Senate Passes FDA Tobacco Bill

[Catholicsmoker]

Mod- I realized after posting that this probably doesn't go in this forum. Can you please change it to the tobacco legislation area. Thank you.

It looks like the Senate passed through the bill. Lets hope that the House doesn't pass it through as well. I'd hate to see what it does to pipe tobacco and cigars. At least they made specific mention that not inhaling is healthier for you. This is quite ridiculous. Next thing you know , they'll be regulating and taxing candy bars because sugar is a drug and it makes you fat.

Senate Passes FDA Tobacco Bill - WSJ.com

By ALICIA MUNDY and LAUREN ETTER

WASHINGTON -- The Senate overwhelmingly passed historic legislation Thursday that puts the tobacco industry under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration.
Companies are weighing the impact of the bill, which they say also puts severe, perhaps unconstitutional, restrictions on advertising and packaging. Those limits, they worry, could undo business plans based on smokeless tobacco products, which they have been developing in anticipation of this day -- even as they were fighting to derail the legislation.
Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, who spearheaded the original effort to treat the nicotine in tobacco as a drug, hailed the Senate vote of 79-17. "It's as strong a bill as we could have ever imagined," he said.
He said the industry fees mandated by the bill to pay for FDA regulation will enable the regulator to strictly enforce new rules, such as a ban on candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes. "With $600 [million] to $700 million from industry to support it, I think the administration can set it up."
The House passed a similar bill in April. The Senate version likely will be approved by the House on Friday and sent to President Barack Obama for signing.
Critics said the bill will establish a new federal bureaucracy and unfairly benefit Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., which dominates U.S. cigarette sales. Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) said restrictions in the bill will hinder smaller companies from introducing products.
Altria praised the legislation overall, saying it will require all tobacco makers to operate "at the same high standards." The company said, however, that it has First Amendment concerns about some advertising curbs. Industry officials said lawsuits could tie the legislation down.
Since 1998, the industry has spent nearly $308 million in lobbying to block the bill. Cigarette makers have seen sales shrink in the past decade. They have been operating under some advertising restrictions that were part of their 1999 settlement with 46 states, led by Mississippi, which sued the companies for costs from tobacco-related deaths and illnesses.
One key question is whether the bill's advertising restrictions will undo industry efforts to compensate for declining cigarette sales by moving aggressively into smokeless products. Several companies have begun developing snus -- spit-free smokeless tobacco in pouches -- and dissolvable tobacco pellets. Reynolds American Inc. is marketing Camel Snus nationwide, using the name of one of its best brands, and testing its Camel Orbs -- dissolvable tobacco pellets -- in limited markets.


Philip Morris USA recently spent $10.3 billion to acquire the largest smokeless tobacco maker, UST Inc., known for brands like Copenhagen and Skoal. And, after some disappointing results with some early versions of snus and moist tobacco products, the company has introduced a new Marlboro Snus in limited markets.
While controversial, some research shows that smokeless tobacco products may be less harmful because they generally contain fewer carcinogens than cigarettes and don't enter the lungs.
Companies had hoped the bill would make it easier to advertise the lower risk of the smokeless products. But the new regulations still don't allow smokeless-tobacco makers to say their products are healthier unless they can prove that to the FDA.
The regulations also require makers to pull from the market products that were introduced after February 2007, which could hurt some dissolvable tobacco pellets and strips. Some snus products will likely be exempt because similar pouches were on sale before that date.
This bill "could significantly chill the introduction or commercialization of new tobacco products that have significantly lower risks than cigarettes," said Tommy Payne, a Reynolds spokesman.
The new ban on candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes isn't expected to have a big financial impact. Menthol cigarettes are initially exempt from the ban because of demands from the Congressional Black Caucus. About 75% of African-American smokers buy menthol brands.
The FDA is required to set up an advisory panel that will report within a year on whether menthol should be banned.
The FDA must name the head of the new tobacco division. One potential candidate is Deputy Secretary for Health and Human Services Bill Corr, who was previously the lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
The bill's lead sponsor, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), is seriously ill and couldn't come to the Senate to vote.
<cite class="tagline">—Jake Sherman contributed to this article.</cite>

[Doogie]

to my knowledge the house has thier version. this bill is aimed more at cigarrette, but we always get lumped in

[plexiprs]

A prohibition against added flavoring agents does impact pipe smokers. Also, all products are subject to the same requirements no found in Europe to declare all contents of all products and receive approval, after testing, for any "unnatural" additives.

Sauces, flavorings, casings ...... are aromatics in trouble?

[Rev2010]

You guys should read the book "The Death of Common Sense" By Philip K. Howard. It's about how law has gotten out of control, and he himself is a lawyer. It's very enlightening and some of his examples will make you shake your head.

Things really are getting out of whack here. And what bothers me the most is how it always comes under the guise of wanting to "protect people". The funniest thing about that is it seems they want every human being on the planet to live as long as possible. And that is funny considering how concerned we are about the environmental problems we are facing. Well, the more humans on the planet the worse things will be. More resources used, more pollution, more trash, etc. I'm not saying that it's good that people are dying from this stuff. Hell, I lost my step father to his smoking of non filter Lucky Strikes for 41 years. I just find it funny that they don't realize the full effect of trying to be every humans saviour.

