Senate Passes Historic Anti-Smoking Bill

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Senate Passes Historic Anti-Smoking Bill stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JIM ABRAMS | June 11, 2009 09:17 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
A customer at the Red Key Taven in Indianapolis smokes a cigarette, Thursday, June 11, 2009. The U.S. Senate voted Thursday on legislation that for the first time would give the new powers to control the production and marketing of tobacco products. South Carolina has the lowest state sales tax on cigarettes in the country. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

WASHINGTON — The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

President Barack Obama, who has spoken of his own struggle to quit smoking, said he was eager to sign the legislation, and the House planned a vote for Friday. Cigarette foes said the measure would not only cut deaths but reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

Fierce opposition by the industry and tobacco-state lawmakers had prevented passage for years, along with veto threats by the George W. Bush White House. In the end, the nation's biggest tobacco company supported the measure, though rivals suggested that was because it could lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 45 million U.S. adults are smokers, though the prevalence has fallen since the U.S. surgeon general's warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer.

The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the surgeon general's report, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

"This legislation represents the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States," declared Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.

The 79-17 Senate vote sent the measure back to the House, which in April passed a similar but not identical version. House acceptance of the Senate bill would send it directly to Obama, who said Thursday that final passage "will make history by giving the scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps."

"At any given moment, millions are struggling with their habit or worrying about loved ones who smoke," said Obama.

Story continues below
advertisement

His signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater government supervision since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care.

Supporters of FDA regulation of tobacco have struggled for more than a decade to overcome powerful resistance _ from the industry and elsewhere. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the agency did not have the authority under current law to regulate tobacco products, and the Bush administration opposed several previous efforts by Congress to write a new law.

Thursday's legislation gives the FDA power to evaluate the contents of tobacco products and to order changes or bans on those that are a danger to public health. The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes.

Regulators could prohibit tobacco companies from using candy or other flavors in cigarettes that tend to attract young smokers, and restrict advertising in publications often read by teenagers. Rules on sales to minors would be toughened, as would warning labels. Tobacco companies would have to get FDA approval for new products, and would be barred from using terms such as "light" or "mild" that imply a smaller health risk.

Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.

"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids _ children _ will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that FDA regulation could reduce underage smoking by 11 percent over the next decade.

The bill, said American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown, "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults."

The tobacco lobby, contended Durbin, has long been the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, "and they managed to create an exemption in virtually every law so that no federal agency could take a look at them and regulate them."

But the industry has also taken hits in recent years as the dangers of smoking became more apparent and states moved to limit smoking in public places. In 1998 the industry agreed to pay the states $206 billion to help cover health care costs, and this year Congress raised the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack, to fund a health care program for children.

The nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, Philip Morris, USA, has come out in support of the legislation. Its parent company, Altria Group, said in a statement that on balance, "the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."

Its main rivals, however, have voiced opposition, arguing in part that FDA restrictions on new products will lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Lawmakers portrayed the bill as a major first step in bringing down health care costs, an essential goal of the health care overhaul legislation that is the top priority of the Obama administration this year.

"This bill may do more in the area of prevention, if adopted, than anything else we may include in the health care bill in the short term," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who managed the legislation on the Senate floor in the absence of the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has long promoted FDA regulation.

Opponents, led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina, argued that the FDA, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of food and drug products, was the wrong place to regulate an item that is injurious to health.

He also contended that the bill would restrict tobacco companies, including several based in his state, from developing new products that might be less harmful to users. He unsuccessfully proposed the creation of a new agency that would both regulate tobacco products and encourage efforts to make cigarettes less harmful.

___

The bill is H.R. 1256.

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

(This version CORRECTS, deleting reference to minor differences to be worked out with House.)

WASHINGTON — The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half...
WASHINGTON — The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half...
Filed by Susan Crile
 
Comments
2255
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (30 pages total)
photo

After this can it be ok now to stop wasting legislation time and government resources on this?

