It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Historic anti-smoking vote to give FDA new power

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Historic anti-smoking vote to give FDA new power


hosted.ap.org

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress struck the government's strongest anti-smoking blow in decades Thursday with a Senate vote to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in cigarettes, drastically curtail ads and ban candied tobacco products aimed at young people.

Cigarette foes say the changes could cut into the 400,000 deaths every year caused by smoking and reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
There you have folks, more tampering with the little guys. What so many do not understand is that laws that regulate alcohol and tobacco mostly affect middle and lower class people.

One by one they are taking away our free choice and permanently making their ideas our lifesyle. Before to long they will start regulating showers and toilet flushes.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Well that is one down, the government is now telling us what kind of cigarettes we can smoke.

Talk about having to be rich if you don't want to live a government approved lifestyle.

This is going to kill the tobacco farms in NC. I wonder what the price jump is going to be in the next few months.

I need to stop smoking anyway, not that I think this legislation is right, but I'll turn the lemons into lemonade this go around.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
They'll let the oil industry rape over the American people while posting record breaking profits, but they're protecting us from a non-necessity industry like tobacco.

Makes sense.




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Here we go sheeple. Today is tobacco, tomorrow will something you enjoy like twinkies, candy, cookies, soda or anything else the oppressive government thinks is bad for you.

I would really be on the lookout for food restrictions since the government has their eye on national healthcare.

Anyway, this tobacco regulation is outrageous. Why do we Americans remain like a limp noodle, myself included, while our government takes over, nationalizes and ruins our entire country.

This current administration and government is out of control and needs to be stopped immediately. I don't know how to do this until at least the elections next year.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


As a smoker, I have nothing against the bill really. Cigarette companies put too much crap in cigs anyway and seeing cig ads is not the reason I started smoking in the first place. I do think it's complete bs that smokers have to pay an insane amount of taxes on smokes. That's one reason I switched to smoking Indian cigs - supposedly they're all natural and they actually taste pretty good for a cig. I used to smoke Marlboro reds for 20 years until the taxes went crazy. I have no intention of quitting smoking, it's my choice and the fed govt need to focus on other issues - let's tax fat people for being fat next, let's see how they react.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Doesn't this sound fantastic? ONLY if your stupid enough to believe what this is about. They are going to limit the nicotine in each cigarette. Wow, healthy thoughts, healthy thoughts...They are loosing tax revenue folks. This is nothing but 'SMOKE and MIRRORS" and a joke on smokers. They will now have to buy more to get the same nicotine content at a higher price to raise the tax revenue the feds are loosing because of people stopping and not wanting to pay all the extra taxes they have put on each pack! I'm not a smoker but I know a red herring when I see it and this one is huge!!

Zindo



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Hmm can we say tobacco lobbyists. I reall do wonder how far they are stuck in all of this. If they lobbyists backed the bill then you know that it is a definate conspiracy for profit by big tobacco.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


I dunno. Lung cancer is one of the most common forms of lethal cancer around. I wonder how many of these Senate folks have lost someone they cared about due to lung cancer and are driven by that to empower bills like these?

I'm conflicted. I've no love for the cigarette industry, period. They are the most disgusting, inhuman, uncaring monsters to have ever sought existence on this planet. They produce poison. They engineer it so that it's not only addictive, it's mega-addictive and then they charge for their product. They know their product kills, they know lung cancer is a horrible way to die and yet they go right on profiting by it, pack by pack, stick by stick, day and night. Disgusting vermin that they are, the cigarette industry.

At the same time I don't believe in curtailing our citizens' right to choose. In this case, however, it looks like the FDA will be requiring the tobacco industry to reduce the amounts of certain chemicals, namely nicotine, that go into their products. That's not limiting your choices as consumers. But I can see the point of those who might think they are doing this to make consumers buy more to maintain their addiction level.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Well said and that's exactly what the plan is. I would never buy a pack of smokes in the states and grace those jerks with more tax dollars. Nope, I'd just as soon smoke chicken s**t or quit first.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jitombe
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


As a smoker, I have nothing against the bill really. Cigarette companies put too much crap in cigs anyway and seeing cig ads is not the reason I started smoking in the first place. I do think it's complete bs that smokers have to pay an insane amount of taxes on smokes. That's one reason I switched to smoking Indian cigs - supposedly they're all natural and they actually taste pretty good for a cig. I used to smoke Marlboro reds for 20 years until the taxes went crazy. I have no intention of quitting smoking, it's my choice and the fed govt need to focus on other issues - let's tax fat people for being fat next, let's see how they react.


good luck getting those Indian cigs soon, since the FDA will ban Indians from making them.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
my question is, why is the government all of a sudden worried about
people smoking? all of a sudden they are pushing non- smoking buildings
and restaurants, etc. Im not a smoker but this all seems a little strange to
me, anyone else feel that way?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


So the government making a move to limit the sale (and their intake of tax dollars from sale of said product) of a proven dangerous substance is being labeled as a restriction of personal freedom? I know the big picture money being saved in health bills outweighs the tax income but still, how can you possibly view this as a hostile act? Selling these products that are known to cause disease and death is the worst form of capitalism there is.

No one has had polio in the past 50 years but vaccines are evil while several thousand people die every month from lung and other cancers (some due to second hand exposure) but tobacco products are ok and any attempt to regulate them is just big government flexing its muscles?

What would be wrong with a country regulating itself so that only healthy food is available for consumers? In what twisted logic would that be a squandering of human rights? I understand personal responsibility comes into play at some point but still, in the land of the 7x t-shirt (in no way is it excusable for someone to be bigger than an nfl lineman) where medical care is provided and paid for by the responsible, something has to be done. Without junk food, there'd be more healthy food to go around for everybody and less hungry people. There'd be more healthy food for all which saves everyone a lot of money and hardship. Name any legitimate downside.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Welcome to the nanny state. We are allowed to do only what we are told.

I guess we can just stick with the healthy things like, Factories, oil refineries, chemical plants, car exhaust, plastic bottles, preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, untested pharmaceuticals, alcohol, antibiotic enhanced meats, genetically engineered foods... should I go on?

Oh wait everything will be banned soon so we won't even have to worry about it. Thank god we have these brilliant minds making laws so we don't have choose how to live our lives. I hope they will tell me when to sleep and eat now, it would make it easier for me not to get into trouble.

Just wait all you "anti-smoking" advocates. They will soon take something from you and i hope and pray that you remember this when you start complaining because i will not be listening.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by dantrav]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dantrav
 


They have to use those to compete with other foreign and domestic "capitalists" that aren't held down by things like "morals" or "integrity". Who cares if their working environment is below human standards and they have no health care for their effort, they make things that are 10 cents cheaper.

Now america could just move on and sell products at what they should cost, but the american consumer would rather save the 10 cents on the toy with the lead paint. So inorder to compete with cost, quality has to be sacrificed and everyone has no one to blame except themselves. When you buy the cheaper foreign import, you support the sweat shop and the cheaper product no matter the real price that is being paid for it.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Eitimzevinten
 


You have addressed an issue our government should be concerned about, unlike the asinine law they signed today. They could say F the WTO and that would be fixed but that is for another thread.

Instead our law makers are concerned over how cigarettes taste.

It isn't even about smoking it is the fact that i am being told i can no longer do something that i choose to do. I know it is slowly killing me, but i obviously don't care or i would have stopped already. I am glad that someone is telling people the dangers, but that does not give them the right to say it is too bad for you. I am not 12 years old and the federal government is not my father.

Yeah they are really concerned about teenagers... If i had to guess, more teenagers binge drink than smoke. I'm not saying they should do the same thing they did today, but you don't see them talking about how different beers taste, except when drinking them on their charter jets.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dantrav
 


You should only be allowed to do what you want to do until it starts effecting others negatively (on the list of things that actually do this, smoking is near the bottom).

If they lower the amount of nicotine, it will reduce how addictive it is for the next generation of smokers. The money factor is what actually got all my relatives to quit and this was back when cigarettes first went over $5. Of course one of them quit smoking just long enough so that when they were breathing their last breathes from cancer they didn't weeze.

Have people been taught that doing something that hurts themself is a right and anything being done to counter it and perhaps encourage a healthy lifestyle is an act of facism? There is your behavior conspiracy.

There are many other problems but we don't have representatives that address problems that don't also get them paid by somebody. We need an anti-lobbying law that makes it illegal to accept any money from a lobbying party and people who are members of congress should have to keep down normal jobs. People elected to serve the people should not make more than the people who elected them.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Eitimzevinten
 


Your premise on addiction is incorrect. The amount of nicotine inhaled is not what consitutes your addiction quotient, its how long you smoke. As your tolerence and addiction increases you need more to fullfill the need. Reduce the amount in the vessel that gives you that nicotine and you will eventually still have the same addictive need. Hence, you increase the amount you intake. Kids will still become addicted and it won't make any difference in how much the government allows in the cigerette in the first place! It's just a bait and switch maneuver!
Zindo



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by theuhstuf
 


"good luck getting those Indian cigs soon, since the FDA will ban Indians from making them."

The fda is not going to ban Indians from making cigs. Doing that will really tick off many people as it should. Even talking about it is offensive for so many reasons.

I know that smoking is bad for you and so on but I guess I don't care. I am going to continue smoking, the second hand smoke issue is a topic for some other thread. Like I said before, lets tax fat people for being fat next. Maybe we should tell gun owners they have to give up their guns or pay extra insane taxes on every firearm they own. Why not tax gay people for being gay. I am still for the bill. There is too much crap that the major cig companies put into their product. I now prefer the Indian cigs and am not even considering switching back until the taxes are removed.

Are we looking to have an all vegetarian population that has daily enemas and will live to be 100+ years old? More power to those out there who want to live that type of lifestyle. I'm not one of them and it's complete bs that I should have to pay ridiculous taxes on cigs. Can't wait for the govt to implement a 200% tax increase on alcohol products. That is going to go over great.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Here is another thread I posted going over the highlights of the legislation. In my opinion it is rediculous.

ATS Thread: Main provisions of FDA tobacco legislation



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join