FDA to regulate Tobacco products

[seraosha]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98OQ0CG0.html)

Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every year.
I've been unimpressed with our current Presidents decisions so far, but if this decision starts the eventual process of elimination of tobacco products available to new smokers, then he's doing something right in my book.

[Jobu]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98OQ0CG0.html)

Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every year.
I've been unimpressed with our current Presidents decisions so far, but if this decision starts the eventual process of elimination of tobacco products available to new smokers, then he's doing something right in my book.






If they crack down on smoking, how are they going to pay for SCHIP?

[Fade]

If they crack down on smoking, how are they going to pay for SCHIP?
By doing it the Canadian way, taxing the living **** out of tobacco products p-)

[lt tahoe]

So...will the BATFE become the BAFE?

[CMNot]

Death and disease is big business, and smokers are like gold dust.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

If they crack down on smoking, how are they going to pay for SCHIP?The same was said about revenue in the UK when smoking came under attack and open borders brought truck loads of cigs and baccy tax free into the country.

[Dominique]

So...will the BATFE become the BAFE?

Why would they change their name (which is just ATF for short)? They'd still track illegal tobacco/cigarette sales.

[el borracho]

It's not nicotine that kills smokers, it's the slew of other carcinogens in cigarettes that does the most damage. Limiting nicotine in cigarettes will also not cause a decline in smoking, but actually the opposite. When they introduced filtered cigarettes in the 1950's as a "safer" way to smoke they found that filtered cigarettes were not significantly less harmful than regular cigarettes but the amount of nicotine intake was reduced causing the smoker to crave a cigarette more often and therefore...to BUY MORE CIGARETTES! This new measure is going to be a win-win situation for the tobacco companies and government. More profits and tax money to go straight to their pocket while they look like they're trying to do the right thing by cutting down the nicotine levels.

If you really want to prevent and eliminate cigarette smoking, which of course the government does NOT want to do because it generates so much tax revenue, then the logical solution would be to make cigarettes like they did in the good 'ole days, no filter, no menthol, no additives and fillers to mask the harsh taste, just pure natural tobacco. I guarantee that the majority of cigarette smokers today were forced to smoke nothing but all-natural filterless cigarettes they would give up the habit. While they're at it, stop selling cigarettes in packs. The convenience is a big factor in cigarette sales. Sell all cigarette grade tobacco in bulk and make smokers roll their own. Both of these measures would make smoking as inconvenient as possible and would cause smokers to actually consider if the satisfaction is worth it.

[XShipRider]

If Congress was serious they would outlaw cigi-butts. Yes, I'm aware of what Prohibition did to alcohol consumption. That does not negate the fact that it should be banned outright to avoid all these needless deaths. Or maybe revenue streams are more important than the astronomical number of smoking related deaths every year.

[ARGAR FORKBEARD]

i roll my own cigs! cheaper n tastes better!

i havent bought cigarettes from the uk for years, since they put the tax up,
i only get mine from continental europe where the price is greatly reduced, somebody somewhere is gonna be doing a baccy run to spain or france, and this is what will happen in the U.S if the tax goes to high,

[IraGlacialis]

I find it interesting that Phillip Morris was one of the biggest backers of that move.
But it, when you analyze the situation, make perfect business sense.

[wagon]

Has anyone done the numbers regarding :
a) How much 'work productivity' is lost due to smoking in the workplace
b) How much smoking-related illnesses cost in healthcare
c) How much 'cigarette paper' is sold compared to how much rolly baccy is sold. (I expect the hoochy-weed smokers use lots)
d) How much environmental damage is done by cigarette butts being thrown out car windows, etc. I've seen stormwater drain entrances into rivers full of butts after a storm.

I'm inclined to think people will still smoke even if fags cost twice as much. I can never understand the attraction, personally.

[Scriptable]

If Congress was serious they would outlaw cigi-butts. Yes, I'm aware of what Prohibition did to alcohol consumption. That does not negate the fact that it should be banned outright to avoid all these needless deaths.
There are often better alternatives to bans. For example, make the price of cigs reflect the true cost that takes into account medical and environment costs. If someone wants to smoke themselves to a slow death, then that's their problem and should be their right as long as they pay for it appropriately.

[Fat Lazy American]

There are often better alternatives to bans. For example, make the price of cigs reflect the true cost that takes into account medical and environment costs. If someone wants to smoke themselves to a slow death, then that's their problem and should be their right as long as they pay for it appropriately.

What medical costs?

I'm doing Medicare a huge favor by smoking. It'll make me die faster and cheaper.

You really think 70-year-olds dying of lung cancer is more expensive to the health care system than 85-year-olds dying of Alzheimer's or strokes or whatever? Pretty much no one dies for free in this system, and early lung cancer is relatively fast and cheap.

