(06/11/09) "Historic anti-smoking vote to give FDA new power" (Yahoo! News in association with the Associated Press)

[Spang]

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.

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.

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.

The Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_go_co/us_fda_tobacco)

[sojourner]

Why is it the government’s business if I smoke? Isn’t it between me and my health insurance company? I get a discount on my insurance premium because I don’t smoke but if I decide to start smoking and pay a higher premium how is it the governments business?

If I wasn’t allowed to take risks with my life and did everything that government thought was best for me, I might as well be a robot and I doubt that I would find live very enjoyable.

There is a warming on a pack of cigarettes. It is obvious that there is s risk. But there are also potential benefits.

Benefits of nicotine (http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/video-30628-49.html) There are others.

If I want to choose between Alzheimer’s and nicotine, why is that the governments business? And if I want to choose to enjoy smoking for forty year and possibly die of cancer, why is that the governments business?

p.s. If the government takes over healthcare, they will be making a lot more health decisions for us than they are now.

[Brooke]

I'm a non smoker so I'm pretty okay with this. It doesn't affect me but I think cigarettes are gross and shouldn't be advertised to children.

[mack20]

I'm 100% behind what I've read so far.

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.

They aren't banning anyone from smoking, they're just imposing stricter regulations on the tobacco companies to combat their very successful (and in my opinion immoral) marketing campaigns that target teenagers and young adults. If an 18 year old is aware of the risks of smoking and decides to take up the habit, so be it. It's not my personal choice but it's certainly theirs to make. But when 12 and 13 year olds are being targeted by these tobacco companies because it's more profitable and easier to get people hooked young in life, that I have no problem having restrictions on. I don't smoke and neither do my parents or two of my younger siblings. None of us ever have. My youngest brother, however, did get caught up by peer pressure and the advertising of tobacco companies designed to make smoking look cool, and he began smoking cigarettes when he was 12 years old. 12. He, at 18, has managed to quit, but it upsets me to no end that he ever believed that there was a reason to begin.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I'm fine with forcing companies to label how much nicotine is in their cigarettes. I'm fine with eliminating candied cigarettes. But limiting the amount of nicotine in a cigarette!? That's crap! Adults are capable of deciding for themselves how much nicotine they want to smoke. All this is going to do is ensure people buy more cigarettes to end their nicotine crave.

The government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and can't put in our own bodies.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I'm 100% behind what I've read so far.



They aren't banning anyone from smoking, they're just imposing stricter regulations on the tobacco companies to combat their very successful (and in my opinion immoral) marketing campaigns that target teenagers and young adults. If an 18 year old is aware of the risks of smoking and decides to take up the habit, so be it. It's not my personal choice but it's certainly theirs to make. But when 12 and 13 year olds are being targeted by these tobacco companies because it's more profitable and easier to get people hooked young in life, that I have no problem having restrictions on. I don't smoke and neither do my parents or two of my younger siblings. None of us ever have. My youngest brother, however, did get caught up by peer pressure and the advertising of tobacco companies designed to make smoking look cool, and he began smoking cigarettes when he was 12 years old. 12. He, at 18, has managed to quit, but it upsets me to no end that he ever believed that there was a reason to begin.

This is going beyond just making people aware of the dangers of cigarettes. That's why I'm against it. It's one thing to take steps to eliminate smokers. It's another thing to force companies to put less nicotine in their cigarettes.

[hobbitt]

Why is it the government’s business if I smoke?

It isn't.

And the premise is frightening.

It isn't the government's business if you dine exclusively at Mickey D's;
it isn't the government's business if you have not exercised since Jumping Jacks in junior high; it is not the government's business if you drive a '64 Pontiac GTO; it is not the government's business if you have not volunteered at your local charity or if you have swigged Budweiser at breakfast or if you have intimately entertained humans of similar gender in your home.

But it looks as though it soon will be.




the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

What next? Twinkies? Nathan's Hotdogs?

Perhaps the Special Master for Compensation could have a look-see at the tobacco executives, too.

[Brooke]

Before anybody yells "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!" please be aware that this legislation was attempted back in 1998. They didn't have the majority or the votes. This isn't a new piece of legislation.

[sojourner]

Before anybody yells "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!" please be aware that this legislation was attempted back in 1998. They didn't have the majority or the votes. This isn't a new piece of legislation.

I don’t care when this legislation was first attempted or who introduced it. I disagree with it. I thought we were here to discuss issues, not beat each other over the head with which party did what and who did it first.

If I concede that all Republicans are idiots and always have been, can we start talking about issues and what is best for the country and leave partisan politics out of it? If some party screwed up in the past that is no excuse for another party to do it again.

[Spang]

Senators who opposed tobacco bill received top dollar from industry

WASHINGTON — Among the 17 senators who voted against allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco are some of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, which has donated millions of dollars to lawmakers in the past several campaign cycles.

