Prohibiting Prohibition
THERE is a missing word in the great tobacco debate now going on:
PROHIB ITION.

Why is the Pword taboo? In some large measure, it is a residue from our
experience with the constitutional prohitition of aIcohol from 1919 to
1933. After all, as we all know, Prohibition caused speakeasies, gangsters,
bathtub gin, murders in Chicago, and anyway, America kept right on
drinking. We are told that "prohibition doesn't work. "

Wrong. Here is what Mark Moore, professor of criminal justice at Harvard
University, reports about thc Prohibition years: American consumption of
alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates for men
declined by two thirds. Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly
conduct decreased by 50 pereent.

It flgures: Such are the quite logical results from making a product much
less accessible. This all came about through a rather weak set of laws that
did not prohibit use or production for one's own consumption, and gave
people a year to stock up before banning commereial manufaeture and
distribution.

Durin' Prohibition, violent cr~e did not increase, Moore sai~. ~nlzed
crime? It existed before and after Prohibi tion~ And what happened when
Prohibitton was repealed7 A1cohol eonsumptlon increased substantially.
NOTHER reason prohibition seems to be out of the current dialogue relates
to the thought that cigarettes always were, and therefore always will be.
Wrong. According to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's book "A Smoking Gun: How the
American Tobacco Industry Gets Away With Murder" (Longrnan Trade/Caroline
House, 1984), tobacco has been around for a long time, but cigarettes as we
now know them were not an item of mass consumption until about 1915.
Interestingly, a major factor in their emergence was the advent of the
portable safety match. Suddenly, using tobacco didn't Involve fussing witb
pipes or cigars, nicotine delivery systems not usually associated with
inhalation of tbe weed. More interesting ls this: Cases of lung cancer were
extremely rare before cigarettes came along. Professors in medical schools
would tell students tbat if they heard of a case of lung cancergo visit
the patient quicky because they wouldn't likely ever see another.

The reason that prohibition ought to be in the dialogue is health.
Cigarettes cause 450,000 preventable deaths each year, aeeording to U.S
government estimates. That's from intended use, as opposed to about 100,000
such deaths from abuse or misuse of alcohol. Half of the premature deaths
in Amerlca are caused by cigarettes. Once called "coffin nails," cigarettes
cause 38 pereent of cancer cases in the Unlted States. Cigarettes are the
leading cause of preventable bltndness, pancreatic eaneer and male
lmpotence at ages above 60. Nearly 200,000 deaths per year from heart
diease are caused by cigarettes. Cigarettes are a cause of colon cancer and
linked to metastasized breast eaneer. Ctgarettes are often implicated in
kidney failure. The list could go on and on. They are poison.

If cigarettes didn't exist until relatively recently, if prohibition vorks,
if cigarettes are so harmfulcould we unexist hem? Why don't we at least
talk about prohibition?

Lots of folks think prohibllon would be terrible. Libertarians think it's
antilibertarian, and worry about an intrusive nanny State. Plaintiffs'
lawyers would lose their clients. Big Tobacco would have to peddle its
poison plants overseas. Federal, state and municipal governments would have
to find huge new sources of revenues. Socia1 Security would be harder to
fl~ because people wwld live longest Mang politicians would need new
sources of cash. Smokers need the weed, a1though sevral tens of millions
have wisely stopped. Farmers, retailters and distributors need the money.
Advertising agencies need the commissions. Most consumerists and
environmentalists, prepared to pump up ~st about any other nutty scare
story, aren't quite ready to say what they really want about cigarettes,
even though they cause more harm than all the other stuff put together.

THE argument is made that the government shouldn't prohibit private
behavior which doesn't harm other people. But preventable premature death
deeply scars the souls of family and friends. The argument is made that we
ought to concentrate on preventing teenagers from smoking cigarettes. But
it is not teenagers who are dying prematurely.

I am not (yet) endorsing a constitutional amendment to prohibit tobacco.
There are plenty of cuts and passes in the argument. I do not favor the
prohibition of alcohol. I do not avor the legalization of mari 3 uana and
other allegedly recretional drugs. I have not seen plans for various forms
of phasedin prohibition.

But it is pretty stupid to have huge national debate without talking about
the rhtnoceros In the refrigerator. Instead we talk bout whether Joe Camel
is fair advertising, and whether we should eliminate vending machines. If
we want to decrease the dyiug, we ought to increase the talking, about the
Pwords.