As to specifics:
- Using the terms “mild” and “light” in ads? The more information the better, provided the ads are truthful. Consumers can distinguish puffery from hard evidence.
- Raising cigarette taxes? Not if you want to deter smuggling, which is now financing terrorist groups. Besides, cigarette taxes are regressive — another burden imposed on poor people who are supposedly the WHO’s beneficiaries.
- Curbing secondhand smoke? The science is questionable, and government regulation, more than cigarette smoke, has poisoned the atmosphere. Let private‐property owners permit or prohibit smoking — for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. Patrons who object may go elsewhere.
If we’ve learned anything from nourishing a free society for more than two centuries, it’s this: Individual decisions are best left to individuals. When occasionally those decisions impose costs on innocent bystanders, state government is sometimes justified in intervening. Rarely is there a need — much less constitutional authority — for the federal government to dictate private consumption choices. And never do we relinquish national sovereignty over such matters to a global organization, especially one like the WHO, which will only be encouraged to expand its social agenda without any sense of restraint or concern for personal liberty.
U.S. leadership does not consist of harmonizing international regulatory and tax policy, suppressing commercial advertising or banning cigarettes in private places. Real leadership — especially important for developing countries trying to shake off their stifling socialist traditions — promotes respect for private property and free choice. The best lesson the U.S. could teach is to reject the WHO tobacco treaty. Good riddance.