The Weird World of Tobacco
By Anna Quidlen
[1] Imagine that millions of Americans are addicted to a lethal (poisonous/ deadly) drug, yet the Food and Drug Administration had repeatedly refused to regulate (control) it. Imagine that when (while) the FDA does its duty, an appeals court decides it cannot do so, that the drug is so dangerous that if the FDA regulated it, it would have to be banned.
[2] Welcome to the topsy-turvy (是非颠倒的) world of tobacco, where nothing much makes sense (be meaningful) except the vast profits, where tobacco-company executives slip-slide along the continuum (连续统一体) from aggrieved (sad) innocence to heartfelt (sincere真诚的) regret without breaking (shed blood) a sweat, and where the only people who seem to be able to shoot straight (hit the target命中目标的) are the jurors (judges) who decide the ubiquitous (common) lawsuits.
[3] The most recent panel (court) handed down a judgment of $ 145 billion—the largest jury
award in history—on behalf of sick smokers in Florida. Lawyers for the tobacco companies thundered that the judgment would bankrupt them, yet the stock market scarcely (hardly) shuddered. Experts said the amount would likely (possible) be reduced when cooler judicial heads prevailed.
[4] The jurors—who gave up two years of their lives, listened to endless witnesses and yet deliberated (gave) only a few hours—could be forgiven if they felt they'd fallen down Alice's rabbit hole into Wonderland, where the Queen of Hearts cries "Off with their heads (Kill them)" but no one is ever executed (killed).
[5] Al Gore, for instance, inspired (=encouraged) by the death of his sister from lung cancer, has insisted that he will do everything he can to keep cigarettes out of the hands of children. But he says he would never outlaw cigarettes because millions of people smoke. How many users mandate legality? What about the estimated 3.6 million chronic cocaine users, or the 2. 4 million people who admit to having shot (injected) or snorted heroin?
[6] I can almost feel all the smokers, tired of standing outside their office buildings puffing in the rain, jumping up and down and yelling, "Tobacco is different from illicit drugs!" Because it is legal? Now there's a circular argument.
[7] A hundred years ago the sale of cigarettes was against the law in 14 states. The Supreme Court had concluded of (about) cigarettes, "They possess no virtue (good quality), but are inherently bad, and bad only." At the time (Then), Coca-Cola contained traces of cocaine, and heroin was in cough syrupsshudder.
[8] Since then tobacco companies have spread political contributions around like weedkiller on the lawn in summer, supporting largely complicit Republicans, who like free enterprise (and soft money) more than they hate emphysema. (George W. Bush responded to a question about the recent mega-settlement (judge/ decision) by bemoaning a litigious nation.)
[9] Responsibility-minded Americans accept (considered) the argument that individuals have the right to poison themselves, although studies showing that the vast majority of s
mokers began as minors (as young children) raise questions about informed consent.
[10] Official tobacco apologists (apology. n./ apologize. vt.) spent years insisting their product did not cause cancer, and then that it was not addictive (n.). Now they've done a 180, arguing that since there is no such thing as a safe cigarette, the FDA, created to regulate the safety of products, cannot touch them. If this sounds (=is) like having it both ways, that's because it is.
[11] Meanwhile (=at the same time), Philip Morris makes large contributions to soup kitchens, ballet companies, museums and shelters—being a good citizen with the profits of a product that kills 400, 000 people a year. And magazines run articles about the dangers of cigarettes in the same issues that advertise them.
[12] Even tobacco foes have fudged (hesitated). When Dr. David Kessler ran (administrate) the FDA, he publicly concluded (said) what everyone already knew: that cigarettes are nothing more than a delivery device (media) for nicotine, a dangerous and addictive drug. But the agency did not take the obvious next step. The Food, Drug, and C
osmetic Act forbids the sale (sell) of any drug that is not safe and effective, and part of the FDA's mandate (responsibility) is to regulate devices. Cigarettes are a device (media/ equipment). The drug and chemicals they deliver are patently (obviously) unsafe. Ergo (Therefore), cigarettes should be banned.
[13] That's not going to happen in our lifetime. Too many tobacco farmers, too many tobacco addicts; a right to a livelihood (happiness), a right to a lifestyle. [These arguments (reasons) hold for (support) legalizing illicit drugs as well, but never mind.]

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。