Senate to Consider Regulating Tobacco - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-27-2007, 10:43 AM

About Time!

--------------------------------------------------------------
Senate to consider regulating tobacco
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Health groups are trying to generate momentum for legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products.

The FDA couldn't ban nicotine outright, but the legislation would give it the power to reduce nicotine levels, as well as require larger and more informative health warnings.

The legislation would also prohibit terms such as "light," "mild" and "low-tar," which officials say can mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer than others.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was to take up the legislation Tuesday.

Dr. Elmer Huerta, president-elect of the
American Cancer Society, was on the witness list. He said the legislation is a historic opportunity to reduce health care disparities.

"Tobacco-related cancers remain disproportionately high among lower-income and minority communities," Huerta said in a statement.

Previous legislative efforts to give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco have faltered. In 2004, House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called the legislation an effort to "ban tobacco in America."

Democrats now control both congressional chambers, giving the legislation's prospects a major boost.

More than 40 million people are hooked on cigarettes, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate committee.

"FDA action can play a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death," Kennedy said.

Some Republican lawmakers will voice opposition to the legislation. One argument against the bill is that the FDA is having a hard enough time doing its job without adding such a major responsibility.

"The FDA approves cures, not poisons," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. "Forcing the FDA to regulate tobacco but not letting them ban it would undermine the long history of the agency protecting and promoting the public health."

For decades, the FDA said it lacked authority to regulate tobacco so long as cigarette makers did not claim that smoking provided health benefits. In 1996, it reversed course and cited new evidence that the industry intended its products to feed the nicotine habits of the roughly 45 million Americans who smoke.

Tobacco companies sued, and the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In 2000, the court ruled 5-4 that Congress did not authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco.

W*GS · 02-27-2007, 11:08 AM

Of course BB approves of the Nanny State.

And he wonders why the US is marching towards fascism, as he and his lefty ilk so loudly whine about.

alkemical · 02-27-2007, 11:09 AM

**** it, i'll just buy it on the black market.

spdirty · 02-27-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

as well as require larger and more informative health warnings.

How much more informative do they need to be?? Man...Ive been chewing for 4 years, surprised Im not dead yet.

Although I am in favor of it...maybe if my cope gets disgusting, Ill quit chewing. Yeah, what a lazy sob I am.

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-27-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Of course BB approves of the Nanny State.

And he wonders why the US is marching towards fascism, as he and his lefty ilk so loudly whine about.

It's no different than any other drug or alcohol, why shouldn't it be regulated?

alkemical · 02-27-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's no different than any other drug or alcohol, why shouldn't it be regulated?

I hope they do. I'll be able to buy it cheaper after they create an alternative market.

W*GS · 02-27-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's no different than any other drug or alcohol, why shouldn't it be regulated?

You need to show why it should be. That other drugs are is insufficient.

TheDave · 02-27-2007, 03:09 PM

Can't a man just enjoy his Cope' in peace

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-27-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDave

Can't a man just enjoy his Cope' in peace

Just the same as your regulated favorite beer or wine or whiskey

Bronco Bob · 02-27-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

You need to show why it should be. That other drugs are is insufficient.

Oh, gee, I don't know? Maybe because it KILLS people?
Regulating any deadly substance will helps save lives and is a good thing.
Alcohol and drugs are already regulated and there are stiff penalties for
violating these regulations. Why is tobacco exempt?

W*GS · 02-27-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Oh, gee, I don't know? Maybe because it KILLS people?

Life is inevitably fatal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Regulating any deadly substance will helps save lives and is a good thing.

When you gonna go after water?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Alcohol and drugs are already regulated and there are stiff penalties for violating these regulations. Why is tobacco exempt?

We all know how well the War on Drugs is working, don't we?

To buy tobacco, one has to be 21. What other regulations (a la alcohol) do you have in mind?

Bronco Bob · 02-27-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

How much more informative do they need to be?? Man...Ive been chewing for 4 years, surprised Im not dead yet.

Hey, what the hell, a person could also take a six shooter, put one bullet
in it, spin the chamber, put the gun to their head and pull the trigger.
That's pretty safe too. You only have a one in six chance of dying.

My point is just because some people smoke every day and live to be 90
doesn't mean that everyone else will too.

alkemical · 02-27-2007, 04:54 PM

who gives a ****. I like to smoke, and i'm polite about it. Keep your hands off of my blackened lungs. (And people wonder why i'm an anarchist)

Bronco Bob · 02-27-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Life is inevitably fatal.

When you gonna go after water?

Ever seen a "No Swinmming" sign at a polluted beach?
Ever seen lifeguards (government employees) at a swimming pool?
Ever seen a police barricade in front of a rushing wash?
Are you aware water is tested for contaminents such as arsenic
and pestisides
Where did you get the idea water wasn't regulated?

Quote:

We all know how well the War on Drugs is working, don't we?

To buy tobacco, one has to be 21. What other regulations (a la alcohol) do you have in mind?

The amount of nicotine allowed. False advertising. Ads designed to appeal
to minors. Stricter enforcement of the 21 and over laws. Where toabacco
is allowed to be used. Besides, it is already regulated to a certain extent.
The only difference this proposal addresses is WHO regulates it.
So why is it that big of a deal who regulates it? Other than perhaps
the regulation may be more effective than previously.

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-27-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

To buy tobacco, one has to be 21. What other regulations (a la alcohol) do you have in mind?

Same as alcohol, make companies list exactly what (and how much) they put in their products they sale.

W*GS · 02-27-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Ever seen a "No Swinmming" sign at a polluted beach?

The danger there is the pollution, not the water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Ever seen lifeguards (government employees) at a swimming pool? Ever seen a police barricade in front of a rushing wash? Are you aware water is tested for contaminents such as arsenic and pestisides Where did you get the idea water wasn't regulated?

In 2004, nearly 4,000 people drowned. Obviously water isn't regulated enough.

And I didn't say water wasn't regulated - and the examples you give are rather tangential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The amount of nicotine allowed.

The government already tests cigarettes and determines the amount of tar and nicotine in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

False advertising. Ads designed to appeal to minors.

Such as? Both are already forbidden. Indeed, tobacco companies are forced to pay for ads that urge smokers to quit, and for ads that demonize them. What more do you want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Stricter enforcement of the 21 and over laws.

Every place I've seen that sells cigarettes says it will card to make sure the buyer is over 21, and there are penalties in place against buying cigarettes for minors. What more do you want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Where toabacco is allowed to be used. Besides, it is already regulated to a certain extent.

Tobacco use is already over-regulated, IMNSHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The only difference this proposal addresses is WHO regulates it. So why is it that big of a deal who regulates it? Other than perhaps the regulation may be more effective than previously.

I generally oppose all Nanny State-type regulations.

Who doesn't know that smoking is really bad for you? Let's leave it at that.

W*GS · 02-27-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Same as alcohol, make companies list exactly what (and how much) they put in their products they sale.

I don't recall ever seeing an ingredients list for wine or hard liquor.

Do you really think FDA rules will make a difference? Like I asked Bronco Bob, who doesn't know that smoking is really bad for you?

REB · 02-27-2007, 05:31 PM

Oy vey it never ends. What is it with all these control freaks anyhow? Watch what we do on the internet, Online poker, wire tapping, marijuana, etc etc. There's just no stopping them now I guess and some people just love it.

Crushaholic · 02-27-2007, 05:32 PM

First, it was second-hand smoke. Now, it's nicotine...which doesn't have second-hand effects. Just call for an outright ban on cigarettes, Beerslug. Then, we can start jailing people who smoke cigarettes...

cbs1177 · 02-27-2007, 05:49 PM

the government tried this with prohabation and it didn't work at well. I only made mobs bigger. Oh and then they reversed themselves in the constitution.

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-27-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

I don't recall ever seeing an ingredients list for wine or hard liquor.
Do you really think FDA rules will make a difference? Like I asked Bronco Bob, who doesn't know that smoking is really bad for you?

Alcohol is regulated like food. You can't just sell anything. Tobacco companies were caught again inflating levels of nicotine in their products to hook more smokers after they promised they wouldn't pull that sh*t anymore. Drugs should be regulated also, then you'd know exactly what you're getting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbs1177

the government tried this with prohabation and it didn't work at well. I only made mobs bigger. Oh and then they reversed themselves in the constitution.

I don't think anyone is talking about prohibition, that would take an act by Congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

First, it was second-hand smoke. Now, it's nicotine...which doesn't have second-hand effects. Just call for an outright ban on cigarettes, Beerslug. Then, we can start jailing people who smoke cigarettes...

Explain why the food, drug and a alcohol industries should be regulated and the tobacco industry shouldn't?

spdirty · 02-27-2007, 09:38 PM

you know what really fckin pisses me off. I use to smoke a pack a day. Did it for 3 years. Use to annoy the hell out of people that endured my secondhand smoke. I knew it, was an a-hole about it, whatever. But, realized my fingers stunk, clothes always stunk, couldnt run more than 10 feet without huffing and puffing, everything about me was nasty.

So, for those reasons, and a few others, I switched to chewing. I don't bother anybody, I don't infect anybody with 'secondhand chew', my fingers and clothes don't stink, in fact the only way you can tell I chew is with the little fat lip I have. PEOPLE WHO CHEW DON'T **** WITH ANYBODY!!!!

Yet we get lumped in with all the damn smokers out there, when there was a tax hike on tobacco in Jan. 2005, the price for it nearly DOUBLED! Yet smokers didn't take as big a hit with their taxes. Seriously, cope went from about 3.50 to about 6.50 with that one hike. Don't screw with anyone but we get lumped in with the smokers. Just pisses me off.

Spider · 02-28-2007, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

you know what really fckin pisses me off. I use to smoke a pack a day. Did it for 3 years. Use to annoy the hell out of people that endured my secondhand smoke. I knew it, was an a-hole about it, whatever. But, realized my fingers stunk, clothes always stunk, couldnt run more than 10 feet without huffing and puffing, everything about me was nasty.

So, for those reasons, and a few others, I switched to chewing. I don't bother anybody, I don't infect anybody with 'secondhand chew', my fingers and clothes don't stink, in fact the only way you can tell I chew is with the little fat lip I have. PEOPLE WHO CHEW DON'T **** WITH ANYBODY!!!!

Yet we get lumped in with all the damn smokers out there, when there was a tax hike on tobacco in Jan. 2005, the price for it nearly DOUBLED! Yet smokers didn't take as big a hit with their taxes. Seriously, cope went from about 3.50 to about 6.50 with that one hike. Don't screw with anyone but we get lumped in with the smokers. Just pisses me off.

I chew also Copenhagen silver lid .......I couldnt smoke and do the work that I do .........

Crushaholic · 02-28-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Explain why the food, drug and alcohol industries should be regulated and the tobacco industry shouldn't?

In the case of food and drugs, removing the harmful stuff and leaving the good stuff for consumption makes sense. I don't think alcohol is regulated all that much, except for setting a minimum age for consuming alcohol. In the case of cigarettes, they are worthless to the human body and probably should be banned. This legislation is a joke because they already have warnings on the pack that smoking is bad. The effort needs to be in better enforcement of the age limit, not changing the packages to read "DUMMY, THIS IS BAD FOR YOU! HELLO, McFLY!"

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-28-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

In the case of food and drugs, removing the harmful stuff and leaving the good stuff for consumption makes sense. I don't think alcohol is regulated all that much, except for setting a minimum age for consuming alcohol. In the case of cigarettes, they are worthless to the human body and probably should be banned. This legislation is a joke because they already have warnings on the pack that smoking is bad. The effort needs to be in better enforcement of the age limit, not changing the packages to read "DUMMY, THIS IS BAD FOR YOU! HELLO, McFLY!"

No, alcohol is regulated to make sure companies aren't selling you something that they are not suppose to be selling you. Distillers, wineries and brewers all have to abide by federal laws regarding their products, why shouldn't tobacco have to?

02-27-2007, 10:43 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Senate to Consider Regulating Tobacco About Time! -------------------------------------------------------------- Senate to consider regulating tobacco By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Health groups are trying to generate momentum for legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. The FDA couldn't ban nicotine outright, but the legislation would give it the power to reduce nicotine levels, as well as require larger and more informative health warnings. The legislation would also prohibit terms such as "light," "mild" and "low-tar," which officials say can mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer than others. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was to take up the legislation Tuesday. Dr. Elmer Huerta, president-elect of the American Cancer Society, was on the witness list. He said the legislation is a historic opportunity to reduce health care disparities. "Tobacco-related cancers remain disproportionately high among lower-income and minority communities," Huerta said in a statement. Previous legislative efforts to give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco have faltered. In 2004, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called the legislation an effort to "ban tobacco in America." Democrats now control both congressional chambers, giving the legislation's prospects a major boost. More than 40 million people are hooked on cigarettes, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate committee. "FDA action can play a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death," Kennedy said. Some Republican lawmakers will voice opposition to the legislation. One argument against the bill is that the FDA is having a hard enough time doing its job without adding such a major responsibility. "The FDA approves cures, not poisons," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. "Forcing the FDA to regulate tobacco but not letting them ban it would undermine the long history of the agency protecting and promoting the public health." For decades, the FDA said it lacked authority to regulate tobacco so long as cigarette makers did not claim that smoking provided health benefits. In 1996, it reversed course and cited new evidence that the industry intended its products to feed the nicotine habits of the roughly 45 million Americans who smoke. Tobacco companies sued, and the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In 2000, the court ruled 5-4 that Congress did not authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-27-2007, 11:08 AM	#2
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,601	Of course BB approves of the Nanny State. And he wonders why the US is marching towards fascism, as he and his lefty ilk so loudly whine about.

02-27-2007, 11:09 AM	#3
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,723 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	**** it, i'll just buy it on the black market.

02-27-2007, 03:09 PM	#8
TheDave Sauced... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 15,120	Can't a man just enjoy his Cope' in peace

02-27-2007, 04:54 PM	#13
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,723 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	who gives a ****. I like to smoke, and i'm polite about it. Keep your hands off of my blackened lungs. (And people wonder why i'm an anarchist)

02-27-2007, 05:32 PM	#19
Crushaholic Armchair Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Topeka, KS Posts: 22,078	First, it was second-hand smoke. Now, it's nicotine...which doesn't have second-hand effects. Just call for an outright ban on cigarettes, Beerslug. Then, we can start jailing people who smoke cigarettes...

02-27-2007, 05:49 PM	#20
cbs1177 Ring of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,209	the government tried this with prohabation and it didn't work at well. I only made mobs bigger. Oh and then they reversed themselves in the constitution.

02-27-2007, 09:38 PM	#22
spdirty Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bailey Posts: 13,923 Adopt-a-Bronco: Quentin Jammer	you know what really fckin pisses me off. I use to smoke a pack a day. Did it for 3 years. Use to annoy the hell out of people that endured my secondhand smoke. I knew it, was an a-hole about it, whatever. But, realized my fingers stunk, clothes always stunk, couldnt run more than 10 feet without huffing and puffing, everything about me was nasty. So, for those reasons, and a few others, I switched to chewing. I don't bother anybody, I don't infect anybody with 'secondhand chew', my fingers and clothes don't stink, in fact the only way you can tell I chew is with the little fat lip I have. PEOPLE WHO CHEW DON'T **** WITH ANYBODY!!!! Yet we get lumped in with all the damn smokers out there, when there was a tax hike on tobacco in Jan. 2005, the price for it nearly DOUBLED! Yet smokers didn't take as big a hit with their taxes. Seriously, cope went from about 3.50 to about 6.50 with that one hike. Don't screw with anyone but we get lumped in with the smokers. Just pisses me off.