I for sure want to live as long as possible. However, I know the risks of smoking cigars and it's my choice. Some dumb jackass on Capital Hill shouldn't be trying to protect every aspect of my well being, especially when I don't want him to. What I find funniest though is how they zero in on specific things while completely ignoring others. I work in Manhattan and live in Jersey. The air quality is terrible. Not only do I have to breathe in the emissions of 50,000+ vehicles but also the factory emissions in Jersey. But that's perfectly ok right? Oh, because it would actually cost money to find ways to curb such emissions or invent cleaner forms of energy and implent them.

What about all the bad foods out there? Nearly every fastfood restaurants food is bad for you. And, as expected, the government has already gotten itself involved in that. New York City has banned Trans-fats and required all chain restaurants to post the calorie counts. Funny thing is a new investigation has shown the calorie counts listed are often seriously incorrect, both better and worse! Most of the chains didn't even have real tests done on their menu items to determine the calorie count.

I guarantee that one day smoking will be completely banned. And along with it I guarantee that one day alcohol will be banned. And I also woudn't doubt that someday fast food will be heavily regulated to save the poor "obese children". The government is always trying to keep moving and when they run out of one thing to attack they jump on the next. And nowadays no one is allowed to use their common sense and think for themselves, or raise their kids properly. These days the government has to do the thinking, and very poorly at that, for all of us.


Rev.

[Rubix^3]

The thing you have to understand about politicians with this social engineering mindset, is that they treat individuals as their "society" that they, with their superior intelligence and empathy, must mold and shape into a micro-managed utopia. They will usurp any free system, such as capitalism, for their own agendas, using the "common good" as their justification.
The Nanny State is just beginning.
Sorry so politicky. Move along...

[Raybird]

The government wants to "protect" us from the evils of tobacco? Each freedom they take away from us makes it easier to take away another. I don't need these effin' nazis to protect me from myself! I never thought I would miss George Bush.

[golfermd]

Gotta love the liberals. They pay lip service to personal freedoms and rights, but do everything they can to regulate and/or reduce them. Of course they are the ones who decide what those rights are.

[Mr.Lordi]

Originally Posted by golfermd

Gotta love the liberals. They pay lip service to personal freedoms and rights, but do everything they can to regulate and/or reduce them. Of course they are the ones who decide what those rights are.

This is yet another irony when it comes to liberals. If a conservative dares say "Abortion should be illegal" they yell and complain "Oh my God, a woman has a RIGHT to choose, it is her body"

Yet when it comes to smoking, we don't have the right to choose what happens to our body?

Absurd! All I know is that in 2012, I'm voting republican, again. lol! There was a time when I considered myself a liberal, but they seriously irk me to no end now and I hate them. lol, I'm not exactly conservative either, but hey, least they don't f with my tobacco.

I hated Bush, and I wanted him gone too, but now I find myself missing him.

[Raybird]

SAME HERE!

[Shriner4cigars]

[Mr.Lordi]

I have a crazy idea, that could work, or maybe its my youth optimism that keeps me from realizing it won't work, but...Obama is alleged to read emails he receives from us "common" folk, right?

What if all of us smokers, could coordinate a sending of mass amounts of emails, encouraging Obama to not sign this bill until it has been either rewritten to exclude pipe and cigars, or no signed at all.

I perfer it not signed at all, but I'll take the exclusion. lol

[Rev2010]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lordi

Obama is alleged to read emails he receives from us "common" folk, right?

Where did you read that? Everything I've read says presidents are required to forfeit any use of e-mail accounts, blackberry's, etc for national security. George Bush had to give up his AOL account. I seriously doubt Obama has the time or will to go through the (probably) hundreds of thousands of e-mails sent to the White House weekly.


Rev.

[madurolover]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lordi

There was a time when I considered myself a liberal, but they seriously irk me to no end now and I hate them.

Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain............Winston Churchill

[Rev2010]

Originally Posted by madurolover

Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain............Winston Churchill

That saying right there is brilliant!



Rev.

[Mr.Lordi]

Originally Posted by Rev2010

Where did you read that? Everything I've read says presidents are required to forfit any use of e-mail accounts, blackberry's, etc for national security. George Bush had to give up his AOL account. I seriously doubt Obama has the time or will to go through the (probably) hundreds of thousands of e-mails sent to the White House weekly.


Rev.

I'm not sure you can personally email him, although I just googled an article suggesting that Obama was allowed to keep his blackberry when looking for the original source.

Link:Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - It’s official: Barack keeps his BlackBerry « - Blogs from CNN.com

What I recall reading, was, you can email him from like whitehouse.gov or something to that effect and he occasionally does read emails, time permitting. I think they print them off and give it to him. Wish I could find the original source.

Anyways, the idea was if enough emails got sent, Obama might find out about them, or because so many would get through, someone might foward one to him. This is spouse to be the administration of "change" after all. Plus if he can find the time to youtube....