Up in Smoke
 

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

anything to give the government more power. woohoo.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Wait, tobacco products are unregulated? :orly:

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

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.

The manufacture of tobacco products are unregulated.

Coming soon to a future episode of Mythbusters.

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.

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?

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.

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.....

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

The tobacco lobby.

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

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.

Self-regulation by another name?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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...

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).

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?

Who do you think regulates smokes right now?

Ahhhhh yes, "let us non smokers give government the control over people who do something that we don't do, that may kill them in 50 years."

Gotta love people GIVING rights over to the government on a silver platter.

Listen up slimebags (yes, you want to give your rights up fine.... give mine up your a slimebag in my eyes)........

WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK PAYS A HUGE CHUNK OF TAXES THAT YOU WILL END UP PAYING ALSO????????

What do you think government is going to do once they get smoking taken care of? They are going to come after your coffee (wait I don't drink coffee.... cool... fuck you coffee drinkers pay all those extra taxes) they will come after your sugar, your cooking/frying oils/sodas/botteled waters/ etc etc etc.

And they will sell you on how they are doing it for your own good health and to keep your health care payments down.

They will take away your fucking choices...... MEANWHILE, the rich fucks will be doing as they want because they can pay the taxes and they don't give a shit, because their health care will be better than anything you'll ever have.

MEANWHILE, the black market for these items will increase immensely, funding crime.

MEANWHILE, things that they already made illegal (drugs, guns, aliens) and can't regulate and control will be hitting our streets and poisoning our youth and hurting our economy/ healthcare systems/ crime rates/ etc at exponentially faster rates than cigarettes EVER would.

So get those warm fuzzies and keep telling yourself that laws like these and going after those you have issues with because of things they may do LEGALLY that you do not approve of is great.

But excuse my giddiness and my laughing and sheer exuberance when they pass laws against something you like.

heheheh.
 

This is a great thread. I'm chortling through my clouds of RYO smoke. I've rolled my own smokes for 10 years now and have dodged every direct tax increase since. I roll 60+ smokes of Bali Shag (a luxury brand) with a filter on each one for $6 in 2008. That's 1987 pricing for tailor mades. If I were willing to drop to the quality level of Camel or Marlboro I could roll those 60 for $3, probably less. I'm not willing to drop my standards but the libfascist price increases have not affected me very much.

Should the US govt. regulate tobacco? Probably. Should kids be kept from smoking? Definitely! Why can't I smoke in a bar again? Oh wait, the "common good"!

Booze and smoking go together like, well... booze and smoking. WTF? Bar employees need to have a better quality of life? They work in a fucking BAR! They are almost unilaterally alcoholics. Fuck 'em! Let them get jobs in construction if they want to live healthy. Early to bed, early to rise...

So I'm bringing down the standard of living by smoking a legal product in my home, BARS and other businesses that support my habit? So what? You cannot simultaneously campaign for a strong environmental policy "for the planet" and any policy that keeps more of us stomping around on the planet any longer than necessary.

I'm helping by smoking. Sure, you'll pay a little in public health care to ventilate me for awhile, right up until Dr. Death comes through the door and gives me my overdose of barbiturates. Anyone against assisted suicide for smokers?

See you in hell.

Excellent point. Perhaps I should start experimenting with growing the "Red Man's Revenge" now before it becomes illegal.

pan....your emotional illogical irrational rants always crack me up....especially when you SHOUT IN COLOR! It gives your argument soooooo much more credibility.

But then, I guess I'm the lead slimebag in this fight.... a badge I will wear with honor :)

I am curious....Are all the 600+ national, state and local organizations (pdf file) that support this bill slimebags or just the TFP supporters?

To the readers, I promise not to mention pan's namecalling again and again and again in my next 27 posts.

smoore....in contrast, you bring a new entertaining style to the political forum. We probably wont always agree, but I like it.

A belated welcome to TFP politics :thumbsup:

You get mad about seat belt laws, too?

...

Live free or die!

I want MORE lead in my children's toys! I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Wow, I guess someone dug up Jonathon Swift, reanimated him, taught him how to use a computer and signed him up for TFP!

Either that, or this is the most unintentionally funny statement in the most unintentionally funny thread in Politics in a long time.

Coal miners ned a better quality of life? They work in a fucking coal mine! They almost all unilaterally want to die in explosions, roof collapses or from black lung!

This bill is a funny. It has the support of numerous anti-smoking and cancer groups, Hillary, Obama, and McCain, and big tobacco companies. I question anything supported by this group of characters.

