FDA gains authority over Tobacco ~ gun related?

[melensdad]

Folks, whether or not you like/tolerate/hate smoking, watch this development. The Senate just voted to authorize the takeover of the tobacco regulations by the FDA.

I've long watched the anti-tobacco forces and the anti-gun forces.

These two "anti" groups seem to use many of the same tactics. Demonizing smokers. Demonizing gun owners. Both are a claimed danger to "The Children." Both work in baby steps to infringe on rights. Both work to sneak in taxes on various aspects.

Watch this unfold. The Anti-Gun crusaders will be watching for, and copying the success of the Anti-Tobacco crusaders.

Link to Story: Senate votes to give FDA power to regulate tobacco - Yahoo! News

Lots of members of the GOP voted for this increase in regulations!!! It is just more BIG government here to help us. It is also more proof that many members of the GOP really are not in favor of SMALLER government or LESS centralized power.

 

[smokingman]

Great post thanks. +1

 

[mettle]

While it is ludricous to smoke around children, and I agree with the aspect of smoking around children should at least be changed; , however, this is not a real surprise to me.

It is called government control.

 

[KPierce]

Yeah lets just chip away some more of our rights to live our lives the way we want. I guess next they'll start regulating all products with sugar in them because of people being overweight.

The more I think about it the more I realize that the Government reminds me of a bad kid. They see how far they can push people without causing too much problem for themselves. They act up to that level for a while then push the level up again when they feel they can get away with it. Or slap a label on it saying it's for the kids or or other such label.

I can imagine sometime down the road we will reach a point where you can only put into your body what the government deems as healthy. It saddens me to to see things like this are happening.

 

[Scutter01]

I spent the first 14 years of my life in a house full of smoke and cars full of smoke. I hated it but I had no control over it. I remember long car rides with eyes watering and gagging nausea. "It's OK, I'll crack a window!" Gee, thanks. How about you put out the stink stick instead? I blame at least some of my current respiration problems on it. I am definitely of two minds over the "for the Children" argument. On the one hand, parents should be responsible, but on the other hand, they aren't.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I spent the first 14 years of my life in a house full of smoke and cars full of smoke. I hated it but I had no control over it. I remember long car rides with eyes watering and gagging nausea. "It's OK, I'll crack a window!" Gee, thanks. How about you put out the stink stick instead? I blame at least some of my current respiration problems on it. I am definitely of two minds over the "for the Children" argument. On the one hand, parents should be responsible, but on the other hand, they aren't.

It's rather difficult to legislate away the sins of our parents though.

Both of my parents have always smoked. This put my sister & I in harm's way. A lot of my parents' generation (currently 50 & 52, respectively) grew up thinking that food/clothing/shelter/love were the only things a parent had to do. I now have to live with the mistakes my parents made. It's always been this way. Legislation will not change it. Seatbelts, booster seats, no smoking, vaccinations, rubber walls, no carbohydrates, no religion, no history. Where do you stop? At what point are you endangering a child? It shouldn't be legislated at the federal level. It shouldn't be legislated at the state level. I can't even imagine a good argument for legislating it at the local level. Like it or not, children are your responsibility & yours alone until the age of majority.

Obvious physical harm/neglect is easily legislated & almost universally agreed upon...but beyond that, where do we draw the line? How many steps is it until we're at the point where the hospital takes your newborn & sends it to the education & rearing camps? Or, how long until they realize they should just make everyone sterile & use cloning for licensed parents?

 

[Scutter01]

It's rather difficult to legislate away the sins of our parents though.

I agree. That's why I said I was of two minds. On the one hand, I know what it's like to be a little kid stuck in that smoke. On the other hand, I don't think the Man has any business getting involved.

 

[public servant]

How many steps is it until we're at the point where the hospital takes your newborn & sends it to the education & rearing camps?

I've got a couple of teenagers they could have for a trial run.

 

[mettle]

This is like the seat belt laws. Common sense/must do needs a balance.

 

[The Meach]

I heard about this today and was really pissed. My hookah is now a $100 statue. This bill bans all flavoured (or candied) tobaccos less menthol. Hookah tobacco and favoured cigars will now be a federal controlled substance.

Oh and this shuttered thousands of small businesses around the country while securing the maketshare for the big company's

Oh and the FDA will have the right to levy "user fee's" as they see fit aka "taxes by the executive"

oh and i hope none of you Dip because all of that is gone too

 

[mike8170]

The quote from this f*cking libtard says it all:

"This moment has been coming for 20 years," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat. "We're going to be able to protect millions of children and Americans from deadly tobacco-related disease."

Baby steps are getting their agenda passed. Lets guess at what will be next, maybe all firearms, ammunition and accessories will be controlled by OSHA, since a firearm is nothing but a tool.

I think that I am going to send some pissy emails and letters tonight, and wait for the black suv's to show up.

Update : Both Lugar and Bayh voted in favor

 

[flagtag]

I wonder how long it will be before we are required to greet others with "HEIL!" COMRAD! And do the "duckstep". (and wave our little Naziwannabe flags on comand)

 

[Feign]

I wonder how long it will be before we are required to greet others with "HEIL!" COMRAD! And do the "duckstep". (and wave our little Naziwannabe flags on comand)

It's right here:

 

[Chefcook]

It's right here:

I wish it were that simple. If it doesn't matter who you vote for your vote doesn't count for much... Dem or Rep they are thick as thieves, which makes perfect since as they are thieves...

 

[purple72]

With Uncle Sugar involved, this spells nothing but disaster. It amazes me how all the politicians scream STOP SMOKING. But, what happens if everyone does? Where does all the lost tax revenue come from. Cause they make mounds of cash from booze & smokes. What's next. The FDA decreases the nicotine, thus causing useage to increase? And what do you get? More revenue. Glad I quit.

 

[Bigum1969]

It won't be long at all until guns become a "public health issue" to protect the children.

Fast food will be regulated soon as well.

Then will come tennis shoes.

And don't forget the trucks and SUVs. With the new bs mileage requirements, our love for big trucks will soon be taxed out of reach of most Americans.

 

[haldir]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Americans today remind me of this. We have one thing that we get upset about. Obviously on here it is gun rights. We stamp our foot and get all steamed up if there is some infringement of just those rights. At the same time, we watch them strip rights away from other groups and sit on the sidelines and maybe even cheer them on. We happily watch restaurant and bar owners have their property rights stripped away over smoking, then perhaps parental rights stripped away over smoking or maybe for other reasons (teaching things that some don't agree with), seat belt laws, having bible studies in private homes, etc.

 

[inxs]

How many don't believe that the National Health Care BS is more about gun and behavior control than health?

 

[4sarge]

Smoke Signals: Why a Tobacco Giant Is Backing a Tough New Antismoking Bill

Smoke Signals: Why a Tobacco Giant Is Backing a Tough New Antismoking Bill

AP – A customer at the Red Key Taven in Indianapolis lights a cigarette, Thursday, June 11, 2009. The U.S. …

• Play Video Video:Should the FDA Regulate Tobacco? CNBC
• Play Video Video:Target: tobacco FOX 11 Tuscon
• Play Video Video:Congress likely to give FDA authority over tobacco industry KVUE-TV Austin

By KATE PICKERT / WASHINGTON Kate Pickert / Washington – 1 hr 33 mins ago

The U.S. Senate on Thursday struck the most devastating legislative blow in history to Big Tobacco, giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over the industry. The new bill, which passed in the House in April, includes tough new restrictions on advertising like allowing only black-and-white text ads in magazines with substantial youth readerships, mandates that manufacturers prove or stop using claims like "light" and "low tar," bans flavored cigarettes (except menthol) and makes provisions for large, graphic warning labels. So why, then, is tobacco giant Philip Morris, unlike its industry brethren, celebrating the unprecedented oversight?


When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company's pocket - and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro - restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris' very lucrative business. (See vintage cigarette propaganda.)


The company's main rival, R.J. Reynolds, manufacturer of Camel cigarettes, is still in dismay over Philip Morris' reversal from regulation opponent to champion, and the third largest cigarette manufacturer, Lorillard, has labeled the legislation the Marlboro Monopoly Act. Both argue that as the new restrictions cut off most remaining avenues available for advertising and ban marketing stunts like free-sample cigarette giveaways, the companies' ability to "communicate" (i.e., gain market share) with potential and existing smokers about their products will be blocked. In addition, the administrative costs of complying with FDA regulations favor large manufacturers over smaller ones.


But there's another key reason Philip Morris lobbied hard for FDA regulation, aligning itself with strange bedfellows like the Campaign for Smoke-Free Kids, the American Lung Association and longtime antismoking crusaders Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Henry Waxman. "Philip Morris wants the public-health community to join them in finding the holy grail: the safe cigarette," says Gregory Connolly, a tobacco expert and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Simply put, figuring out how to produce a less harmful tobacco product and getting an FDA seal of approval could open up a whole new, potentially huge consumer market.


There is nothing in the FDA legislation that expressly favors Philip Morris when it comes to innovation and new product development, but the company has far deeper pockets, putting it at a distinct advantage over its competitors. In 2007, the same year that nearly identical FDA legislation was introduced in Congress, Philip Morris opened a 450,000-sq.-ft. (42,000 sq m) research facility in Richmond, Va. The complex is filled with hundreds of employees, including scientists studying new tobacco technologies that Philip Morris is hoping to get through the new FDA approval process.


"Working on products that are potentially less harmful is something we've been working on for some time," says company spokesman William Phelps. A June 10 market-research report from the firm Fitch Ratings says Philip Morris spent $232 million on tobacco research and "reduced-harm products" in 2008. And just in case the FDA agrees with Big Tobacco (and some scientists) that chewing instead of smoking the leaf is "safer," Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds have acquired the largest and second largest chewing-tobacco companies, respectively, in the past four years. (See a video of France's smoking ban.)


This support of increased government oversight, which Philip Morris first endorsed in 2001, has given even some backers of the bill pause. "It is a concern that the tobacco industry is involved" in the legislation, admits David Burns, a leading tobacco researcher who has testified in court that "light" cigarettes are no less harmful than regular ones and has conducted studies for the World Health Organization and U.S. government. Big Tobacco "has a very dark and aggressive history of trying to change both science and public policy to its economic favor," he says. Still, like the vast majority in the public-health community, Burns is in favor of FDA regulation that will hold tobacco companies responsible for the claims they make. (The tobacco industry will have nonvoting seats on a new FDA scientific-advisory board for tobacco issues to be created under the legislation.)


Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a champion of the new legislation, says while "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette," the FDA regulatory structure will allow for research into how to reduce the harm of tobacco. "It's unusual to be on the same side as Philip Morris," he admits. "But their reasons are not our reasons. The bill is a good bill. If they happened to support it, that's fine with me."

But the notion that it's even possible to "reduce the harm" of tobacco is making some public-health officials bristle, even as tobacco executives' mouths are watering. "If we get someone to quit, it's far better than giving someone something with lower levels of toxins. You may delay it, but you're still going to die," says Connolly. (Despite his concerns, Connolly supports the new regulatory bill.) Critics also worry that having an implied stamp of approval on tobacco products from the FDA - which has traditionally governed the manufacture and sale of things like cosmetics, food and pharmaceuticals deemed safe - could give the misleading impression that cigarettes aren't health hazards.


Still, after all the negative publicity and revelations about Big Tobacco over the past two decades, it's hard to imagine there's a whole untapped market of Americans who will jump at the chance to enjoy supposedly "harm-reduced" tobacco and nicotine. But when the alternative is fighting a (money-) losing battle against regulation, it's a gamble Philip Morris is happy to take

 

[Feign]

I swear to Christ

You may delay it, but you're still going to die," says Connolly.

A little tip from Bill Hicks..."Non-smokers die..........................every day."