PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues FDA to oversee cigarette industry


Hydrae
06-12-2009, 10:36 PM
Why don't they just go ahead and make tobacco illegal?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_co/us_fda_tobacco

Historic anti-smoking bill aims at stopping teens

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 49 mins ago

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 the 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, she said.

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."

___

Associated Press Writer Ann Sanner contributed to this report.

___

The bill is H.R. 1256.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-12-2009, 10:39 PM
Cool. Now I can pay $20 a pack for smokes that are labeled black death and have the distinct taste of pig shit. Hog Farmer should start preparing a bid.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-12-2009, 10:40 PM
I can't wait until they push everyone to quit. Who's going to pay those billions in taxes then? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Frazod
06-12-2009, 10:42 PM
Jesus Christ. :shake:

SBK
06-12-2009, 11:26 PM
Obama says he doesn't want to control banks, car industry, and now cigarette industry, I believe him!

wild1
06-13-2009, 12:01 AM
welcome to the new republik

sportsman1
06-13-2009, 02:09 AM
Back in the US, back in the US, Back in the USSA. Things don't seem like they are!

Baby Lee
06-13-2009, 07:06 AM
Terming flavorings 'candy' is such a BS PR move.

Teh blaeks are gonna massacre him if they incorporate menthol into that definition.

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 09:03 AM
Next on the agenda, cheeseburgers.

InChiefsHell
06-13-2009, 09:10 AM
This is funny. If the FDA is regulating tobacco, that means they are making it safe...isn't that the job of the FDA???? So, kids, don't you worry. Smoke your brains out, the FDA is out there making sure that Tobacco use is safe.

This is un fuggin real...

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 09:13 AM
This is funny. If the FDA is regulating tobacco, that means they are making it safe...isn't that the job of the FDA???? So, kids, don't you worry. Smoke your brains out, the FDA is out there making sure that Tobacco use is safe.

This is un fuggin real...

Don't kid yourself, this is just another step to making smoking illegal.

And it's a big step.

banyon
06-13-2009, 09:37 AM
I think this is a waste of government resources.

stevieray
06-13-2009, 09:56 AM
next up..overweight people

Hydrae
06-13-2009, 10:16 AM
Next on the agenda, cheeseburgers.

Yep, if they think the cigarette companies are pushing to get kids to use their products what do they think of McDonald's? I am quite sure more people die and we spend more in health care costs for obese people in this country than we do for smokers. This slope is long and very slippery.

Brock
06-13-2009, 10:19 AM
Let's get rid of alcohol too. It kills people.

whoman69
06-13-2009, 10:23 AM
Don't kid yourself, this is just another step to making smoking illegal.

And it's a big step.

Your attitude might be relevent if tobacco companies simply made cigarettes. Now they add all sorts of things into cigarettes that are dangerous and addictive. They have turned this nation into cigarette junkies. Trying to quit is worse than detox. Tobacco companies have put you into their pockets and are sucking the life out of you. What is it, 12% of the population smokes, but their catastrophic medical costs make everybody's medical costs higher.

Brock
06-13-2009, 10:25 AM
Their medical costs are nothing - NOTHING - compared to fat people.

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 10:27 AM
Your attitude might be relevent if tobacco companies simply made cigarettes. Now they add all sorts of things into cigarettes that are dangerous and addictive. They have turned this nation into cigarette junkies. Trying to quit is worse than detox. Tobacco companies have put you into their pockets and are sucking the life out of you. What is it, 12% of the population smokes, but their catastrophic medical costs make everybody's medical costs higher.

Maybe you should just cut to the chase and tell me what I can and cannot do or eat, so your life runs more smoothly.

SBK
06-13-2009, 10:41 AM
I wonder if the 400 pound guy who want's gov't health care and loves Obama will still love him when Obama tells him what he can eat?
Posted via Mobile Device

Hydrae
06-13-2009, 10:47 AM
I want to know what all this advertising to youth is that they keep harping on. This thought pattern is prevalent throughout our society though. I asked my 17 year old son if he thinks they market to his age group. He said, of course they do. So I asked how they accomplish this. Why, through the television was his answer. I pointed out that they have not advertised cigarettes on television in probably 20 years. For that matter, when was the last time you saw someone smoking on a current television show? (oh wait, Sharon Gless' character on Burn Notice is constantly smoking. Now there is a role model for today's youth!)

