Should the Government Treat Video Games like Alchohol and Tobacco?

USAToady wrote an article about the "Battle over violent video games heating up".

First of all, to address the lame-assed attempt at a pun in the article title: I wish USAToady would just stop trying to be mildly but non-offensively funny, or else hire some real stand-up, knock-down, drag-out comedians like Al Franken to write their headlines.

The battle over violence. Ha ha ha not. The only thing they've been able to demonstrate so far, is that video games cause foolish violence and heated battles between fully grown politicians, who should know better. So stop selling video games to politicians.

"Those who favor laws restricting the sale or rental of violent videos to minors say government should treat the games like alcohol or tobacco."

Now there's a great idea: the Government should treat Violent Video Games like they do Big Tobacco.

Price support and production controls for violent video games: The computer game industry could really use the shot in the arm that would bring!

Should the government pay video game developes NOT to produce violent video games? They could keep their employees busy writing harmless cruise missile guidance systems and tactical nuclear warfare simulations for the war on terror, instead of developing violent games for kids.

Would Jesse Helms have mounted a filibuster, to prevent a video game tax hike, and protect the video game industry in his state? Will Texas Senator John Cornyn sell lawsuit protection to the Texas Violent Video Game Industry, just like he protected the Big Tobacco Industry from being sued for killing their customers?

Should Congress pass legislation protecting video game companies from lawsuits when kids use automatic weapons at school, like they protect tobacco companies from the consequences of health problems caused by cool kids "smokin' in the boy's room"?

1999's $8.7 billion emergency agriculture aid package included $328 million to compensate tobacco growers for declining cigarette sales. Why not give the video game industry hundreds of millions of dollars, to compensate for declining violent game sales?

In 1982, Congress mandated that the tobacco price support program operate at no net cost to taxpayers, other than for administrative expenses. Why not operate a violent video game price support program, to keep all those old copies of DOOM out of the bargain bin, and put them back on the premium shelves at full price, so they're harder for kids to afford?

The U.S. Government uses violent video games to teach kids to kill: that's why the U.S. Army pays game developers like There Inc. to build virtual environments for warfare-simulation training.

The Big Tobacco Companies use Jesse Helms and Joe Camel to teach kids to smoke: that's why they get hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.

It's not fair that the Tobacco Industry gets all the taxpayers' cash handouts, while the Video Game Industry, which also makes dangerous products, doesn't get diddly squat.

I think the root of the problem is that violent video games don't kill as many people each year as tobacco.

So I call on all video game developers to develop much more lethal, violent, addictive video games than ever before, because the game industry has a lot of catching up to do with the tobacco industry.

Only when Violent Video Games succeed in killing more than four million people per year worldwide, will the U.S. Government recognize that they deserve the same longstanding protection and support as Big Tobacco.