Congress poised to regulate tobacco (next week)

TimesDispatch.com ^ | Feb 9, 2007 | PETER HARDIN

[OKIEDOC]

In my lowly opinion Waxman is just another Kalifornia muck diving Democrat.

He is so short of physical stature that he must exert his rather huge Nancy Peloser ego to the fullest so as to seem like he is one of the fecal good ole boys of the Dimocrat Party.

[SheLion]

Actually, I think this is a bunch of crap.

The states can not balance their budgets without the smoker's tax dollars!  And if the FDA regulates tobacco, they said they would have to ban it because they could not deem it safe!

Whenever there is a state budget deficit, lawmakers tend to look for the quickest way out.

Huge cigarette taxes don't do anything except make pork for politicians. "When you're too spineless to
cut spending, stick it to the smokers and claim it's for their own good!"

They lawmakers say "Group Wants Tax Hike To Reduce Youth and Adult Smoking And To Fund Health Care Coverage."

So, how are they going to reduce teen smoking and fund health care coverage if tobacco is regulated!

They talk out of both sides of their filthy mouths!

[Calpernia]

It is actually the EPA that wants it banned. It violates the 'Clean Air Act'. I think the toss to the FDA is still an attempt to keep the spotlight off the EPA for now. Not everyone realizes all their little games yet.

[SheLion]

Anti-smoking activists say the tax increase -- which will raise an estimated $1 billion in revenues per year -- isn't steep enough. They are vowing to fight for more tax increases this year.

``This will not be the last tax increase,'' said Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids President Matthew Myers.

``The federal government is facing a budget crisis for the first time in several years. A federal tax increase used to fund tobacco prevention or other critical programs would be a very wise strategy,'' Myers said.

Anti-smoking activists say a steep tax increase would raise billions of dollars and make it harder for teen-agers to afford cigarettes. Teens should be prohibited from buying cigarettes. 

Read

[SheLion]

It is actually the EPA that wants it banned. It violates the 'Clean Air Act'. I think the toss to the FDA is still an attempt to keep the spotlight off the EPA for now. Not everyone realizes all their little games yet.

Senators That Voted Yes for Tobacco Bill - State By State

Senate Passes Historic Tobacco Bill

07/15/2004

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate overwhelmingly approved a landmark tobacco deal on Thursday to give the Food and Drug Administration long-sought power to regulate cigarettes and give $12 billion in aid to tobacco farmers.

Though hailed as a breakthrough by public health groups, the measure faces an uncertain future because it was approved as part of a massive corporate tax bill that must still be reconciled with the House of Representative's version. Those talks are expected to be long and complex.

The lopsided 78-15 vote will strengthen the Senate position in those negotiations, and many lawmakers who want greater public health jurisdiction over tobacco were more optimistic than they had been since 1998, when a tobacco bill linked to multibillion-dollar state lawsuits against tobacco companies collapsed.

"This represents a fundamental change and a fundamental step forward," said Matt Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

While the House and Senate have had extensive hearings and probes of Big Tobacco, Myers noted this would be the first time either chamber had passed meaningful regulation of the companies' advertising, marketing, ingredients and safety claims.

The FDA itself tried to assert its authority over tobacco in the 1990s, but the battle went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2000 that the FDA did not have jurisdiction under existing law. This legislation would change the law and grant the agency that explicit power.

Under the proposal, the tobacco industry would finance a $12-billion buyout of Depression-era crop quotas, an arcane price support system that no longer serves farmers' economic interests in an increasingly global market.

Mitch McConnell, who represents the tobacco-growing state of Kentucky and is the number two Republican leader in the Senate, agreed the components of the bill had to be linked if either was to pass.

MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE

"It's not a shotgun wedding, it's a marriage of convenience," said McConnell, lead author of the buyout legislation.

"Yes it's a marriage of convenience, but I believe it's a good marriage," agreed Ohio Republican Mike DeWine, a co-author with Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy of the FDA bill.

"This is the most important step we can take for public health short of curing cancer itself," Kennedy said.

The proposal would give the FDA expanded powers to require more forceful health warnings on cigarette packs, regulate advertising, more aggressively combat underage sales and regulate ingredients to make cigarettes less harmful. It could not ban cigarettes or completely eliminate nicotine.

The major cigarette companies are divided over the measure. The Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, has endorsed it, but R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co on Thursday repeated its "vigorous opposition."

