Recently the National Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended to the United States government that they make strong steps against the American Smoker for the benefit of American Health.  Some of these steps include:

• Increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes substantially, and boosting taxes in states with lower rates to achieve greater parity in prices nationwide and thwart interstate smuggling.
• Dedicating $15 to $20 per capita annually of the proceeds from higher taxes or other resources to fund tobacco control efforts in each state.
• Imposing smoking bans in all nonresidential indoor settings nationwide, including restaurants, bars, malls, prisons, and health care facilities.
• Requiring all public and private health insurance plans to make coverage of smoking cessation programs a lifetime benefit.
• Licensing retail outlets that sell tobacco products.
• Launching additional efforts aimed at curbing youth interest in smoking and access to tobacco, including bans on online sales of tobacco products and direct-to-consumer shipments.

Forget for a moment that most of these steps have been taken in some form or another by the US government.  Forget for a moment that the US government currently spends millions of dollars ever year preventing the use of tobacco.  Forget that the prevalence of adult smokers in this country has dropped 58.2% since the Surgeon General announced that cigarettes could cause lung cancer and started slapping warnings on boxes.  Forget that this report is titled Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation.  All of this information is included in the report to be read, all you have to do is shell out $8.95 at their official website, http://www.iom.edu/ (or just read it online like I did).

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the IOM has a direct influence on policy regarding smoking.  The IOM, as reported at Wikapedia.com, "...is a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization chartered in 1970 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences; its purpose is to provide national advice on issues relating to biomedical science, medicine, and health... a majority of IOM studies are requested and funded by the United States federal government".  Furthermore, "The Institute's members are elected on the basis of their professional achievements and capacity for service".  What we can derive from this is that while it is officially "not-for-profit" and "non-governmental", it is political.  The mere fact that the members are elected to their position by a select group of individuals, much the way a club would elect its officers implies that there is political maneuvering to be included.  Additionally, the members of this group can effectively shape policy as their purpose is not to search out new knowledge, but to research existing knowledge and form the official stand point of American government on health issues (much like scientific wing of the Vatican to the Pope, or the Academy of Tobacco Studies to Big Tobacco).  But ultimately, the US government not only funds most of their studies, they also decide most of those that are conducted.

This does not mean that this institution or this report has been influenced, but merely that there is a large potential for it to be.  What does indicate a biased attitude can be found in the first sentence of the Abstract Summary of the report, "The ultimate goal of the committee is to end the tobacco problem, that is to reduce smoking so substantially that it is no longer a significant public health problem for our nation".  It is clear from the get go that this report is not about the necessity of banning smoking as much as it is about how to eliminate smoking from the country.  At this point they have declared war on the American Smoker.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue the healthfulness of smoking, but rather the freedom of consumer choice.  The report goes on to say "these measures do not address the addictive aspects of tobacco or constrain manufacturers' incentives to attract more smokers... it is unlikely that smoking rates will drop below 15% or that smoking by teens would fall below 20%".  Imagine if the government declared war on any domestic or foreign good the way they have on the tobacco industry.  Depending on what state you are living in, you could be paying any where from a 5% to 90% tax exclusive to tobacco (the average is close to 40%) in addition to mandatory sales taxes, federal tariffs, and the profit margin.  Also, certain counties and cities add their own addition tax exclusive to cigarettes (such as New York City's additional $1.50), retailers can be subject to additional "administrative and enforcement" fees, and there is a continuing push to increase the tax rate by $2 (already approved in Hawaii and Arkansas) in numerous states.* 

The goal of the State is not to discourage smoking or even to legislatively frown upon it.  It is clear that the State has taken the clear cut position that they want smoking abolished in this country.  While this may sound like a great idea to many I tend to disagree with actions that remove decisions from the individual and hand them to the State.  I wonder what rhetoric will be used to justify the action, perhaps it will come from the guise of "We know what's best for you", as the IOM has clearly stated they do.

