 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The President of the United States has declared war on a cartoon camel.
At first blush, such a statement would seem to indicate a situation exemplifying the stuff of farce or satire, a Monty Pythonesque excursion into the surreal. Unfortunately, this assault represents an all too real example of yet another well-intentioned but misguided attempt to protect us from ourselves. It arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of causality and free will, an error lying at the root of most governmental incursions into our private lives.
The R. J. Reynolds Company's cartoon camel, Joe, acts as a symbol for their product, Camel cigarettes. They adopted this advertising strategy as an attempt to modernize their image and to appeal to young adults in their twenties. Apparently, their efforts have been successful in enabling them to capture a greater market share of new smokers. It is at this juncture that the controversy takes hold.
The President seeks to prevent any cigarette billboards from being posted near schools; wants to ban all cigarette vending machines; will prohibit any pictures appearing in cigarette print ads and ban tobacco company promotions of sporting events; wants to require anyone selling cigarettes to obtain a license to do so as they now must for alcoholic beverages; and has directed the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee these steps as they begin to classify nicotine as a drug to be regulated by them.
Tobacco manufacturers and advertising groups have filed suit to block these changes. They argue that the FDA has no authority to regulate cigarettes and that such sweeping restrictions on advertisements are a violation of First Amendment rights. The FDA answers such complaints by stating that the "safety of our children" requires federal involvement despite the fact that all states now restrict sales of cigarettes to minors; and that Supreme Court decisions actually permit them to go much further than the current plan, supposedly including a total ban on advertising or product availability.
Many people are rightly skeptical when they hear assurances that the FDA will not expand their control to include adults. There have been too many examples in the past when that proverbial inch turned into a mile.
Tobacco industry critics declare that the true target of Joe, the cartoon camel, is not young adults but children. The American Cancer Society's George Dessert says, "Joe Camel is the Pied Piper of death for teen-aged Americans." Studies indicate that the image of Joe Camel is readily associated by children with cigarettes and smoking and that the incidence of smoking by underage people has kept steady pace with increases in cigarette advertising and promotion even while the total percentage of smokers in our country continues to shrink.
In essence, the President is stating that cigarette advertising leads to increased smoking among children and young teens, that is, that Joe Camel causes the rising rates of underage smoking. He maintains that such a danger to our children justifies any action he might choose to take. R. J. Reynolds counters his assertion by claiming that it is peer pressure -- and not their cartoon mascot -- that is the primary cause of such behavior.
Both sides are incorrect.
The first issue to be explored is the charge that cigarette advertising -- and specifically Joe Camel -- causes young teenagers to begin smoking. The most glaring error here is that critics have confused the difference between correlation and causation. Simply because two events happen together does not establish that they are causally connected, let alone that one directly leads to the other.
The President makes the strong claim that since Joe's image is so recognizable to even small children, Joe Camel is therefore the reason young people take up cigarettes. Yet children recognize a lot of connections in their world. That's unsurprising. Seeing how things are linked together and recognizing how the world works is one of the major "jobs" a kid has to do. Perhaps Joe does influence children to become smoking teens, but that fact has to be established, not merely asserted, as critics are currently doing.
Because it is fashionable (and socially safe) these days to attack smokers, critics believe that only self-serving tobacco lobbyists would dare question their agenda. Philadelphia Daily News columnist Sandy Grady writes, "Only a smooth-talking lobbyist or Dixie farmer who grows the weed could dispute Clinton is doing the brave, healthful thing by battling teenage smoking." Repeatedly hammering in the idea that they are doing this "for our children" joins such arguments from intimidation as a classic ploy designed to silence opponents of inappropriate government regulation.
A second question to consider is what it means to say that Joe Camel "causes" people to smoke. At a wider level, this charge has frequently been leveled at advertising and the media as a whole, most recently in regard to violence in movies and television. Understanding this error has implications for a variety of seemingly disparate issues occupying the time of our politicians.
The most basic answer to this often repeated claim -- that "X" causes someone to smoke, to eat too much, to act violently, to be happy, or whatever -- is that people possess free will. Each of us is the fundamental cause of what we do. Each of us has the ability to choose among alternatives. It is this basic fact about us as human beings which makes ethics and morality possible, which makes rights necessary so we can function properly in society, and which requires us to be personally responsible for those choices we do make, i.e., for the direct (and indirect) consequences which follow.
The strongest claim which anyone can make about any area of human behavior open to choice is that some person or thing acted as an influence (to whatever degree) on the subsequent behavior of some other individual. There are a myriad of influences in our lives -- other people, things, personal desires -- but to maintain that any of these things causes rather than influences our decisions and subsequent conduct (in the absence of physical coercion) is to deny the reality of volition and to side with the determinists (e.g., Marxists) who see us tossed willy nilly by the forces surrounding us. Yet to accept such a belief abrogates personal responsibility and denies the need or even the possibility of ethical action.
The critics of advertising and others who proclaim this premise of external causation face an eat-their-cake-and-still-have-it contradiction. They would hold advertisers responsible when people suffer deleterious results from using their products while simultaneously absolving the individual consumer of any such responsibility. Yet -- assuming that advertisers and producers are also human -- they cannot logically be held to a different standard of causation than any other human being. If the actions of consumers are "caused" by external forces, then so, too, must the actions of advertisers and those for whom they work. Yet if that were true, then these latter people are likewise not responsible for what they do. The blame must be laid at the door of still other external forces. What these other factors might be, I have no idea...and neither do the critics. No such deterministic forces exist.
Philosophy, logic, and the latest heavily hyped Hollywood mega-flop support the notion that advertising can never force or make anyone do anything (as the President implies it can). (A related issue advertising critics must address is: how did they somehow manage to escape the media clutches which they insist children and adults are helpless to resist? Exempting oneself from one's own theory is hardly an acceptable course.)
The flight from responsibility epidemic in this country only worsens when the government promulgates the notion that individuals are incapable of defending themselves from persuasive attempts and that only bureaucrats can protect us from the images and sounds bombarding us.
When Blacks blame advertisers for increases in Black smoking or drinking; when women lay at the feet of advertisers such problems as eating disorders, transitory and expensive fashion trends, obsessions with physical appearance, and the massive cosmetic industry; when criminals claim genetics or environment -- whether in the guise of poverty, family abuse, ignorance, or peer pressure -- forced them into a life of crime and rendered them incapable of rejecting the path they took; such beliefs make possible the mistaken claim of the politicians that only government can save people from the nefarious actions of unscrupulous others.
No one can win the "helplessness game." When people look beyond themselves for solutions and explanations for their behavior, they deny the basic nature of what it means to be human. By declaring their dependency on others, they ensure they will never be free of the very problems they bemoan. The propensity of so many people to hand over the reins of their lives to others must be unlearned if one of the precursors to political freedom -- acceptance of personal responsibility -- is ever to be attained.
Expanding society's coercive vendetta against smoking and smokers will not make us safer and is unlikely to curtail smoking. (Witness the experience of Prohibition.) We will not solve the smoking problem with more regulations and restrictions which do little other than increase governmental power and limit our already eroded freedom. What is necessary is for parents and our cultural leaders to teach children (and adults) to think rationally and critically to what they see and hear rather than to treat people as mindless, robotic drones at the mercy of every vagrant persuasive breeze that touches them; to recognize that delimited personal sphere of responsibility which individuals must have if they are to practice and grow proficient in making moral choices and engaging in ethical behavior; and most of all, to promote a rational philosophy which our children can use so they can recognize that their lives are far too precious to waste by becoming addicted to cigarettes or any other destructive substance or action.
Blaming Joe -- that infamous "other guy" -- will accomplish nothing.
