Another step closer...FDA/Tobacco

Dan Murphy

We are family.
Joined
Apr 20, 2000
Messages
84,485
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31233307/

Not too many more steps away from law, back to the House, then to the President for signature. :thumbsup2


Senate approves FDA tobacco regulation



Historic anti-smoking vote grants new power over marketing, ingredients
The Associated Press
updated 2:17 p.m. CT, Thurs., June 11, 2009

WASHINGTON - Congress struck the government's strongest anti-smoking blow in decades Thursday with a Senate vote to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in cigarettes, drastically curtail ads and ban candied tobacco products aimed at young people.

Cigarette foes say the changes could cut into the 400,000 deaths every year caused by smoking and reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the U.S. surgeon general's warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

"This legislation represents the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States," declared Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.

The 79-17 Senate vote sends the measure back to the House, which in April passed a similar but not identical version. House acceptance of the Senate bill would send it directly to President Barack Obama, who supports the action. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "from what I have seen so far, I believe it will be possible for us to accept their bill and send it right on to the president."

Obama's signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater government supervision since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care.

New rules and regulations
Supporters of FDA regulation of tobacco have struggled for more than a decade to overcome powerful resistance — from the industry and elsewhere. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the agency did not have the authority under current law to regulate tobacco products, and the George W. Bush administration opposed several previous efforts by Congress to write a new law.

Thursday's legislation gives the FDA power to evaluate the contents of tobacco products and to order changes or bans on those that are a danger to public health. The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes.

Regulators could prohibit tobacco companies from using candy or other flavors in cigarettes that tend to attract young smokers, and restrict advertising in publications often read by teenagers. Rules on sales to minors would be toughened, as would warning labels. Tobacco companies would have to get FDA approval for new products, and would be barred from using terms such as "light" or "mild" that imply a smaller health risk.

Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.

"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids — children — will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that FDA regulation could reduce underage smoking by 11 percent over the next decade. There are more than 40 million smokers in America.

The bill, said American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown, "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults."

The tobacco lobby, contended Durbin, has long been the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, "and they managed to create an exemption in virtually every law so that no federal agency could take a look at them and regulate them."

But the industry has also taken hits in recent years as the dangers of smoking became more apparent and states moved to limit smoking in public places. In 1998 the industry agreed to pay the states $206 billion to help cover health care costs, and this year Congress raised the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack, to fund a health care program for children.

Reducing health care costs
The nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, Philip Morris, USA, has come out in support of the legislation. Its parent company, Altria Group, said in a statement that on balance, "the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."

Its main rivals, however, have voiced opposition, arguing in part that FDA restrictions on new products will lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Lawmakers portrayed the bill as a major first step in bringing down health care costs, an essential goal of the health care overhaul legislation that is the top priority of the Obama administration this year.

"This bill may do more in the area of prevention, if adopted, than anything else we may include in the health care bill in the short term," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who managed the legislation on the Senate floor in the absence of the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has long promoted FDA regulation.

Opponents, led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina, argued that the FDA, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of food and drug products, was the wrong place to regulate an item that is injurious to health.

He also contended that the bill would restrict tobacco companies, including several based in his state, from developing new products that might be less harmful to users. He unsuccessfully proposed the creation of a new agency that would both regulate tobacco products and encourage efforts to make cigarettes less harmful.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31233307/

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com
 
Its going to be very hard to discuss this without involving Politics :rolleyes1
 
Drastically "curtail ads"? When was the last time anyone saw a commercial, magazine or radio ad for cigarettes?

"Light" and "mild" don't mean less health risks. It refers to the flavor of the cigarette. Not once have I or anyone that I know thought that it meant the cancer/health risk was "light" and/or "mild".

And additionally, I think Congress and the President have bigger issues to work on at this moment.
 
Drastically "curtail ads"? When was the last time anyone saw a commercial, magazine or radio ad for cigarettes?

I can't remember but I did see a horrible one of a woman getting surgery on her throat for NYS anti- smoking. Maybe they should be curtailing those as well :sick:
 

I've read that article several times and I must be "stuck on stupid" because I just don't see where this is some huge, miraculous issue that is:

(A) Going to make a difference.

(B) Worth spending money on due to "A"..

I can't even tell you the last time I saw an ad or a commercial for cigarettes - and if teens choose to take up smoking, it's certainly not due to an ad, a commercial, or a "flavoring" in a cigarette.. So what am I missing that makes this worthwhile - and worth the money that will be spent on it? :confused3

Serious question.. I'm not "getting it"..:confused3
 
I went through a huge stack of magazines this week, and saw lots of ads for cigarettes, spit tobacco, and cigars. There are tons of ads out there. The tobacco industry spends lots of money on advertising each year.
 
I went through a huge stack of magazines this week, and saw lots of ads for cigarettes, spit tobacco, and cigars. There are tons of ads out there. The tobacco industry spends lots of money on advertising each year.
-----------------

What kind of magazines do you read? And do you really think that an "ad" plays a part in whether or not teens/people smoke?
 
So..who do you think will be the new tobacco czar? Hopefully, someones who's paid their taxes.
 
I hate this might pass. If people wanna smoke let them. I hate the goverement is getting so involved in every aspect of people lives
 
I went through a huge stack of magazines this week, and saw lots of ads for cigarettes, spit tobacco, and cigars. There are tons of ads out there. The tobacco industry spends lots of money on advertising each year.

