Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Philip Morris USA: American Children Must Smoke American Cigarettes
"The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act," reports the Asia Times, will ban tobacco companies from marketing Indonesian cloves in the U.S. market. This is necessary for the sake of the children. Specifically, the children of executives at Philip Morris.
Philip Morris USA, oddly one of the US tobacco bill's main backers, does not manufacture cigarettes in the US with any of the prohibited flavors - although it makes menthol cigarettes. Some tobacco-sector analysts claim regulation by the FDA would in effect help solidify Philip Morris's position as the leading cigarette manufacturer.
Jacob Sullum has explored the legislation's Big Tobacco-friendly provisions in detail. The Asia Times adds heretofore unexplored benefits, such as offending Indonesians and contravening WTO trade regulations.
|9.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Wow, a large corporation is asking for protection from competition. I'm shocked. Shocked to find that lobbying is going on in here.
|9.12.07 @ 11:23AM|#
But wait! The corporations hate being regulated! We're punishing them, and it's for the good of the children!
paul|9.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Does "marketing" mean selling or advertising? I'm a regular clove smoker so this greatly concerns me.
|9.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Hmm...so does the libertarian idea that we should let corporations amass a lot of money and power and then hope that they don't use it to influence government not always work so well?
|9.12.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Hmm...so does the libertarian idea that we should let
corporations amass a lot of money and power and then hope that they
don't use it to influence government not always work so
well?
No, the libertarian maxim that "The government that governs best,
governs least". applies here.
|9.12.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I think there's more to this.Philip's contributes a ton of money to the tobacco settlement fund.Indonesian companies don't.Congress is protecting their market share.The federal and state governments make a lot of money off tobacco.Philips is trying to make money and pay the tax.
|9.12.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Dan,
If governments didn't have the power they have, corporations
wouldn't be soliciting them for favors.
Timothy|9.12.07 @ 11:34AM|#
What will all those unkempt sophomore philosophy majors smoke now?!?! Won't somebody think of the hipsters?
|9.12.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Some tobacco-sector analysts claim regulation by the FDA
would in effect help solidify Philip Morris's position as the
leading cigarette manufacturer.
It's a Mad-Lib!
Some ______1______ claim regulation by _____2_____ would in effect help solidify _____3_____'s position as the leading _____4_____.
1: people
2: government entity
3: corporate entity
4: economic role
|9.12.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Dan T: ...so does the liberal fantasy that once governments can regulate businesses they will only use it to the benefits of the lumpenproletariat not always work so well?
|9.12.07 @ 11:39AM|#
aaaaawwwwww FUCK. I used to love cloves when I was 16 and at
summer camp. For some reason they gave me a much bigger buzz than a
regular cigarette. If they are banned, there will be a surplus of
sulky teenagers without anything to make them look cool!
Anyone remember beadies? those little herbal cigarettes that were
maybe legal maybe not legal for those under 18?
|9.12.07 @ 11:40AM|#
aaaaawwwwww FUCK. I used to love cloves when I was 16 and at
summer camp. For some reason they gave me a much bigger buzz than a
regular cigarette.
Theres always Newports!
|9.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#
No, the libertarian maxim that "The government that governs
best, governs least". applies here.
But it appears that sometimes the government that governs least
ends up governing more.
|9.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#
But it appears that sometimes the government that governs
least ends up governing more.
Huh?
|9.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Dan T: ...so does the liberal fantasy that once governments
can regulate businesses they will only use it to the benefits of
the lumpenproletariat not always work so well?
It doesn't work when the governments are controlled by the
businesses that they supposedly regulate, no.
|9.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
But it appears that sometimes the government that governs
least ends up governing more.
Huh?
I'm saying that by allowing certain groups to amass power, the
government will end up being controlled by those groups who will
use it to their ends.
It's one of my favorite libertarian delimmas.
|9.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
But it appears that sometimes the government that governs
least ends up governing more.