Add Social Security to that and the government should probably be buying my cigarettes for me, if we're strictly doing a cost-benefit analysis.

[wagon]

What medical costs?

I'm doing Medicare a huge favor by smoking. It'll make me die faster and cheaper.

You really think 70-year-olds dying of lung cancer is more expensive to the health care system than 85-year-olds dying of Alzheimer's or strokes or whatever? Pretty much no one dies for free in this system, and early lung cancer is relatively fast and cheap.

Add Social Security to that and the government should probably be buying my cigarettes for me, if we're strictly doing a cost-benefit analysis.

What evidence do you have to support this view?

[Fat Lazy American]

What evidence do you have to support this view?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm

Ignoring the studies and data that support my argument, the most telling is the bit at the end.


Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.
"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."


In other words, the CDC knows smoking saves the government money, but won't do calculations because, hey, shooting everyone in the head as soon as they turn 65 would save the government money, too.

And, of course, Dr. Pechacek is correct. That is a train of logic we probably shouldn't board. But I suggest not getting on the train in the first place by accusing smokers of costing money in health care costs.

Obesity, too, saves the government health care and Social Security money.

If you want to argue that longer lives is something that the government should promote, feel free to do so. If you want to argue that the social benefits of having people live until 88 rather than 72 outweigh the extra costs of health care and old age pensions, feel free too. I'm perfectly amenable to that argument.

But if you're just bean counting for the federal government, it's healthy food and exercise that cost the government money.

[wagon]

^^Fair enough. I feel that 20+ years spent coughing and spluttering before you die of lung cancer, etc. should be a factor in not lighting up. And the loss of family members (eg grandparents) is a horrible thing for people to deal with - made worse of they die young(ish) of otherwise preventable causes.

It's a very difficult issue.

[Gleipnir]

Limiting nicotine in cigarettes will also not cause a decline in smoking, but actually the opposite. When they introduced filtered cigarettes in the 1950's as a "safer" way to smoke they found that filtered cigarettes were not significantly less harmful than regular cigarettes but the amount of nicotine intake was reduced causing the smoker to crave a cigarette more often and therefore...to BUY MORE CIGARETTES!
If you really want to prevent and eliminate cigarette smoking, which of course the government does NOT want to do because it generates so much tax revenue, then the logical solution would be to make cigarettes like they did in the good 'ole days, no filter, no menthol, no additives and fillers to mask the harsh taste, just pure natural tobacco. I guarantee that the majority of cigarette smokers today were forced to smoke nothing but all-natural filterless cigarettes they would give up the habit. .

Hold on, just a second.

It is necessary to reduce the levels of nicotine in tobacco for good reason and this can also explain why weaker strains of the Nicotiana plant are used for commercial cigarettes.

Pure, natural tobacco can produce psychoactive effects.
The nicotine alkaloid and its effects, acute nicotine intoxication, can even cause hallucinations.

Shamans in the Amazon use the plant for this purpose and throughout South America you can buy what is called Mapacho.
It is sold as rolled cigarettes and is sometimes called black tobacco. The strain of tobacco used is very high in nicotine. I am not sure exactly how much higher, but the strongest nicotine plant contains something like 26 times higher the amount.

Nicotine is really toxic, so don't get any wise ideas, okay.

[el borracho]

I know about nicotine's effects, and I wasn't referring to "pure tobacco" as some Amazonian super plant. I meant that they should start making cigarettes like they did 70 years ago. Think old school Lucky Strikes. Most people used to smoking Marlboro Ultras or Camel Turkish Silvers wouldn't be able to handle it.

[Gleipnir]

Aaah... okay. Sorry about that el borracho.
Yeah.
Unfiltered cigarettes are still available, but I never see people smoking them. On occasion I would buy unfiltered Camels. My first cigarette was an unfiltered Lucky Strike. My Dad smoked them. A great cigarette! Yeah, I don't think people would be able to handle them. Especially not those who smoke ultralights or cigarettes of this nature.

[el borracho]

Exactly. I used to smoke cigs, but they were unfiltereds. My smoking buddies would be amazed at how a pack would last me a week, when they go through at least a half-pack a day. I told them because I only smoked three cigs a day (one with morning coffee, one after lunch, and one in the evening). When you get the full hit of an unfiltered cig you're not craving another one 30 minutes later.

[Gleipnir]

Yeah, I would agree with that. I smoked unfiltered cigarettes for a time as well and smoked markedly less. When I switched to filtered cigarettes that is when my smoking behaviour evolved to chain smoking, Also there are brands such as Gitanes, which are noticeably strong for a filtered cigarette in comparison to the usual commercial brands.
I also found that filtered cigarettes could have a more chemical taste, more so some brands than others.