Is Congress Going To Add Another Drug To The War on Drugs?

Is Congress Going To Add Another Drug To The War on Drugs?

One of the traditional arguments for decriminalizing marijuana is that there are other drugs that are even more dangerous that are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco. As I have pointed out in the past, it isn't immediately clear that this is correct; users of marijuana are at 40% increased risk of developing psychosis later in life. As I have repeatedly pointed out, while most people that drink alcohol don't have a problem with it, there is a big fraction of people for whom alcohol is a huge problem, leading to murder, rape, child molestation, drunk driving, industrial accidents, cirrhosis of the liver, and many other less substantial problems. (Many other intoxicants have similar problems, less commonly, because those other intoxicants are illegal, and therefore less frequently used.)

Now I see that Congress is voting on a bill to give the bureaucrats a lot more authority to regulate tobacco. From the April 2, 2009 Greensboro (N.C.) Telegram:

WASHINGTON DC - The United States House of Representatives has approved a bill that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco and cigarettes. The bill now heads to the US Senate, where Senator Richard Burr is expected to lead opposition to the proposed law.

Officially called the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act," the bill passed by a vote of 298-112 and was sponsored by long-time tobacco industry opponent Representative Henry Waxman, D-California.

I heard Dr. Dean Edell discussing this bill yesterday, and being a liberal, Edell was really, really enthusiastic about it, suggesting that the FDA might use its authority to treat tobacco like other controlled substances. This account from the March 31, 2009 CNN Money indicates that the authority wouldn't go that far:

The bill would see the FDA assume regulatory authority over cigarette makers. It would not allow the agency to ban tobacco sales outright, but would let it approve any new product coming to market.
The FDA would have extensive authority over the way cigarettes are marketed - especially to youths. It would leave the door open to an increase in the current minimum age threshold to buy cigarettes of 18.
The agency would also be allowed to ban flavored additives to cigarettes.
It would levy a fee on tobacco companies to pay for the increased costs the FDA would face from regulating the industry.

Of course, the Smoker-in-Chief supports it:

Earlier Tuesday, Kathleen Sebelius, who is Obama's nominee to be Health and Human Services Secretary, told a Senate panel that she also is a firm believer that the FDA is the appropriate body to regulate cigarettes.
"I support the idea that the FDA will regulate tobacco," Sebelius said during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Health Committee. "The president has supported tobacco regulation within the FDA."

I generally support regulation of alcohol and other intoxicants because people do stupid things while intoxicated, and there is a sufficient body of evidence that intoxicants are a factor in creating mental illness. Not every regulation makes sense; there is often a point where increased regulation produces diminishing returns or the law of unintended consequences actually makes the problem worse. Prohibition is one of those reminders that some regulation might have done considerable good, but a complete ban was too much. Prohibition of distilled alcohol, but leaving beer and wine legal, for example, might have reduced alcoholism and some of the destructive social effects, without producing an entire criminal industry. Taxing cigarettes at $2 a pack can raise revenue and act as a slight discouragement to smoking; raising the tax to $20 a pack just creates an opportunity for criminal enterprises.

I don't have any enthusiasm for tighter regulation of tobacco, even though it is a vile habit, and causes an enormous number of premature deaths every year, because the hazard is largely confined to its users. (I haven't kept up on the claims and counterclaims about second hand smoke; it seems implausible that second hand smoke is more dangerous than those who are actually inhaling.)

What I am rather tired of is the claim that those evil conservatives are responsible for the continuation of drug laws. Liberals are now preparing to add another drug to the list: tobacco. I am even more tired of those who argue that marijuana should be legal (because it causes no significant harm), but alcohol and tobacco should be illegal (because those drugs do enormous damage). That's just potheads worshipping their idol.