In recent years, public health experts have been looking
for ways to curb the number of deaths caused by tobacco use since prolonged use
of tobacco causes the death of about half users. The CDC reports that more
deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle
injuries, suicides, and murders combined.
Cigarettes in particular, are really dangerous when you
look at the number of annual deaths they cause in the US alone. Cigarette smoking causes
about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year according to the CDC.
Should cigarettes be considered as dangerous as guns or
illegal drugs?
Some public health experts believe tobacco products, like
cigarettes should be considered as dangerous as guns, explosives and hazardous chemicals
because of their effect on the health and well being of individuals. Some
experts would even argue that the government needs to step in and regulate its use.
Regulation would hopefully prevent underage sales, reduce individual smoking
and ensure that all users are aware of the unfavorable health effects of using
tobacco.
Tobacco = Drug
The regulation of tobacco products would be similar to the
regulation of pharmaceutical drugs. A license would serve as a prescription needed
to purchase tobacco products. An
application for a license would require contact and identity information validated
by a government issued ID such a birth certificate, passport, or driver’s
license. This information would allow users to be contacted with tailored
cessation information as well as provide data for longitudinal studies on f the
sale and usage of tobacco. The license could be paired with a smart card, which
would be required when making a tobacco purchase. The smart card license would
have a set daily consumption limit set by the card owner and a daily purchase
limit so that the cheapest license would correspond with a lower consumption level
and vice versa. Smokers would also be offered a monetary incentive to
surrender their license, or even reduce their daily consumption limit at any
time.
This licensing idea may seem a bit radical.
While the rationale behind this initiative is justified, I
think the actual implementation causes mixed feelings. The writer of the
article
is from Australia where public opinion tends to favor government regulation as
opposed to the United States where it widely varies.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that the initial claims
that cigarettes are harmful were viewed as radical. The regulations on tobacco
product advertisements and the spread anti-smoking legislation were also viewed
as radical.
According to the writer, “A smoker’s license may today
seem a radical step toward ending the epidemic of tobacco cause disease, but it
is far less radical than prohibiting the sale of tobacco [...]. The requirement
for a license would send a powerful, symbolic message to all smokers and
potential smokers that tobacco was no ordinary commodity, akin to grocery
items, confectionary, or any product on unrestricted sale. It would mark
tobacco as a product uniquely deserving of such regulation and thereby invite
reflection among smokers on why this exceptional policy had been introduced.
This step may diminish self-exempting views that smoking is just another,
unexceptional risk in ‘life’s jungle’ “.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to one question:
does making it more difficult for smokers to smoke really encourage them to
quit? Who knows, it just might!
Citation:
Citation:
(2012)
The Case for a Smoker's License.
PLoS Med 9(11):
e1001342.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001342
Cprch Jffrs is a PhD student in the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at
Emory University, who enjoys math and terrible reality TV shows.
