Defense De Fumer

USA Today 's latest editorial is about Obama and smoking.

It would be far better [...] if Obama could capitalize on his personal tobacco drama by giving it more publicity and pushing for ways to prevent others from getting hooked.

No thank you. I'm for less teaching moments. Zero if possible. It's one thing for the President to be a leader, another for him to be a scold.

Smoking and related deaths are going down. But USA Today reminds us "complacency is not in order." (Perhaps it's time to get rid of the word complacency since it's only used as something now is no time for.) Predictably, they don't just want talk, they want action:

He could also press states to keep promises to spend money from a settlement with tobacco companies on smoking prevention. The economic crisis will only increase the states' inclination to divert the money.

We certainly wouldn't want states to do something foolish with revenue like balancing their budgets.

Legislatively, the new president could pressure Congress to stop foot-dragging and pass a bill that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco.

Am I missing something? Is tobacco not already the most regulated substance in existence?