Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

[kristin]

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

There is no law preventing a tobacco ban anymore than there is a law against banning other harmful drugs. They just won't because it's too important to the economy. On the federal level they'd have to get the states to ratify it just like they had to for Prohibition. tobacco-producing states would never go for it. Neither would states heavily relying on tobacco taxes and the ANTZ who will claim that an outright ban isn't proven to reduce or eliminate smoking. (Ironic that the exact opposite argument is used on another smoked plant.)

However, the FDA is prohibited from regulating nicotine in tobacco to zero.

 

[palmtreevans]

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

I got cuffed and stuffed into the back of a cop car after an officer caught me with a pack of smokes in my pocket...but then again, I was 14 at the time. lol

 

[DC2]

There is no law preventing a tobacco ban anymore than there is a law against banning other harmful drugs.

The lawmakers could ban tobacco, it is the FDA who by law can not.
But the post I was responding to was talking about lawmakers, not the FDA.

So you are of course correct, and I stand corrected.

 

[Petrodus]

There is no law preventing a tobacco ban anymore than there is a law against banning other harmful drugs. They just won't because it's too important to the economy. On the federal level they'd have to get the states to ratify it just like they had to for Prohibition. Tobacco-producing states would never go for it. Neither would states heavily relying on tobacco taxes and the ANTZ who will claim that an outright ban isn't proven to reduce or eliminate smoking. (Ironic that the exact opposite argument is used on another smoked plant.)

However, the FDA is prohibited from regulating nicotine in tobacco to zero.

Focusing back on e-cigarettes ...
That's why the movement around the world is to limit the nicotine level
in e-cigarettes to a point where they are not effective for the average smoker.
For example 4mg. Kill the industry by regulating out the effectiveness.

We all can hope and pray ...
However, there's reasons why we refer to the FDA's pending regulations
as "Deeming Regulations"

It goes without saying ...
Once a Federal Agency starts regulating ... They continue to add more
and more "Deeming Regulations".

Right now ... We don't even know whats on their "Initial" list of deeming regulations.
However, my gut feeling is they were chiseled in stone ... a long time ago.

 

[Insignificance]

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

I think that you misinterpreted what I was saying.....I was pointing out that the legislators should have the guts to openly try to ban tobacco rather than come up with a legislative scheme that disguises their true intent.

What law or provision in the Constitution prohibits tobacco products from being banned?

 

[Tail11]

There is no law preventing a tobacco ban anymore than there is a law against banning other harmful drugs. They just won't because it's too important to the economy. On the federal level they'd have to get the states to ratify it just like they had to for Prohibition. Tobacco-producing states would never go for it. Neither would states heavily relying on tobacco taxes and the ANTZ who will claim that an outright ban isn't proven to reduce or eliminate smoking. (Ironic that the exact opposite argument is used on another smoked plant.)

However, the FDA is prohibited from regulating nicotine in tobacco to zero.

Why is this Kristen? I thought they had enough power to do anything they please.

 

[kristin]

Why is this Kristen? I thought they had enough power to do anything they please.

It was written into the law by Congress. Most likely partly from the tobacco lobby and because they don't want cigarettes made less addicting so much so that states lose tax revenue and BP loses repeat customers trying to quit and new customers battling smokkng-related diseases.

 

[DC2]

Why is this Kristen? I thought they had enough power to do anything they please.

It is part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) which was passed by Congress.
This is the same Act that the FDA is now using in preparation for the "deeming regulations" that will soon be coming to a theater near you.

 

[DC2]

What law or provision in the Constitution prohibits tobacco products from being banned?

I'm not positive where that started, but I am sure it is part of the FSPTCA passed by Congress.
Although I think the inability to ban tobacco products might have been law before that.

Someone here knows the definitive answer to you question, and hopefully it will be provided shortly.

This is definitely something you should read though...
Frequently Asked Questions on the Passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) Updated October, 2010

 

[Insignificance]

I'm not positive where that started, but I am sure it is part of the FSPTCA passed by Congress.
Although I think the inability to ban tobacco products might have been law before that.

Someone here knows the definitive answer to you question, and hopefully it will be provided shortly.

This is definitely something you should read though...
Frequently Asked Questions on the Passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) Updated October, 2010

Thanks for the link...good info on that legislation.

My only point is that I don't think there is case law that would prohibit the government from making tobacco products illegal.......I'm not saying it will ever happen I'm just not sure there is a precedent that could stop them (from trying anyway....legal challenges would, of course, follow).

 

[DC2]

My only point is that I don't think there is case law that would prohibit the government from making tobacco products illegal......

As noted in a previous post, I believe you are right.
My contentions were with regard to the power that the FDA had to regulate or ban cigarettes.

That was my mistake in misunderstanding your comments.


I think the previous legal actions that I was referring to are these...
FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.

But again, that is in regard to the FDA regulating these products, not preventing legislators from passing such bills.

As you can see, however, Congress has consistently denied the FDA attempts to impose their will over tobacco products.
And that does lend credence to what Kristin said earlier about the chances of such a law passing.

 

[Petrodus]

Sometimes ya just have to laugh at government Hypocrisy.
On one hand they demonize tobacco and on the other hand
refuse to ban it due to tax revenues.

 

[Vocalek]

The FSPTCA prohibits the FDA from banning an entire class of tobacco products.

The FSPTCA does not apply to states. States (and even localities) can ban anything they want to ban.