POLITICAL VIEWS AND NEWS

You can tell a lot about your politics by the way you react to the news. Case in point: a recent item about tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds cutting 40% of their workforce.

Now, my first reaction to this story was, "Good!" Clearly, this indicates that I'm anti-smoking. Or does it? It really seems to mean I'm anti-tobacco-company, or maybe even anti-tobacco-company-employee. But I know neither of those are true. I am, in fact, anti-smoking.

But does the end justify the means here? Sure, Reynolds is being squeezed--but by exactly what forces? Is it reduced demand? Is it huge lawsuit payouts? Or is it invasive regulatory legislation that has cut off avenues like sponsorship, print and TV ads, and even attractive packaging?

I really hope it's reduced demand, because that is the only aspect of this story that appeals to the personal-choice proponent in me. But of course, the question is what's reducing demand. Like any successful pusher, the tobacco industry relies not only on existing business, but fresh new addicts. Certainly, domestic markets appear to have reached saturation levels, but that's as much a function of flatlining birthrates as anything else. Kids will always flirt with smoking, and some will get hooked for good... but nobody's having fourteen kids anymore.

Ultimately, that's why all the dire package warnings and advertorial absenteeism amount to less than nothing. Both contribute to precisely the taboo aspect that will attract people to smoking (and not just kids, folks... kids these days are a helluva lot more savvy than crusty curmudgeons like me give them credit for). And once they've been attracted a few times, the incredibly powerful habit-forming nature of the product takes over. People will smoke 'em if they got 'em, and they can always get 'em. In fact, governments can legislate tobacco companies right out of existence, and people will still get 'em. That will make new tobacco giants, but these will operate free from the auspices of both regulatory and taxation agencies. Great solution, huh?

If a company like Reynolds is going to become history, it will have to happen because everybody simply made a choice to either quit or never start smoking. There's cause for optimism in this story. But there's also a pessimistic side, one reflected in the predictable rise in Reynolds stock following this little job-slashing announcement. It could be that Reynolds is aware that further growth is, for the time being, impossible. Like a cancerous tumor, they're in remission... but there's always that ugly possibility they could come back with a vengeance.