Senate passes most sweeping tobacco control bill - today 6/11

[MiloB]

It happened everyone. Better order up your supplies, as the article mentions that even cigarettes labelled low tar, light and ultra light may be pulled of the market. I believe they have a line about nicotine delivery systems there too along with the nicotine. Haven't read entire article yet. Wanted to post for all.

I tried to post the url, but I don't qualify yet. I'm a few posts off. The article showed up in USA TODAY about 1 and 30 mins. ago. Could a moderator or senior member please post it. Thanks.

Just put in a 110 ml order of juice from best e-cig today. I'll be good for a while.

Good Night and Good Luck.

Milo

 

[boxhead]

here is one...
No smoking: Historic vote could bring new limits - Yahoo! News

 

[Vocalek]

"The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes."

*Duh* These yahoos believe that if they lower the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes that people will quit smoking them.

Research shows that nicotine intake is "self-regulating". Given cigarettes with less nicotine, smokers either draw harder or smoke more cigarettes to get their blood levels up to what is needed for them to feel normal.

Guess what either one of these alternatives does to your lungs.

That would explain how I went from 1 pack a day to 2-1/2 packs back in the 80s...I switched to the "healthier" Light version of my cigarette brand.

When I learned about the research a few years ago and wanted to cut back, I went looking for cigarettes with the highest yield of nicotine (Native American Spirit). Smoking those I was able to cut back to half a pack.

The only way to get folks to quit is to take nicotine out altogether, and the law they just passed doesn't allow them to do that.

NOTE: Now I don't smoke any tobacco cigarettes at all, because I have what I firmly believe is a healthier alternative for getting the nicotine I need -- my e-cigarette.

 

[iiell]

From what I read of the bill they signed, electric cigarettes could still fall in a gray area... with a few changes of course.

1) Do not make them look like cigarettes and remove the word cigarette entirely.
2) Do not sell them with nicotine.

Now for the "e-juice" - I don't know what exactly the FDA will do because "e-juice" does contain nicotine.

From the bill: SEC. 901. FDA AUTHORITY OVER TOBACCO PRODUCTS. "Applicability- This chapter shall apply to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco and to any other tobacco products that the Secretary by regulation deems to be subject to this chapter."

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1256:

 

[midian]

From the article I read on Yahoo, again science is going to be overlooked based upon how many packs of cigarettes can be sold. In other words...the bill is directed toward allowing Big-Tobacco the ability to grow a 'safer' plant. WTF-over... The only thing that I see happening, is that the tobacco industry is trying to make a supposed 'safer' tobacco. In this sense, they can hike the prices even more per pack/carton and try to make the tobacco-smokers feel better about buying a 'safer' tobacco... I can't believe that I'm actually writing this...it's like baby-talk laced with a heavy does of ambian...

Here's the link that I read on YahooNews:
Smoke Signals: Why a Tobacco Giant Is Backing a Tough New Antismoking Bill - Yahoo! News

 

[rejoice]

"The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes."

*Duh* These yahoos believe that if they lower the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes that people will quit smoking them.

Research shows that nicotine intake is "self-regulating". Given cigarettes with less nicotine, smokers either draw harder or smoke more cigarettes to get their blood levels up to what is needed for them to feel normal.

Guess what either one of these alternatives does to your lungs.

That would explain how I went from 1 pack a day to 2-1/2 packs back in the 80s...I switched to the "healthier" Light version of my cigarette brand.

When I learned about the research a few years ago and wanted to cut back, I went looking for cigarettes with the highest yield of nicotine (Native American Spirit). Smoking those I was able to cut back to half a pack.

The only way to get folks to quit is to take nicotine out altogether, and the law they just passed doesn't allow them to do that.

NOTE: Now I don't smoke any tobacco cigarettes at all, because I have what I firmly believe is a healthier alternative for getting the nicotine I need -- my e-cigarette.

This may explain why the reason Philip Morris is for the FDA. They may lower the nic and smokers will smoke more cigarettes to get there fix.

 

[midian]

Rejoice nailed it - just without so many words...

 

[martha1014]

Give thanks to Rep. Buyer from Indiana. He wanted to add harm reduction measures to the bill. He mentioned e-cig and even showed a graph with them listed. He asked that FDA cut through all the red tape and get nicotine replacements approved. He stated nicotine did not cause cancer.

I think I posed this in the wrong place a few minutes ago.

