Blowing Smoke

Sometimes I read the paper and get the feeling that I'm supposed to be outraged or indignant, and yet I just can't get myself all worked up.  So it was today upon reading a front-page article about how cigar manufacturers entice the young and impressionable (i.e., the stupid) by peddling tobacco products in a variety of flavors that would make Bertie Botts proud (just google it).  Grape cigars! Cherry cigars!  Chocolate cigars!  If my stepfather--a true cigar aficionado--were alive today, he'd be rolling over in his grave at such sacrilege--or at the very least yuckiness.

The point of the article, though, was that cigar manufacturers were finding ways to sidestep federal laws against marketing tobacco products to minors by selling Wonka-esque cigarillos, which are not subject to congressional regulation.  The FDA has discretion to regulate such products, and the agency has promised to introduce new rules, but as yet no such rules have been promulgated.  And frankly, I just don't care.

As a lifelong non-smoker, I have no love for the tobacco industry.  I would certainly discourage people from smoking.  At the same time, I just think the government has more important things to do than pass ever more laws protecting people from their own self-destructive behaviors.  By this time, everybody knows smoking will kill you.  If people choose to do it anyway, isn't that their business?  Why does the government need to get involved?

Laws against smoking in public places make sense: They protect the innocent bystander from the toxic effects of other people's personal behavior.  But it seems to me at best hypocritical for the government to say, on the one hand, that a product is perfectly legal, but, on the other hand, that the makers of this product cannot attempt to sell it to the broadest clientele possible.  And after all, if you own a business, and the product you sell reliably kills a large portion of your customers, then you need to do all the marketing you can.  That's just the American way!

We Don't Need No Regulation

According to an article in today's Times, even in the wake of a massive explosion in West, Texas, that killed at least 14 people, injured hundreds more, and caused millions of dollars in damage, the residents of the Lone Star State still declare a general aversion to government regulation.  The article adopted a somewhat condescending tone: "Serves those hillbillies right!"  But in fairness, the argument that better regulation would have prevented the explosion is specious at best.  No one knows what would have happened, and even the best governmental oversight still allows accidents to happen.  And if Texans prefer their regulations like they prefer their academic achievement (i.e., non-existent), I suppose that's their choice.

But:

"Texas has also had the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas’ more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012. Compared with Illinois, which has the nation’s second-largest number of high-risk sites, more than 950, but tighter fire and safety rules, Texas had more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs."

You catch that last part: Three-HUNDRED times the property damage costs?  Who do you suppose pays for that?  Even if the federal government itself doesn't use taxpayer dollars to cover any of those costs (which seems unlikely to me), then the general public still ends up shelling out for these non-regulated Texan properties in the form of higher insurance rates.  Somehow seems to contradict the image of rugged self-reliance that Texans hold so dear.

It's OK, I Never Liked Artichokes, Anyway

The lead article in today's New York Times, "F.D.A. Offers Broad New Rules to Fight Food Contamination," discussed requirements the federal agency may impose on food producers across the country.  As I read about how the FDA may require producers to ensure that contaminated food not come into contact with other food or how farm workers may be mandated to wash their hands after going to the bathroom, all I could think was, "You mean this isn't required ALREADY?!?"

And the Tea Party thinks there's too MUCH government regulation?!?

According to the article, the FDA estimates that these new rules will prevent about 1.75 million illnesses each year--which sounds impressive, until you notice that the article also says that, each year, one in six Americans becomes ill as a result of food contamination.  That's 50 million people!  Seems to me that maybe the FDA needs to consider some other strategy.

Also, these rules--many of which focus on the need to keep food away from what we might call human "leavings" would primarily focus on fruits and vegetables that tend to be eaten raw.  "Vegetables that are much more likely to be consumed cooked, like potatoes and artichokes, would be exempt from the rules."  In other words, when you check out those big, juicy Idaho browns at the supermarket, just remember: The FDA has said you're on your own.