The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

[plexiprs]

Well worth reading and rereading ........

Full Broadside From Congress

Some key extracts .....

Tobacco as it is produced today is going to be forever changed with the passage of this law. If not, the industry can rest assured that some change is coming. Regardless if the full measure of this bill gets past the Senate and then comes out intact through the House-Senate conferee hearings

Essentially, the bill gives the FDA sweeping powers, to regulate the tobacco industry.

.............

Here is the wording: “In applying manufacturing restrictions to tobacco, the Secretary shall . . . . prescribe regulations (which may differ based on the type of tobacco product involved) requiring that the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for the manufacture, preproduction design validation (including a process to assess the performance of a tobacco product), packing, and storage of a tobacco product conform to current good manufacturing practice, or hazard analysis and critical control point methodology, as prescribed in such regulations to assure that the public health is protected and that the tobacco product is in compliance with this chapter. Such regulations may provide for the testing of raw tobacco for pesticide chemical residues regardless of whether a tolerance for such chemical residues has been established.”

See how Sen. Scary Reid plans to move it in June: ARTICLE II

The bill is also an attempt to circumvent a March 2000 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Clinton administration attempt to regulate tobacco. On a 5-4 vote, justices at the time said the FDA was "overreaching" in attempting to regulate tobacco without congressional approval.

"It is plain that Congress has not given the FDA the authority that it seeks to exercise here," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

But the bill won't go down without a fight. Democrats say they have the necessary 60 votes to pass the bill, but Burr said he will lead opposition.

"FDA's core mission is to prove the safety of every product that they regulate -- except for tobacco, which we know is dangerous and kills people," said Burr. "So what do you do, ask FDA to ignore their core mission when it comes to tobacco but apply it on everything else?"

Thank you Nanny-Leaders, thanks so very much.

[doublebassmusician]

Let's see. I'm 22, and If I plan on living to 70 I'll need at least 50 pounds to continue smoking my evening pipe everyday.
So far I have 7 1/2 pounds and about 10 various tins.
Can everyone here hold off on buying for a while? I'd really like to get my orders as soon as possible.

[Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by doublebassmusician

Let's see. I'm 22, and If I plan on living to 70 I'll need at least 50 pounds to continue smoking my evening pipe everyday.
So far I have 7 1/2 pounds and about 10 various tins.
Can everyone here hold off on buying for a while? I'd really like to get my orders as soon as possible.

I'll hold off for ya. I just got about 9 pounds last month and I'm good for a while

[plexiprs]

I wonder if Teddy Binion's old silver and gold vault in the Pahrump desert is for sale or lease .......

[drastic_quench]

I don't get up in arms about this stuff because it's done with cigarettes as the sole concern, and cigarette smoking is clearly very bad for people. What happens is that we 2% that smoke cigars and pipes get lumped in because there's too few of us to make a nuanced distinction / exception. Clouding the issue, many cigar smokers and pipers also smoke cigarettes currently, in their past, or may well in the future.

So, I'd love if non-inhaled, non-ammonia/ chemically treated/ mother liquor tobacco products were given a pass, but it ain't gonna happen. If every person who has smoked a pipe in the last decade got on board, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the cigarette smokers.

[SmokinJohnny]

Amazing our tax dollars are used to support those who are taking our freedom away. We need to figure out how to get a tin of Penzance and a sanblast Petersen in the hands and mouth of Obama so he vetos this line of BS.

[IrishCamel81]

Originally Posted by SmokinJohnny

Amazing our tax dollars are used to support those who are taking our freedom away. We need to figure out how to get a tin of Penzance and a sanblast Petersen in the hands and mouth of Obama so he vetos this line of BS.

I think he has smoked out of a pipe before, but it will be a few more years before crack is legalized...

banned in 3,2,1...

[strider72]

Dang liberal varmints.... too bad they put Yosemite Sam in the ******... he would fill them dang varmint's butts full o'lead...

[brianwalden]

Originally Posted by plexiprs

Thank you Nanny-Leaders, thanks so very much.