You've already informed the entire world a million times over that smoking may cause serious illness, great. You've already made it so I can't smoke in public places, fine. You've already made it so cigarettes are so expensive in my state that I have to budget for it now, lols, if you say so. You've already stigmatized me so it's something I have to hide in a dark place like I was shooting up heroine in an alley, whatever. So are we done yet? Can you all get off my f@#king back already?

If anyone influenced teens to smoke it wasn't Joe Camel. It was the glamorization of it for so long in the movie and music industry run by you bleeding heart liberals. Where's the outrage and content legislation there? So welcome back to the hypocrisy.

I just hope one day they decide to regulate something you all like. Maybe alcohol again and make apple martinis illegal so you'll stop smashing into your neighbor's convertible or Starbucks and mocha lattes which are turning you all into diabetes and heart disease ridden fat bastards. Then you'll know what it's like being a smoker today.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 06/13/2009
photo

I didn't realize it was a "liberal" issue. I also smoke. Have been since I was 16. And you know what? I love it! I know it's bad for my health, but so are other things too. I eat a healthy diet, with lots of fruits and vegetables, fish, and small amounts of meat. I don't eat fast food, and I rarely get sick. I know my lungs aren't in ideal shape, but overall, physically, I am in excellent health. Low blood pressure, etc., thin but not skinny. And finally, I'm a liberal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:14 PM on 06/13/2009

Cynical Tony, thank you-- and I love the... "heart disease ridden fat bastards." Ha ha!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 06/14/2009

I think all this is a bit meaningless. Seriously, if they want to target teen smoking why not raise the smoking age? They raised the drinking age to 21 why not the smoking age? Then they get their monies in fines from people selling to or buying for them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 PM on 06/12/2009

Interesting dialogue here.

The passage of Kennedy’s National Tobacco Bill passes represents a smoking victory for the federal government against the biggest killing consumer product. But, as trudge forward in fighting Big Tobacco, let's also keep in mind that legislation alone will not hamper the production, sale, and marketing of tobacco products. This is but a mere battle victory in a protracted and ongoing war. Nobody has won yet.

To ensure the well-being of our future and rupture soaring health care costs, America needs to deploy an arsenal of weapons in conjunction with Kennedy’s bill. As is a general rule of thumb, we need to first diversify our portfolio to foil the tactics fueled by corporate greed (which is especially relevant nowadays). We need stronger prevention programs, better education in elementary schools, greater parental involvement at home, and the cultural capital to stop sleazy lobbyists from forging legal loopholes that they can get around. Higher sin taxes and other F.D.A. regulations are just a few legal ingredients of a larger recipe. Why be lawyers if we can all judge what's best in this case? Sure we want independence, no doubt. But at least we should work to keep children - who cannot think independently - from being preyed upon.

For those of you who agree, check out Corporate Accountability International's website http://stopcorporateabuse.org/category/sitecategories/tobacco to stop Big Tobacco's abuses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 06/12/2009
- redkim I'm a Fan of redkim 34 fans permalink
photo

This bill adds to corporate greed. Philip Morris wrote part of it and stands to gain financially from it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 06/12/2009
- Siobhan11 I'm a Fan of Siobhan11 11 fans permalink

I have heard that also. I hear the factory regulations will be so strict that it will put all the small cigarette manufacturers out of business. And to really make the goverment and Phillip Morris happy - especially the Native American ones.

I am just sharing what I heard. But something to think about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 06/12/2009
- Siobhan11 I'm a Fan of Siobhan11 11 fans permalink

I don't smoke but all this venom about cigarettes confuses me. When I was in college a psychology professor said that everytime you drank alcohol you drank poisen that killed brain cells. He would joke on a Friday saying he was planning on killing a few thousand brain cells that night.

New studies have shown (sorry don't have any way to prove I have read this) even a drink a day can be harmful to some people.

