Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#389437 06/12/09 05:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
P
Paco Offline OP
All Pro
OP Offline
All Pro
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
WASHINGTON – No more "light" cigarettes or candy-flavored smokes. Bigger, scarier warning labels. Fewer ads featuring sexy young smokers. Historic anti-smoking legislation sped to final congressional passage on Friday — after a bitter fight lasting nearly a half-century — and lawmakers and the White House quickly declared it would save the lives of thousands of smokers of all ages.

Even more important, they said, the measure could keep countless young people from starting in the first place.

President Barack Obama, admittedly still struggling with his own nicotine habit, saluted passage of the bill, which he will soon sign. He said, "For over a decade, leaders of both parties have fought to prevent tobacco companies from marketing their products to children and provide the public with the information they need to understand what a dangerous habit this is."

Specifically, the measure for the first time will give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products, demand changes or elimination of toxic substances and block the introduction of new products.

Will it matter as much as supporters say? Smokers lighting up outside Washington offices had mixed reactions.

Government researcher Reginald Little, 47, who said he swiped his first cigarette from his grandfather at age 15, thought regulation was needed "because you don't know exactly what's in it."

But Becky Cook, a 22-year-old program analyst, said that, while she supported limits on ads aimed at children, "I already know it's bad for me, so I don't think knowing how much is really in one cigarette is really going to make a difference."

And nonsmokers?

Yan Meek, 42, a finance analyst from Jacksonville, Fla., who was visiting the nation's capital with her 8-year-old son, Jesse, doesn't smoke and suggested the legislation would lead to "too much government control over personal lives, personal choices."

Lionel Richardson, 26, an electrical engineer visiting from Huger, S.C., is a a nonsmoker, too, but called the legislation a good thing. "It's a drug," he said, and "the FDA plays a big part in what drugs are sold." As for restricting advertisements, he said, "They make it sexy so kids think it's the cool thing to do."

The thousand health and consumer groups that endorsed the bill say that, combined with other anti-smoking efforts, it can significantly reduce the 400,000 deaths and $100 billion in health care costs attributed every year to smoking in the U.S.

Under the legislation:

• Cigarette packages will have warning labels that cover 50 percent of the front and rear. The word "warning" must be included in capital letters.

• Any remaining tobacco-related sponsorships of sports and entertainment events will be banned, as will giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product. A federal ban will be imposed on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.

• Point-of-sale advertising will be limited to adults-only facilities, and remaining vending machines will disappear except in places restricted to adults. Retailers who sell to minors will be subject to federal enforcement and penalties.

• Smokers, particularly the younger crowd, will find they can no longer buy cigarettes sweetened by candy flavors or any herb or spices such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon or vanilla. Cigarettes advertised as "light" or "mild," giving the impression that they aren't as harmful to health, will no longer be found on store shelves.

With an estimated 3,500 young people smoking their first cigarette each day, the ban on flavorings alone could have significant health benefits, said Dr. Adam Goldstein, director of the University of North Carolina Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program.

In the longer run, aggressive FDA efforts to reduce nicotine content — the bill prohibits an outright ban on nicotine or cigarettes — could "stimulate as dramatic a change in the product as anything we've seen in the last 50 years."

He said it was not inconceivable that adult smokers, now more than 20 percent of the population, could be reduced to less than 5 percent in 20 years.

Other factors that could cut into tobacco use include the sharp rise in prices — Congress earlier this year approved a 62-cent a pack increase in the federal cigarette tax to pay for a children's health program — and measures by the states to ban smoking in public places. Goldstein noted that even North Carolina, the nation's biggest tobacco grower, recently moved to ban smoking in public areas.

Paul Billings, vice president at the American Lung Association, agreed that pricing, education and laws are all needed to drive down smoking and reduce the health consequences. FDA regulation has been "a huge missing piece in the arsenal against tobacco," he said.

New FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said the agency was ready to "roll up our sleeves" to meet its new obligations. "We really do feel, by being able to regulate tobacco and tobacco products, we can reduce the burden of disease, especially by preventing teen smoking."

The Senate passed the FDA bill on Thursday by a 79-17 vote and the House followed suit on Friday, with a 307-97 vote. Despite those one-sided tallies, the bill has been years in the making.

The FDA tried to exert authority over tobacco products in the 1990s, but the industry fought back and the Supreme Court in 2000 ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the agency did not have regulatory powers over tobacco under then-existing law. Several efforts by lawmakers since then had fallen short, victims of industry lobbying and opposition from the Bush White House.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sponsor of the bill and chairman at a memorable 1994 hearing where tobacco industry executives denied that nicotine was addictive, relished the long-sought victory.

