FDA & Federal Government Out Of Control On Tobacco Regulation

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803004.html

The Food and Drug Administration announced rules today that will severely restrict the way the tobacco industry can advertise and sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, especially marketing efforts designed to appeal to children and teenagers.

The rules, which take effect June 22, are part of broad new powers granted to the FDA by Congress last year, when it passed a landmark law to regulate the $89 billion tobacco industry. The law prevents the FDA from banning nicotine or tobacco, but it gives the agency vast new authority to regulate the ingredients in tobacco products and the way they are distributed, sold and marketed.

"This is truly an historic announcement in our country's public health history," said Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health. "This is designed to prevent our children from becoming the next generation of Americans to die early from tobacco-related illnesses."

Under the new rules, the FDA will:

-- Ban tobacco companies from sponsoring sports and entertainment events.

-- Ban free cigarette samples and giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of tobacco.

-- Prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packs of less than 20, eliminating so-called "kiddie packs" that public health experts say make cigarettes more affordable for young people.

-- Restrict vending machines and self-service displays to adult-only facilities, requiring stores to place tobacco products behind the counter.

-- Prohibit tobacco sales to children younger than 18 and

require photo identification checks for over-the-counter sales.

-- Provide for federal enforcement against violators, ranging from warning letters to criminal penalties.

In addition, the agency is weighing whether to issue an additional rule that will cover outdoor advertising, such as billboards.

In the first legal challenge to the new law, a federal judge in January knocked down two of the rules. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Lorillard, the country's second- and third-largest tobacco producers, argued that certain provisions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. They filed a complaint in Kentucky, the state with the highest number of adult smokers.

Judge Joseph McKinley struck down a rule that would limit advertising to black text with no graphics except in adult magazines or in retail establishments open only to adults. The judge ruled that companies could use imagery and colors to communicate ''what the product is and who makes it." That ruling would allow R.J. Reynolds, for instance, to continue using a drawing of a camel in its advertising for Camel cigarettes.

The FDA is appealing that part of the ruling. While the appeal is pending, the agency has not said whether it will enforce the rule regarding the use of color and imagery in advertising.

Tobacco advertising in this country dates to colonial times. As health concerns about tobacco grew in the 1960s, the federal government began to rein in marketing. In 1969, Congress banned cigarette ads on television and radio. Other restrictions followed, including the 1998 legal settlement between four major tobacco companies and 46 states which prohibited tobacco companies from targeting youth.

But anti-smoking groups and public health organizations argue that tobacco companies, which spend $35 million each day in marketing, have continued to direct advertising to teens and children in subtle ways. About 20 percent of high school students smoke, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Children are a particularly important target population for anti-smoking efforts, since studies show that 90 percent of smokers began the habit when they were younger than 18. Health officials say each day, 4,000 children younger than 18 try cigarettes for the first time and 1,000 of them become lifelong smokers.

About 450,000 people in the United States die from smoking-related illnesses each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On average, smokers die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.

The FDA tried to restrict tobacco advertising in 1996, but the tobacco industry successfully challenged those efforts in court and argued that the agency has overstepped its authority. That laid the groundwork for a 13-year effort by public health groups to win passage of a new tobacco control law.

[Niels Bohr 72]

There's another side.

Those who been smoking for years and developed emphysema (lung cancer) have cost the gov't millions if not billions of dollars to pay for their medical cost. So, it's important that more people heed the FDA.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There's another side.

Those who been smoking for years and developed emphysema (lung cancer) have cost the gov't millions if not billions of dollars to pay for their medical cost. So, it's important that more people heed the FDA.

The government shouldn't be paying for people's health care to begin with, thus problem solved if they get out of it.

If they are willing to control this much of tobacco, they'll be willing to control other things as well...

[Niels Bohr 72]

A cornered fox is more dangerous than a jackal - Metal Gear Solid.

You force these people into desperation which probably would result in more theft, robberies, etc...Trust me. Pin them down. You'll see how much they'll come back up and double your pain.

In their heads, they're thinking - "I'm going to die soon. What the hell? Noone cares so I'm going to rampage the city." Since we already have lots of people abusing policies such as SSI, handcap parking decals, etc...It will not take any less time for them to think of rampaging the city.

The government shouldn't be paying for people's health care to begin with, thus problem solved if they get out of it.

If they are willing to control this much of tobacco, they'll be willing to control other things as well...

[luckytxn 2,264]

The government has no business controlling anything us citizens choose to ingest. Our bodies are no longer our own but are the property of the government.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The government has no business controlling anything us citizens choose to ingest. Our bodies are no longer our own but are the property of the government.

You think your local liquor store should be able to sell cigs and beer to minors?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

-- Ban free cigarette samples and giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of tobacco.

I always thought the Pokemon and cigarette giveaways went over the line.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

There's another side.

Those who been smoking for years and developed emphysema (lung cancer) have cost the gov't millions if not billions of dollars to pay for their medical cost. So, it's important that more people heed the FDA.

and another side - all those taxes would dry up if people quit smoking.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

and another side - all those taxes would dry up if people quit smoking.

Ironically enough, those taxes pay for Children's health care.

Obviously the FDA really doesn't care about the children after all

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and another side - all those taxes would dry up if people quit smoking.

As would all those medical costs. It's called a 'cause and effect' relationship.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The government has no business controlling anything us citizens choose to ingest. Our bodies are no longer our own but are the property of the government.

Actually they do, and they have the right to tax it. Read Article 1, Section 8.

Fewer smokers and people chewing tobacco is a good thing. Smoking cigarettes is even dumber than smoking crack. At least with crack, you get some tangible effect.

[Texanadian 10]

There's another side.

Those who been smoking for years and developed emphysema (lung cancer) have cost the gov't millions if not billions of dollars to pay for their medical cost. So, it's important that more people heed the FDA.

If we want to talk strictly on cost, I'd wager that it's cheaper doing the above than having the same people live longer and collect social security for another 14 years. Let's not forget the millions of people who smoke for a few years/decades and then quit. They have no long term effects but paid into the system through taxes all that time.....Besides, what about the alternative to cancer? People still die of old age in hospitals from natural causes every day.

The taxing smokers to pay for SCHIP was disgusting. That should have been paid for by parents. Something as simple as reducing the child tax credit would have made much more sense.

Vancouver already lost the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire (massive fireworks display) because B&H wasn't allowed to sponsor it anymore. I can just imagine how much Formula 1 racing would lose if Marlboro wasn't allowed to sponsor teams. Better get the NHRA on board too. No more Budweiser sponsored drag racing teams. That would be promoting underaged drinking. *rolleyes*

Getting rid of cig packs less than 20 cigs was a mistake as well. When I was a kid, you could buy cigarettes out of a jar at the corner store. So people would buy one or two. Try them out. Maybe they'd like them. Maybe they wouldn't. But when you only make them available in a pack of 20, you have to smoke the entire pack. Because who is going to throw away the pack when they're $10/pack? By the time a person is through the pack, they're much more likely to buy another one.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Texanadian

[Niels Bohr 72]

I think taking away tax credit would be an incentive for low income families not to have children.

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

As would all those medical costs. It's called a 'cause and effect' relationship.

why do you hate children's health care? light up, or be a hater!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

why do you hate children's health care? light up, or be a hater!

Or the third option - support children's health care and make smokers like you pay for it.