So even a 17 year old thinks cigs are being marketed to him through the television. I don't get the mind set at all.

Baby Lee
06-13-2009, 10:58 AM
So, is Mad Men cancelled then?

J Diddy
06-13-2009, 11:11 AM
I wonder if the 400 pound guy who want's gov't health care and loves Obama will still love him when Obama tells him what he can eat?
Posted via Mobile Device



Doesn't matter, he'll be dead soon.

SBK
06-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Doesn't matter, he'll be dead soon.

It took 5 months for Obama to control the banking sector, the auto making sector and the cigarette sector. I think this guy will live another month or 2.

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Doesn't matter, he'll be dead soon.
Only after he racks up a couple hundred thousand dollars of universal health care.

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2009, 11:54 AM
I want to know what all this advertising to youth is that they keep harping on. This thought pattern is prevalent throughout our society though. I asked my 17 year old son if he thinks they market to his age group. He said, of course they do. So I asked how they accomplish this. Why, through the television was his answer. I pointed out that they have not advertised cigarettes on television in probably 20 years. For that matter, when was the last time you saw someone smoking on a current television show? (oh wait, Sharon Gless' character on Burn Notice is constantly smoking. Now there is a role model for today's youth!)

So even a 17 year old thinks cigs are being marketed to him through the television. I don't get the mind set at all.

Nor do I

J Diddy
06-13-2009, 12:30 PM
It took 5 months for Obama to control the banking sector, the auto making sector and the cigarette sector. I think this guy will live another month or 2.

By the sounds of all the people yelping about how high taxes are going I don't think he'll be able to sustain 400 pounds. He won't have the money to buy the food.

J Diddy
06-13-2009, 12:31 PM
Only after he racks up a couple hundred thousand dollars of universal health care.


So you're saying it's better to tell the fat guy what he should eat?

Agreed.

mlyonsd
06-13-2009, 12:40 PM
So you're saying it's better to tell the fat guy what he should eat?

Agreed.

That, and I think a mandatory state sponsored exercise program is in order.

FishingRod
06-13-2009, 12:40 PM
Not that the FDA is all bad but it amoung other things is unconstitutional.

Hydrae
06-13-2009, 12:40 PM
That, and I think a mandatory state sponsored exercise program is in order.

You didn't walk your mandated 2 miles today? $25.00 fine for you!

banyon
06-13-2009, 01:02 PM
Not that the FDA is all bad but it amoung other things is unconstitutional.

Do you actually have a legal argument for that, or is this just one of those literalist "It's not in paragraph x" type of arguments like this guy was trying to make the other day:

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31332721#31332721" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

trndobrd
06-13-2009, 01:03 PM
So, is Mad Men cancelled then?


No, cigarettes will develop a relationship similar to Hollywood and firearms:

It's OK to make money by featuring guns in violent action films or have an armed private security escort, but wrong for citizens (the little people) to own one.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-13-2009, 01:10 PM
No, cigarettes will develop a relationship similar to Hollywood and firearms:

It's OK to make money by featuring guns in violent action films or have an armed private security escort, but wrong for citizens (the little people) to own one.

I think you nailed it right here.

Frazod
06-13-2009, 01:21 PM
I want to know what all this advertising to youth is that they keep harping on. This thought pattern is prevalent throughout our society though. I asked my 17 year old son if he thinks they market to his age group. He said, of course they do. So I asked how they accomplish this. Why, through the television was his answer. I pointed out that they have not advertised cigarettes on television in probably 20 years. For that matter, when was the last time you saw someone smoking on a current television show? (oh wait, Sharon Gless' character on Burn Notice is constantly smoking. Now there is a role model for today's youth!)

So even a 17 year old thinks cigs are being marketed to him through the television. I don't get the mind set at all.

The doctor on Battlestar Galactica smoked constantly, in the Medical Bay. I always found that amusing - I'm sure it was a deliberate statement by the show's producers.

Baby Lee
06-13-2009, 01:46 PM
No, cigarettes will develop a relationship similar to Hollywood and firearms:

It's OK to make money by featuring guns in violent action films or have an armed private security escort, but wrong for citizens (the little people) to own one.

Speilberg sez Don Draper's sucking on a walkie talkie.

whoman69
06-13-2009, 11:08 PM
Maybe you should just cut to the chase and tell me what I can and cannot do or eat, so your life runs more smoothly.

You're going to give a pass to the tobacco industry for putting out a product they have made even more addictive? Nice deflection. When the food industry put something in twinkies that makes it so you have to eat a pack a day or go nuts, give me a call.

mlyonsd
06-14-2009, 11:53 AM
You're going to give a pass to the tobacco industry for putting out a product they have made even more addictive? Nice deflection. When the food industry put something in twinkies that makes it so you have to eat a pack a day or go nuts, give me a call.

Tell that to a food addict. Which there are plenty more of them in this country than people that smoke.

McDonald's, Burger King, Hardee's, etc, etc, all market food in more harmful ways to kids and adults than tobacco companies do.

So the question is, why are you willing to give the food industry a free pass?

InChiefsHell
06-14-2009, 02:14 PM
I'd really like to know how cigarette companies are marketed to kids...seriously. 25 years ago or so, I could see this argument. Remember Joe Camel? I switched smoking Marlboro to Camel just to get that shirt. I was 16 years old.

Haven't seen any advertising, except in convenient stores where they pretty much just have the displays. So, how are they targeting kids now?

mlyonsd
06-14-2009, 06:47 PM
I'd really like to know how cigarette companies are marketed to kids...seriously. 25 years ago or so, I could see this argument. Remember Joe Camel? I switched smoking Marlboro to Camel just to get that shirt. I was 16 years old.

Haven't seen any advertising, except in convenient stores where they pretty much just have the displays. So, how are they targeting kids now?

They're not.

Congress is just taking one more step to making tobacco illegal. Elimnate as many risks as you can makes their we all get the same health care plan more legit.

FishingRod
06-15-2009, 12:40 PM
Do you actually have a legal argument for that, or is this just one of those literalist "It's not in paragraph x" type of arguments like this guy was trying to make the other day:

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31332721#31332721" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

It would be an exceptionally long discussion that I don't have time for today but I would look at Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution. I'm not saying the FDA, FAA and any number of agencies aren't a necessary evil but I do think their existence is not legal .

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 01:02 PM
Sure hate it for you guys that smoke.

JonesCrusher
06-15-2009, 01:31 PM
You're going to give a pass to the tobacco industry for putting out a product they have made even more addictive? Nice deflection. When the food industry put something in twinkies that makes it so you have to eat a pack a day or go nuts, give me a call.

I guess you've never heard of high fructose corn syrup. More harmful and addictive than any cigarette.

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 01:39 PM
I guess you've never heard of high fructose corn syrup. More harmful and addictive than any cigarette.

Indeed. A direct timeline can be drawn between the use of HFCS and our growing obesity problem, pardon the pun.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-15-2009, 04:09 PM
When I find the time I'm going to write up the reasons why I have a say in how you raise your kids. I mean, they cost me money. I absolutely have the same vested interest in how they turn out that so many others think they have with smokers, and fatasses. Get ready. After food and alcohol, your parenting skills are next. I've been trying to warn you for years..............

Radar Chief
06-15-2009, 04:17 PM
When I find the time I'm going to write up the reasons why I have a say in how you raise your kids. I mean, they cost me money. I absolutely have the same vested interest in how they turn out that so many others think they have with smokers, and fatasses. Get ready. After food and alcohol, your parenting skills are next. I've been trying to warn you for years..............

“It takes a village” because individual parents aren’t responsible enough. ;)

banyon
06-15-2009, 06:03 PM
It would be an exceptionally long discussion that I don't have time for today but I would look at Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution. I'm not saying the FDA, FAA and any number of agencies aren't a necessary evil but I do think their existence is not legal .

It's explicitly legal. The Supreme Court, the legal body vested with the authority by the Constitution with interpreting the document has said that it is, in innumerable cases that have been legal precedent and stare decisis for almost 100 years.

I will assume that your argument was the type I was contemplating in nmy prior post.

The school of Amending the Constitution every time there is not a literal inclusion of a new government function basically devalues the document as organizing and foundational because it would lose its symbolic strength by being turned into a hundreds of volumes-type code similar to the IRS that no one would understand or be able to use.

FishingRod
06-16-2009, 10:12 AM
It's explicitly legal. The Supreme Court, the legal body vested with the authority by the Constitution with interpreting the document has said that it is, in innumerable cases that have been legal precedent and stare decisis for almost 100 years.

