Former FDA Commish has a Cigarette Plan

[rothenbj]

washingtonpost.com

David A. Kessler, a former FDA commissioner, said Wednesday that the agency's efforts to date are laudable but "marginal" compared with what the agency has the legal authority to do -- reduce nicotine levels to the point where a smoker no longer craves cigarettes.
"If you do this, you can save 200,000 to 300,000 lives a year," Kessler said. "Everything else pales in comparison."

Now am I getting senile or do I have the onset of halfheimer's disease? Didn't they tell me years ago that the low tar and nicotine cigarettes were a myth? Didn't they tell me that rather than being healthier they were more dangerous because they would cause me to smoke more frequently and inhale deeper? What would this policy lead to?

I can just hear it now. "Yup, I (cough, hack, cough) used to (coughing jag) smoke two packs a day (2 minutes to catch breath), but these (cough, cough) new, guberment regu (cough, cough, cough) regulated cigarettes (break to catch breath) got me up to a carton and a half a day (coughing jag)....

I swear they make this stuff up as they go along.

 

[Thyestean]

Gotta love backwards logic.

 

[Brewster 59]

oooh their logic is sound, if each cig has less nic you have to smoke more. The more you smoke the more tax revenue for them. The problem is their has to be a point where smokers wont be able to afford their habit.

 

[D103]

There will never be a point where smokers cannot afford their habit - this is the very nature of addiction. As the state imposed costs continue to become overly oppresive more and more blackmarket cigarettes are sold and the entire 'underground' grows. Complete "control behavior" is futile and destructive and only fuels pathological thinking while financially lining the pockets of those fueling the illusions.

 

[Windsage]

This is actually the perfect solution as far as the FDA and their supporters are concerned. You can still smoke, but you have to buy patches from pharmaceutical companies for the nicotine.

 

[CaptJay]

Because Big tobacco with their billions of dollars in possible lobbying funds (and political campiagn funds of course) would let them get away with that..yup...

 

[jj2]

Well it does have a like button. My question is, why is there never a DISlike button?

 

[PaulB]

Good grief! If anything, there's a stronger argument to be made for banning filtered cigarettes altogether, don't you think?

 

[rothenbj]

This is actually the perfect solution as far as the FDA and their supporters are concerned. You can still smoke, but you have to buy patches from pharmaceutical companies for the nicotine.

That sounds like a plan. Ban e cigs, use the batch to increase nic level (benefit BF), take Chantix for those needing addirional anti-depression support (benefit BF) and sell more cigarettes to people trying to get enough nicotine (benefit BT, "health" associations, medical providers and funeral directors and of course gubermint).

Looks like everyone wins. Wait, I think I missed someone.....

 

[TropicalBob]

Anyone who attempts to discredit Kessler for having a "money" motive doesn't know this ex-FDA commissoner and long-time foe of cigarette smoking.

FACT: The FDA does not care about tax revenues! That's not its job. It never has cared. Never will care. Kessler is dead serious with his proposal, for the stated reason of saving lives. Is he misdirected? Absolutely. But we need to stop seeing dollar sign motivation behind every proposal to limit or snuff out smoking.

Many foes mean well but are misinformed. Kessler means well ... and is informed. He's a man still to be reckoned with.

 

[rothenbj]

Anyone who attempts to discredit Kessler for having a "money" motive doesn't know this ex-FDA commissoner and long-time foe of cigarette smoking.

FACT: The FDA does not care about tax revenues! That's not its job. It never has cared. Never will care. Kessler is dead serious with his proposal, for the stated reason of saving lives. Is he misdirected? Absolutely. But we need to stop seeing dollar sign motivation behind every proposal to limit or snuff out smoking.

Many foes mean well but are misinformed. Kessler means well ... and is informed. He's a man still to be reckoned with.

Not to disagree with (which I certainly don't as far as Kesslers position on tobacco) but the FDA has a history of "partnering" with BP. To a large part they have interchangeable parts in their history. In addition the FDA is funded by our money, be it actual tax dollars or the premium placed on BP products to finance drug approval.

 

[TropicalBob]

The FDA is and has been too cozy with Big Pharmaceutical, the industry it regulates. That seems to be the case with almost any federal regulatory agency you can name. But cozy and taxation are not hand-in-glove here. The FDA is not a taxing agency. It gets funding from tax dollars, of course, but has no say in whether tobacco taxes go up or down. So that's a dead dog to chase.