Let's not pretend this is about second hand smoke. The laws have made that almost a non-issue.

I say - lets be fair and make it impossible for Americans to live unhealthy lives. That's what the majority of Americans want. Right?

So okay, lets ban SUV's. They create too much pollution. Let's ban drive through windows. All those cars idleing and blowing exhaust just to get their fast food or morning cup of coffee. Because we are all so incredibly busy and can't take the time to park and walk in the store.And don't get me started on all the food we should ban.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 AM on 06/12/2009
- EarthToZoey I'm a Fan of EarthToZoey 226 fans permalink
photo

The proverbial 'slippery slope' theory. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides, but I usually err on the side of taking the risks that come with liberty.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

I totally agree with you. The tobacco industry has been highly regulated already. I don't see this as having any benefit at all to the citizens of this country and only having downside with more government abuse, waste and fraud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 AM on 06/12/2009

I think some commenters are reading a different bill than I am. This isn't banning smoking--it's banning the deceptive practices of an industry that has tricked its way out of any sort of regulation in the past. Cookies and granola bars have more restrictions on their packaging and ingredients than tobacco! Good on Congress for finally putting tobacco on par with other products.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 AM on 06/12/2009
- redkim I'm a Fan of redkim 34 fans permalink
photo

Read my post down the page. Yes, there's a lot of trickery involved. And it's done by Philip Morris, who wrote part of the bill.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 AM on 06/12/2009

It's all well and good that the Cato Institute's opinion (against government control, of course, no matter the benefits), but they're missing the point.

They complain that these new laws don't address "the well-documented connections between education, poverty and smoking status," but that's not the purpose, that's not why it was passed, and no one is saying that it is. It's purpose is to finally put the tobacco industry into regulatory parity with other consumable products in terms of regulation. Hence, its focus is on content, marketing, and related business practices.

And frankly, if Congress HAD passed some sort of sweeping social programs intitative to stop smoking by tackling education and poverty, Cato would be complaining about it anyway. After all, as a libertarian think-tank, ANY government control is bad--if the bill, say, addressed the role of poverty in smoking habits by funding an anti-smoking initiative tied to welfare or Medicare benefits, they'd just decry it as inefficient or "not the government's business."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 06/12/2009
- vietveter I'm a Fan of vietveter 17 fans permalink

I am NOT a smoker.

Please let me know before you take the Nic' out of cig's.

I would like to be in another country when that day comes.

Like it or not [and I do not] people need their daily Nic' fix.

They developed the habit legally and they now need it to survive

SMOKERS WILL GO CRAZY - they won't want to - but they will

murder rate will climb, assault will reach all new levels.

It will be a very bad day in the USA

Admit it

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 AM on 06/12/2009
- Jaywalkker I'm a Fan of Jaywalkker 52 fans permalink
photo

The country will not go crazy by addicts w/out their fix. It'll be another Prohibition. Racketeering will rise. Gangs will increase. Murders. Cigarette selling territories will initiate warfare. It'll be another aspect of the drug war, only more ineffective. Not to mention the number of farmers who lose their tobacco cash crop as a means of income and turn to Marlboro bootlegging. Unnecessarily long prison sentences for our already overcrowded prisons. Etc.

This bill doesn't limit cigarette production though it does two things. 1) Redundantly censor and edit advertising. 2) reduce the levels of chemical additives from "really, really bad" to just "really bad."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

You are right about it just being another type of meaningless "prohibition". Why would we ever want to celebrate our government disallowing any product manufacturer calling their product whatever they want to call it? This is just regulation for the sake of regulation and won't accomplish anything. What are they going to do next? Not allow Budweiser to call Bud Lite Bud LIte? What is wrong with Marlboro calling their cigarettes Medium and Light?
We are regulating ourselves into oblivion and no one should be happy about it.
Oh, and no taxes for people making less than $250,000 a year? There are 40 million smokers in this country who would disagree with that. There has been over 100% tax increase on tobacco since this administration took office.
I see this as just another waste of government time and taxpayer money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 06/12/2009
- Jaywalkker I'm a Fan of Jaywalkker 52 fans permalink
photo

Smoking is bad, we all know that and its the moral thing to do due to health of self and others. Is there anybody here who will sign up for a bill that blocks any and all fast food restaurants? C'mon, slam dunk.

