is: How far does the government go to eliminate
smoking in the population?

Mr. McGovern's direction is typical of many government mandates in that it
fails to comprehend that for every action there is an opposite and equal
reaction. An exorbitant tax levied on a pack of cigarettes, with the
intention of pricing the product out of the range of young people, will
also be a tax on the senior and poor people in the country who choose to
smoke. He also ignores the fact that every product that has been
"prohibited" has found its way into the market at great profit to an
underground economy.

If Rep. McGovern's "tax it and it will go away" theory worked, then our
drug problems would have disappeared long ago. The fact remains, even
illegal substances are readily available on the street, taxfree.

His statement, " 'Big Tobacco' should help reimburse our heath care system
for the irreparable damage it has caused," is equally myopic. If the public
at large is to be reimbursed for past damages in some grand classaction
scheme, then the government, too, has some reimbursement responsibilities.
My smoking habit, for example, was mostly the result of the Army passing
out free cigarettes in Cration kits.

Further, to my knowledge, the government, and particularly Congress, is
accomplice to the tobacco industry by subsidizing tobacco farmers to grow
the substance. This scheme has innumerable consequences for a multitude of
products believed to be safe at one time and later condemned as
detrimental. Other products, namely alcohol, while clearly illegal, have no
problem finding their way into an underage culture. And if I were to guess
the reason for my motherinlaw's demise, the thought comes to mind of the
bus and car traffic that passed by their home. Are we to someday also
collect from the auto makers and oil producers? Just how far is Mr.
McGovern willing to stretch this concept?

You cannot legislate morality. They are lessons taught at home, in church,
synagogue, mosque, temple and perhaps to a lesser degree in public or
private schools. The most detrimental result is produced by a government
fostering the doctrine of passing responsibility to a third party. We are
all responsible for our own actions. Whether it be substance abuse, poor
judgment or plain stupidity, government mandate does not supersede
individual choice.

Mr. McGovern might look towards government's own addiction to tobacco, in
the form political campaign financing. It is also time for Washington to
reevaluate its predilection for using fines and taxes as a punitive
measure on the American public. It is pompous at best and asinine at worst.
I therefore also must disagree with Mr. McGovern's last statement, "By
working together public officials, community leaders, parents and young
people alike we can make real progress in saying 'no' to smoking and
'yes' to happy and healthy lives." I say better, "You tend to your house
and I'll tend to mine."

I have a step or two on Mr. McGovern in that regard, both my children think
smoking is abhorrent, and they came to that conclusion without the help of
Congress.

Frederick R. Satkin of South Dartmouth is president of Satkin Mills, Inc.
of New Bedford.