Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

[Aesir]

Summery

Article

Congress sent legislation to the White House Friday granting the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate and restrict cigarettes, the single largest cause of preventable death.

It's nice to see congress taking an initiative to save lives especially when it comes to a product that's been known to kill millions each year.

The problems I'm seeing with this bill is it gives more power to the FDA which quite possible is one of the more corrupt agencies within the Federal Government. So would this bill be doing much of anything? Or is congress just giving us a song and dance.

 

[manhunter098]

My friend actually sent me a link about this yesterday.

Article

I am personally opposed to this bill for the reasons stated in the article (its racist, has almost no power over Phillip Morris, the largest tobacco company in America, etc) and the fact that I love my clove cigarettes.

 

[aeghrur]

Wow, seriously? This bill basically wants to give a huge tobacco producing company a monopoly?
I'm all for saving the lives of people, but... not this way. Ban smoking in public areas, that helps things. This? Giving the FDA more power and building a monopoly for a company? No. Does not help. Monopoly for a tobacco company will only make this worse. >_<

 

[Pr0phetic]

This bill looked promising by the title, but then completely fell flat on its face -_-
The large taxes on cigarettes in NYS will do more then this junk, why would they single out such a large company? Fishy...

Wow, seriously? This bill basically wants to give a huge tobacco producing company a monopoly?
I'm all for saving the lives of people, but... not this way. Ban smoking in public areas, that helps things. This? Giving the FDA more power and building a monopoly for a company? No. Does not help. Monopoly for a tobacco company will only make this worse. >_<

^ This, even though they have some bans in public places (bars and restaurants) in different areas.

 

[Darxmarth23]

This is sad.

Well, we know that the government can't do anything to lower tobacco usage.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

hahaha Amsterdam coffee shops!

 

[Amide]

I'm usually opposed to government regulation of industries, but some of this bill looks promising. Requiring disclosing of ingredients and ingredient changes in tobacco products is something that should have been done a long tome ago. Consumers of tobacco products have the right to know what they are smoking. Also, having the tobacco companies show their advertisement records would highlight illegal marketing to teens.

However, it isn't right for the FDA to decide if a product should hit the market, even if it's unhealthy. That's the consumer's decision. It's also not the FDA's job to tell us for the millionth time that smoking is unhealthy. We know that already.

The text of the bill looks good, but if you read between the lines, it gives power to the FDA that could lead to lasting consequences. I would support a different version of the bill.

 

[illinialex24]

Considering they are using the word FDA, I really don't like this. FDA is known to be fairly corrupt and it says explicitly the FDA could not ask for the ban of current products, which isn't exactly that smart.

I like the disclosure of ingredients but only some of it seems to be beneficial. I would prefer, like many others, a modified version.

 

[Narukari]

It seems like a pretty decent bill, just a young one. Has it already been though congress a few times, or is this its first run though the obstacle course?

edit: Looks like its been out for a few months so it's still pretty fresh.

I also think this bill will need modifications before it starts making headway through congress, but I believe it isn't wrong to give some of these powers. We just need to clean up the FDA to get them to enforce the policies in a fair way. It's definitely won't be a simple task, but it has to be done sooner or later.

 

[Aesir]

It seems like a pretty decent bill, just a young one. Has it already been though congress a few times, or is this its first run though the obstacle course?

edit: Looks like its been out for a few months so it's still pretty fresh.

I also think this bill will need modifications before it starts making headway through congress, but I believe it isn't wrong to give some of these powers. We just need to clean up the FDA to get them to enforce the policies in a fair way. It's definitely won't be a simple task, but it has to be done sooner or later.

It's already on Obamas desk...(if he hasn't signed it yet at least.)

So chances are it won't be modified, and the FDA won't be going through that because no one's making it an issue. Tobacco companies will lobby the FDA and give them more laxed treatment.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I think it's fair to say that by now, it's common knowledge that cigarettes are bad for you.

So what is this bill accomplishing? Nothing really, except for a feel-good legislative slam dunk. It's funny that politicians love to attack the cigarette industry, even though the government would probably collapse without the massive amount of money it takes in from sin taxes.

 

[Teran]

This sort of legislation regarding tobacco has been in England for years.
It does absolutely nothing.

Hell, they take off the "Lights" and boys say "Haha it's called Gold now it's not gay to smoke them!". There is nothing to do to stop people from smoking after the cool image and just general attachment to culture it's found.

For more than a decade, Obama said, leaders in Congress have been trying to prevent the marketing of cigarettes to children "and provide the public with the information they need to understand what a dangerous habit this is."

We've had all that Mr Obama, in fact, there is absolutely no form of tobacco marketing at all, yet it's still just as popular. Cool characters in hollywood, celebrities, and just people on the streets market smoking. It can't be stopped.

The FDA would also require tobacco companies to reveal the contents of their products and they'd have to seek approval for marketing new products. It gives the FDA power to order changes to ingredients, including tar and nicotine, to protect public health.

Again, this has been done in England. Now considering most smokers, quite frankly, don't have a clue about the science behind smoking, nor care, this is pointless. "Oh it has 0.6mg of nicotine per cigarette... meaning?"
It doesn't really make a difference if you show the ingredients and the tar/nicotine/monoxide content, because, me, being a smoker, can assure all of you that nobody actually cares.

It bans use of words such as "mild" or "light" that give the impression that the brand is safer. It requires stronger warning labels.

That is pointless. For the first part, mild and light cigarettes ARE milder and lighter. They are designed to have a lower tar/nicotine/monoxide content anyway, so the name mild/light holds true. Although yes, people are probably stupid enough to believe they're actually better for you (which they actually aren't). When you smoke a light, you inhale more deeply and hold it in for longer, which means it's just as bad. Silly smokers.

As for stronger warning labels, that is again, pointless. Recently they've resorted to using horrible images on the packet as a warning label. Rather than be shocked, disgusted, or scared, smokers either ignore it or laugh at it and use it as a trophy for who has the coolest death picture in the immediate circle of company.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6968580.stm

Warning: Those pictures can be rather unsightly in some cases.

To conclude, this whole bill is pointless. Tobacco use will never stop. So, to be savvy, they should at least take a leaf out of Britain's book and charge exorbitant tobacco duty. You can lie to the public and pretend you want them to stop, when they blatantly won't, and also rake in mountains of cash with ridiculous taxes, and laugh at the fact that this won't stop the addicts from rushing to the store and getting their nic fixes. Hell, it would discourage young people from smoking. If there's one obstacle that young people hate the most, it's cost. If you elevate tobacco duty, the kids would think twice before blowing a fortune on deathsticks.

Ethical? Perhaps not, but the government might as well do all it can to raise funds to offset the huge cost of smoking related illnesses, and use the money left over for public spending.

 

[SkylerOcon]

That is pointless. For the first part, mild and light cigarettes ARE milder and lighter. They are designed to have a lower tar/nicotine/monoxide content anyway, so the name mild/light holds true. Although yes, people are probably stupid enough to believe they're actually better for you (which they actually aren't). When you smoke a light, you inhale more deeply and hold it in for longer, which means it's just as bad. Silly smokers.

This is what I wanted to point out. I don't have extensive knowledge of the packaging of cigarettes, so excuse me if this is already on here, but wouldn't it make more sense to put a warning on mild/light cigarettes saying not to inhale excessively deep? It would at least discourage some people from inhaling for longer times, and thus causing light cigarettes to actually be 'better' for you than regular cigarettes.

 

[aeghrur]

I think it's fair to say that by now, it's common knowledge that cigarettes are bad for you.

So what is this bill accomplishing? Nothing really, except for a feel-good legislative slam dunk. It's funny that politicians love to attack the cigarette industry, even though the government would probably collapse without the massive amount of money it takes in from sin taxes.

I'd disagree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17170991/
Notice how it says tobacco taxes add around 13 billion to state budgets and 8.1 billion to national budgets. Okay, so that's around 21.1 billion right?
http://www.coebrownacademy.com/physedPages/HealthNoteSheets/Economics Facts About Smoking.pdf
Now, please take note that it costs the US 167 billion dollars annually. I'd say that's more.
But how much of that is the government losing? After all, that's what you're arguing right? The government gains more than it loses? Well... not exactly since it loses at least somewhere around 70 billion:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf
Which means that just from healthcare costs, the government loses more money than they gain from the taxes on tobacco.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The expansion of SCHIP (the children's health care program) was funded by increasing tobacco taxes. The government definitely gets its money worth.

Here's a great article by George Will about the subject:

http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/06/18/burned_by_a_tobacco_bill

 

[aeghrur]

Can you give me another source for that?
The reason I say this is because it said SCHIP is "supposed" to be financed by the taxes, not that it was.

 

[Jam Stunna]

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1548.cfm

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/01/26/daily81.html

Also, I work at a place that sells tobacco products, and they sent us a worksheet telling us how much the tobacco taxes would increase. It was insane. For rolling tobacco, the tax per unit (I say unit because I can't remember exactly how much they tax by, if it's per pound or some other measurement) increased from $1.50 to $24.00 as part of the SCHIP bill.

 

[aeghrur]

Okay, so Schip is 35 mil, give or take.
Let's say that adds on to the 21 mil from earlier.
It's still less than the medical costs for the government because of smoking.
Nontheless, it's interesting that the government would go this route, and more interesting that people of lower income still smoke so much with the rising tobacco costs.

 

[Teran]

Okay, so Schip is 35 mil, give or take.
Let's say that adds on to the 21 mil from earlier.
It's still less than the medical costs for the government because of smoking.
Nontheless, it's interesting that the government would go this route, and more interesting that people of lower income still smoke so much with the rising tobacco costs.

Your tobacco taxes aren't that high.
In the UK the Government makes an enormous profit, and the cost of looking after smokers isn't really an issue.
The only issue that you find is that they take up a lot of hospital beds. Still, with the amount of money they make, it's perfectly ok.

As for lower income people smoking. Well there are many factors towards that, in essence though, they will continue to smoke regardless because they are addicted. Just like your resident crack addict continues to smoke crack, smokers continue smoking.

I personally think it's great that loads of people smoke, but that's not really very relevant, just a thought.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I personally think it's great that loads of people smoke, but that's not really very relevant, just a thought.

Hmm... I have to ask: why?

 

[Teran]

Hmm... I have to ask: why?

It's totally personal and doesn't require further discussion after this.
I like the fact that people are sending themselves into an early grave by smoking. I like the fact that they are lining the country's pocket.

Also, smoking is totally cool, tastes good, feels good, and is good. Even better is that it just shows one of these silly traits of man that doesn't make sense. The ability to willingly self harm for a short moment of pleasure.

Well, this is not the sort of thing I'd expect to ask in the DH, but you asked so I delievered. If you want to grill me all day about this, I'll be glad to on AIM.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It's totally personal and doesn't require further discussion after this.
I like the fact that people are sending themselves into an early grave by smoking. I like the fact that they are lining the country's pocket.

Also, smoking is totally cool, tastes good, feels good, and is good. Even better is that it just shows one of these silly traits of man that doesn't make sense. The ability to willingly self harm for a short moment of pleasure.

Well, this is not the sort of thing I'd expect to ask in the DH, but you asked so I delievered. If you want to grill me all day about this, I'll be glad to on AIM.

Alright, well if you don't want to talk about it, it's no big deal.


Anyways, as for the topic, hate to sound like a broken record, but I agree that the bill is useless and that the FDA shouldn't be granted that power. I would say something productive but there's no point since everyone agrees.

 

[aeghrur]

Your tobacco taxes aren't that high.
In the UK the Government makes an enormous profit, and the cost of looking after smokers isn't really an issue.
The only issue that you find is that they take up a lot of hospital beds. Still, with the amount of money they make, it's perfectly ok.

Yes, but that's for the UK. As you said, America's tobacco taxes aren't as high, thus we might not make the same profit as the UK. If that was the case, then tobacco will cost America money, economic productivity, AND HOSPITAL BEDS.
That's no good.

 

[Teran]

Yes, but that's for the UK. As you said, America's tobacco taxes aren't as high, thus we might not make the same profit as the UK. If that was the case, then tobacco will cost America money, economic productivity, AND HOSPITAL BEDS.
That's no good.

That's why your taxes should be elevated sky high.
That'll bring in the revenue, don't count on smokers quitting because their cigarettes cost a fortune.

 

[Lythium]

That's why your taxes should be elevated sky high.
That'll bring in the revenue, don't count on smokers quitting because their cigarettes cost a fortune.

Agreed. The Canadian government has upped the tax on tobacco several times, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't decreased the number of smokers. In fact, all it has done is increase cigarette smuggling.

Source.