-----------------

What kind of magazines do you read? And do you really think that an "ad" plays a part in whether or not teens/people smoke?

Well?
 
Drastically "curtail ads"? When was the last time anyone saw a commercial, magazine or radio ad for cigarettes?

You must not watch sports. The proposed ban will will also stop tobacco companies from hosting or sposoring sporting events. I thought it was the biggest hypocrisy that Virginia Slims sponsors a Women's Tennis Tournament. You can see their ads all along the walls of the court & the arena. Sports should be about fitness & health, not sponsored by cigarette companies.

Tobacco still has large ads on the sides of those glass enclosed bus stops.
 
I thought it was the biggest hypocrisy that Virginia Slims sponsors a Women's Tennis Tournament.

But but but...

Don't all the healthy, beautiful, perfectly-toothed, tanned-skin people smoke? Isn't that what makes people sexy and desirable? I always thought....

:rolleyes:



(I'm agreeing with you totally Imzadi; it disgusted me too)
 
But but but...

Don't all the healthy, beautiful, perfectly-toothed, tanned-skin people smoke? Isn't that what makes people sexy and desirable? I always thought....

:rolleyes:


(I'm agreeing with you totally Imzadi; it disgusted me too)

Yeah, I feel that way whenever I see a rerun of Sex & The City, and see Carrie Bradshaw smoking. Since it was filmed for HBO, SJP could get away with it. But, cigarettes had been banned off of regular TV for a long time, & with good reason.

Every time I see her smoking on the show, I think, "Sarah Jessica, what were you thinking? :sad2: Even if you smoke in real like, it's so not cool to be promoting smoking when you know people want to emulate your character. :sad2:
 
Yeah, I feel that way whenever I see a rerun of Sex & The City, and see Carrie Bradshaw smoking. Since it was filmed for HBO, SJP could get away with it. But, cigarettes had been banned off of regular TV for a long time, & with good reason.

Every time I see her smoking on the show, I think, "Sarah Jessica, what were you thinking? :sad2: Even if you smoke in real like, it's so not cool to be promoting smoking when you know people want to emulate your character. :sad2:

I don't know any who has started smoking because SJP does
 
Next, the gov't will limit how much fat and sugar you can eat because fatties are next on the hit list. If you think it won't happen, think again. Once the line in allowing people to make their own decisions about things like this is crossed, it is very easy to cross it in many other ways.

I think the gov't is way too intrusive. People need to make these decisions for themselves whether they are good decisions or bad decisions. Anyone will be able to go to a tobacco shop and buy European cigarettes some of which will have more nicotine.

You cannot legislate things like this and have them work successfully.
 
Next, the gov't will limit how much fat and sugar you can eat because fatties are next on the hit list. If you think it won't happen, think again. Once the line in allowing people to make their own decisions about things like this is crossed, it is very easy to cross it in many other ways.

I think the gov't is way too intrusive. People need to make these decisions for themselves whether they are good decisions or bad decisions. Anyone will be able to go to a tobacco shop and buy European cigarettes some of which will have more nicotine.

You cannot legislate things like this and have them work successfully.
Good points:)

This whole crazy thing reminds me of prohibition sp?? We know how well that went over
 
I don't know any who has started smoking because SJP does
Well, I DO know people who started smoking, got addicted & couldn't stop because of watching Bette Davis, Joan Crawford smoking. Or the famous scene where Humphrey Bogart lit up a cigarette for Lauren Bacall. People back then thought that was the epitomy of sexy & cool.

Other teens started smoking because they wanted to be able to roll up a pack of Marlboro in the cuff of their t-shirt, like James Dean. They could only do that, if they actually smoked the cigarettes, too.

People are influenced by TV all the time. People certainly wear the clothing styles inspired by SJP. And they are willing to pay $500 for Minolo Blaniks. :eek: (But, the stupidity of that trend should be for another thread.)
 
You cannot legislate things like this and have them work successfully.

We had better hope that it doesn't work. Remember the expansion to S-CHIP a few months ago? It was funded through higher taxes on tobacco. If fewer people smoke, then everyone else will get to pick up the tab.

(I seem to recall a study that said smokers were actually a good thing - since many smokers will pay far more in taxes, social security, etc than they will ever receive back, even if you include their increase in medical care.)
 
Well, I DO know people who started smoking, got addicted & couldn't stop because of watching Bette Davis, Joan Crawford smoking. Or the famous scene where Humphrey Bogart lit up a cigarette for Lauren Bacall. People back then thought that was the epitomy of sexy & cool.

Other teens started smoking because they wanted to be able to roll up a pack of Marlboro in the cuff of their t-shirt, like James Dean. They could only do that, if they actually smoked the cigarettes, too.

People are influenced by TV all the time. People certainly wear the clothing styles inspired by SJP. And they are willing to pay $500 for Minolo Blaniks. :eek: (But, the stupidity of that trend should be for another thread.)

Adults have the right to smoke. It not the place of the Goverement to dicate what people can and can't do. This is a hard subject to talk about since we can't talk about politics or what not
 
While I DESPISE smoking I dont' think it's the governments job to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer


DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter
Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom