Damn, I can't think of anything to write about this week, but I have to turn in something. Cougar writers who don't meet their deadlines are forced to cover the athletics department as punishment.
I guess I'll just have to pull something out of my conservative politics junk drawer. Let's see, I notice that the cigarette industry is being sued by over half the states in the union. Now, I know what you're thinking:
"Why would anyone want to sue our wonderful friends in the cigarette industry? Who would thoughtfully sponsor our auto racing events?"
Well, it seems that cigarettes are somewhat poisonous and have been secretly spiked with nicotine over the years in order to make the public addicted to them. This has resulted in millions of hospital beds filled with smokers dying from all sorts of nasty ailments. Of course, hospital care doesn't come cheap and states often find themselves footing smokers' medical bills. And taxpayers don't want to pay for those bills, so state politicians decide to take Big Tobacco to court and try to beat the money out of it. Of course, I don't think that's fair.
First, let it be said that I am not a smoker nor do I condone smoking. Second, let it also be said that I am not a drinker nor do I condone drinking. I think that people who smoke and drink are idiots, but I don't see why the states are going after tobacco and not alcohol.
Sure, the states have to pay medical bills because of smoking, but alcohol has its burdens too. Not as many people die as a direct result of its consumption, but I've seen enough drivers ed videos to know that millions of cars have been splattered across the road because of it. So how is it that the states aren't dragging Budweiser into court along with Camel?
And why would they stop at smokes and beer? Lifetime consumption of fast food is just as dangerous as a lifetime of smoking. Why not sue McDonalds? Can you honestly imagine hauling Ronald into court just because heart disease is the leading cause of death in America?
Look, the point is that people often do stupid things and smoking is one of those things, but how does that make selling cigarettes a crime? No one forces people to smoke. Sure, it's addicting, but even assuming that you aren't strong enough to quit, no one forced you to start in the first place.
If you're stupid enough to buy poison, why should the tobacco industry care enough to stop you? They're not the patron saints of fools (if they were, they'd be Democrats). There is a warning label on every pack of smokes. Is it Big Tobacco's fault you can't read?
Now, I know making money off the ignorant is unethical, but it's hardly illegal (if it were, I'd sue the Oilers for a refund of my season ticket money). P.T. Barnum once said that there's a sucker born every minute. So if suckers want to suck away on Marlboros, that's their birthright.
Yeah, the hospitalization of those suckers does cost a lot, but there is no constitutional right to health care either - when states choose to bail out smokers, it's pure charity. And if the cigarette industry isn't so charitable, I don't see why it should be forced to reimburse the states.
In fact, I don't see why any state or industry should bail smokers out of the graves they've dug for themselves. If it was up to me, I wouldn't spend a penny of health care on these idiots. I'd rather round them all up, ship them to one of the useless states (like Oklahoma or Arkansas), and leave them there to die. Maybe the threat of such a fate alone would prompt Americans to give up smoking for good.
Ginsburg is a senior political
science major.