A rival House version of the tobacco measure attached to the corporate tax bill would cost taxpayers -- not the industry -- $9.6 billion, and is not linked to FDA regulation.

Smoking is the top preventable cause of death in the United States, leading to 400,000 deaths a year. Ninety percent of smokers get hooked as children or teen-agers, according to public health groups.

 

U.S. Senators offer bill regulating tobacco by FDA

Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine support this. Both Republicans!

Friday June 14,2002, 3:21 pm Eastern Time -By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON, June 14 - The Food and Drug Administration would regulate tobacco products under legislation introduced on Friday by a bipartisan group of senators looking to stop tobacco advertising aimed at children.

Co-sponsor Sen. Edward Kennedy denied the intent was to ban smoking. "This legislation is about protecting children," the Massachusetts Democrat told a news conference. "There are Americans who are going to smoke, and we understand that."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the FDA had overstepped in authority in 1996 when it issued sweeping regulations for tobacco products.

"This legislation will give FDA the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children," Kennedy said at a news conference along with co-sponsors Sen. Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, and Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat.

Kennedy said the bill closely tracked a 1998 bill that had broad support in the Senate. He expected companion bipartisan legislation to be introduced in the House of Representatives soon, but he declined to name the anticipated sponsors.

The tobacco industry lobby is divided over efforts to legislate FDA authority over their products.

Loews Corp.'s (NYSE:LTR - News) Lorillard Tobacco Co., maker of Newport and Kent cigarettes, quickly issued a statement denouncing the measure as an attempt to ban smoking.

"We interpret this proposed legislation as a thinly-veiled attempt to grant authority to an agency that by the terms of its existing mandate, must find cigarettes are not and can never be made safe and effective, and therefore would have no choice but to eventually ban the product," said Steve Watson, the company's vice president for External Affairs.

But tobacco giant Philip Morris Cos. Inc. (NYSE:MO - News) said it welcomed the Kennedy bill. "Where there are difference, they are in degree only," said Michael Pfeil, public affairs vice president.

Under the bill, the FDA would have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes.

The measure would also provide for stronger warning labels on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and give the FDA the authority to prevent "misrepresentations" of tobacco products.

And it would give the FDA the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification.

The legislation was backed by over two dozen public health groups including the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. They said it was an improvement over earlier proposals that also would have allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco but were "filled with loopholes.". (Washington congressional newsroom, 202-898-8390))

[azhenfud]

You do know tomato plants also have a toxin in them, right?

[SheLion]

Smoke 'em while you got 'em!

I'll "roll em while I got loose tobacco!!"

[Calpernia]

Yes, it is used as a bug repellant.

You do know there is nicotine in them too, right? And artichokes.

[Calpernia]

FDA = fall guy

[SheLion]

Yep, exactly. Tobacco will never be banned because politicians don't have the guts to and the tobacco black market will make the Drug War look tame by comparison.

Huge cigarette taxes don't do anything except make pork for politicians. "When you're too spineless to
cut spending, stick it to the smokers and claim it's for their own good!"

[airborne]

I don't smoke. I think it's a disgusting, smelly habit.

But the government is hypocritical on this, and many, many other subjects.

If tobacco is legal and regulated, so should marijuana be.

[Calpernia]

EnvironNAZIS propaganda is here, see*:

Background on Air Pollution
1. The Clean Air Act

(snip, yada, snip, yada)

3. Major Pollutants
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the principal greenhouse gas emitted as a result of human activity (e.g., burning of coal, oil, and natural gas). If inhaled in high concentrations, CO2 can be toxic and can cause an increase in the breathing rate, unconsciousness, and other serious health problems.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas. After being inhaled, CO molecules can enter the bloodstream where they inhibit the delivery of oxygen throughout the body. Low concentrations can cause dizziness, headaches, and fatigue. High concentrations can be fatal. CO is produced by the incomplete burning of carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, oil, and wood. It is also produced from incomplete combustion of natural and synthetic products, such as *cigarette smoke*. It can build up in high concentrations in enclosed areas such as garages, poorly ventilated tunnels, and even along roadsides in heavy traffic.

(snip, yada, snip, yada)

And be careful, the epa has the power to take us all away:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:\+42USC7603

Environmental Emergency Powers:

Excerpt:

the Administrator, upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or combination of sources (including moving sources) is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment, may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate United States district court to immediately restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the emission of air pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to take such other action as may be necessary.

/excerpt

[SheLion]

This will certainly lead to the eventual end of tobacco products. I'd be willing to bet there will be over 60 votes and it would even survive a veto.

Tobacco is the modern day legislator's favorite 'whooping boy', except for legislators from North Carolina and Virginia.

Then where is the billions of tax dollars going to come from???

This will certainly lead to the eventual end of tobacco products. I'd be willing to bet there will be over 60 votes and it would even survive a veto.

Tobacco is the modern day legislator's favorite 'whooping boy', except for legislators from North Carolina and Virginia.

Then where is the billions of tax dollars going to come from???

[SheLion]

In fact, nicotine sulfate is listed among the deadliest of poisons.

So is food...........

Dining-room tables laden with a tempting array of mouthwatering, delicious, seasonal chemicals.

Chemicals? Yes.

We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being "all-natural" and "purely organic." Poultry sections offer fryers from "happy, free range chickens." "Chemical-free" cuisine is in.

So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natu- ral holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins (poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can't pronounce the names.

Assume you start with an appetizer, then move on to a medley of crispy, natural vegetables, and proceed to a traditional stuffed bird with all the trimmings, washing it down with libations of the season, and topping it all off with some homemade pastries.

You will thus have consumed holiday helpings of various "carcinogens" (defined here as a substance that at high dose causes cancer in laboratory animals), including:

* hydrazines (mushroom soup);

* aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens (your fresh vegetable salad),

* heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing);

* benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);

* furfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (broccoli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);

* coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);

* ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).

Then sit back and relax with some benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, l,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthra- cene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).

And those, all produced courtesy of Mother Nature, are only the carcinogens you just scarfed down. Your l00-percent natural holiday meal is also replete with toxins - popularly known as "poisons." These include the solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes; the hydrogen cyanide in lima beans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.

Now here is the good news: these foods are safe.

Four observations are relevant here:

* When it comes to toxins, only the dose makes the poison. Some chemicals, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic, are potentially hazardous at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed at low doses like the trace amounts found in our foods.

* While you probably associate the word "carcinogen" with nasty-sounding synthetic chemicals like PCBs and dioxin, the reality is that the more we test naturally occurring chemicals, the more we find that they, too, cause cancer in lab animals.

* The increasing body of evidence documenting the carcinogenicity (in the lab) of common substances found in nature highlights the contradiction we Americans have created up to now in our regulatory approach to carcinogens: trying to purge our nation of synthetic carcinogens, while turning a blind eye to the omnipresence of natural "carcinogens."

* While animal testing is an essential part of biomedical research, so is commonsense. A rodent is not a little man. There is no scientific foundation to the assumption that if high-dose exposure to a chemical causes cancer in a rat or mouse, then a trace level of it must pose a human cancer risk.

If we took a precautionary approach with all chemicals and assumed that a rodent carcinogen might pose a human cancer risk ("so let's ban it just in case"), we'd have very little left to eat. (A radical solution to our nation's obesity problem!)

The reality is that these trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in food or the environment pose no known human health hazard at all - let alone a risk of cancer.

So the next time you hear a self-appointed "consumer advocate" fret about the man-made "carcinogen du jour" and demand the government step in and "protect" us - remember, you just ingested a meal full of natural carcinogens without a care in the world and with no risk to your health.

Pass the methyl eugenol! Bon Appetit!

Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health

[gidget7]

Make that a murdering alcoholic who is senile to boot!

[SheLion]

The FDA regulates foods, drugs, and cosmetics. Tobacco is none of these. So why ask the FDA boobocracy to regulate it? (They don't exactly do a stellar job with the food and drug stuff.)

The FDA said that if they had to regulate tobacco, they would have to ban it, because they could not deem it safe!

[gidget7]

While I agree with you on some levels, some of those who push the anti smoking legislation ARE Republicans! Huckabee for one. He is a reformed smoker, and a reformed eater. Now he is on the bandwagon to regulate both in the general public.

[SheLion]

Tobacco "kills over 400,000 Americans every year. Yet it is one of the least regulated of all consumer products," wrote Waxman and Davis

 The Detroit News
October 18, 1992
by Nickie McWhirter 

Computer blows out smoking-related death figures with no real human facts. 

I recently read that 435,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related illnesses. That sounds like a rock-hard, irrefutable fact, and pretty scary. How are such statistics determined? I phoned the American Lung Association's
Southfield office to find out. 

No one there seemed to know. However, a friendly voice said most such number[s] come from the National Center for Health Statistics. That's a branch of the National Centers for Disease Control. The friendly voice provided a phone number in New York City. 

Wrong number. The New York office collects only morbidity data, I was told. I needed mortality data. I was given another phone number to try. Wrong again. 

Several bureaucratically misdirected calls later, I spoke with someone in Statistical Resources at NCHS. He said his office collect mortality data based on death certificates. Progress! Data is categorized by race, sex, age,geographic location, he said, but not smoking. Never. No progress. 

He suggested I phone the Office of Smoking and Health, Rockville, Md., and provided a number. That phone had been disconnected. Was I discouraged? No! Ultimately, and several unfruitful phone calls later, I found a government 
information operator in Washington, D.C., with a relatively new phone directory and a helpful attitude. She found a listing for the elusive Office of Smoking and Health, in Atlanta. 

Bingo! Noel Barith, public information officer, said the 435,000 figure probably came from its computers. S&H generates lots of statistics concerning "smoking-related" stuff, he said. It's all done using a formula programmed into the computers. Really? Since I had already determined that no lifestyle data on individual patients and their medical histories is ever collected, how can the computer possibly decide deaths are smoking related? Barith didn't know. Maybe the person who devised this computer program knows. Barith promised to have a computer expert to return my call. 

The next day, SAMMEC Operations Manager, Richard Lawton, phoned. SAMMEC, I learned, is the name of the computer program. Its initials stand for Smoking Attributed Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost. The computer is fed raw
data and SAMMEC employs various complex mathematical formulas to determine how many people in various age groups, locations, and heaven knows what other categories are likely to get sick or die from what diseases and how many of these can be assumed to be smoking related. 

Assumed? This is all guess work? Sort of. Lawto  confirmed that no real people, living or dead, are studied, no doctors consulted, no environmental factors considered. 

Lawton was absolutely lyrical about SAMMEC and its capabilities, however, provided one can feed it the appropriate SAFs. What are SAFs? "That's the smoking attributable fraction for each disease or group of people studied,"
he said. 

It sounded like handicapping horses. Lawton began to explain how to arrive at an SAF, using an equation that reminded me a lot of Miss Foster's algebra class. 

"Wait a minute!" I commanded. "I don't need to know that. I need to know if the SAFs and all the rest of this procedure and program yield valid, factual information.To know that we must know if sometime, somewhere, some human
being or human beings actually looked at records of other human beings, smokers and nonsmokers, talked to their doctors, gathered enough information from reality to begin to devise a mathematical formula that might be applied
to large groups of people much later, without ever needing to study those people, and could be expected to yield true facts within a reasonable margin of error? Who did that? Can you tell me, Mr. SAMMEC expert?" 

Nice guy, Lawton, but he didn't have a clue. He said he thought the original work concerning real people, their deaths and evidence of smoking involvement was part of work done by a couple of epidemiologists, A.M. and D.E. Lilienfeld. It's all in a book titled Foundations of Epidemiology, published about 1980 by Oxford University Press, he said. SAMMEC came later, based on the Lilienfeld's work. Maybe. He wasn't sure. 

I was unable to find the book, or the Lilienfelds. 

So there you have it. Research shall continue, but so far it has only revealed that no one churning out statistics knows anything about smoking and its relationship, if any, to diseases and death. A computer knows everything, based on mystical formulas of unknown origin, context and reliability. Raw data in, startling statistics out. SAMMEC speaks, truth is revealed! Oh, brave new world. 

Are there 435,000 smoking-related deaths per year in America? Maybe. I can tell you this with absolute certainty, however: No human beings are ever studied to find out.
 

[SheLion]

In fact, nicotine sulfate is listed among the deadliest of poisons.

http://scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/hazard-indicators.tcl?edf_substance_id=65%2d30%2d5

Your Score Board is bogus.  They don't even say who wrote this.  So...............anyone could have put this on the Internet.  Heck,  YOU could have posted this!  LOL

[SheLion]

If tobacco is legal and regulated, so should marijuana be.

One difference...................tobacco is legal.