dc_dux

After 10+ years of stalled legislation, committees in both the House and Senate are moving forward in the coming weeks to approve legislation to give the FDA the power to regulate tobacco. The bills should come to votes on the floor of the House and Senate later this Spring or Summer.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would give the FDA the same authority to regulate tobacco products that it currently has to regulate foods and drugs. This means that the FDA would be responsible for approving all new tobacco products (but not products already on the market) and for regulating the levels of harmful ingredients in tobacco products.

The act would also strengthen the health warnings on tobacco products and prohibit the use of false claims in marketing, including "light" and "low tar." It would place stricter restrictions on the advertising of tobacco products.

Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all co-sponsors, but McCain is now backing away and hedging on his vote.

I think the legislation is long overdue.

So what do you think? A good bill? another bad example of government attempting to over regulate our personal lives?

More from Tobacco Free Kids

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

anything to give the government more power. woohoo.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Long overdue. The tobacco market has proven time and again that they're incapable of monitoring and regulating itself. When capitalism and the free market fails, there needs to be someone who steps in. As most consumers are too addicted, it needs to be government.

Seaver

There is a demand for something which is deemed bad. I find it slightly amusing that the exact same people who want Marijuana legalized want smoking banned.

Not that I'm a smoker, not that I don't love anti-smoking laws in bars/restaurants, I'm just saying... the dichotomy is startling.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

samcol

Tobacco super regulation and evential banning is a required step to bring about national heatlhcare. You can't have people who smoke drain the healthcare slush fund (or people who eat trans fats, or don't excercise, the slippery slope is endless).

In a free society you should be able to produce, distribute, sell and use such products with no regulation. To bad we don't live in that place anymore.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this would lead to banning the manufacture or sale of cigarettes or tobacco products.

Dont you think lawmakers learned from Prohibition?

This is about regulating an addictive product, that contrary to Seaver's "deemed bad", is one of the leading causes of death in the US.

I understand dk's and samcool's libertarian response. I expected it....I just dont agree with it.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

You're saying regulation is the same as a ban?
One is fairly dangerous and the other isn't.

matthew330

How are "light" and "low tar" false claims? I'm assuming your a non-smoker, but my lungs clearly know the difference between Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Reds. Or any "light" cigarette for that matter. They are in fact lighter and lower in tar. Just curious what the alternative proposed is? And with all the non-smoking propoganda out there, are there still people out there who don't smoke that are somehow drawn in to this "light" distinction that the government still needs to rescue?

Fells Point, MD. Great tourist attraction, The Wire was filmed there, very appealing during the day for vacationers - but a hell of alot of bars. The smoking ban made that place ugly. Vacationers can't walk down the sidewalk with their kids without dodging smokers forced outside, when they would have never set foot in the bar in the first place. Solution? Smokers have already been threatened to be fined for loitering.

Food and drugs are good, there is nothing that will ever be "good" about smoking, what's the FDA's role again?

dc_dux

The fact that "light" cigarettes contain less tar and nicotine, based on tests by "smoking machines" does not mean you inhale less tar and nicotine.

Do you inhale harder on a "light" cigarette to compensate for the thicker filter or airholes in the filter? If you do, you are probably inhaling the same level of toxins as you did with the "reds." Do you smoke down to the filter more with "lights" because they are less harsh? If you do, you are probably inhaling the same level of toxins. Do you smoke more "light" cigarettes, because they satisfy your nicotine craving less?

FDA has several roles....in this case to regulate the nicotine content to ensure that cigarette makers dont increase that content with the intent of potential making them more addicting, and also to ensure that tobacco products are accurately represented to the public (as opposed to regulating advertising, which is the role of the FTC).

ps.....I was a smoker...when I was young and stupid.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Baraka_Guru

Wait, tobacco products are unregulated?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

I refuse to believe that DC was ever young or stupid!

Ustwo

So lets see cigarettes are HEAVILY taxed.
They are prohibited in sales to minors.
Many states don't allow smoking in public places.

Obviously we need more regulation for a product anyone with 3 brain cells knows is bad for you.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dc_dux

The manufacture of tobacco products are unregulated.

Coming soon to a future episode of Mythbusters.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

matthew330

What do you care? You don't smoke. I like lights better, so I'd like to not play "einie meenie meine mo" at the royal farms when I need a pack.

What nicotine content would you as a non-smoker be happy with? Do you have any idea? If so, set it and be done with it. You've already made cigarettes near 10 bucks a pack in some places, forced smokers outside, forced them further from entrances, and now fining them for loitering. What the hell else do you want?

I think non-smokers just need to drop what the current "public representation" of smoking is (you're second paragraph I think you've convinced yourself you have experience in the matter), and just admit you're so disgusted by it, you don't want people doing it in places you'd never think to set foot in anyway and drop this ridiculous facade that you actually care about people that do like to smoke.

Baraka_Guru

Teenagers only have two.

But this isn't for teenagers, obviously.

