OK, I’ll admit it — I’m a hypocrite. After soaking up details from the latest tobacco debate in the U.S. Senate, I’ve decided to be an advocate of the current bill, which if passed would raise the price of cigarettes by more than $1 per pack, as well as introducing other restrictions.

This legislation is targeted toward curbing both teen smoking and placing limitations on the all-too-powerful tobacco industry. Among other modifications, the bill would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine and lay down regulations for tobacco advertising.

In addition, the industry would have to pay $516 billion over 25 years to the government, which would use the money for tobacco-related health research, reimbursement for health care costs to states and payments to farmers.

I’m in favor of the bill. But this makes me a hypocrite, and let me explain why. I like to smoke — occasionally. Although I don’t consider myself an addict, I must confess that I’m more than your average social smoker, a.k.a. one who enjoys a cigarette in the presence of friends, usually with a drink in hand.

Not only do I smoke socially, I light up when I’m stressed out, which as a college student, is a lot. (Case in point: I felt like chain-smoking Monday night after putting together the first summer edition of the Daily.)

Despite my smoking habits, however, I believe this bill really is in the best interest of Americans. Believe it or not, cigarettes continue to wipe out a stunningly high percentage of people — deaths that are completely preventable.

The Center for Disease Control has reported that 350,000 to 400,000 people die each year from smoking in the United States, which is more than the casualties of AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, homicides, illegal drugs, suicides and fires combined.

In light of this statistic alone, the stipulations of the current tobacco legislation does not seem too much to ask.

It seems that smoking has evoked disputes between tobacco supporters and anti-smoking advocates in the United States throughout the 20th century.

Although the cigarette industry often is viewed as a perpetrator and has battled a war involving its promotion rights and consumer lawsuits, it never really has been taken by the throat. And it needs to be.

In reality, the tobacco industry has overlooked the well-being of smokers and impressionable children in its drive for profits. Despite efforts to strip away manufacturers’ rights, cigarette manufacturers always seem to come out on top.

For example, advertisements have been banned on radio and television for 25 years. However, tobacco companies have compensated for the promotional loss through its print ads, including campaigns which appeal to children.

Also, while many consumers have filed liability suits against manufacturers, few have been successful.

Rumor has it that such tobacco powerhouses as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris & Co. have charged that the Senate bill is a mere tool for the government to raise taxes. But if the government doesn’t use its power to restrict the industry, who will?

It’s funny — using funds from the tobacco industry for health research doesn’t sound like an evil plot against manufacturers. And I think the billion-dollar industry can afford such payments.

As for manufacturers’ claims that the tobacco legislation will cut thousands of tobacco industry jobs — if they think the bill is insensitive to their needs, they need to take a look at their business strategies.

So if I’m such an anti-smoking advocate, why am I still lighting up? Good question; I’m still working on that one.

But I’ll pass along a little message to fellow smokers: Hypocrisy is better than ignorance. At least it’s a start.

---

Staci Hupp is a junior in journalism and mass communication from Grimes. She is the editor in chief of the Daily.