You get rid of the drive through lines with umpteen cars filled with non-smokers that just sit there idling carbon dioxide and monoxide and other poisons into the air.
Non-smokers eat food that has no redeemable health value, contributing to future cancers, conditions, and heart disease that will (is currently) suck(ing) medicare and medicaid dry.
Think of the many tons of styrofoam and plastics that will be removed from landfills and the ocean.

Sure there'll be economic side effects, but this is a *moral* issue regarding the health of the community.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

If we are going to start legislating morality let's start by keeping the beating hearts of fetuses beating. How is that one for you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 AM on 06/12/2009
- redkim I'm a Fan of redkim 34 fans permalink
photo

Please tell me your tongue is planted firmly in cheek here, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 AM on 06/12/2009
- Siobhan11 I'm a Fan of Siobhan11 11 fans permalink

Oh my gosh. I wrote a comment on this thread that seems to have disappeared -- commenting about cars idleing in drive through lanes because we are too busy to park and go in for our coffee/fast food fix.

Was told by college professor that alcohol is a poisen that kills brain cells. If we're going after one unhealthy bad thing lets go after them all. Somehow I doubt the Senate wants to make alcohol more difficult to obtain.

Let's seriously crack down on people who speed and seriously go after drunk drivers. Let;s take them all on.

If we have to villify smokers, lets villify everything bad for you.

I do not smoke, by the way. My 30 year old son does. I would love for him to quit. I just don't see goverment regulation as the answer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 06/12/2009
- mrfreeze I'm a Fan of mrfreeze 130 fans permalink
photo

I've waited for almost 50 years to say this:

To all of you self-righteous, boorish, selfish, childish, ridiculous, addict-smokers, I can't wait for the day you all must stop smoking because it's either too expensive or regulated out of existence. Every time you light up, you increase health care costs to the rest of us (yes, the things you do affect others!). Every time you light up, you pollute the air that others breathe, your clothes stink (you make others' clothes stink), and you act like a bunch of defiant children no matter the cost.

Remember "It's time to put away childish things." Your habit stinks and so does your attitude. Time to grow up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 AM on 06/12/2009
photo

Take it easy, mrfreeze. Know anything about addiction?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 06/13/2009
photo

Our city just passed a regulation of NO SMOKING at a bus stop or within 20 feet of one. Yet, they haven't determinde how they will handle those who say; "They were just passing by...".
Are you freakin' ready for that?!

Get out of my personal life Government. I'm tired of you telling me what I can and can't do, who I can and can't marry, making me switch to digital television!

Enough already!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 AM on 06/12/2009

Oh my goodness, what a sad story. Who is this "government" to make these "laws" just because it's duly elected by a majority of the population? Why isn't America more like Somali? The government stays out of your way over there, yes sir!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

Why do people who are in favor of the government having absolute power always use the arguement of having a government which is non existant? Don't you think that there is a middle ground in between there?
Do you realize that our founding fathers intended for us to have a weak central government that was divided into three equally powerful branches? Do you realize that two of the biggest responsibilities that were intended for the federal government was to keep it's citizens safe from threats both internally and externally. Where does that compare with as far as Somalia goes?
They were never intended to get into the daily lives and even the bedrooms of the American public. Our government has usurped so many rights and freedoms from us that we now want to be dependent upon the government for our daily sustenance.
That is pretty pitiful for a nation that revered people like Jefferson, Franklin, Crockett & Boone. These great men would surely be saddened to see that we want everything given to us without having to work for it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 06/12/2009
- MicheleCA I'm a Fan of MicheleCA 37 fans permalink
photo