Huh?
|9.12.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Dan T,
And how would you wrest control of government away from businesses?
Maybe start by installing only academics with English degrees to
congress?
|9.12.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Dan,
Its not a libertarian dilemma. There will always be those who seek
power. If you want to limit how much power people you don't like
have, you have to limit the power available.
Episiarch|9.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Its not a libertarian dilemma. There will always be those
who seek power. If you want to limit how much power people you
don't like have, you have to limit the power available.
Don't confuse Dan. Government=good, businesses=bad. That's all you
need to know. If government does something bad, it's not because
they have too much power, it's because business interests made them
do it.
|9.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Dan T,
And how would you wrest control of government away from
businesses?
That's the question, isn't it?
|9.12.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Dan t,when you include state,federal,sales,corp. tax and the tobacco settlement the government makes most of the money.I'd think you'd be happy.
|9.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
That's the question, isn't it?
Dan,
If you have no idea how to do it, what makes you think that that's
the answer?
|9.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Lost_in_T:
Wow. That is the best I have ever heard that idea expressed.
If it's ok with you, I'm gonna start using it.
Um... I don't have to, er, quote you when I do, do I...?
|9.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Dan,
Its not a libertarian dilemma. There will always be those who seek
power. If you want to limit how much power people you don't like
have, you have to limit the power available.
You can't limit the power available. You can only distribute it as
evenly as possible.
This case illustrates well the inherent problem with the
libertarian philosophy as it relates to government. The liberal
philosophy of government is that the government should help balance
the interests of the powerful and the powerless. The libertarian
philosophy is that the government should stay out of the way and
let the chips fall. The problem is that once the chips fall, the
holder of the chips will often be inclined to change the government
to work in his advantage.
This is what we're seeing today in America.
robc|9.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
That's the question, isn't it?
Thats an easy one.
1. Constitutionally limit government to only being able to perform
specific acts. (check)
2. Enforce this (not checked).
If the feds were limited to their listed powers, corporations
wouldnt have much to lobby about.
|9.12.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Isn't pork spending kinda like politicians bribing
themselves?
Lawmaker 1: Here, have this money
Lawmaker 1: what's it for
Lawmaker 1: I want you to widen this highway
Lawmaker 1: what do I get out of it, then?
Lawmaker 1: You'll get re-elected, and then I'll give you more
money
|9.12.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Dan,
If you have no idea how to do it, what makes you think that that's
the answer?
Do you know how to do it? Because I think in this example at least
both of us would like to wrest government power away from a
business (Phillip Morris).
|9.12.07 @ 11:59AM|#
The liberal philosophy of government is that the government
should help balance the interests of the powerful and the
powerless.
Translation - Wah! It's not fair! It should be! The government will
make it fair at the point of a gun! It's for the collective
good!
|9.12.07 @ 12:00PM|#
2. Enforce this (not checked).
If the feds were limited to their listed powers, corporations
wouldnt have much to lobby about.
Sure they would - they'd lobby to have enforcement loosened.
robc|9.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Do you know how to do it?
Dan,
all we need to do is have the Supremes declare the law
unconstitutional. Then, PM is out their money and their is no
regulation in place. Everyone wins!
Except me, because I am a MO shareholder.
|9.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Translation - Wah! It's not fair! It should be! The
government will make it fair at the point of a gun! It's for the
collective good!
LOL. Isn't the whole complaint here that it's not fair that the
government is working to advance PM's interests at the point of a
gun?
robc|9.12.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Sure they would - they'd lobby to have enforcement
loosened.
Lobbying the supreme court doesnt work to well. That is were the
enforcement has to come from.
The other possible level of enforcement is citizens with guns. I
dont think lobbying works too well then either.
|9.12.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Dan T.
What about a politically neutral party (judges) declaring that laws
that are unconstitutional are actually unconstitutional, instead of
issuing rulings based on personal projections of what legislation
is good or not good.
|9.12.07 @ 12:02PM|#
It doesn't work when the governments are controlled by the businesses that they supposedly regulate, no.
