Republicans Against Abstinence Only

Well, at least when it comes to tobacco.

Rep. Buyer in Indiana took to the House floor to condemn Democratic efforts to regulate out of existence new forms of tobacco products that could potentially be safer than your traditional variety.



While his presentation was crude and he exhibited quite the flair for the dramatic, I happen to agree largely with what this Republican from Indiana said. Yes, ingestion of tobacco will never be good for your health, but you can lessen the risks associated with its consumption. Adults (and even teenagers for that matter) should be treated with respect by the Government and given facts, not hyperbolic fear campaigns. The fact is few who smoke actually end up really quitting (see: POTUS) because, shock, people like nicotine. It feels good, and many people become used to the sensation associated with it. So, if they can get that thing which they crave, without the fear of lung cancer and emphysema, but with a slightly increased risk of oral cancer (a lot less with snus and dissolvable tobacco), than from a numbers perspective, shouldn't the Federal Government be open about that being an option?

Yes, just as abstaining from sex is safer than having it, not ingesting tobacco products is safer than consuming them. But we are a pleasure seeking species and if we were put health above all else we'd be eating a human form of Kibbles and Bits everyday while only drinking water, but that ain't how we roll.

The Democrats should not fall into the same mindset regarding tobacco that Republicans have towards sex. We should be basing our policies on empirical data and not trumped up fears.