I'm tired of trying to hold my breath until you're out of my air space.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 AM on 06/12/2009
- redkim I'm a Fan of redkim 34 fans permalink
photo

Someone smoking in your face is just rude. You can't legislate rudeness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 06/12/2009

I have some sympathy for your libertarian sentiments and your rejection of the notion of our government as some nanny-state, watching over it's mischievous children. (They answer to us, not vice versa.) ...But do you really think someone is MAKING you switch to digital TV? You don't HAVE TO have television. And I assume you SUPPORT the right of gays to marry, since you reject the idea of government having authority over such matters.
If there was no such thing as second-hand smoke, I'd agree with you. But you don't have a RIGHT to subject others to deadly smoke. Up until recently, I was a smoker. I wouldn't smoke in my own house because I didn't want to expose my pets to it. I'd step outside. I always kept it away from girlfriends and family members. But you can't keep a reasonable distance from other people? Try being a bit more considerate of others and a bit less concerned with your percieved individual rights.
Seems to me that this bill is full of sound and fury. No flavored cigarettes? Who smokes 'em? Bigger warning labels? The fact that cigarettes are deadly makes them MORE attractive to young people, not less. EVERYONE understands that cigarettes are dangerous. No one is in the dark about that. It's not 1960. Regulating the amount of nicotine per cigarette seems like a smart way to get people to smoke MORE cigarettes. Less nicotine per cigarette = More cigarettes!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

And that is all regulated by a government claiming to care about it's citizens. It is a crock because they want people buying more cigarettes. More cigarettes=More Tax Revenue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

Thank you HesDanTheMan. All of this is just an obsessive government wanting to excersize more control and more power over the little people. The government is overstepping it's limits by leaps and bounds and we are just sitting back and losing freedom of choice by the minute and they are telling us they are doing it for freedom. Give me a break and get out of my life also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 AM on 06/12/2009
- redkim I'm a Fan of redkim 34 fans permalink
photo

Here's some sobering facts about the bill just passed and Obama will probably sign in to law.

From Patrick Basham of Cato Insitute, Libertarian think-tank:

Handing tobacco regulation over to the FDA, as Congress is poised to do, is an epic public health mistake. It is tantamount to giving the keys of the regulatory store to the nation's largest cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris.

The legislation that will be voted on shortly in the Senate was cooked up out of public sight by Philip Morris, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and anti-tobacco lobbyists. During years of covert negotiation, Philip Morris outwitted this coalition of "useful idiots" at every turn. Philip Morris staffers even wrote large portions of the bill.

And here's more:

It will not provide Americans with scientifically accurate information about the risks of smoking. Instead of providing accurate information about the risks of low-tar cigarettes, the current legislation requires the FDA to ban the descriptor completely, leaving smokers without any information about how to understand the risks of smoking.



Sobering indeed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 06/11/2009
- andhakari I'm a Fan of andhakari 5 fans permalink

A Trøll says "what"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 AM on 06/12/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

Does this really have anything to do with which political party you are affiliated with? Does this have anything at all to do with which side of the aisle so called representatives sit on?
Our freedoms are being stripped from us almost on a daily basis and we idley sit by calling each other names? We should be standing shoulder to shoulder united for a common cause. Smoker or not do we want this much regulation in our lives? This legislation is simply intended to strip away more freedoms from American business which is already handcuffed when it comes to being able to compete on a level playing field with foreign competition.
Name calling and mindless cheerleading for one political party or the other, which aren't much different from one another. is foolish.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 06/12/2009
- bola47 I'm a Fan of bola47 6 fans permalink
photo

i could care less one way or another but when smoking becomes illegal how are the states and the cities going to replace the tax revenue. a pack of cigarettes in nyc cost over 8.00 and less than 4.00 in fla. the difference is the tax. everyone get ready to be taxed on something that is now tax free.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 06/11/2009
- murphy20 I'm a Fan of murphy20 4 fans permalink