Sorry

 

[Surf Monkey]

Give thanks to Rep. Buyer from Indiana. He wanted to add harm reduction measures to the bill. He mentioned e-cig and even showed a graph with them listed. He asked that FDA cut through all the red tape and get nicotine replacements approved. He stated nicotine did not cause cancer.

I think I posed this in the wrong place a few minutes ago.

Sorry

Though I agreed with Burr's position on the bill, it's important to remember that his main line of attack focused on SNUS and Orbs. Those products are produced in his home state by R.J. Reynolds... a major campaign contributor. Burr was on the right side of this issue but for the wrong reasons. His aim wasn't to help promote public health. His aim was to protect the biggest industry in his home state.

 

[martha1014]

He also stated this was unconstitutional and would be tied up in the Supreme Court and stated all the reasons.

 

[Surf Monkey]

He also stated this was unconstitutional and would be tied up in the Supreme Court and stated all the reasons.

I don't recall him saying that, but if so, that's fine. I'm not saying I disagree with his position, just that it's important to recognize that it springs from the same motivations as do those of supporters of the bill. Both sides are pressing the agenda of big tobacco companies.

 

[TropicalBob]

Buyer was a breath of fresh air in a stale House this morning (it was all on C-Span). But, of course, he did not prevail and the House again passed the bill, now identical to the Senate's.

What I see ahead is a decade of work by Buyer -- as Waxman put in to get this bill -- to get harm reduction measures recognized as being in the public interest. It will happen. But it will take timmmmmmmmme. And time favors Philip Morris, not us.

In the meantime, the provisions of this bill become law.

Lawyers challenge provisions (it blantantly violates First Amendment rights) and years go by as cases move through courts. Meanwhile, the bill is law. The FDA is acting. Restrictions and regulations are growing. And prices .. are going through the roof.

Only Ron Paul saw an underground black market coming. He and Buyer were the only two this morning who made sense. The rest are simply concluding a blind crusade begun long ago, with the best of intentions, that culminated in this tragically flawed bill. The FDA? No. A wall against marketing new lower risk tobacco products? How can that improve public health?

But we'll have to live with this now.

 

[Surf Monkey]

A wall against marketing new lower risk tobacco products? How can that improve public health?

I have yet to see any evidence that the bill creates a "wall against marketing new, lower risk tobacco products." On the contrary. I've seen provisions pointed out in the bill that offer loopholes through which devices like e-cigarettes can move with ease.

Bottom line: no one is exactly sure what the end result of this legislation will be.

 

[TropicalBob]

Did you closely read the provisions for such products and the gauntlet they must run to be approved? If you did, you'd understand why I worded it that way. Do not assume anything about that bill. Read it. Then form your own informed conclusion, as I did.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Did you closely read the provisions for such products and the gauntlet they must run to be approved? If you did, you'd understand why I worded it that way. Do not assume anything about that bill. Read it. Then form your own informed conclusion, as I did.

Agreed. The fact that we're coming to different conclusions about it should indicate fairly clearly that interpretation is going to be key. It's not a clear-cut piece of legislation.

 

[NY JETS]

Any word on what Marlboro Lights will now be called?

I love how one Senator, if not a bunch of them, was quoted as saying, "We will now be able to save millions of Americans lives!" God, I hate politics.

 

[Smokin'Sandy]

(it blantantly violates First Amendment rights)

Nope...the bill itself says it doesn't.

 

[SmaBob]

This may explain why the reason Philip Morris is for the FDA. They may lower the nic and smokers will smoke more cigarettes to get there fix.

Also there will be strict curbs on advertising. That means already known brands have a clear cut advantage to hook new users.

 

[Rexa]

I can argue all points of the bill but the fact alone that they are going to reduce the "nicotine" content in cigarettes will already hurt/kill the majority of smokers out there who will feel that they need to smoke more to obtain more. I will feel really sorry for them.....

Phillip Morris is clearly a winner out of all of this. Shame on them and the FDA.

 

[iiell]

I can argue all points of the bill but the fact alone that they are going to reduce the "nicotine" content in cigarettes will already hurt/kill the majority of smokers out there who will feel that they need to smoke more to obtain more. I will feel really sorry for them.....

Phillip Morris is clearly a winner out of all of this. Shame on them and the FDA.

YEP! Everyone needs to write President Obama and tell him not to sign this bill in its current state. Our elected officials have failed the people yet again.