In Canada, there are requirements for warnings on packages (50% of the cover) and listings of harmful ingredients.

There are also a minimum number of warnings/stats to be placed on the packages as well.

This is for adults. It's more about disclosure than anything else.

We label bleach bottles with minimum requirements. We label food with minimum requirements. Why not tobacco?

EDIT: This goes beyond labelling, obviously. Are people saying there shouldn't be government regulations on a product that is harmful to public health? How would that be considered good government?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

The current nicotine content level is the standard. What the FDA will do is maintain that as a standard and "be done with it". Without such regulation, what guarantee do you have that the cigarette makers wont add more nicotine to keep you addicted?

These are all regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.

Food and Drug Adminstration is responsible for ensuring the relative safety of a food or drug product...which I know in this case is an oxymoron.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ngdawg

I love this:
tobacco product shall be deemed to be adulterated if--

`(1) it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or is otherwise contaminated by any added poisonous or added deleterious substance that may render the product injurious to health;

`(2) it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health;
`(3) its package is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health;
So, guess we just suck straws at $6 a pack.....

matthew330

I'm okay with this DC. Couple questions though.

1.What is the current nicotine level and what is keeping it standard, without FDA involvement?

2.I like cigarettes that have a little less than standard - "lights" if you will. What's the proposal for letting me know that I"m getting light cigarettes without compromising the health of those non-smokers with less than 3 brain cells who have been dying to smoke safer cigarettes?

3.Can we now make them less than 5 bucks a back when they cost like 3 cents to make and perhaps allow a few places in an entire city allow it?

dc_dux

1) I have no idea what the current nicotine level is, but without regulation, the only thing keeping it from being increased is the "good faith" of the cigarette makers.

2) The role of FDA would be to clarify the meaning of "light"...that based on medical studies, it does not guarantee that you will inhale less toxins.

3) You are confusing the issues. FDA has nothing to do with taxing cigarettes.... and where you can smoke is a local issue.

I think you are putting to much into this. The law basically would give the FDA regulatory control over the content and quality of tobacco products in a manner similar to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' regulatory control over the content and quality of alcohol products.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Plan9

I'm for this. There should be standards for all things manufactured to be consumed in the human body.

You want natural cigarettes? Grow your own tobacco. It's perfectly legal.

...

Doesn't Canada heavily tax cigarettes and alcohol?

$100 a carton? I think we should adopt their policies.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

samcol

Who the hell should be able to tell me what I can smoke? This is fucking unreal. What stake do you have in me NOT smoking? Do you sitting across the internet there really give a shit about my health? Or do you fear it will somehow take away from you or your kids healthcare down the road?

Are you guys that terrible of parents that you can't keep your kids from smoking without government help? I don't understand the motive behind this at all, at least from the average citizens level. Apparently its about Revenue if you read the CBO's report on this bill.

And if the current and past tobacco producers are so great why does this bill give these producers a pass compared to new comers into the market?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Baraka_Guru

The government and the tobacco companies. Unless you want to make your own.

The tobacco lobby.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

The rest I cant deal with,....but the CBO report I saw found "no net budgetary effect".

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

So, the government should be able to regulate it. Yet, the corporations that control tobacco already have a hold in this legislation (which are apparently hated), but I should go ahead and support this legislation anyway.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Baraka_Guru

Self-regulation by another name?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

sam....dont you give a fuck at all about what some profit motivated company...not just cigarette makers... puts in the products you consume?

How can any one person conduct the due diligence to protect themselves from the practices of corporate interests that dont necessarily match consumer interests?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

No, net budgetary effect? If I was running a business that would like saying 'massive unexpected profits for the year.' When the government is running hundred of billions of dollars in deficits year after year this is a huge win.

The fact that they will be taking in over 2 billion in Revenue speaks to the increasing size of governmet due to this legislation. The government isn't in the business of making gross profits, they are supposed to be in the business of breaking even. This report shows slight increases in gross regardless.

Anyway, why the hell do you think the government has the right to restrict what tobacco products I enjoy?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I guess you really dont care what is in the products you consume cuz you sure as hell arent gonna know if you rely solely on what manufactures tell you.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Corporation intentionally produces addictive good, that happens to be very dangerous, and run amazing marketing for years. People who are hurt or who see the harm the good causes raise awareness of the dangers of said good. Corporation denies that the good is dangerous for decades, and only finally admits that they're dangerous when they're dragged before Congress. People are still addicted, and will continue to become addicted. Consumers are victimized by the addictive chemicals.

Sorry, but once corporations lying and using addictive substances enter the picture, even a die hard libertarian has to throw in the towel. It's over: the market free fails when it comes to big tobacco.

samcol

Yes, I do care. I just don't think a you or a politician should be able to force me to care through legislation. That's why I rarely consume tobacco products.

I really don't understand your 2nd question. Umm...Primarily by not buying their products. Not sure why that is so difficult. Furthermore this legislation protects the big wigs of tobacco who add the worst shit to these products by implementing a market entry test if you will.

