Another step closer...FDA/Tobacco

[luvmy3]

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. (But, the stupidity of that trend should be for another thread.)

Okay those actors and actresses are from a much older generation, a generation when the effects of smoking weren't known like the are today. Anyone who lights up today and thinks its not unhealthy to smoke is either really really stupid or has been living in a cave for the last 40 years. But you know what its their choice to be ignorant, stupid or sheltered.

Rie'smom they are already there. Trans fats are out and now there is this push for taxes on non diet drinks etc.
Its a shame when our own gov't doesn't trust enough to take care of ourselves, and they use there concern as an excuse to take a little bit more control over our personal lives, and milk us for more money while doing it.

 

[Galahad]

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.

Anything that makes it more difficult to sell and consume tobacco is OK in my book!!!!!

 

[Feralpeg]

Okay those actors and actresses are from a much older generation, a generation when the effects of smoking weren't known like the are today. Anyone who lights up today and thinks its not unhealthy to smoke is either really really stupid or has been living in a cave for the last 40 years. But you know what its their choice to be ignorant, stupid or sheltered.

Rie'smom they are already there. Trans fats are out and now there is this push for taxes on non diet drinks etc.
Its a shame when our own gov't doesn't trust enough to take care of ourselves, and they use there concern as an excuse to take a little bit more control over our personal lives, and milk us for more money while doing it.

I agree that adults need to be responsible for their personal lives. It is the kids that I worry about. I see so many young teens smoking. Like or not, it is still considered a cool thing to do. You don't see that many adults starting to smoke in their adult years. Most are getting hooked as teens. I don't think teens are ready to make a responsible decision about smoking. Teens think they are indestructible. They don't think they could get sick. I feel someone has to watch out for the kids. It doesn't appear that the parents are able to do so in many cases. I don't think cigarette advertising should be allowed in magazines that target kids. It still amazes me how easily kids get cigarettes when they cannot legally purchase them.

 

[BunsenH]

It would be interesting to poll those opposed to this legislation based on the notion that 'people should be able to choose what they do to their bodies' and ask their opinion on legalizing pot.

 

[rie'smom]

Does anyone really think that this wil stop kids from smoking? Has the minimom drinking age stopped kids who want to drink from drinking,no. They know where they can purchase alcohol or they can get others to purchase it for them and it will be the same with cigarettes. It's more BS from DC.

 

[KAMLEM]

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

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?

I have always questioned how much advertising really influences peoples' behavior, but I can't believe companies would spend the money they do if they didn't have some proven ROI.

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm no fan of smoking, but this pending law will create some problems too. For starters, it's a problem for the FDA. Applying their normal processes to tobacco, as a drug it's not "safe". If cigarette makers had to submit an NDA (New Drug Application) to the FDA for approval to sell Marlboros, it wouldn't get past the first step. So now the FDA will be in the position of allowing the sale of a product that they know is inherently unsafe for human consumption. That'll be a first for them and I'm not sure how they're going to square that with the other "drug makers" they deal with.

Secondly, it's going to add to the FDA's already very full plate.

Lastly, I don't think for a minute that it will have much of any impact on teenage smoking... in spite of all of the posturing.

 

[C.Ann]

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.

Thanks for that answer.. I don't watch sports - nor do I live in an area with public transportation - so I was not aware of that form of advertising..

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.)

Very true.. If you dig deeply into how much the states rely on the revenues from taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products to keep them afloat, you will see that most states would literally "sink" if everyone were to quit smoking tomorrow.. What they "claim" they use these revenues for - and what they actually "do" use them for are two entirely different things..

I'm no fan of smoking, but this pending law will create some problems too. For starters, it's a problem for the FDA. Applying their normal processes to tobacco, as a drug it's not "safe". If cigarette makers had to submit an NDA (New Drug Application) to the FDA for approval to sell Marlboros, it wouldn't get past the first step. So now the FDA will be in the position of allowing the sale of a product that they know is inherently unsafe for human consumption. That'll be a first for them and I'm not sure how they're going to square that with the other "drug makers" they deal with.

Secondly, it's going to add to the FDA's already very full plate.

Lastly, I don't think for a minute that it will have much of any impact on teenage smoking... in spite of all of the posturing.

Read the last line of the outline - very telling.. This is going to help "how"??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fda_tobacco_glance

Sadly, if a teenager decides that they want to smoke, there isn't one single thing listed in that outline that will have any impact on them whatsoever..

 

[PatsMom]

When I started smoking back in the early 70's I don't recall being influenced by advertising - it was more by the people around me. Cigarette advertising is already pretty much gone (remember Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man?) Along with the Winston Cup? And as someone mentioned Virginia Slims tennis matches.

I don't see what this new regulation will accomplish other than to use up the already scarce resources at the FDA. Will there be a life saving drug help up because they are busy regulating somtheing that we already know is bad?

By the way, I am no longer a smoker.

 

[tonilea]

"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".

I guess I will show my ignorance, but there was a time that I thought "light" was a reference to the tar content.

 

[LisaNJ25]

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.

what is worst than the ads is the baseball players who chew on the field.

 

[rie'smom]

Hopefully, it will mean less sports on tv if there aren't cigarette companies to sponsor them!!!!

 

[rie'smom]

I guess I will show my ignorance, but there was a time that I thought "light" was a reference to the tar content.

It does reference less tar. The problem the gov't sees is that because cigarettes contain less tar does not mean they pose less of a risk. Again, they think people are stupid and can't figure out for themselves that smoking is a health risk. They must hold our hands.

 

[C.Ann]

Hopefully, it will mean less sports on tv if there aren't cigarette companies to sponsor them!!!!

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

 

[CPT Tripss]

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

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?

Among other mags, I read sports and auto mags . . . they are loaded with nicotine delivery system ads.

If ads did not increase the amount spent on nicotine delivery systems, do you think the manufacturers would pay for them?

 

[CPT Tripss]

snip

Its a shame when our own gov't doesn't trust enough to take care of ourselves, and they use there concern as an excuse to take a little bit more control over our personal lives, and milk us for more money while doing it.

It's also a shame that my tax dollars subsidize high fructose corn syrup to the degree that it is dumped into so many products that don't need it to taste good.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I guess I will show my ignorance, but there was a time that I thought "light" was a reference to the tar content.

You are quite correct . . . that was a "healthy" cigarette claim for sure.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Hopefully, it will mean less sports on tv if there aren't cigarette companies to sponsor them!!!!

Well, getting rid of "The Winston Cup" did not hurt NASCAR. Just the opposite, it seems like they are on TV all the time.

 

[mhsjax]

I don't know any who has started smoking because SJP does

I agree, and if people do start smoking because of something that a celeb does, then maybe the government should outlaw stupidity.

 

[luvmy3]

It's also a shame that my tax dollars subsidize high fructose corn syrup to the degree that it is dumped into so many products that don't need it to taste good.

They aren't pretending to do it for your own good, thats the difference.