Over the course of his nearly quarter-century Senate career, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who hails from the tobacco-rich state of Kentucky, has received $419,025 from the tobacco industry, more than any other member of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that analyzes the influence of money on politics and policy.

North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who led the opposition to the bill, is the second highest recipient and netted $359,100 from tobacco-related political action committees and individual contributions. His state is the nation's largest tobacco grower and is home to R.J. Reynolds, the nation's second largest tobacco manufacturing company, which contributed $196,850 to Burr's campaigns.

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, is the third highest recipient with $228,700. Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, who's up for re-election next year and is considered the most vulnerable Senate Republican, ranks eighth with $194,166.

All oppose giving additional tobacco regulatory powers to the FDA, an agency they argue doesn't have adequate resources for the task. They say cigarette companies' campaign contributions didn't color their positions on the legislation.

The measure passed the Senate Thursday on a vote of 79-17.

"I voted against the FDA tobacco bill because I'm opposed to the overregulation of an industry that's already highly regulated, from farmer to manufacturer," Chambliss said. "The bill saddles the already overburdened FDA with even more oversight duties, and does nothing to reduce the rate of smoking among Americans — cigarettes already on the shelves will remain on the market."

Burr, who's received nearly $196,850 from Reynolds, worked with Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., for a week to stymie the FDA regulation bill. Their amendment, which was defeated 60-36, would have created a new agency to regulate tobacco, with fewer restrictions than the underlying bill.

Virginia Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb supported the measure, as did Altria Group, the Richmond, Va., company that owns Philip Morris. Altria contributed $78,418 to Warner.

"We think it's important to stay active in the political process," said William Phelps, an Altria spokesman. "We're proud of our commitment to the political process on behalf of our employees and shareholders."

Critics say the measure gives Altria a competitive advantage in using its deep coffers to meet FDA requirements.

McConnell staffers point out that though Altria contributed $79,650 to his campaigns, the senator's opposition to the measure differed from the company's stance.

"Mandating the FDA to regulate and approve the use of tobacco would be a distortion of the agency's mission and a tremendous misuse of its overstretched priorities," McConnell said. "We should focus FDA resources on protecting the public health, not burdening it with an impossible assignment."

Contributions to federal candidates, committees and parties from the industry have fallen dramatically since the late 1990s, when companies gave almost $10 million each year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2006, the tobacco industry donated $3.5 million, with Altria Group and Reynolds American contributing the most. Donations from the industry overwhelmingly favor Republicans, who lost control of Congress in 2006 after more than a decade of dominance.

The Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69925.html)

[Brooke]

I don’t care when this legislation was first attempted or who introduced it. I disagree with it. I thought we were here to discuss issues, not beat each other over the head with which party did what and who did it first.

If I concede that all Republicans are idiots and always have been, can we start talking about issues and what is best for the country and leave partisan politics out of it? If some party screwed up in the past that is no excuse for another party to do it again.

I only mentioned that because I knew that people here would have that response, that's all. I'm not beating anybody over the head with anything. Sheesh.

[sojourner]

The Source (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69925.html)

I am not sure what your point is. But I am against the bill and I can assure you that I have not received anything from the tobacco industry so that is not influencing my position.

[Spang]

I am not sure what your point is. But I am against the bill and I can assure you that I have not received anything from the tobacco industry so that is not influencing my position.

I don't write the articles, I just post them. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. All that aside, I support a healthy society. However, I don't lead a healthy lifestyle since I'm an alcoholic and eat unhealthy, yet quick and easy to make foods, so I'm a hypocrite. Regardless, a healthier society is a better society. Although, I did quit smoking a couple of years ago, cold turkey. But now I'm addicted to cold turkey.

[Laura Cereta]

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.



So another private entity gets taken over by the federal government...

When are people going to get SCARED?!?

[sojourner]

So another private entity gets taken over by the federal government...

When are people going to get SCARED?!?

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

I think there is an analogy in there somewhere.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I think there is an analogy in there somewhere.

Yeah...first they will take our cigarettes...then they will kill the jews... :rolleyes:

[Lealy]

I'm fine with forcing companies to label how much nicotine is in their cigarettes. I'm fine with eliminating candied cigarettes. But limiting the amount of nicotine in a cigarette!? That's crap! Adults are capable of deciding for themselves how much nicotine they want to smoke. All this is going to do is ensure people buy more cigarettes to end their nicotine crave.

The government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and can't put in our own bodies.

Considering that they don't have enough smokers now to pay for SCHIP this would take care of that problem it's like doubling the amount of smokers with out having to to put up with twice as many to bash when they are bored.