bola47-The money the states are currently spending on Medicaid & the Feds on Medicare will come back to the states as heart disease, lung cancer, respiratory disorders such as COPD, are reduced as a direct result in the decrease in smoking. We spend billions of tax dollars on medical care for those who are addicted to tobacco. That doesn't count lost productivity due to employee absence/illness.Get rid of tobacco & you get rid of the single most expensive PREVENTABLE cause for illness in this country. Now do I think this bill will do it? Not if Phillip Morris is for it, which they are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 AM on 06/12/2009
- Jaywalkker I'm a Fan of Jaywalkker 52 fans permalink
photo

Google "smoking" and "cost to society."

We know the smoker costs x billions in medical care and y billions in lost productivity. Recent studies show that given the shorter life span, smokers average 10 years less than the non-smoker who is also drawing on medicaid and medicare and social security which amounts to a greater savings than their health cost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 AM on 06/12/2009
- cagney57 I'm a Fan of cagney57 2 fans permalink

Yes I smoke and I am a Democrat...that being said, I am tired of the government telling me what is good and bad for me, since they have yet to regulate the poisons that come into this country via trade.

I get poisoned every day eating, drinking and breathing all the crap the government says is safe levels.

I have yet to see anything out there that is safe for anyone.

Since I am poor and on the low level of income, the government is taxing me to death to smoke, but nothing on the alcohol that kills millions.
Maybe I will just stop smoking and become a drunk, I can better afford booze.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 PM on 06/11/2009
- mike42nola I'm a Fan of mike42nola 25 fans permalink

There is a very high level of taxation on alcohol as well. Just not quite as high as on tobacco. What happened to the promise of no tax increase for people making less than $250,000 a year? Most smokers, the 40 million in the US, make less than $250,000.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 AM on 06/12/2009
- tjinc I'm a Fan of tjinc 12 fans permalink
photo

First, a clarification. Dependence on nicotine is an addiction, not a"habit"! The body quickly gets chemically dependent upon nicotine. That flawed perception needs to go away.

People who defend their use of tobacco, putting others in harm's way as well, check your motives. Addicts will do many things to defend their addictions.

Second hand tobacco smoke is a proven carcinogen. It's a toxic cloud of chemicals and burnt byproducts. There is no comparing tobacco smoke with perfume.

Public health protection is not "nannyism". This is a public health issue, not a moral issue.

The only reason smoking has been legal for so many years is the amount of money and influence over our legislators by the tobacco industry. Sales of cigarettes is enormous, and fuels a 12 million dollar a day advertising budget.

The tobacco industry has two target audiences to sell to: Adolescents and current smokers. They need new smokers to replace those who quit or die, and they need to keep smokers feeling good about their addiction.

The tobacco industry is currently rolling out new flavored products aimed directly at kids. Hopefully this legislation will pull them from the shelves and away from our kids.

The tobacco industry, which sells a product that, when used as directed, causes disease and death, needs to go away

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 06/11/2009
- redkim I'm a Fan of redkim 34 fans permalink
photo

The LAST thing we need is the government acting like the G*ddamned health care police.

smoking should remain legal and people should be able to smoke if they want, even if it kills them.