Recently the National Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended to the United States government that they make strong steps against the American Smoker for the benefit of American Health.  Some of these steps include:

• Increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes substantially, and boosting taxes in states with lower rates to achieve greater parity in prices nationwide and thwart interstate smuggling.
• Dedicating $15 to $20 per capita annually of the proceeds from higher taxes or other resources to fund tobacco control efforts in each state.
• Imposing smoking bans in all nonresidential indoor settings nationwide, including restaurants, bars, malls, prisons, and health care facilities.
• Requiring all public and private health insurance plans to make coverage of smoking cessation programs a lifetime benefit.
• Licensing retail outlets that sell tobacco products.
• Launching additional efforts aimed at curbing youth interest in smoking and access to tobacco, including bans on online sales of tobacco products and direct-to-consumer shipments.

Forget for a moment that most of these steps have been taken in some form or another by the US government.  Forget for a moment that the US government currently spends millions of dollars ever year preventing the use of tobacco.  Forget that the prevalence of adult smokers in this country has dropped 58.2% since the Surgeon General announced that cigarettes could cause lung cancer and started slapping warnings on boxes.  Forget that this report is titled Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation.  All of this information is included in the report to be read, all you have to do is shell out $8.95 at their official website, http://www.iom.edu/ (or just read it online like I did).

The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the IOM has a direct influence on policy regarding smoking.  The IOM, as reported at Wikapedia.com, "...is a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization chartered in 1970 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences; its purpose is to provide national advice on issues relating to biomedical science, medicine, and health... a majority of IOM studies are requested and funded by the United States federal government".  Furthermore, "The Institute's members are elected on the basis of their professional achievements and capacity for service".  What we can derive from this is that while it is officially "not-for-profit" and "non-governmental", it is political.  The mere fact that the members are elected to their position by a select group of individuals, much the way a club would elect its officers implies that there is political maneuvering to be included.  Additionally, the members of this group can effectively shape policy as their purpose is not to search out new knowledge, but to research existing knowledge and form the official stand point of American government on health issues (much like scientific wing of the Vatican to the Pope, or the Academy of Tobacco Studies to Big Tobacco).  But ultimately, the US government not only funds most of their studies, they also decide most of those that are conducted.

This does not mean that this institution or this report has been influenced, but merely that there is a large potential for it to be.  What does indicate a biased attitude can be found in the first sentence of the Abstract Summary of the report, "The ultimate goal of the committee is to end the tobacco problem, that is to reduce smoking so substantially that it is no longer a significant public health problem for our nation".  It is clear from the get go that this report is not about the necessity of banning smoking as much as it is about how to eliminate smoking from the country.  At this point they have declared war on the American Smoker.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue the healthfulness of smoking, but rather the freedom of consumer choice.  The report goes on to say "these measures do not address the addictive aspects of tobacco or constrain manufacturers' incentives to attract more smokers... it is unlikely that smoking rates will drop below 15% or that smoking by teens would fall below 20%".  Imagine if the government declared war on any domestic or foreign good the way they have on the tobacco industry.  Depending on what state you are living in, you could be paying any where from a 5% to 90% tax exclusive to tobacco (the average is close to 40%) in addition to mandatory sales taxes, federal tariffs, and the profit margin.  Also, certain counties and cities add their own addition tax exclusive to cigarettes (such as New York City's additional $1.50), retailers can be subject to additional "administrative and enforcement" fees, and there is a continuing push to increase the tax rate by $2 (already approved in Hawaii and Arkansas) in numerous states.* 

The goal of the State is not to discourage smoking or even to legislatively frown upon it.  It is clear that the State has taken the clear cut position that they want smoking abolished in this country.  While this may sound like a great idea to many I tend to disagree with actions that remove decisions from the individual and hand them to the State.  I wonder what rhetoric will be used to justify the action, perhaps it will come from the guise of "We know what's best for you", as the IOM has clearly stated they do.