This bill is 100+ pages long, have you even read it all? I've been trying to skim through it but most of what I've read I don't like from a libertarian perspective, or even reading it from the perspective of trying to protect consumers. It doesn't help anything.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I've just skimmed it myself and read the CRS summary.

My understanding is that the BATF alcohol regulatory legislation from years ago was a model in crafting this bill.

Sure its flawed....I have yet to see a perfect bill come out of Congress on any subject.

Not buy their product? It applies to nearly everything you buy! How you do you know any product is (relatively) safe to consume?

The problem I have with the libertarian approach to product regulation (ie none) is that it offers a simplistic solution in a complex world.

It may have worked in the 18th century when you grew your own food, bought or bartered other products from neighbors you trust and lived in a cozy, comfortable, trusting community.

That just doesnt work in the 21st century.....unless you want to grow and produce everything you consume.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

This bill isn't even giving me the choice. I'm already pre-disposed to purchasing tobacco from companies that were started prior to 2003 which have been proven to add dozens of chemicals to the products. New companies have a tougher time entering the market if they are even able to at all without being regulated out of existence or being bought by a big wig to get them out of the game.

Obviously the big three are bad, but we're going to go ahead and make it next to impossible anyway for other parties to enter the business even if their products are substantially less toxic.

Plus, this isn't doing shit to protect children, so I dont know what the fuss is about in regards to this being long overdue legislation. The FDA gets more power to regulate another drug? They've done such an outstanding job regulating big PHARMA I don't see why they should't be allowed to fuck up tobacco more that it already is.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

Ron Paul in 2012? Go for it!

In the meantime, thank the government for caring enough to provide some level of oversight to ensure some level of relative safety of everything you put in your mouth or consume in other manners

We've come a long way from the laissez fair, libertarian days of filthy meat and poultry slaughterhouses, farmers using toxic sprays on produce, snake charming traveling pharma providers, moonshiners, etc.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

matthew330

Yes, I want to live in the 18th century where everything was cozy, comfortable, and the community at large was my best friend.

21st century government take me away!!!!!!!!

....and at what point were you living in the 18th century?

I appreciate issues like this because it really shows where the mentality of the left is.

From the OP: "This is legislation long overdue"

clearly 100's of pages of governmental regulation, yet...

Post 31: I've just skimmed it and read the summary.

the REAL problem where the anger is innocently buried in...

Post 26: Don't you give a fuck at all about what some profit motivated company puts in products you consume??

you're not consuming them, so again, why do you care?

samcol

I've stated how this bill doesn't even really do anything it claims. The FDA gains the ability to regulate tobacco in the way that it regulates food and drugs. It has been a miserable failure in both.

Additional warning labels on tobacco products? If you know anything about the PMRC you would know that this stuff only makes these type of products more desirable for kids.

Also, you still haven't really answered the question, why do you care if I consume such products? What is in it for you?

It's like you just supports legislation just to support it or because its a popular piece for the left/progressives. I've discussed this with you before in regards to other legislation and how the title and summaries MEAN NOTHING in comparison to what the actually text says and does. Its very tiresome.

Do you really want politicians voting for FLAWED bills? Our rights don't exactly come back very easily once they've been taken away. History has proven this.

Think twice about what bogus bills you support.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

sam....you said you only skimmed it yourself, yet you know more than me that it doesnt do what it claims.

Sorry, I'll stick with my preliminary judgement for now, based on the analysis I've read from both supporting and opposing interests.

Whats in it for me? Good public policy, but obviously on this, we disagree.

Oh..IMO, its naive to think there are bills that come out of Congress that are FLAWLESS. Most members of Congress, unlike Ron Paul (Dr No) who votes NO on everything, understand that and work for the best bill possible to accomplish the goals and objectives.

This one has bi-partisan support, which always means more consensus building and compromise...but its a start!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

Most of the reviews I've read haven't been exceptional even from the groups who supposedly are against tobacco. Shouldn't you reserve your support for a bill until you know everything about it? I would think that would be the default position when politicians and citizens review legislation. Vote no until you know otherwise.

I didn't even know Phillip Morris supported it, but from skimming the text it was apparent that this only helped the bigger tobaccos companies. PHILLIP MORRIS SUPPORTS THIS BILL

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

ASU2003

Do tobacco companies even care about the US consumer anymore? They have to make a lot of money in China where 25% of people smoke, which would be 250+ million people...

dc_dux

sam...I was well aware of Phillip Morris's support.

The fact that 500 public advocacy groups support it as well tells me that both sides see something beneficial in the bill.

I can live with that as a start. Its certainly better, IMO, than to continue to allow tobacco products to remain completely unregulated (other than advertising).

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

Bi-partisan is usually a code word that means the people are getting universally screwed over and the politicians and corporations are making out like fat rats.

HAHA unregulated, what have you been smoking?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.