And the SUREST way to get kids to smoke is to ban cigarettes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 PM on 06/11/2009
photo

Bingo!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 06/12/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 48 fans permalink

My parents and grandparents all smoked. As as result, I have had upper respiratory problems all of my life. Secondhand smoke is a dangerous problem and especially for children. I don't smoke and my children, now grown, don't smoke. They married people who don't smoke. Talk to your kids early and often enough in life about the problems with cigarettes and there is a darn good chance they won't smoke. My siblings did not smoke either. In addition, the biggest healthcare costs, which we all end up paying for are due to smoking and obesity. So, we all have a stake in this issue. I won't go in a restaurant where smoking is allowed either. It ruins the experience for me. This is the same as companies polluting water. It ends up impacting on everyone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 AM on 06/12/2009
- mrfreeze I'm a Fan of mrfreeze 130 fans permalink
photo

No, your premise that people be allowed to smoke "even if it kills them" is fatally flawed. 400,000 people die each year due to cigarettes. There is a huge cost to this that's passed on to you and (I get to be selfish here) ME. As long as I'm subjected to someone else smoking (and their stinking mess), I relish the thought of the government regulating tobacco right into extinction.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 06/12/2009
- murphy20 I'm a Fan of murphy20 4 fans permalink

Nicotine & the other "unknowns" that are processed into tobacco are far more addictive than heroin. Since the tobacco industry refuses to open up about what they actually put in their cigarettes, there's a good bet that they have at least another addictive agent in those nasty things. Nicotine combines with a number of neurotransmitters in the brain to produce known effects. "Pressures to relapse are both behaviorally & pharmacologically triggered."

And people wonder why they can't quit?

Nicotine is:

* 1000 X more potent than alcohol
* 10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
* 5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 AM on 06/12/2009

Companies have already developed a delivery device that atomizes nicotine. You inhale and exhale a vapor with a controlled level of nicotine. No smoke or ignition of tobacco is necessary. That means you eliminate over 4000 chemicals that burning tobacco releases, 43 are carcinogens, particularly tar, carbon monoxide and arsenic.

No second-hand smoke to worry about. Nicotine is NOT a carcinogen. It is addictive, but harmless despite the publics perception. All the other chemicals in tobacco are what kill you over time when lit and inhaled, not nicotine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 06/11/2009
- murphy20 I'm a Fan of murphy20 4 fans permalink

The first "safe cigarette." And inhaler that gives you the recommended dosage of nicotine without the carcinogens-but, the patient has to stop smoking first before they get their inhaler. Works in about 50% of cases-it's worth it if you spare someone the diagnosis of cancer. Let's see, give up smoking & still get my nicotine or give up smoking because I'm going through chemotherapy?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 06/12/2009
- Siobhan11 I'm a Fan of Siobhan11 11 fans permalink

Is this inhale covered by insurance or any type of anti smoking grants. I would be fairly impressed if it was. I know there is the patch and nicotine gum, but I don't think they address the oral habit of puffing. Not sure if this will either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 PM on 06/12/2009

The Anti-Smoking Movement has never been anything but a political football that has been used by every city, state, and national politician to gain political mileage during election season for the past 45 years.

The movements leaders have said for years that they didn't want to outlaw cigarettes because they were afraid of a backlash that would end their efforts similar to the movement that ended prohibition in the early part of the 20th century. Prohibition was voted in by the usual group of busy bodies while all the men where in Europe fighting WWI. When the men returned from war, it didn't take long to reinstate public drinking. They needed it after what they went through !

The Anti-Smoking movement is and always has been a government backed tobacco industry marketing ploy that recruited millions of young smokers that rebelled against their nanny state tactics. If you have a product like cigarettes that has been proven to be directly responsible for more deaths than any other cause, you eliminate that product. After all, we had no problem eliminating the use of marijuana, I guess legalizing it would have been way too much competition for big tobacco.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 06/11/2009

Wow, you have a lot to learn about Prohibition. It lasted from 1920 to 1933 in the United States.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 AM on 06/12/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 48 fans permalink

Pig - c.r.a.p Smoke kills and any doctor will tell you that. If we don't have rules on this, then we could also get rid of driving rules and rules for medications and pollution, etc. and just live with total chaos. We could go back to gun fights like in the old west. As long as we are a country of rules and the majority rules, then this will probably be a football, until enough people are sophisticated enough to admit that this is a substance in need of monitoring.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 06/12/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (30 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect