Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

[pkj]

Found while rambling through a couple online news sources this evening.

Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only - KPTV - FOX 12
This link has a video as well as a written report.

Posted: Jan 23, 2013 3:52 PMUpdated: Jan 23, 2013 8:50 PM

SALEM, OR (KPTV) -If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.
Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both.

Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.

"The State Board of Pharmacy may adopt rules placing requirements and limitations on the sale or transfer of products containing nicotine," the bill's text says

"I think it's pretty crazy," said Juan Silva of Salem. "I don't see it going through. It's going to be something to watch for, but I don't think it'll pass."
Others see the proposal differently.
"I hope it passes and I hope people actually think about it," said Rick Cannon of Salem. "You know there's less and less smokers everyday because they know how bad it is for them, so I just hope people wake up and realize how bad it actually is for them."
Greenlick also made headlines this week by suggesting a state committee look into the hiring procedure used by the University of Oregon when it named Mark Helfrich the new Ducks head coach.

 

[Neloish]

Not going to happen, because of taxes.

 

[Insignificance]

Can you imagine facing jail time for being caught with a pack of smokes in your pocket? Talk about crazy.

 

[Yokymo]

LOL.. yea.. thats just crazy talk... with taxes and the amount of money Big tobacco give the government it will never fly. And seriously what Dr would prescribe you a pack of smokes?? LOL

 

[Fiamma]

This affects not only smokers but e cigs.

"The State Board of Pharmacy may adopt rules placing requirements and limitations on the sale or transfer of products containing nicotine," the bill's text says

Kristin made a valid point about watching bills aimed at smokers. First them then us or all of us in one fell swoop. Worth watching and writing letters IMHO. A restriction on the sale or transfer of products containing nicotine affects vapers too.

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Directs State Board of Pharmacy to adopt rules making nicotine
Schedule III controlled substance. Provides for phase-in of
penalties by board.

Creates crime of unlawful possession of nicotine, effective
until rules adopted. Punishes by maximum of one year's
imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.

Creates crime of unlawful distribution of nicotine, effective
until rules adopted. Punishes by maximum of one year's
imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both.

 

[Petrodus]

They can NOT ban tobacco or e-cigarettes.
However
I suggest the FDA has already decided to regulate the
amount of nicotine in tobacco products including e-cigarettes.

 

[Yokymo]

Let the gov't put big tobacco out of business, and then they will see more unemployment and they will just screw themselve. I guess less money will be given to politician from Big tobacco

 

[Fiamma]

LOL.. yea.. thats just crazy talk... with taxes and the amount of money Big Tobacco give the government it will never fly. And seriously what Dr would prescribe you a pack of smokes?? LOL

I believe that's one aim of the proposed law, finding a Dr to prescribe cigarettes might be difficult. I no longer smoke cigarettes, but I do vape. And this law is aimed squarely at cutting vapers and smokers off nicotine by making it a Schedule III controlled substance.

Wasn't it Australia where they made nicotine a part of the poisons list and banned it based on that?

 

[Petrodus]

The FDA will do as they please

 

[DC2]

The FDA will do as they please

Except when they are defeated in court.
Which we have already done once.

 

[DC2]

Wow! This obviously won't be passing at this time, and it is probably just grandstanding.
But what is grandstanding today is tomorrow's new legislation if we all keep quiet.

This is a slowly growing encroachment on our ability to use nicotine.
Once upon a time it was no smoking indoors, now it is no smoking in parks, on beaches, and even on public streets in some cases.

If there was ever a call for vapers to wake up and smell the coffee, this is it.
The freaking ANTZ are getting bolder every day, and they won't stop until we stop them.

As a community, we better wake up and realize where things are heading.

If you like your nicotine as much as THEY like their coffee, then understand the hypocrisy.
And understand who is trying to do this to you, and why.

If you need answers to the above questions, just ask, because the answers are easy to provide.

Education is the key, and action on our part is the ONLY way.
So if you aren't sure, just ask what you can do, because that answer is easy to provide as well.

 

[Thompson]

Absurd. Completely and totally absurd.

The hell is happening to freedom?

While I don't choose to smoke, many people do and that is their right.

 

[kristin]

Greenlick has been proposing this for some time: Prescription-only nicotine presented in bill | City Region | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon (from 2009, but also proposed in 2011.) Note the last line in the article:

The measure would cost the state millions in tobacco revenues.

He's admitted publicly that he knows it will never pass.

 

[Insignificance]

The more I think about this it becomes clear that this is just a way to ban cigarettes completely. What doctor in his or her right mind is going to write prescriptions for cigarettes? The liability they would expose themselves to alone would have every doctor in the state balk at the request and doctors would just tell people to pick up a box of patches or gum.

These legislators should just have the guts to try to ban all tobacco products.

 

[DC2]

Greenlick has been proposing this for some time: Prescription-only nicotine presented in bill | City Region | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon (from 2009, but also proposed in 2011.) Note the last line in the article: He's admitted publicly that he knows it will never pass.

While I agree, see my post two above yours.

This might be a good tool to use to help wake up the vaping community.
The slippery slope is getting steeper every day.

 

[Insignificance]

Greenlick has been proposing this for some time: Prescription-only nicotine presented in bill | City Region | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon (from 2009, but also proposed in 2011.) Note the last line in the article: He's admitted publicly that he knows it will never pass.

I really missed my calling in life. Being an elected representative is a great job - you can spend weeks working on something that you are confident will never become law and you get paid to do it.

 

[kristin]

These legislators should just have the guts to try to ban all tobacco products.

They won't. The ANTZ will lobby against a complete ban the same way they did in North Dakota in 2003: NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House

anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding forthese groups for tobacco control programs.

 

[DC2]

These legislators should just have the guts to ban all tobacco products.

That comment misses the mark for a number of reasons...

1) Banning all tobacco products is not legal so they can't even if they wanted to
2) Even if they could ban them, that is just giving Big Pharma everything they have ever wanted
2) These legislators should just stay out of our business

 

[kristin]

While I agree, see my post two above yours.

This might be a good tool to use to help wake up the vaping community.
The slippery slope is getting steeper every day.

I see where you're going with that, but anything that will actually ban or prevent the sale of cigarettes will never pass. (They SAY that increased taxes reduce sales, but they know that is a lie.) There's just too much tax revenue to lose. He's tried this 2 other times now and it didn't even get past the House. It's 100% grandstanding and I really cannot see something like this ever passing regarding tobacco products. Insignificance made another great point about how doctors will never agree to prescribe cigarettes or tobacco. Aside from the fact that BP lobbied heavily to have NRT not require a prescription and this would set them back considerably.

 

[jwhorner6]

Only in America would a state put it to a vote to try and legalize pot and a month down the road try to criminalize nicotine.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2