I will assume that your argument was the type I was contemplating in nmy prior post.

The school of Amending the Constitution every time there is not a literal inclusion of a new government function basically devalues the document as organizing and foundational because it would lose its symbolic strength by being turned into a hundreds of volumes-type code similar to the IRS that no one would understand or be able to use.


I realize it is a bit uppity of me to disagree with the Supreme Court but, they certainly have had instances throughout our history of being misguided. The following should very quickly explain my thoughts on the situation.

The core to our system of government and, brilliance of our Constitution is due to the balance of power it establishes between three equal branches of government. This very concept was the arguably the most important issue during the Constitutional Convention. Fortunately for us and our country, the Founders understood the danger and imbalance of power that naturally occurs if any two of the three powers be able to be exercised by a single branch: When the branch making the laws also becomes the enforcer, or the accuser becomes the branch dolling out the punishment a fair and balanced government becomes impossible For this very reason, a group of exceptional men created a Constitution that separated these three powers between three equal divisions of government.

It is obvious (at least to me ) that the regulatory agencies, including the FDA and HCFA, now have legislative, as well as executive, powers. That is clearly
IMNHO unconstitutional.

KCChiefsMan
06-16-2009, 04:41 PM
I hope they do make them $20 a pack so I will have to quit

banyon
06-16-2009, 05:58 PM
I realize it is a bit uppity of me to disagree with the Supreme Court but, they certainly have had instances throughout our history of being misguided. The following should very quickly explain my thoughts on the situation.

The core to our system of government and, brilliance of our Constitution is due to the balance of power it establishes between three equal branches of government. This very concept was the arguably the most important issue during the Constitutional Convention. Fortunately for us and our country, the Founders understood the danger and imbalance of power that naturally occurs if any two of the three powers be able to be exercised by a single branch: When the branch making the laws also becomes the enforcer, or the accuser becomes the branch dolling out the punishment a fair and balanced government becomes impossible For this very reason, a group of exceptional men created a Constitution that separated these three powers between three equal divisions of government.

It is obvious (at least to me ) that the regulatory agencies, including the FDA and HCFA, now have legislative, as well as executive, powers. That is clearly
IMNHO unconstitutional.

Your rationale appears to have shifted from an enumeratd powers type of argument to a separation of powers type argument.

But needless to say, I disagree, and the fact that ANY agency decision is subject to court review, including the quasi-judicial decisions I think cuts into your position quite a bit. It would also be inordinately and practically prohibitive to have the Courts try every agency decision review from the outset. If you think that the legal system is overburdened now, or too complex and litigious, it would probably quadruple every court's docket in the country with fairly specialized litigation that most judges don't understand because of the complexity and specific nature of the subject matter that the agency made the decision about. It's MUCH more efficient and productive to have the agencies review the decisions of lower levels of their agencies themselves so that we don't have to have judge/lawyer experts on every topic under the sun. If the agency decision is truly crappy, then get the court involved.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 06:14 PM
It's MUCH more efficient and productive to have the agencies review the decisions of lower levels of their agencies themselves so that we don't have to have judge/lawyer experts on every topic under the sun.

This sounds eerily similar to the Bush administration's arguments for the legality of waterboarding.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 06:18 PM
If the FDA is regulating tobacco, that means they are making it safe...isn't that the job of the FDA????
No. That's not the job of the FDA. Never has been. They are a regulatory agency, they rate the safety of food and drugs, and regulate whether they can be marketed and sold, to what degree the public can have access, and how marketing can be handled. They don't "make it safe," they decide if it is safe enough to sell unregulated to John Q. Public. Ironically, though it is the right that is now crying about this, it was the Republican Congress and Republican President who pushed for and enacted the changes in the summer of 2006 that gave the FDA such sweeping regulatory powers. Not saying it's a good thing (not that I give a damn about the plight of the persecuted smoker), but the Obama Admin isn't the sole culprit in this one.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 06:21 PM
No. That's not the job of the FDA. Never has been. They are a regulatory agency, they rate the safety of food and drugs, and regulate whether they can be marketed and sold, to what degree the public can have access, and how marketing can be handled. They don't "make it safe," they decide if it is safe enough to sell unregulated to John Q. Public. Ironically, though it is the right that is now crying about this, it was the Republican Congress and Republican President who pushed for and enacted the changes in the summer of 2006 that gave the FDA such sweeping regulatory powers. Not saying it's a good thing (not that I give a damn about the plight of the persecuted smoker), but the Obama Admin isn't the sole culprit in this one.

