THE BURNING QUESTIONS

Jacob Sullum's pro-tobacco piece is most puzzling ["Dole's Unwelcome. but True, Views on Tobacco," DPL, Fall 199611. He attacks Peter Jennings" charge that 400,000 Americans a year are killed by tobacco with rhetoric Dangers of tobacco are so well-docu mented that to deny them is a sophistry equal to belief in creationism or the flat earth, or possibly a position taken by a tobacco executive.
K. J Rawson Roslyn Heights, NY

I was surprised at the Sullum piece you reprinted. Do you really support the thesis that it is inconsequential for 400,000 Americans each year to die needlessly — and for 45 million to continue the process — because "smoking serve [s] an important function in their lives — relieving boredom, soothing distress, aiding concentration, warding off loneliness — and they miss it"? Feelings of boredom, distress, inability to concentrate, and loneliness are well-known symptoms of extended withdrawal from narcotics.
Charles C. Campbell Santa Cruz, CA

Sullum's article belittled the deadly effects of cigarette smoking (not by rational arguments, but by sarcasm) and attacked the idea of regulating cigarette advertising or selling to minors.

Maybe Sullum wanted to make the point that legal cigarettes are more deadly than illegal drugs, but! would never want to see legal advertising for crack or legal pushers standing outside a school yard. I would want a rational campaign to discourage the use of addictive drugs and rehabilitate current users.
Edgar Villchur Woodstock, NY

You ought to be ashamed publishing that scurrilous piece by Jacob Sullum, which supports tobacco advertising. I thought what we were trying to do was to decriminalize all of these social drugs, including the addictive and dangerous ones, so we wouldn't be filling up our jails. But I didn't think we were going to end up with billion-dollar advertising campaigns for cocaine and heroin.
A. Judson Wells Kennett Square, PA

Let me say at the onset that, as a libertarian, I defend any adult's right to smoke tobacco in a manner that does not expose others involuntarily to the smoke. I agree with Sullum that Dole's comments were basically true concerning tobacco not being addictive to everyone. There does seem to be a very small percentage of people who can smoke it occasionally without slipping into full-blown addiction.
Sullum states that it is hard to fathom why so much attention is focused on advertising cigarettes, since it has "at most, a subtle impact on teenager's propensity to smoke." If this were true, why would Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, et al., be spending millions on advertising each year utilizing some of the most blatant and sophisticated targeting of youth ever devised? Why then would more five-year-old kids recognize Joe Camel than Mickey Mouse? The fact is that tobacco companies must replace their dead customers to the tune of 1,200 a day. This is a feat that they are very good at accomplishing since approximately 3,000 teens start smoking every day.
James E. Daniel Frankfurt, KY

JACOB SULLUM REPLIES:

I am neither "pro-tobacco" nor "anti-tobacco." In fact, the very notion of taking a position for or against a plant strikes me as a bit silly, like being "pro-potato" or "anti-potato." For the record, I like potatoes M I'm not terribly fond of tobacco. But I would never dream of elevating either attitude into apolitical statement — of saying "everyone should eat potatoes" or "no one should smoke tobacco" and enlisting the coercive power of the state to help achieve that goal. To me, potato eating and tobacco smoking are equally matters of individual choice. A figure such as "400,000 smoking-related deaths a year" reflects decisions by tens of millions of people, for reasons as diverse as their tastes, personalities, and circumstances, to continue smoking despite the well-known hazards involved. By focusing on the grand total, it is tobacco's opponents who treat smokers as "just statistics," instead of independent moral agents.

James Daniel wants to know why the tobacco companies would spend so much money on advertising, if not to encourage more people to smoke. One might as well ask why soap makers spend so much money on advertising, if not to encourage more people to bathe, or why car makers spend so much money on advertising, if not to sell people on the idea of owning an automobile. The answer is that advertisers of different brands compete for customers, especially when there is little hope of expanding the overall market. Whether there would be fewer smokers in the absence of advertising— and, if so, how many fewer — is a matter of scholarly debate. Even advocates of restrictions or bans on advertising concede that the evidence is inconclusive.

DON'T POLICE THE DOCTORS

I want to let you know that, for several years now, I have found your newsletter to be extremely helpful in working to keep up pressure on the federal government in Washington, D.C., and also at the state level here in my home state.

As I sat down to fill out my membership renewal form,! was reminded of what I consider to be the greatest threats to our civil liberties and to our Bill of Rights that! had ever heard of. I am referring to the federal response to the voter initiatives concerning the medical use of marijuana.

I was shocked that our representatives and president would threaten any doctors who prescribe cannabis with the cancellation of their license and federal jail time. We must stand up for our rights, and not permit the federal drug warriors to wage war against the dying and the doctors who care for them!
Frederick Y. Martell° Allendale, NJ

DPF'S POLITICAL SIDE

I encourage DPF to create an allied 501(c) (4) organization to allow for direct political action.
I am energized by the recent medical cannabis initiatives, and I want to see my dollars go toward activism to press forward on the initiative front as well as lobbying lawmakers.
Thanks for your continuing good work.
Helen Weber Seattle, WA

In response to your "Editor's Note" in the Fall 1996 Letter, I believe the 501(c) (4) suggestion should be followed up. In your membership renewal notices, you can ask members if they want to go 501(c) (3), apolitical and tax-deductible, or 501(c) (4) — the right to endorse or condemn candidates for their stand on the war on drugs — with no tax exemption.
I'll bet on 501(c) (4).
David B. Higginbottom Frostproof, FL