For the entirety of its existence, the two-party American system has been lauded for creating a political balance and also denounced for its inefficiency. Usually the theory goes, any bipartisan legislation will be non-controversial and helpful to American citizens. However, there are many bipartisan laws that are more politically self-serving than helpful.

A prime example of this is the new tobacco law which places heavy and possibly unconstitutional FDA regulations on the tobacco industry. Its primary goal is to prevent youths from taking their first drag.

At first glance this seems like a noble effort by lawmakers, but beneath the political smoke there is a whirlwind of ineffectiveness included in it. Nonetheless, we still hear politicians bragging to constituents that they said "no" to big tobacco companies — hardly is that the case.

Though this claim may seem absurd, I'd rather see a brawling Congress produce a bill, than a falsely compliant one.

The premise of the bill is fairly simple. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act basically stipulates that candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes are illegal. It also creates a committee within the FDA which will regulate marketing and advertisements for the tobacco industry, which includes more health warnings, blander labels, etc.

It passed the Senate in June by an overwhelming margin of 79-17 and recently went into effect. This marks a frightening trend in government intervention. By justifying this intrusion as shielding the naïve youths, lawmakers have set a startling precedent.

Is tobacco extremely harmful? Absolutely, but alcohol, skiing, and driving a car can be harmful also. At what industry does this intrusion stop? Also, by putting such stringent restrictions on advertisements, it gives deferential treatment to Philip Morris U.S.A., the largest cigarette supplier, while smaller companies are floundering to compete without creative advertising.

Another unsettling aspect of this law is the power it gives the FDA. According to a New York Times article, the FDA has recently admitted to being "unduly influenced" by four politicians in a decision to approve a knee pad designed by their campaign fund-contributing corporate sponsors.

Politicians playing politics in a federal bureaucracy? Shocking. Reportedly, these politicians had received financial contributions from the company producing the pad.

Naturally, these politicians have admitted no wrong-doing, and the case is being revisited.

If something as miniscule as a knee support can garner political pressure, somehow I think an FDA committee that regulates the colossal tobacco industry might be tempted to succumb to pressure by politicians, not to mention tobacco interest groups. I realize that it's in vogue for every private industry to be accompanied by a sister government regulator.

Apparently, Congress believed the tobacco industry was left out.

Don't get me wrong. I understand how dangerous tobacco is. Personally, I think chewing tobacco is utterly repulsive. I also believe smoking is an archaic habit which relies on the posh coffee shop smoker and the coked out rock star to perpetuate its popularity. Therefore, these practices should wilt away naturally.

Personal responsibility shouldn't be replaced with government regulations.

Apart from being fraught with deficiencies, this law seems too idealistic. Even if tobacco is outlawed completely, won't teenagers always feel the need to smoke?

Still, Washington and the FDA have praised themselves for accomplishing this landmark legislation. They have cited tobacco statistics ad nauseam in its defense. Yet, at what Constitutional costs do these superficial triumphs come at? It seems to me the political means outweigh the noble, but unattainable ends.
 
-Mitchell J. Widener is a sophomore in English. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.