Our very own Ron Paul argues that the recently passed Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act violates the Constitution:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
We have a right to make bad decisions:
My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.
Regarding the first point, I'm reasonably sure that advocates would argue that the bill falls under the Commerce Clause, so he may not be convincing in his argument. I'm unfamiliar with the argument that an inspection is a search and seizure, but I'll do some homework on it. Tobacco advertisement has also been restricted for years so I'm also unsure about the strength of the First Amendment argument.
He raises an important point in the later paragraph about the role that government should play regarding lifestyle choices. One might argue however that certain lifestyle choices place costs on others and then become subject to governmental intervention. I also think that proponents of the law would question whether smoking is really a choice in the conventional sense. It's an addictive product, so by definition it is not a choice once one become addicted--but then again one could say that we can make a choice to become addicted (I'm wincing while I write that though). The law's backers might say that this is not about individuals and their choices, but firms and their efforts to promote the use of an addictive substances.
Does that make the law reasonable?
