Tobacco tussle

A local and a national story last week shed light on the complexities in the war on tobacco.

The city of Worcester has put a hold on the advertising section of its new tobacco ordinance, while a civil action filed by the tobacco industry is pending in federal court. The rule would prohibit tobacco ads for specific brands visible from streets, parks or schools.

Whatever happens in that case, cigarette packs everywhere will, by the fall of 2012, display graphic new warning labels — of diseased lungs, a smoker’s corpse, a mother and baby with smoke swirling around the child — that aim at the emotions and fears of the person holding the product in his or her hands.

The science is irrefutable that tobacco is harmful, yet neither side can “win” the tobacco war. Decades of government warnings and billions spent on anti-tobacco education have reduced but not eliminated smoking. Tobacco products are legal, and freedom and free markets argue that some advertising must be allowed. Thus, the city’s new ad rules strike us an overreach.

Yet government does have a legitimate if limited role to play in regulating this highly addictive and deadly product.

The new graphic warning labels, which feature an 800-number offering help with quitting, are also being challenged, but such warnings are fairly seen as an update to the surgeon general’s text warnings that have long been on cigarette packs. These new rules won’t end smoking, but they might persuade some to quit, or dissuade others from starting. They represent a reasonable middle ground between prohibition and the complete absence of regulation, neither of which is a tenable position.

Government can and should clear the air in public spaces and give smokers fair warning of tobacco’s ill effects. It may also use taxes and ad restrictions to discourage tobacco use, particularly among the young. But the battle against tobacco is ultimately a very personal one. Smokers themselves choose whether they will remain in thrall to tobacco, or not.