No government could afford to stop the sale of tobacco or nicotine products. The revenues from taxes and from the tobacco settlment payments (like those that fund this site indirectly) are far too large to walk away from. As much as I hate the idea, the sale of permanent nicotine substitute products like e-cigs, nic gum, nic lozenges, and nicotine lollipops is probably the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
This is a good example of how things may not be as the appear. I suspect that the pharmaceutical companies are behind the marketing effort to make other things in cigarettes the villian, not the nicotine insecticide poison that they want to sell as a long-term use alternative to smoking. Note the implication that smoking Australian cigarettes is somehow "safer". Also, note that the push for FDA regulation of cigarettes is being led by the makers of Marlboro cigarettes. Sounds like a good thing, right? Buried in the bill is the provision that giving FDA jurisdiction would totally eliminate the right of states to regulate smoking. So all the tobacco companies would have to do is buy off the federal government and not have to worry about a state like California banning smoking altogether.
BTW, researchers have know for decades why marketing low tar and low nicotine and low this and that cigarettes is a fraud. Nicotine addicts simply alter their smoking style to get the required dose. They block the holes in the filter. They take longer drags. They hold the smoke longer. The tobacco companies design the cigarettes to produce "low" numbers on the smoking machines, but carefully placing the holes in the filter so that a real smoker will block them when they smoke and increase the nicotine (and tar) doses back up to normal.
I don't know where you got the information that the FDA regulation of cigarettes was being led by the makers of Marlboro cigarettes. All the information I have been receiving on it has come from the American Lung Association. Here is another article about it at Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids. I personally think it is a GOOD thing and hope it passes. It has already passed the House, now it just has to pass the Senate. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/
I'm not sure what you mean by eliminate the right of states to regulate smoking. I live in CA and over the years, there have been many laws passed making it illegal to smoke in all kinds of places. That trend seems to be continuing and I don't see it ending anytime soon. Are you suggesting that this new bill would override the existing laws?
Are you suggesting that this new bill would override the existing laws? A quiet little provision lobbied into the bill by big tobacco would prevent states from enactiing NEW regulation on the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. That's why the makers of Marlboro have been pushing for this legislation for several years now. Buying the FDA is child's play. All it takes is buying a few Senators. The tobacco companies have been deathly afraid that a rogue state would start the ball rollling with an outright ban on the sale of cigarettes or otherwise restricting where they can be sold. Marlboro used support of this FDA bill to get "their" Senators to draft the anti-state provisions. The "logic" is that, of course, California or any other state can't ban the sale of FDA approved products.
ctm: This FDA bill might as well be (and in fact was) written by its chief supporter: Atria, the manufacturer of the #1 brand Marlboro. Let us count the ways: a) It bans, without FDA approval, the introduction of any new brand of cigarette or type of cigarette or manufacturing process that wasn't in an existing cigarette product in 2003. Hmmm...that's kind of nice if you are the #1 brand. A federal bill banning new competition. b) It sets typical FDA guidelines that will increase the cost of manufacturing for all cigarette companies. Marlboro's biggest threat is from generic low cost brands. Increasing the costs thru regulation limits the potential for undercuttin Marlboro's price. c) Protects Marlboro from lawsuits. The big settlements are coming from jury verdicts based on tobacco company fraud - markeing low tart and low nicotine products intended to make consumers think they are safer when, in fact, the tobacco companies know they are not safer. More cynically, marketing "safer" cigarettes is intended to keep people smoking. These fraud claims are a major risk to Marlboro. Under this new bill, the FDA would give official approval of "safer" cigarettes, thus giving the tobacco companies cover. How can you convict Marlboro in the courtroom when they are just selling an FDA approved "safer" cigarette. Oh, and this bill gives the FDA (aka Marlboro's lapdog) the power to ban any new type of cigarette (e-cigs, etc.) d) The bill specifically reserves the right to ban cigarettes or mandate zero nicoitne to the US Congress. The FDA can't ban it. The states can't ban it: `
(3) POWER RESERVED TO CONGRESS- Because of the importance of a decision of the Secretary to issue a regulation establishing a tobacco product standard-- `[A] banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll your own tobacco products; or
`[B] requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero,
The proposal’s broad range of supporters includes the industry sales leader, Philip Morris, although other cigarette makers oppose it. David M. Sylvia, spokesman for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, said Friday that the company supports “tough but reasonable federal regulation of tobacco products.â€
But Dr. Joel L. Nitzkin, chairman of the tobacco control task force of the American Association of Public Health Physicians, criticized the compromise. “This bill will be worse than no bill at all,†he said in a phone interview.
Officially, the FDA commissioner position is vacant. But symbolically at least, the new commissioner is the Marlboro Man.
...
Under the new legislation, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Philip Morris, maker of the market-dominating Marlboro brand and by far the biggest of Big Tobacco, likely will have a seat at the FDA's table. Literally. A non-voting seat on an advisory board.
In fact the industry will be footing the bill for the alleged regulation of its own products. This is window-dressing masquerading as regulation. The foxes will be guarding the henhouse. ...
But placing the nation's most lethal consumer product -- cigarettes -- under the control of the FDA would be unwise. And asking a food and drug bureau to promulgate "product safety standards" for cigarettes is an oxymoron that will perpetuate the myth, long fostered by the tobacco industry, that this inherently harmful product can be made safer.
Placing cigarettes under the alleged watchful eye of the same agency that regulates cancer chemotherapy drugs is as hilarious as the Saturday Night Live skit for "The Lung Brush" -- a pipe cleaner you slide down your throat to clean your lungs -- or Homer Simpson promoting "Tomacco." Even more absurd is that the FDA can ban a cancer drug, for its deadly side effects, but can't lay a finger on Marlboro.
The ardent support of this bill by Philip Morris, with fully 50 percent of the nation's cigarette market, should prompt skepticism about the measure and its purported public health benefits.
...
Prof. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, a prolific blogger on tobacco policy and critic of policy that's more symbol than substance, bemoans "the many loopholes in the legislation that were clearly inserted to protect Philip Morris and retain its support for the bill, rather than to protect the public's health."
...
In 1969, the industry pushed through legislation that removed cigarette ads from TV after seeing the early wave of anti-smoking public service ads drive down cigarette sales. The industry knew that once its ads were off the air, the Fairness Doctrine mandating airing of opposing viewpoints would no longer apply.
Indeed, when the cigarette commercials ended, the broadcast networks yanked the anti-smoking ads, while the industry re-emerged on TV immediately on billboards at sports events sponsored by Marlboro, Winston and Virginia Slims.
This circumvention of the law saved the industry tens of millions of dollars a year in cigarette advertising costs.
Five years earlier, with the backing of the American Medical Association (the lone major health organization to drag its feet in endorsing the Surgeon General's indictment of cigarette smoking) the tobacco industry pushed through legislation for placing unobtrusive and unthreatening warning labels on cigarette packages and ads These warning labels provided the industry cover against lawsuits for liability in smoking's role in disabling and killing millions of Americans.
.....
Now the FDA can provide new cover for the industry. The FDA, which has a hard enough time tracking salmonella in pistachios and peanuts and conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical approvals, now would be given regulation of cigarettes.
In effect the new FDA legislation would serve as a Marlboro Preservation Act. ....
There is no evidence that this bill will save any lives at all. To the contrary, the bill will perpetuate great harm through its grandfathering of Marlboro and other existing brands and its elimination of litigation for consumer fraud.
All I know is that I am glad I quit on 12/30/08 - 125 days!!! And, after watching this, I am happier than ever, There are many other ways for 'us' to make money, but we choose to not see another way. Don't mean to sound arrogant, or selfish, or like I only care about me - but, if we all cared about ourselves, there would be no smokers.
As much as I hate the idea, the sale of permanent nicotine substitute products like e-cigs, nic gum, nic lozenges, and nicotine lollipops is probably the best of a bunch of bad alternatives. im confused by this....am i understanding it wrong what did you mean by this comment......bad alternatives. I dont see nrts as bad alternatives (with the exception of the ecig) I used the nic gum for 4 days and that helped me to quit. I was not able to go cold turkey, so i used that, had i not used the nrt i probably would still be smoking or would have picked it back up very quickly after my quit date. Whats so bad about them if they were able to help 1 person to kick the habit. And i know chantex isnt listed here because it doesnt include nicotine in it, but i know that quitters use that for way longer than 4 days (not saying its wrong, anything to help quit is great) So what makes that so much better than the nrts? IDK
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