The part I object to in this thread is seeing the FDA "wanting" to tax something. That simply is not based in any fact. And Kessler is a pit bull on tobacco. He was the FDA commissioner who sought to regulate Big Tobacco, a move that led to the landmark lawsuit saying the FDA did not have authority to regulate tobacco -- unless and until Congress granted it that authority.

That is exactly what Congress did last year.

The FDA now holds the whip over tobacco. It can regulate nicotine, all chemical contents, required warnings on products. The only thing it explicitly cannot do is ban nicotine from tobacco products. But it can regulate it down to a "non-addictive" levels -- and that is exactly what I see it doing over the next few years. For every tobacco product, including smokeless.

It will also do all in its power to mandate that any product containing a specific amount of nicotine (NOT FOOD!) is a drug product, requiring full clinical trials and FDA approval before being allowed on the market. That's where our products face the ax.

 

[PVPuff&Stuff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I see the new trend emerging.

They're going to keep lowering the nicotine content in cigarettes in an attempt to break the addiction cycle. Everything else stays in there....so people will be sucking the coffin nails down left and right trying to get their nicotine hit. All they're going to be getting is the same huge dose of cancer causing chemicals.

There's a good idea.

I swear...after being elected, they should be required helmets.

 

[harmony gardens]

If you're really going to stick with tobacco, rolling your own is the best way to go. There are some good blends available. It doesn't beat the tax, but it beats the manipulative stuff that the cigarette companies are doing. There should be a distinction between a cigarette company and a tobacco company, but in the case of the big ones, they are the same.

 

[CJsKee]

From the article:
"While the new law prevents the FDA from banning cigarettes or reducing nicotine levels to zero, it does permit the agency to lower levels of the drug. The amount of nicotine in a cigarette should drop from about 10 milligrams to less than 1 milligram, Kessler said."

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no cigarette on the market that contains 10 mg of nicotine! I think most are even less than 1 mg. Does Kessler not know what he is talking about? I bet he does. And exactly what level of nicotine is not addictive? Do we know that?

Fools....

 

[yvilla]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no cigarette on the market that contains 10 mg of nicotine! I think most are even less than 1 mg.

I think the issue is that you are thinking about the amount of nicotine typically absorbed when smoking a cigarette, whereas he is referring to the amount of nicotine typically contained in a cigarette. Two different things.

 

[CJsKee]

Ahhh...so what's advertised is the amount absorbed rather than what's actually in the cig? I didn't know that...just assumed it was the actual amount.

None the less...still fools

 

[Captu4ik]

The idea of reducing nicotine has been debated for some time in public-health circles, with some arguing that it would create a black market for full-strength cigarettes, while others believe it might actually increase smoking as smokers puff away to absorb enough nicotine to feed their addiction.

At least someone was thinking things through ...

 

[Windsage]

The FDA is and has been too cozy with Big Pharmaceutical, the industry it regulates. That seems to be the case with almost any federal regulatory agency you can name. But cozy and taxation are not hand-in-glove here. The FDA is not a taxing agency. It gets funding from tax dollars, of course, but has no say in whether tobacco taxes go up or down. So that's a dead dog to chase.

The part I object to in this thread is seeing the FDA "wanting" to tax something. That simply is not based in any fact. And Kessler is a pit bull on tobacco. He was the FDA commissioner who sought to regulate Big Tobacco, a move that led to the landmark lawsuit saying the FDA did not have authority to regulate tobacco -- unless and until Congress granted it that authority.

While I agree generally with your sentiments, this part of your post is misleading. Many people believe the FDA is funded by the Government and it was originally, but not anymore. This changed in 1992. The majority of the FDA budget is now paid for by "User Fees". These are fees paid by those that are regulated by the FDA for the costs of the FDA to research their new drugs and other products. People like Pfizer, Merck and anyone else who wants to market "drugs".

Yes, Kessler has always been very anti-smoking, but he also filled that suit to consider cigs a drug AFTER the laws changed so that regulation meant funding. If you really look at it, the FDA's big push to suddenly make everything drugs came after this change in their source of funding.

So basically the present funding source for the FDA is set up very similar to the Minerals Management Office that regulated the BP deep water wells.

 

[yvilla]

None the less...still fools

On that point, you're 100%!