What's even funnier is the very organization who is being given power to regulate these prodcuts doesn't even agree with the law.

Here's a brief summary of what the FDA commissioner doesn't like about this bill:
Sounds like another failed bill, but since the title says 'Family Smoking Prevention and Tobbaco Control Act' and the bills summary sounds find and dandy, it will show up as a + on progressive punch and look good for the proponents of this bill. What a joke.

A Bush appointee towing the administration position on the bill....what a surprise!

Why is it so hard to accept that the overwhelming majority of medical and health-related associations believe its a good bill....not perfect, concessions were made to garner bi-partisan support...but a step in the right direction to ensure some quality control of the product and accountability of the manufacturers. Thats how the legislative process works.

But I understand why the Ron (Dr NO) Paul crowd consider it a failed bill before its even been enacted and implemented. Given their view of the role of government, I would expect nothing less.

Most Americans want some level of assurance of the quality of the products they consume and some level of truth in labeling of those products beyond the "good faith" word of manufacturers. It seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me.

What I dont understand, because its completely baseless, is the inane argument that it will lead to banning cigarettes...then coffee, then sugar.....

So lets see......

Every remaining viable presidential candidate supports it on both sides....

The tobacco companies support it....

Its admitted 'flawed but all bills are flawed' ....

Net result = null

Two issues:

1. Shouldn't this fall under the ATF, not the FDA?

2. Am I the only one who will miss my Social Security when I retire?

Everyone who puts a cigarette to thier lips knows it is stupid. If they want to kill themselves slowly, let them.

The only thing they learned from the failure of prohibition is that people will ignore laws that deny them the freedoms to do what they want, hence the war on drugs.

why do you feel the need to have the government regulate peoples lives when people have a choice to do something or not?

I think I've explained that already.

Most Americans (beyond the 10-12% of hard core libertarians) want some level of assurance of the quality of the products they consume and some level of truth in labeling of those products beyond the "good faith" word of manufacturers.

Do you also think the government should regulate all supplements?

I think "truth in labeling" regulations for all supplements would be in the public interest.

Do you really have any idea of what you are ingesting now beyond the manufacturers claim?

and helmet laws. down with the man.

I don't smoke or use supplements, so I generally have a pretty good idea what goes in. My point is that the FDA has responsibility for things of nutritive value (food), and drugs that claim to have medicinal effect. The reason they don't regulate suppliments is that they do not fall into either of the above categories. Neither does tobacco. Smoking is bad, it says so on the package. Will smokers suddenly stop if they know there is ammonia in them? I doubt it...

the ATF used to be part of the treasury department, meaning that it only handled tax related issues and related regulation. Now, since the ATF has been rolled in to the DOJ, they handle tax regulation AND law enforcement. The FDA is now the only 'regulatory' agency for safety and health related regulations.

I happen to agree with you on helmet and seatbelt laws.

One can make a reasonably informed choice after weighing the pros and cons of wearing helmets/seatbelts.

You cant make the same informed choice on products you consume if you dont know the content and quality of the product.

See the difference?

This isn't about the accountability of the consumers; it's about the accountability of the manufacturers.

Full disclosure on the packaging of a harmful product is a common practice now.

Yeah! Progress is for the wealthy elite!

With the taxes that smokers pay and the billions payed in the lawsuits against the the tobacco companies I bet there is enough money to provide health care to all smokers with no additional premiums.

Heh, that was a tongue in cheek statement but seriously, WTF? I understand banning smoking in offices, train stations, stadiums, etc. Places where people gather together to do things other than smoke and drink. But BARS? It really blows my mind.

re: On Topic conversation: I can see why the FDA doesn't want the job, although nicotine is a drug it's not a helpful one. *IF* we are going to do this I want an existing agency to take care of it and they most closely fit the bill. We sure don't need another bureaucratic subsystem leeching money through inefficiency.

Smokers aren't going to quit and that's probably a good thing overall. It's a tax on the poor and misinformed (edit) or addicted (/edit) and if everyone suddenly quit tomorrow there would be a LOT of revenue that needed to come from somewhere else. The tax in question here is levied fully on ~20% of the population so it's easy to get it increased through the mainly non-smoking public.

Tax junk food next. I'd be willing to pay twice or three times what a candy bar is actually worth, who's with me?

I saw on the news yesterday that there is a new study which shows cell phone useage to be worse for your health than smoking. And so it goes...