| | |
| Table of Contents Next Article Previous Article Contributors Search |
by Karen Vann | |
| 1 | In Robert H. Bork's article, entitled "Addicted to Health," Bork, an intellectual at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., implies that restrictions on smoking (the ones already in use and ones perhaps yet to come), added with a possible settlement to force tobacco companies to pay billions to the government for the effects of smoking and the prevention of new smokers, will lead to less power to the individual and more power to the government. If Bork stopped plummeting down his slippery slope, perhaps his essay would be valid. If Bork's analogies even agreed with his whole topic, perhaps his essay would be acceptable. If Bork's statements showed a spark of importance, perhaps his essay would be edifying. But with these major problems combined, Bork's essay lacks a sense of credibility, significance, and logic. |
| 2 | To begin with, Bork immediately announces a settlement concerning smoking that has been discussed. The plan supposedly complies with everyone's interests, including cigarette companies', except smoker's. Bork writes that smokers "will be ordered to pay enormous sums with no return other than the deprivation of their own choices and pleasures" (86). I will ask Bork if it is not the smoker's choice to begin smoking in the first place. With most choices that people make, there are usually restrictions. In this argument, the restriction is the amount of money that smoking will cost. But he makes it sound like another cost is the denial of their free will and enjoyment. But they are allowed to enjoy smoking! They are allowed to choose to smoke in the first place! In other words, Bork is just saying that there are restrictions upon smokers. Big deal. There are restrictions on drivers who choose to drive. There are restrictions on employees who choose to get a job. There are restrictions on gamblers who choose to gamble. So everything has a cost. As if that's news. Then comes another obvious statement. Bork wonders why smokers can't "demand" a negotiation instead of passively succumbing to the "exile" that supervisors and managers of offices put on them (87). Firstly, are all those poor little innocent, passive smokers really exiled? A typical sob story. Secondly, why do they have the right to "demand"? Do bigots demand that their employers allow racist speech? Do alcoholics demand that they be allowed to drink on the job? Are those who belong to the National Rifle Association allowed to carry their guns to work? Are free people really completely free? It is sentences such as the ones shown above that don't even show "a spark of importance" as I wrote before. |
| 3 | Next, Bork goes on to write that several years ago, nobody complained of smoke from smokers. But nowadays, "an entire class of the morally superior" can somehow sense cigarette smoke and become "offended" by it in their offices (87). If it is true that the "morally superior" are annoyed only because they are "morally superior," without any other factors, as Bork implies, then where did this sudden class of "morally superior" come from and why were they never "offended" before? I want Bork to answer that one. If he won't, I will. These people are not "morally superior." They want their rights too, and it just so happens that smokers violate them. But then why this sudden increase in those classified by Bork as "morally superior"? Because it has been discovered that tobacco smoke may damage the health of the smoker, including the health of those around the smoker, breathing in the same fumes. If people know that something that someone else is doing may damage their own well-being, then most people who do not benefit in any way from the other person's actions will reasonably wish to protect their health. This is not so shocking. To expound upon this, Bork writes that nonsmokers will "happily walk through suffocating exhaust smoke from buses rather than wait a minute or two to cross the street" (87). I am without a doubt that if I had Mr. Bork as my cubicle neighbor in an office, I would breathe toxic fumes constantly. Certainly more than "a minute or two". Bork's little example is rendered meaningless. His analogy does not support his essay because it is not a valid comparison. |
| 4 | Then comes Bork's first little adventure down the "slippery slope" fallacy. He suggests that if cigarettes are banned, why not prohibit the use of alcohol too? They are both toxic. But America did ban it at one point - the Prohibition. Bork thinks that this ended because people wanted to drink whenever they wanted to and wherever they wanted to (87). Now we will skip to today, because that is what essay is about - smoking today. So are people allowed to drink whenever? Try drinking while on the job and find out. Can people drink wherever? Try drinking on the job and find out! Are people permitted to drink and drive without greater consequences if they get caught? Are people supposed to drink if they're under twenty-one? So if Bork makes comparisons between drinking and smoking, all of this must apply to smoking. Should people be able to smoke whenever? No. Should people be able to smoke wherever? No. As for the drinking while driving, let's switch that to smoking in indoor public places. As for the required age, I suppose that eighteen is fine. If we restrict drinking, we should restrict smoking. If Bork wants to fall down his slippery slope and say that if we ban smoking, we'll ban other things like drinking too, he should make sure that his example is even comparable. Having a drink, without getting drunk, does not harm other people. Smoking does. It's effects are airborne. Would we, without hesitation, ban drinking if we ban smoking? Ask Bork. He has no trouble assuming whatever he pleases. |