However, this is an intrinsic problem with governmental regulations
- the groups being regulated have a much stronger interest in
regulations than the general public. How much of the population do
you think goes into a voting booth a pulls a lever based on a
candidates position on the sugar tariff, cable monopolies, or
coal-mine regulation?
|9.12.07 @ 12:02PM|#
If the feds were limited to their listed powers,
corporations wouldnt have much to lobby about.
Or maybe they would just spend more time and money lobbying state
governments rather than the feds.
Really, this whole talk about limiting the power of the government,
while a wonderful idea in theory, is impossible to implement (or at
least it has been so far, no?).
So what are the practical/realistic options?
So maybe a practical alternative would be to try and limit the
amount of influence entities (people and corporations) can have on
the government. Or to try and create a system where everyone has
equal ability to lobby and not let those with more resources have
extra access/clout?
|9.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#
The liberal philosophy of government is that the government
should help balance the interests of the powerful and the
powerless.
This misconception is the root of much of your confusion.
the tobacco settlement
I just call it the "profit sharing agreement." The government has
an interest in protecting Big Cig from competition.
|9.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#
I think in this example at least both of us would like to
wrest government power away from a business (Phillip
Morris).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Yep, we need to fix that pesky amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Or enforce this one.
|9.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Dan T.
What about a politically neutral party (judges) declaring that laws
that are unconstitutional are actually unconstitutional, instead of
issuing rulings based on personal projections of what legislation
is good or not good.
Sounds good in theory, but who polices the police?
|9.12.07 @ 12:08PM|#
The liberal philosophy of government is that the government should help balance the interests of the powerful and the powerless.
That seems pretty naive. Since when has any government, including
our own, cared about the powerless? You don't exactly see Joe
Homeless hob-nobbing with the president at a $5,000/plate
dinner.
robc|9.12.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Really, this whole talk about limiting the power of the government,
while a wonderful idea in theory, is impossible to implement (or at
least it has been so far, no?).
So what are the practical/realistic options?
It has been implemented at least once. I dont think the founding
fathers thought it would last forever, it would take eternal
vigilence. TJ suggested a revolution every 20 years or so?
the practical/realistic option is to implement it by force once
again. It might be the only way.
|9.12.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Dan,
I think we are arguing two different inevitabilities.
I believe that government having power isn't inevitable, while
government abuse of power is.
You're arguing that government having power is inevitable, while
government abuse of power isn't.
We're not going to come to an agreement.
|9.12.07 @ 12:10PM|#
What about a politically neutral party (judges) declaring
that laws that are unconstitutional are actually unconstitutional,
instead of issuing rulings based on personal projections of what
legislation is good or not good.
Are we to believe that the Supreme Court is politically neutral and
merely decides all cases based on an objective reading of the
law?
Where are we going to find these politically neutral judges?
You see I grew up learning about a branch of government that was
supposed to be a check on the power of the legislative and
executive branch. But that turned out to be a fairy tale. What I
have seen in practice is a judicial branch at all levels that tends
to favor increasing the power of the state in general and isn't
very keen on striking down laws or holding agents of the state
accountable for their misdeeds. They also have a tendency to do
things like condone the weakening down of Bill of Rights
protections.
Is that who we are supposed to pin our hopes on?
The Owner\'s Manual|9.12.07 @ 12:12PM|#
I'm considering buying a franchise from a Hong Kong based Chinese company that makes chocolate flavored cigarettes packaged in boxes that look like Crayolas. Americans who cynically complain that this company markets to children are obviously in the pocket of Hershey and Big Crayon.
|9.12.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Are most of the flavored/specialty cigarettes on the market
today put out by Phillip Morris and ohers, or are they imported
from other countries? Will Nat Shermans be outlawed? I'm just
trying to figure out if this will actually have any effect other
than to prevent the major US players from selling flavored
smokes.
But Camel already does the "signature series" thing, and those are
flavored, right?
|9.12.07 @ 12:15PM|#
And how would you wrest control of government away from
businesses? Maybe start by installing only academics with English
degrees to congress?
Gentlemen, our golden hour is upon us. Let our leadership be a
shining beacon for all to admire.
|9.12.07 @ 12:18PM|#
ChicagoTom,
If government accumulation of power is inevitable, I see two
solutions to limit the potential abuse.
1. A giant computer that governs by alogorythms alone and those
alogorithyms were created by a computer who was programmed from
alogorithyms who was programmed from alogorithyms....so that there
is no bias.
2. A "Brazil" like bureaucracy that is so complicated, nobody knows
how to game the system or take it over, but then it becomes a beast
of its own and rules are created for no particular reason.
If limiting government power is possible, however, things don't
look so bleak.
|9.12.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I believe that government having power isn't inevitable, while
government abuse of power is.
A government without power is not a government.
robc|9.12.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Dan T.
A government only has the power that the people have granted to it,
if we only give it very, very little power, then it can only abuse
it very, very little.
If you dont want the government listening to MO, then dont grant
governments the power to regulate MO.
|9.12.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Re: where will we find these judges.
I'm just saying that they are the ones who are SUPPOSED to serve
this function. They most certainly do not.
|9.12.07 @ 12:24PM|#
robc-
In that case, can we conclude that the government is powerful now
because the people want it that way?
And if so, what's the problem?
robc|9.12.07 @ 12:27PM|#
And if so, what's the problem?
Because it is against the rules.
Because "some" people want it that way, maybe even a majority, but
not "all" people.
|9.12.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Re: where will we find these judges.
I'm just saying that they are the ones who are SUPPOSED to serve
this function. They most certainly do not.
I agree. I guess that'll always be a problem - why can't we find
people to serve in government that do not posses the universal
human desire to look out at least in part for their own
self-interest?
Of course, that would require voters to also not posses that
trait.
What can you do? Democracy is messy.
|9.12.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Dan T, others:
Clearly, we all care enough to check up on what our
respresentatives do, what the effects of certain policy decisions
are, etc. Even if we don't all agree and some of us are wrong, at
least we all care and know to check. Then you have most people, who
get so wound up in shit like "he cheated on his wife" and "he can't
match his own clothes," or worse, "the brown-skinned people will
make us all speak spanish," that politicians need not cater to the
real desires of the people, just the emotions.
|9.12.07 @ 12:31PM|#
No thanks. When I read about the Civil War, I'm not inclined to wish I had been a part of it.
|9.12.07 @ 12:33PM|#
(oh, the above comment was supposed to be in response to the
argument:
"In that case, can we conclude that the government is powerful now
because the people want it that way?
And if so, what's the problem?")
|9.12.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Dan T, others:
Clearly, we all care enough to check up on what our
respresentatives do, what the effects of certain policy decisions
are, etc. Even if we don't all agree and some of us are wrong, at
least we all care and know to check. Then you have most people, who
get so wound up in shit like "he cheated on his wife" and "he can't
match his own clothes," or worse, "the brown-skinned people will
make us all speak spanish," that politicians need not cater to the
real desires of the people, just the emotions.
I agree. I enjoy discussions with people who put thought into
political issues like many here, and I respect any view that is
rationally thought out even if I disagree with it.
|9.12.07 @ 12:43PM|#
I agree. I enjoy discussions with people who put thought
into political issues like many here, and I respect any view that
is rationally thought out even if I disagree with it.
I give you Dan T. The bastard child of the enlightment. :-)
Tom|9.13.07 @ 10:34AM|#
When I read about the Civil War, I'm not inclined to wish I had been a part of it.
We could just go our separate ways. If anyone didn't like it, they could move.
|9.13.07 @ 10:53AM|#
If anyone didn't like it, they could move.
Well, everyobody except the slaves, that is. :)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245