Why would you care about people being persecuted for partaking in a legal activity? You don't partake in that activity, so screw those who do.

banyon
06-16-2009, 06:31 PM
This sounds eerily similar to the Bush administration's arguments for the legality of waterboarding.

How so?

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 06:36 PM
How so?

Didn't you take issue with the idea that the Bush administration acted on the council of their attorneys in order to determine whether or not waterboarding was legal?

How is that materially different from an agency reviewing itself rather than taking every possible scenario to court?

Mizzou_8541
06-16-2009, 06:39 PM
Why don't they just go ahead and make tobacco illegal?


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."



Wrong, Mrs. Meek. If it weren't for teh government, I wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. That makes my parents feel a lot better, though...they are off the hook.

banyon
06-16-2009, 06:39 PM
Didn't you take issue with the idea that the Bush administration acted on the council of their attorneys in order to determine whether or not waterboarding was legal?

I don't take issue with their right to seek counsel on that topic, I don't feel it excuses their actions though, nor should it in any criminal scenario. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "take issue" though.

How is that materially different from an agency reviewing itself rather than taking every possible scenario to court?

Since I don't understand your first point, I don't think I can yet make this comparison.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 06:43 PM
I don't take issue with their right to seek counsel on that topic, I don't feel it excuses their actions though, nor should it in any criminal scenario. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "take issue" though.



Since I don't understand your first point, I don't think I can yet make this comparison.

Either a department reviewing itself qualifies as reasonable oversight or it isn't. If the Bush administration's seeking of qualified legal opinions has no bearing on whether or not they acted with criminal intent, then I don't see any scenario in which anything other than having an issue tried in court has any value.

banyon
06-16-2009, 07:08 PM
Either a department reviewing itself qualifies as reasonable oversight or it isn't. If the Bush administration's seeking of qualified legal opinions has no bearing on whether or not they acted with criminal intent, then I don't see any scenario in which anything other than having an issue tried in court has any value.

The agency review process is called "quasi-judicial" for a reason, and that's because Administrative law judges are the ones making a ruling. They aren't in a direct employment relationship or retained counsel situation like Bush's own attorneys would be. They typically don't work with or sometimes even know the state's representative at an agency review proceeding, and the party objecting to the ruling is represented by their own counsel. For those reasons it's quite different than a hand's length employer-employee relationship that would exist in the scenario with Bush you are referring to.
Your situation doesn't invole really any kind of independent judicial function and that's the main difference I think.


A better analogy for the point I think you are trying to make would be the FISA wiretap court, but I don't have any objection to Bush and the Feds getting warrants (even if secret if necessary) from that specialized court, so it would be consistent.

Saul Good
06-16-2009, 07:12 PM
The agency review process is called "quasi-judicial" for a reason, and that's because Administrative law judges are the ones making a ruling. They aren't in a direct employment relationship or retained counsel situation like Bush's own attorneys would be. They typically don't work with or sometimes even know the state's representative at an agency review proceeding, and the party objecting to the ruling is represented by their own counsel. For those reasons it's quite different than a hand's length employer-employee relationship that would exist in the scenario with Bush you are referring to.
Your situation doesn't invole really any kind of independent judicial function and that's the main difference I think.


A better analogy for the point I think you are trying to make would be the FISA wiretap court, but I don't have any objection to Bush and the Feds getting warrants (even if secret if necessary) from that specialized court, so it would be consistent.

Fair enough. I didn't say that it was identical, and I maintain that it is similar. (I will withdraw the modifier "eerily", though.)

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 07:49 PM
Why would you care about people being persecuted for partaking in a legal activity? You don't partake in that activity, so screw those who do.
I don't care about the plight of smokers, period. You don't have to like it.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-16-2009, 08:37 PM
Moving Toward Tobacco Prohibition

Ron Paul
Campaign For Liberty
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States. It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry. It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good. Such is the condescension of Washington.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated — as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs. A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana. Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path. Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco. Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders. How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?

Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new. It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then. Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all. Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it. In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry. One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBozAosnKO0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBozAosnKO0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=115