Don't thank the Nanny-Leaders, they're just delivering on what they promised. Thank all the people who voted them into office. The sad fact is the majority of Americans vote for politicians who promise to deliver a big powerful government who gets up in everyone's business - we get exactly what we deserve.

[phatmax]

Originally Posted by brianwalden

Don't thank the Nanny-Leaders, they're just delivering on what they promised. Thank all the people who voted them into office. The sad fact is the majority of Americans vote for politicians who promise to deliver a big powerful government who gets up in everyone's business - we get exactly what we deserve.

Actually, barring statisical issues with felons, if you take the voting age population, then the total number of votes and then votes broken down party lines.....

Only something like 32% of voting age Americans got the Nanny Staters Elected.

[Mad Hatter]

Before we go thanking anyone prematurely I think we have three questions to answer here. 1) What did the "nanny-staters" do to win votes? 2) what did the "non-nanny-staters" do to lose votes? 3)How and to what extent did 1 & 2 affect the outcome of the election?

[phatmax]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

Before we go thanking anyone prematurely I think we have three questions to answer here. 1) What did the "nanny-staters" do to win votes? 2) what did the "non-nanny-staters" do to lose votes? 3)How and to what extent did 1 & 2 affect the outcome of the election?

Answer to 1: Promised voters the moon. Free stuff and .gov protection from any possible bad time, from poverty, housing, jobs, healthcare to bad dreams and ingrown toenails.

Answer to 2: Did not quite manage to promise as much free stuff as the winners.

Answer to 3: Either way the taxpayers got the shaft and eventually the piper will have to be paid. The outcome of this election will hopefully be an awakening and return to people who promise to cut SPENDING versus those that promise to "use taxpayer money more effectively" and get their noses out of every aspect of our lives.

[Arizona]

I've been stockpiling and will continue to do so. These rabid communists WILL NOT STOP - whether it's through outrageous taxation or outrite banning of tobacco.

I say screw them, the winds of change are very obvious, so I'm preparing before the storm hits and essentially I'll have myself set for a lifetime of smoking pleasure.

Soon people will be growing their own tobacco when things really get bad. Then watch for growing tobacco to be illegal just like marijuana - with the Feds knocking down your door if you've got tobacco plants...

[Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by phatmax

Answer to 1: Promised voters the moon. Free stuff and .gov protection from any possible bad time, from poverty, housing, jobs, healthcare to bad dreams and ingrown toenails.

Answer to 2: Did not quite manage to promise as much free stuff as the winners.

Answer to 3: Either way the taxpayers got the shaft and eventually the piper will have to be paid. The outcome of this election will hopefully be an awakening and return to people who promise to cut SPENDING versus those that promise to "use taxpayer money more effectively" and get their noses out of every aspect of our lives.

I guess that's a good answer from your perspective but people sharing your perspective were definitely outnumbered at election time and currently still are.

[phatmax]

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

I guess that's a good answer from your perspective but people sharing your perspective were definitely outnumbered at election time and currently still are.

I think once the .gov figures it is time to start getting Americans to pay for all these goodies and starts putting ever increasing taxes on things Americans buy everyday... more moderate people who voted one way, will look at their wallet and want someone who will trim fat, not add to it.

My personal view is that most, not all, but most politicos try their best to get re-elected by promising every increasing goodies and ever increasing "oversight" which just means more taxpayer money going to government.

Looking at the raw numbers, every taxpaying household now owns over $500K in government debt. This is without the trillions needed for National healthcare. So, right now, if the .gov budget was cut to equal the annual tax revenue, (balanced budget).... each taxpaying household would have to pony up and ADDITIONAL $50,000 for the next 10-12 years, every year...to pay off the debt.

It is a house of cards that just keeps getting bigger, because every knucklehead that promises his or her constituents .gov projects, money, assistance, etc... is just taking from their pockets, running the money through the beauracracy and sending it back is smaller amounts.

Eventually, people will have to RElearn that the government has NO money. They just get money from people and when they spend more, they must take more.

And to take more, they need to tax more...hence the situation we are in right here with tobacco and coming soon, soda and alcohol, and I believe things such as red meat, dessert products and fast food...