"I think we are today at the last gasp of the tobacco industry's efforts to protect their profits at the expense of the health and lives of the American people and to get children to take up this habit," he said.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco company, came out in support of the bill, saying it was behind tough but fair regulation. Its chief rivals were opposed, saying that FDA restrictions on new products would lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Costs of the new program will be paid for by a new user fee imposed on the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that assessments could rise from $235 million in 2010 to $712 million in 2019.

There was some opposition from Republicans who questioned the ability of the FDA to handle tobacco regulation and criticized what they said was another Democratic-led intrusion of the federal government in private business. North Carolina Republican Howard Coble said the bill is unpopular in his state, with its 12,000 tobacco farmers. "Their fear is tobacco today, the family farm tomorrow."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_co/us_fda_tobacco_43


I hope this will put into light the dangers involved in whats put into cigarettes. Tobacco in its true form is not healthy but all the additives that tobacco companies have put in to make them more addictive and the advertising strategy they use is ridiculous. Targeting teenagers and children.

Paco #389438 06/12/09 05:31 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Quote:

Specifically, the measure for the first time will give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products




Like the FDA could find the floor if you knocked them down It's another great "notion" but the FDA is the one that allows the saturation of drug ads during every hour on TV with warnings that are flat out insane.

Drugs to make your eyelashes thicker that may cause internal bleeding, anal leakage, and blindness............. And there's no shortage of consumers.

I wonder how much time and money went into this entire process.....

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
K
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
K
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
the insanity continues.....see you tonight on 60 minutes....

Paco #389440 06/13/09 05:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,361
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,361
Quote:

WASHINGTON – No more "light" cigarettes




My first question would be.......Does that mean all Light, and Ultra Light cigs. no longer be available, or will the names of these brands just be changed?


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
GMdawg #389441 06/13/09 06:41 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
The way it was broken down on the news last night they could no longer use the designations such as "light" or "ultralight" or even "low tar" when packaging them, because these designations implied things that weren't always true....

I feel this ruling is about 30 years too late in coming but glad it is here for the other lives it may potentially save in the future. I hope.

Paco #389442 06/13/09 01:55 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
H
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
H
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
I'm patiently awaiting for somebody who argued that kids should be off limits for crude jokes should be allowed to be the blunt and direct object of advertising for a product that kills 400k+ a year in this country alone.

Haus #389443 06/13/09 02:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
M
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
M
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
what i wanna know is why is it that my tobacco free discount for my health insurance at work is only 260 bucks a year if smoking causes THAT much money to be spent on health care. i want a bigger discount for not being a smoker. i can save more money that than just by switching to geico.


"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,095
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,095
Quote:

It's another great "notion" but the FDA is the one that allows the saturation of drug ads during every hour on TV with warnings that are flat out insane.




Yeah, my man. Listen closely, and it's enough to make you not want to take anything:

Clemdawg® has been deemed safe for consumption by all females between the ages of 18 and 98 by the FDA, USDA, CIA, FBI, OSHA, NSA, CTU, NFL, AFL/CIO, AFSCME, NASA, AFM, and NAACP. However, excess consumption of Clemdawg® may have possible side-effects. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Consumers have been known to display symptoms of giddiness, lightheadedness, increased heart rate, excessive persperation/swearing, uncontrolled orgasms, blackouts, and in rare cases, nausea and vomiting. Women who are pregnant, nursing, or taking I.V. self-administered 'medicines' should not consume Clemdawg®. Clemdawg® is not for men. Underage females, females who are married, engaged to be married, committed to a significant other, or engaged in a lesbian lifestyle should seek consultation before consuming Clemdawg®. Clemdawg® is not for pretenders, teases, or women with weak hearts, aversion to heterosexual passion or are prone to hip dysplasia. If you are taking 'combustible medications' for glaucoma or nausea due to cancer treatments, present them to Clemdawg® before engaging in consumption of this or any other 'specialized' Clemdawg® product." Manufacturuer assumes no liability for the misadministration of this prodect. Use only as directed. Void where prohibited by law."


"too many notes, not enough music-"

#GMStong
Clemdawg #389445 06/13/09 07:11 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,674
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,674
You forgot to mention to use that their own risk and list the negative side effects.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Ballpeen #389446 06/13/09 07:16 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,095
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,095
Ooooops! I'd better call my lawers.

(now... where did I leave that number for Dewey, Cheatham & Howe?)


"too many notes, not enough music-"

#GMStong
shepdawg #389447 06/13/09 08:00 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,361
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,361
Quote:

The way it was broken down on the news last night they could no longer use the designations such as "light" or "ultralight" or even "low tar" when packaging them, because these designations implied things that weren't always true....