| 5 | Continuing with "Addicted to Health," Bork goes on to compare driving with smoking. Cars kill people, so why not restrict cars, as people want to restrict smoking (87)? Well, now. Has Bork changed his thesis? NO! Bork is just not very bright. We DO restrict automobiles, probably more than anything else that we own! We own manuals full of restrictions. Isn't this the exact opposite of what the author has being writing? Under this comparison, we should write up a whole manual of restrictions for smoking. And then Bork goes on to say that cars should be built so they cannot go faster than speed limits (87). If this was even comprehendible (as in, if there was a universal speed limit that never changed), then non-toxic cigarettes should be invented. In other words, Bork's analogy means nothing! In fact, it's worse than nothing - Bork is saying that cars kill people and so do cigarettes, and everyone knows that cars are heavily restricted, so cigarettes should be restricted too. His analogy does not even agree with his entire article. |
| 6 | And then Bork brings up the settlement plan again. The goal of the plan is to shelter the underage from deciding to smoke. But Bork claims that the provision will only influence adults as they will be penalized, not children, therefore rendering the plan useless (88). Then later on, as Bork is trying to support another idea of his, he writes very plainly that teens are likely to pick up smoking if their parents do it (89). Then common logic says that if tobacco companies put more restrictions upon parents, children must be affected. But Bork boldly continues with his article, believing that the settlement is also unwarranted because it includes that tobacco companies should pay billions of dollars to the government because the state is losing money by paying for medical attention for smokers, advertisements against smoking, and more. He continues with this thought by saying cigarettes must actually be reducing spending, because some smokers die early, resulting in less money being used by Medicare and Medicaid. More simply, smoking kills and deaths save government spending (88-89). Would it not, then, be better if all the elderly and sick die? So what's so enlightening about Bork's statement? Then one must think that perhaps longer lives are better for the government, if that's what Bork is so concerned about, because more taxes will be collected and the people might still be prosperous and benefit the economy. Need I go on? |
| 7 | But Bork goes on, so I must also. He then says that restrictions on tobacco companies "outlaws the advertising of a product [they] are legal to sell, which raises the problem of commercial speech protected by the First Amendment" (89). Are gun companies legal? Are they allowed to advertise freely under the First Amendment? Then why is it that I have not yet seen a billboard that displays a guy decked out in a suit and a handgun, telling the viewers that killing is "cool" and also saying that it doesn't matter what the morally conscious think, because guns don't affect them (as Bork thinks smoking doesn't affect others)? Simple. It's absurd. As is Bork's entire article. |
| 8 | Next comes the good old feel-sorry-for-poor-smokers sentence. Bork writes that "smokers will pay billions to have their pleasure taken away" (90). Any idiot who pays to have "their pleasure taken away" certainly is an idiot. Why would anyone do that? Maybe people who need a substance because they are addicted. How do some people become addicted to nicotine in cigarettes? They choose to be. Although addicts have little choice when it comes to stopping their habit, they did choose to start it to begin with. Once again, Bork's alleged argument against the settlement actually supports the plan that Bork is so much against. The main goal of the plan is to try to convince youths not to smoke. Bork's fighting for the wrong side! |
| 9 | Now we come to the end of the essay. After arguing the subject to its maximum, Bork is ready to close with a bang. I expect that by this time, the reader has discovered the contradictory analogies, the weak sentences, and the fallacies involved in the writing of this article and knows that if Bork doesn't conclude with a good, solid thesis, all respect for his writing will be permanently lost. So here's Bork's final chance to make good of it all. He starts by speaking once again of the settlement. He writes that tobacco companies might be conquered, or they might still have a chance of triumph over the issue (90). The tension builds. The reader wonders what Bork thinks of all of this. Will the tobacco company succeed? Or will it be crushed in the hands of the money-seeking government? Bork summarizes the fate of the smokers and the settlement in one little sentence: "in any case, we can live with it" (90). That's it? That's it? And I was just thinking that even if he couldn't live with the settlement, I couldn't care less. Now, I really don't care about his opinion, because whatever happens, he can "live with it." |
| 10 | But at least Bork follows with a relatively thoughtful thesis: "whenever individual responsibility is denied, government control of our behavior follows" (90). Or is it thoughtful? How about just plain obvious? But if we ignore that and focus on government control, is it really so bad? We aren't allowed to carry machine guns. The government therefore controls us. We aren't allowed to sell cocaine at the corner market. We aren't even allowed to drive on the left side of the street. Obviously, these actions affect other people. The government has to control them (or at least attempts control over them - people can do what they want, but most of us feel that the consequences outweigh the actions), because innocent people can be hurt without any sort of punishment on the afflicter. Smoking does affect other people. So the government has to control that too. Is this control so horrendous? It is to people like Bork who wind up on an endless mountain of slippery slopes, as he writes that if cigarettes are practically banned, other restrictions will follow, and this will continue "ad infinitum" (90). Limited control, but control still the same, is the key to freedom with as much fairness as possible. |
| 11 | I found searching for strengths in Bork's article too difficult. But then again, I suppose it can be considered a strength that Bork was able to combine his slippery slope fallacies with his contradictory analogies and his inconsequential statements to actually be able to come up with some sort of a thesis whatsoever. Of course, throughout the entire essay, one line stands out in my mind: "in any case, we can live with it." So, in itself, regulations on smoking just don't really matter. |
|
Nominated and Edited by James Bryant-Trerise, Writing Instructor
|
