Tobacco Documents Online

281 ® learned your lesson, you will write it on the blackboard one hundred times . . . ." Magistra indeed! The most troublesome aspect here, however, is the implicit threat of an ever-deeper penetration of governmental influences in the private lives of individuals. No reasonable person will deny that, in a modern society, government must protect individuals from risks imposed by others. That is, government denies me the right to impose risks on unwilling or unaware others. It is quite a different matter for government to protect me from risks incurred by me alone as a consequence of my own actions. An analogous case may be instructive here. When I drive my car, I obviously risk injuring other people. The government, quite rightly, seeks to limit this risk. Thus government examines and licenses drivers, imposes penalties for dangerous driving, mandates various safety devices in cars, and so on. No reasonable person will consider such regulation of behavior a violation of the individual's rights. it is cuite another matter, though, when government sets out to protect me against the possible risks of my own driving. This issue sur- faced in the debate over involuntary safety devices in cars. Should government not only insist that cars contain properly functioning devices that protect others (such as brakes, lights, and the like), but also devices that, regardless of whether I want them or not, protect me, the driver (such as safety belts without which I cannot start the car, and the like)? There has

282 been strong resistance to the latter extension of government regulation, both in the Congress and in the american public. There has been strong feeling to the effect that it is my busi- ness and my business only, if I do not protect myself against the risk of going through the windshield in a collision. Now, it is not my intention to take a position, one way or another, on the issue of involuntary driver-safety devices in automobiles. But I do want to comment on a concept that has been introduced into that debate and that_is relevant to the present controversy as well -- the concept of "social costs". it is one of those ideas which, at first glance, seems eminently sensible -- until one starts thinking it through to its logical consequences. Here is what the concept refers to: To be sure, if I risk serious injury or death as a driver, it is myself that I injure or kill. Nevertheless, there are costs to society. Society (be it directly through the state or indirectly through rising insurance costs) has to bear the burden of my hospitalization and medical treatment; society (again, through state or private insurance mechanisms) has to assume costs yment or disability; if I'm permanently resulting from my unemplo, disabled or die, society has to concern itself with the welfare of my dependents or survivors; and the economy has to adjust to .my diminished or terminated productivity. From this perspective, I risk far more than my own, life or limb in an automobile accident; rather; I risk imposing burdens on others, to the point of threatening (in whatever measure) the viability of the welfare 283 machinery of the state, the viabilit system, and even the economic well-t :atter a sort of offense against the when one puts the concept terms, one becomes (or should become =otalitarian thrust to this logic. mine do not entail "social costs" in think one must answer: Very few in( self-indulgent lifestyle endangers rr s:leged risks to society enumerated =atterns (so say various experts) r :uvenile delinauents out of my child: ,v:_a household machinery endangers th, mechanics, not to mention my "gardern standing offense to the aesthetic ser. -- and so on. In other words, once t: ~ acceoted as a rationale for gove private individual behavior, it is d= auch interference would stoD. This point is so important aporopriate. In the current controv ^:ention of the alleged economic costs ;ustifying anti-smoking efforts by gc which these alleged costs are calcul, 'anciful (the figures depend on ali medical as well as economic, that seer. - 12 - ` i - 13 - 95-077 0-82-19

283 machinery of the state, the viability of the private insurance system, and even the economic well-being of the society (the latter a sort of offense against the Gross National Product). When one puts the concept of "social costs" in these terms, one becomes (or should become) pensive, for there is a totalitarian thrust to this logic. After all, what actions of mine do not entail "social costs" in the aforementioned sense? I think one must answer: Very few indeed. Thus, my lazy and self-indulgent lifestyle endangers my health (with all the alleged risks to society enumerated above); my child-raising patterns (so say various experts) risk making neurotics or juvenile delinquents out of my childrer.; my hobby of tinkering with household machinery endangers the livelihood of plumbers and mechanics, not to mention my gardening tastes which are a standing offense to the aesthetic sensibilities of my neighbors -- and so on. In other words, once the conceot of "social costs" is acceoted as a rationale for government interference with orivate individual behavior, it is difficult to see just where such interference would stop. This point is so important that a further analogy is appropriate. In the current controversy, there is ccr.stant mention of the alleged economic costs of smoking, this supposedly justifying anti-smoking efforts by government. The manner in which these alleged costs are calculated strikes me as rather fanciful (the figures depend on all sorts of presupoosit:cns, medical as well as economic, that seem cuestionable) but let that 95-077 0-82-19

284 pass here. Let me instead propose that excessive and imaroper eating constitutes a health hazard. Let me suggest that there is a "cholesterol epidemic" in America. If so, let us look at the individual aspects of this first, and then at the possible policy implications. I habitually overeat, and I eat the wrong things. Cholesterol builds up in my body. In consequence, I greatly increase the risk of suffering a heart attack or a stroke. And, if the aforementioned logic is accepted, I incur this risk not only for myself but for others as well; indeed, I'm a walking bundle of potential "social costs". and now imagine the govern- ment interventions that suggest themselves in this case: Rotational anti-cholesterol warnings on all food products; prohibition of advertising of cholesterol-rich foods; intrusive government propaganda on matters of diet; government regulaticn of all meals served in public places and prohibition of certain types of cuisine (say, Italian restaurants); perhaps tax tl incentives for health restaurants and food establishments; mandatory physical exercise for workers in government or govern- ment-subsidized enterprises (in the manner of Maoist China); and so on. Absurd? Maybe (I hope so). But not if one takes the concept of "social costs" seriously as a guide to legislation and public policy. What is missing so far is an anti-cholesterol movement, arrayed militantly against the "cholesterol interests" and with enough political clout to put items from the above list on the agenda. Given the cultural climate ! tried to describe before, this may only be a matter of time. 285 I feel optimistic about the resisting this sort of totalitarian e good sense in resisting Prohibition, it tical, and finally forced repeal. But deal of damage was done. For one, expansion of organized crime -- perhaF if government criminalizes a large ar< seems, though, that the lessons of °orqotten. Be this as it may, it is to the totalitarian implications of a government into the private behavior Most Americans, across the entire pol the need for welfare-state measures i: disagreements are really not about th longer, but about its extent, its mec: the accumulation of risk-reducing de bring about a quantum leap in the con-. -- a leap precisely in the directi totalitarian understanding of the ro behavior of individuals is to be pol' lated because it is claimed to carr aggregate, then virtually no area of government intervention. Again, I would not like to saving that the legislation under totalitarian either in intent or

I 285 a I feel optimistic about the good sense of Americans in resisting this sort of totalitarian encroachment. They showed good sense in resisting Prohibition, made its enforcement imprac- tical, and finally forced repeal. But, in the meantime, a great deal of damage was done. For one, there was an enormous expansion of organized crime -- perhaps inevitable in retrospect, if government criminalizes a large area of private behavior. It seems, though, that the lessons of Prohibition have been forgotten. Be this as it may, it is very important to be alert to the totalitarian implications of all comparable intrusions of government into the private behavior of individual citizens. Most Americans, across the entire political spectrum, recognize the need for welfare-state measures in modern society (political disagreements are really not about the welfare state as suc:^h any longer, but about its extent, its mechanisms and its costs). But the accumulation of risk-reducing demands on government must bring about a quantum leap in the conception of the welfare state -- a leap precisely in the direction of an all-embracing . totalitarian understanding of the role of government. If the behavior of individuals is to be politically proscribed or regu- lated because it is claimed to carry "social costs" in the aggregate, then virtually no area of private life is immune to government intervention. Again, I would not like to be misunderstood: I am not saying that the legislation under consideraticn here is totalitarian either in intent or even in its immediate H m

289 Peter L. Berger 4 Worthin ton Road g Brookline, Masa. 02146 Biog: aphical Data Td (617) T!6 - $7Ci ---°------------ Personaliar Born 1929 in Vienna, Austris. - U.S. citizen 3:arried, two sons Edveationr B.A.(Philosophy), Wagner Collsge, 1949 ri.A.(Sociology), Hew School for Social Research. 1950 Pb.D.(Sociology),Hew School for Social Research, 1954 Academic Careerr Researdf Director, Evangelical Academy, Bad Boll, G.rmany. 1955-56 Assistant Professor, 19oman•s College, University of North Carolina, 1956-58 :-nI* Associate Professor, Hartrord Theological Seminary, 1958-63 Associate Professor, then Professor, Graduate Faculty, _ New School for Social Research, 1963-70 Professor, Rutgers University, 1970-79 Professor, Boston College, 1979-81 University Professor, Boston University, l981- Hator Boo§st Invitation to Sociolorrvr A Humanistic Persvective, 1963 The Social Construction of R alit-r A?Y'eatise the Sociolor.v of Knowledr;e (with Thomas ucxaann),196E The SacrecjrCanovv, Elements of_a Socioloaieal Theorv of Reliaion, 1967 A Rumor of Araelss L~odern Societv and the Rediscovery o_f the SuDernatural, 1969 The Homeless Minds 1-Toderni ation and Consciousness, with Brigitte Berger and Hansfriad Kellner , 1973 Pv^amids af Saeriticer Political Ethics- and Social Ch, 1975 The Heretical Iarerativer Contemflcrars Possibilities Qf Rnli ious A°firmation, 1979 Socio1ocv Reintervretedr An ~ssav on blethod and Yocation, 19161 Honors etcr Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, Loyola IIniversity, 1970 V Ja ier usa i , g s ca Doctor of Humane Letters, honor College, 1973 President, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1966-68 Prasident, Eastern Sociological Society,'•1975-76 Member, Council on Foreign Relations, 1971- Crusnrlr.rs Aro r)nnrl,nuu.•. In Yuur _C~I_',CS'iCl(Ia(.~_~Cr 7C1L!~IC'~ "`.h.ICI[IG:?I'r~i`rC:~ Dale Dale Vree A FASCIS] OUR FUTi