Thank You For Smoking, I guess...

Like all movies set with political undertones, 'Thank You For Smoking' mixes comedy, issues, agendas, and narratives in a way that makes the viewer see both sides of a divisive issue. In this instance: smoking cigarettes.

While it can be said that smoking causes health issues, the ways in which we come to these conclusions can be muddy; as shown in the movie. Rather than coming to these conclusions on our own, we are told from a young age, via government entities, that smoking is bad. In the movie, the plot argues that smoking may be bad for you, but as an individual YOU have the choice to smoke or not to smoke.

The movie 'Thank You for Smoking' highlighted the importance, and influence, of free speech and lobbying. While highlighting the differences between private and public property and public accommodations, this movie articulated the precious need for First Amendment protections for commercial entities.

The First Amendment has determined that 'Congress shall make no law' while also giving private entities protections against private citizens. Private corporations are allowed to sell products for profit; any legislation by Congress would be perceived as constitutional violations.

The main character, Nick Naylor, is a lobbyist for a pro-cigarette organization in Washington D.C.. His job is not to sell cigarettes. His job is to protect the rights of speech to the tobacco companies while keeping their interests at the top of his priority list.

While protected by the First Amendment, commercial speech is not as protected as political speech (Pacific Legal Foundation). This movie highlights this disparity as the Senator from Vermont is allowed to say anything despite attempting to regulate the speech of tobacco companies by requiring them to place a toxic skull and crossbones on their packaging.

Though produced in 2005, this movie's storyline and messaging is more prevalent today than it was when produced. While greed is a driving factor in this movie, Naylor is also motivated by compassion and open mindedness. By today's standards, Naylor is no different from the average politician: doing whatever it takes to get ahead. He is a politician; though not by profession.

At the end of the day, what Naylor did and the speech he engaged in is no different from advertising from car companies, food companies, and even cleaning supply companies. Each one of these industries are not different from that of the cigarette industry; they sell products that when inappropriately consumed can lead to major health problems.

We have the unique ability to have protection and rights from the government. With help from the Santa Clara Supreme Court case of 1996, corporations were protected in the same right as individuals.

When Naylor represented the corporation as a lobbyist, that corporation took on the persona of Naylor; the corporation became a person. This is normal and should be respected by the government and by the average Joe.

Throughout the movie Naylor struggles with doing what is right and doing what is necessary; often times they are not the same thing. From hiding the truth from his son while visiting the 'Marlboro Man' in California to not accepting his job offer after being fired and testifying before Congress.

As a conservative, I believe that our government should not dictate the speech coming from either corporations or individuals. Naylor as the individual and Naylor as the lobbyist are both protected by the First Amendment.

Smoking is like driving, when inappropriately consumed, disaster is bound to happen. Our government should not be in the business of dissuading people from doing things. God gave us free will, and that in and of itself is enough of an argument against government regulation. While highlighting the health hazards of smoking, the government is playing the role of authority rather than the unbiased arbitrator.

In other words: let people be free to say and do whatever they see fit so long as it does not violate and laws or regulations.