I feel this ruling is about 30 years too late in coming but glad it is here for the other lives it may potentially save in the future. I hope.




IMO it's 50 years to late in coming Since I already hooked and have failed at every attempt to stop, I just wonder what I should be buying when my normal brand is not on the shelves


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
GMdawg #389448 06/14/09 05:16 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
How many smokers really read the package? And, how many kids will get a hold of a pack and not smoke because of the big "WARNING"?

I think anything we can do to keep kids from smoking is a good thing, don't get me wrong...it's just that I don't think changing the packaging is the answer. Perhaps it should begin with parenting?

"I'd like a pack of Marlboro Gold Longs in a box, please". That's how I'll probably have to ask for them.


#gmstrong #gmlapdance
Paco #389449 06/14/09 06:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
T
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
T
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
The anti-smoking agenda in this country is ridiculous. People will always smoke---no matter what the government does. A warning label does nothing. And majority of this bill does nothing other than place another hoop for the tobacco industry to jump through. Freaking stupid.

I think that this is a war against people, it is designed to screw people who smoke and people who work in the tobacco industry. Its great too, cuz through the years we have been basically putting people out of work cuz we don't think smoking is an attractive habit.

I will never understand the people who cheer on legislation like this. Here we are with people losing their jobs everyday and we ramp up our efforts to further cripple the tobacco industry. An industry based upon one of America's first successful commercial crops. We complain about all the lost jobs in this country--and then we concentrate our efforts in tearing down an industry that employs tens of thousands of people. Its just plain dumb.

This kind of regulation is ruining this country. Ruining it.

If you want to get more kids to not smoke---how about parenting---I think that kids listen to their parents more than the freaking marlboro man. And if people decide they want to smoke, and they decide that they enjoy it---why do we feel the need to try and ruin that. Which we are. We are taxing the hell out of those people---and its kool though----cuz majority of smokers are the working-poor, or vice-versa; but anyways, we mind-as-well stick it to them some more.


I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,095
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,095
Ty-Derd, I'm suprised at you!!!

Of all the Dawgtalkers who regularly post on this board, I'd have thought that YOU, of all people, would be able to connect the dots on this one.

If this initiative gathers steam, it's no big deal... since it's only a matter of time before your precious EmJay is legalized... then all those see-through barns dotting the scenic hillsides of Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina will be fiilled with Da Chronic, come harvest time.

No lost jobs, no lost wages, no 'date of purchase stress,' new (legal) cash crop for America's Beloved Bible Belt. Everyone's paid, everyone's happy, everyone's mellow.

Tell me that you wouldn't be one of the first to sidle up to the 'State Store' counter, and buy yourself up a pouch of "Rahleigh Roll Yer Own"... on the legal tip.

[Tyler Derden:] "I'll take an oh-zee of NC loose-leaf, 101 proof, see? No seeds, b#tch, pleeeze..."



Fess up, Bro... you know I'm right....



Methinks you're missing the Big Pic, Dawg.... a li'l patience is all it will take....



"too many notes, not enough music-"

#GMStong
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
D
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
D
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Quote:

Its great too, cuz through the years we have been basically putting people out of work cuz we don't think smoking is an attractive habit.




Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that it increases chances of lung cancer in everyone around the person smoking

Also, just because it was our first original cash crop, doesn't mean it still needs to be for traditions sake. As time goes on, we change. To harken back to the good olde days just because we were there once is feel good, but not good for society. To settle is to become lazy and apathetic.


There are no sacred cows.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
P
Paco Offline OP
All Pro
OP Offline
All Pro
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
When I posted this I had the hoped of getting a different reaction or should i say conversation. I am more interested in what the FDA will do as far as the content of cigarettes, not how they will be advertise. With all the additives that are poisons by themselves in larger quantities and the ones added to give it a more addicting affect. The tobacco industry has enjoyed no oversight for years in this matter and basically has had free reign. I am curious what the changes will be as far as the content of cigarettes. People will always smoke, but will this make them less addictive? or make the cigarette companies remove additives?

Paco #389453 06/15/09 05:13 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Quote:

I am curious what the changes will be as far as the content of cigarettes. People will always smoke, but will this make them less addictive? or make the cigarette companies remove additives?




Given the harmful garbage that the FDA lets go into our milk, chicken, beef, etc. ... I doubt there will be any drastic change there.

Let's face it -- tobacco is a big money draw. The gov't gets their cut. They don't want that cut to decrease. They'll draw the line at the bottom line.

DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum About time FDA

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5