Tobacco: Government, Health Risk & Freedom

Cigarettes industries have had a steady impact in molding public opinion on the health consequences of tobacco for nearly 50 years in the United States. Everything from Ernst Wynder's seminal work demonstrating that cigarette tar on the backs of mice causes cancers (1953). To the state of Florida agreeing to a $11.3 billionsettlement with the tobacco industry in its Medicaid claim (1997). Despite the efforts of public health advocates, scientists, and people who have been affected by smoking, the tobacco industry has benefited from legislation and litigation favored by Congress and the courts.

The overall premise of the film ‘Thank You For Smoking' underlines the conclusion that health issues involving smoking are dangerous and should be made on an individual basis rather than a government body doctoring this option for us through advertisements, labels, and

commercials.

The satirical comedy following the machinations of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who speaks and weaves arguments to defend the cigarette industry in the most difficult situations was featured throughout the film. As a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, Naylor faces an almost impossible task: pushing cigarette smoking at a time when the risks of doing so have become too obvious to overlook.

Despite the fact that political speech is the most protected form of expression under the First Amendment, Nick Naylor's actions must be evaluated to the utmost extent allowed by the laws that govern it. The court ruled that the government cannot limit corporations' and unions' political speech solely because they are corporations, and hence Section 441b of the BCRA failed this test (National Communication Association). Naylor's address on behalf of the cigarette corporation was no different from that of an alcoholic beverage firms advertisement or even a gun manufacturer commercial. At the end of the day, the usage of these products can result in major health problems or death. In regards to the Clara Supreme Court Case of 1996, the court should provide Naylor the unique power to protect his rights from the government as an individual, despite the fact that he is representing a corporation.

I am a fervent believer that the government should not restrict individual expression, nor should it restrict corporate speech. Naylor represents the legal concept of corporate personhood, in which individuals from a corporation are protected by the First Amendment.

As we approach a new era of social media, I can't help but think that my fellow Americans and I are about to face a new wave of government regulations. Facebook and Twitter have alerted and cautioned numerous conservatives, including myself, about my pro-Trump tweets and postings. To be clear, the First Amendment only protects individuals' expression against governmental tyranny in the United States, but censorship by a private company like Facebook & Twitter is not unconstitutional. At the same time, I believe that when these restrictions become more widespread, deeper issues emerge, and conservative expressions and beliefs are threatened by activists and Marxist groups, our first amendment rights are being gradually eroded.

Without free speech protection, democracy dies and government becomes absolute.