Tobacco Products May Get "Drug" Designation

Katana · 15th February 2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of lawmakers Thursday renewed an effort to empower the government to regulate cigarettes as a drug, winning praise from anti-smoking advocates.

In a move that could reshape the tobacco industry, the lawmakers said they were introducing a bill to put cigarettes and other tobacco products under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration.

The sponsors said the legislation would allow the FDA to prevent tobacco advertising targeting children; prevent sale of tobacco products to minors; reduce tobacco product toxicity; and prevent misleading claims about the dangers of smoking.

I guess I don't understand how the FDA's involvement will help with the first two issues. Aren't there already measures to address advertising to children and sales to minors?

Quote:

The bill was introduced in the Senate by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy and Texas Republican John Cornyn. In the House, California Democrat Henry Waxman and Virginia Republican Tom Davis are co-sponsoring the bill.

American Heart Association Chief Executive Cass Wheeler said, “Tobacco is one of the least-regulated consumer products ... Giving FDA the authority to regulate tobacco will save countless lives and hold a renegade industry accountable.”

Tobacco company Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris USA and makes Marlboro cigarettes, earlier this month expressed support for giving the FDA authority over tobacco.

Other companies that stand to be affected include Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Loews Corp.’s Lorillard Tobacco Co. unit.

Link

Now why would Altria support this? That I can't figure out.

Darth Rotor · 15th February 2007, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Katana

I guess I don't understand how the FDA's involvement will help with the first two issues. Aren't there already measures to address advertising to children and sales to minors?

Link

Now why would Altria support this? That I can't figure out.

To keep the armed SWAT teams from the ATF off of their backs?

This measure strikes me as an attempt to obscure usage and to change who gets bribed in Washington.

Quote:

The sponsors said the legislation would allow the FDA to prevent tobacco advertising targeting children; prevent sale of tobacco products to minors; reduce tobacco product toxicity; and prevent misleading claims about the dangers of smoking.

The last 30 years of legislation on this hardly stopped any of that, I am not buying this line.

DR

El Greco · 15th February 2007, 11:53 PM

One good thing could come out of this if it's implemented correctly: Tobacco industry won't be able to put whatever they want in a cigarrete.

thaiboxerken · 15th February 2007, 11:57 PM

i think it's just a step in the direction of another prohibition.

WildCat · 16th February 2007, 06:26 AM

So why don't they just ban tobacco? Oh, silly me, I forgot that tobacco is the prostitute and government is her pimp.

Mephisto · 16th February 2007, 06:38 AM

I just wonder if the Marlboro Man would have died of cancer if he'd had to obtain a prescription (with a grossly inflated price) for every pack he smoked?

drkitten · 16th February 2007, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

I guess I don't understand how the FDA's involvement will help with the first two issues. Aren't there already measures to address advertising to children and sales to minors?

Because the FDA's regulations and procedures have more teeth. As a simple example, the FDA has a set of regulations in place, dating back to 1996, that have not been enforceable because the courts have held that the FDA doesn't have the authority to enforce them. (FDA vs. Brown-Williamson, 2000.) These regulations, for example, would outright prohibit tobacco advertising within X feet of a school or in children- or youth- oriented magazines. Rather than re-writing ATF's procedures to be carbon-copies of the FDA's, it's simply easier to grant the FDA authority by statute.

Katana · 17th February 2007, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Because the FDA's regulations and procedures have more teeth. As a simple example, the FDA has a set of regulations in place, dating back to 1996, that have not been enforceable because the courts have held that the FDA doesn't have the authority to enforce them. (FDA vs. Brown-Williamson, 2000.) These regulations, for example, would outright prohibit tobacco advertising within X feet of a school or in children- or youth- oriented magazines. Rather than re-writing ATF's procedures to be carbon-copies of the FDA's, it's simply easier to grant the FDA authority by statute.

So it sounds like they want more aggressive advertising restrictions than currently exist. How would they have "more teeth" when it comes to sales to minors, though?

drkitten · 19th February 2007, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Katana

So it sounds like they want more aggressive advertising restrictions than currently exist. How would they have "more teeth" when it comes to sales to minors, though?

The FDA tends to impose huge fines for improper drug sales and advertising, precisely because lives are at stake. The difference between $10,000 per violation and $10,000,000 per violation is enough teeth to keep a whole army of dentists hard at work....

Mr. Stick · 19th February 2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Katana

Now why would Altria support this? That I can't figure out.

To get positive PR? They know it's not getting easier for them, so they might as well try to look like they are in favor of steps that will protect children from the hazards of smoking.