I love how some non smokers say hey I am ok with that it's bad for them anyways, just wait people have all kinds of deviant or dangerous or unhealthy behavior and since they think the govt has a right to get into my life I will be front and center when they want to jump into all of theirs. Of course I hope they don't like doing things like sky diving or scuba or driving race cars or even taking a nice bath these things are all to dangerous and you are much more likely to get hurt or die and cost the country a fortune. Sorry just ranting sick of this BS. Every evening I watch TV and what do I see something far more dangerous and costly but we know what happened when they try to control that.

Yes I agree, what I put into my body is none of anyone's business. If they want to make it illegal then just do it at this rate it will be cheaper for me to buy them from the crack dealer downtown and it would deprive the A******* their o so needed tax dollars.

I would also like to know how the heck I am going to know which ones are lights since I am not so dense I don't know that it means flavor and not tar are they going to color code the packs with the black and white skull and bones to I know. The taxes at this point on Cigs are more than the grower and seller make combined, ok ranting again I will stop.

[sojourner]

I'm fine with forcing companies to label how much nicotine is in their cigarettes. I'm fine with eliminating candied cigarettes. But limiting the amount of nicotine in a cigarette!? That's crap! Adults are capable of deciding for themselves how much nicotine they want to smoke. All this is going to do is ensure people buy more cigarettes to end their nicotine crave.

The government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and can't put in our own bodies.

Nicotine causes addition but I don't think scientists know for sure what causes cancer. Lowering nicotine levels could possibly cause more of the cancer causing agent to be inhaled.

[Classical Liberal]

Just wait until universal healthcare comes, and the government gets to tax and regulate and dictate to people in all sorts of new ways because "the government" is paying for your healthcare.

The irony is that SCHIP needs smokers in order to stay funded! It's funded by a cigarette tax.

[Spang]

Don't Smoke Lettuce

[Spang]

White House: Not Smoking A Struggle For Obama

WASHINGTON — The White House press secretary says President Barack Obama still struggles with a nicotine addiction, but the spokesman would not say whether the president still smokes cigarettes.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about the matter Friday, the same day in which Obama talked of tobacco's deadly effects and hailed the passage of bill that boosts regulation of smoking. In the past, Obama has spoken about the difficulty of quitting cigarettes.

Gibbs said that Obama's response about smoking would be that quitting the addiction is a lifelong struggle.

Asked directly if Obama still smokes, Gibbs said: "I would simply tell you I think struggling with a nicotine addiction is something that happens every day."

The Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/white-house-not-smoking-a_n_215072.html)

[devildog]

I'm sure Michelle is riding his keester about quitting. :p

I'm disgusted about this new legislation, and waiting for interference with soda, candy, juice, and food in 3........2..........1..........

[TheTaoOfBill]

I'm sure Michelle is riding his keester about quitting. :p

I'm disgusted about this new legislation, and waiting for interference with soda, candy, juice, and food in 3........2..........1..........

One of my favorite quotes from Ron Paul was during a debate on the war on drugs some fat guy started yelling at him about his position (legalize all drugs) and Ron Paul said you him "Why doesn't the government put you on a diet! You're a little overweight!"

[devildog]

One of my favorite quotes from Ron Paul was during a debate on the war on drugs some fat guy started yelling at him about his position (legalize all drugs) and Ron Paul said you him "Why doesn't the government put you on a diet! You're a little overweight!"


I had to go and find that quote. HAHAHAHA AWESOME!!!!!


You got served!

[Ikasu]

One of my favorite quotes from Ron Paul was during a debate on the war on drugs some fat guy started yelling at him about his position (legalize all drugs) and Ron Paul said you him "Why doesn't the government put you on a diet! You're a little overweight!"

That was classic!

[The_Basseteer]

Adults are capable of deciding for themselves how much nicotine they want to smoke. All this is going to do is ensure people buy more cigarettes to end their nicotine crave.

Tao, man, you hit it... people will BUY MORE cigarettes to satisfy their nicotine habit and more tax money will flow into the countries coffers.

[Wyoming Dem]

I am sick of Big Brother deciding what habits or lifestyle(s) are bad for me...Like on line gambling...I don't gamble but what right does this government have to tell people they can't gamble on line when gambling is legal in many states here and lotteries are virtually everywhere? Same thing with smoking...no one is going to defend it but the government needs to butt out...last I looked it was legal and how can they penalize you for doing something that is legal? And we all know how well prohibition turned out...If I want to eat Big Macs, while smoking a cigarette and washing it down with Jack Daniels while I am pushing a button on a slot machine, it is my choice and my health I am risking (not talking about driving while intoxicated...)
Obama wants to have a "presence" in every orifice we own. I don't need lifestyle lectures from a Gomer who still smokes, who did drugs, who still eats greasy burgers and fries and who is a self-described sugar-a-holic.