15th February 2007, 01:41 PM	#1
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Tobacco Products May Get "Drug" Designation Quote: WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of lawmakers Thursday renewed an effort to empower the government to regulate cigarettes as a drug, winning praise from anti-smoking advocates. In a move that could reshape the tobacco industry, the lawmakers said they were introducing a bill to put cigarettes and other tobacco products under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration. The sponsors said the legislation would allow the FDA to prevent tobacco advertising targeting children; prevent sale of tobacco products to minors; reduce tobacco product toxicity; and prevent misleading claims about the dangers of smoking. I guess I don't understand how the FDA's involvement will help with the first two issues. Aren't there already measures to address advertising to children and sales to minors? Quote: The bill was introduced in the Senate by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy and Texas Republican John Cornyn. In the House, California Democrat Henry Waxman and Virginia Republican Tom Davis are co-sponsoring the bill. American Heart Association Chief Executive Cass Wheeler said, “Tobacco is one of the least-regulated consumer products ... Giving FDA the authority to regulate tobacco will save countless lives and hold a renegade industry accountable.” Tobacco company Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris USA and makes Marlboro cigarettes, earlier this month expressed support for giving the FDA authority over tobacco. Other companies that stand to be affected include Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Loews Corp.’s Lorillard Tobacco Co. unit. Link Now why would Altria support this? That I can't figure out.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

15th February 2007, 03:00 PM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Katana I guess I don't understand how the FDA's involvement will help with the first two issues. Aren't there already measures to address advertising to children and sales to minors? Link Now why would Altria support this? That I can't figure out. To keep the armed SWAT teams from the ATF off of their backs? This measure strikes me as an attempt to obscure usage and to change who gets bribed in Washington. Quote: The sponsors said the legislation would allow the FDA to prevent tobacco advertising targeting children; prevent sale of tobacco products to minors; reduce tobacco product toxicity; and prevent misleading claims about the dangers of smoking. The last 30 years of legislation on this hardly stopped any of that, I am not buying this line. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 15th February 2007 at 03:03 PM.

15th February 2007, 11:53 PM	#3
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,314	One good thing could come out of this if it's implemented correctly: Tobacco industry won't be able to put whatever they want in a cigarrete.
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

15th February 2007, 11:57 PM	#4
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,988	i think it's just a step in the direction of another prohibition.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

16th February 2007, 06:38 AM	#6
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	I just wonder if the Marlboro Man would have died of cancer if he'd had to obtain a prescription (with a grossly inflated price) for every pack he smoked?
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

16th February 2007, 06:26 AM	#5
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,129	So why don't they just ban tobacco? Oh, silly me, I forgot that tobacco is the prostitute and government is her pimp.

16th February 2007, 07:45 AM	#7
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Katana I guess I don't understand how the FDA's involvement will help with the first two issues. Aren't there already measures to address advertising to children and sales to minors? Because the FDA's regulations and procedures have more teeth. As a simple example, the FDA has a set of regulations in place, dating back to 1996, that have not been enforceable because the courts have held that the FDA doesn't have the authority to enforce them. (FDA vs. Brown-Williamson, 2000.) These regulations, for example, would outright prohibit tobacco advertising within X feet of a school or in children- or youth- oriented magazines. Rather than re-writing ATF's procedures to be carbon-copies of the FDA's, it's simply easier to grant the FDA authority by statute.

17th February 2007, 07:44 AM	#8
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by drkitten Because the FDA's regulations and procedures have more teeth. As a simple example, the FDA has a set of regulations in place, dating back to 1996, that have not been enforceable because the courts have held that the FDA doesn't have the authority to enforce them. (FDA vs. Brown-Williamson, 2000.) These regulations, for example, would outright prohibit tobacco advertising within X feet of a school or in children- or youth- oriented magazines. Rather than re-writing ATF's procedures to be carbon-copies of the FDA's, it's simply easier to grant the FDA authority by statute. So it sounds like they want more aggressive advertising restrictions than currently exist. How would they have "more teeth" when it comes to sales to minors, though?
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

19th February 2007, 08:57 AM	#9
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Katana So it sounds like they want more aggressive advertising restrictions than currently exist. How would they have "more teeth" when it comes to sales to minors, though? The FDA tends to impose huge fines for improper drug sales and advertising, precisely because lives are at stake. The difference between $10,000 per violation and $10,000,000 per violation is enough teeth to keep a whole army of dentists hard at work....

19th February 2007, 01:58 PM	#10
Mr. Stick Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Denmark Posts: 231	Originally Posted by Katana Now why would Altria support this? That I can't figure out. To get positive PR? They know it's not getting easier for them, so they might as well try to look like they are in favor of steps that will protect children from the hazards of smoking.
	__________________ John Edward: But, I'm a psychic. Stan Marsh: No, dude. You're a douche. John Edward: I'm not a douche. What if I really believed dead people talk to me? Stan Marsh: Then, you're a stupid douche!