We Can't Afford to Wait to Regulate Tobacco

The federal government regulates everything from breakfast cereal and hair dye to horse feed and breast implants. The list of items regulated by our government includes just about every consumable product in America, from prescription drugs to vegetables.

But there's one item strangely absent from the list, one that causes more preventable deaths than any other product. A powerful and well-funded lobby has managed to keep tobacco off the list of federally regulated products for more than 40 years following the first surgeon general's report linked smoking to cancer. Even today, a simple list of ingredients is not required for tobacco products.

Tobacco companies have taken advantage of this lack of oversight and have shamelessly marketed to under-aged recruits through cartoon advertising, nicotine and ingredient manipulation, fruity flavors, free give-aways at rock concerts and ads in publications with high teen readership.

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration assumed the authority to regulate tobacco as a consumable product and published rules regarding this regulation. Some basic common sense approaches were proposed in those rules, including ways to prohibit the sale and marketing of tobacco to children. However, the Supreme Court ruled that only Congress could give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco.

Twelve years later, we continue to wait for Congress to take action regarding this lone unregulated product.

Currently being considered by Congress, the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products and the marketing of those products. It is the most important piece of public health legislation Congress could enact this year, and would be a major bipartisan accomplishment given the breadth of support on both sides of the aisle.

With only a limited amount of time remaining in the legislative session this year, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network urges all members of Congress to make this legislation a priority, and help save the next generation of children from the scourge of tobacco addiction. They cannot wait another 12 years for action.

Daniel E. Smith is president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy partner of the American Cancer Society that supports evidence-based policy and legislative solutions designed to eliminate cancer as a major health problem.

Comments

[SisterAnn]

There are lots of things that cause cancer. Insecticide is a biggie and it is sprayed freely on our food and on our lawns.

Fungicides are even worse and they don't talk about that.

All the things sprayed like weed killer are carcingens too. All these things wash down into our water and we drink it.

[SisterAnn]

Don't 20 to 25% of people still smoke? The health field and gov blame cancer on cigarettes even if the smoker didn't smoke.

Microwaves which are in microwave ovens and in all wireless products like Satellite and telephones cause cancer of the brain and other places. They have been banned in some countries.

The stuff they spray between plastic bags in the factory to keep them from sticking together, causes cancer.

The kids won't start smoking, the teachers have taught them that if anyone who smokes around them, there smoke will kill them. They are scared of smokers, even their grandparents.

They just want away to include some more types of tobacco on the tax list.

Just tax the cigarettes and leave smokers alone. They are addicted or they would have quit already!

[Agent420]

Tell me why tobacco is legal and pot is not.

Annual US Deaths from causes:
Tobacco 435,000
Alcohol* 110,640
Prescriptions  32,000
Overdoses¡ 16,926
NSAIDS 7,600
Caffeine 2,000
Marijuana 0
* Does not include alcohol-related crashes or murders.
  Adverse reactions to prescription drugs
¡ Overdoses and poisonings from legal and illegal drugs.

[LateDave]

You can get AIDS from marijuana.
-busted
-jailed
-raped

You can die from marijuana.
-hit by a car while walking out to check on your patch
-poisoned by defoliants sprayed by DEA contractors

You can OD on marijuana.
-nah.

OTOH, a recent study found (to the disgust of the researchers) that the crud in m tends to kill cells in your lungs that would have gone cancerous (apparently), so tobacco and pot smokers have less cancer than tobacco smokers who don't smoke weed.

Your tobacco death number may be low; what year is that?

[jhNY]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be tempered by the requirement to pursue only those things which are approved of or regulated by the state, usually at the behest of employers here in the US, to whose lot it falls to pay for insurance, unless they choose not to. Since either the state or multinational corporations will insure most of us so long as we are useful to them, why shouldn't the vices and impulses the citizenry be controlled by the rerquirements of their insurors/employers? A sober, cheerful, healthy workforce is best for everybody. And it costs less. And best of all, more regulation could lead to the creation of a million-strong corps of Cigarette Police. Full employment for all!

[Titonwan]

China or Russia?

[jfor]

Americans have been taught to believe that tobacco is addictive, it is not. If you don't believe it then explain why replacing tobacco with four times the nicotine in gum and patches does not turn you into a patch or nicotine gum addict;

Tobacco is habit forming which is not an addiction.

Heroin users will steal, threaten and blow you for a fix. Do you know any smokers who would blow you for a marlboro?

Marketing and congress have once again misled the American people for profit.

[JimR]

Wow, are you in denial.

[jfor]

Jim, funny thing about your comment...... It explained nothing. But hey you have a nice opinion going and thats all that matters.

[LateDave]

Adding ammonia (or urea, etc.) to tobacco converts nicotine salts to FREE BASE form and increases transfer to (acidic) lung tissues and thus to the blood by orders of magnitude. Without ammoniation, tobacco has slight effect on the brain. With it, the drug effect is fast and strong. This is the key to cigarette addiction. This is confirmed by industry memos.

Addiction expert Jack Henningfield, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine professor:
"[T]he modern cigarette does to nicotine what crack does to cocaine." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3999.php

That's the "how." Here's the "why:" http://extras.journalnow.com/lostempire/tob14b.htm

"Light" cigarettes produce different cancers. http://www.nida.nih.gov/Meetsum/Nicotine/slade.html

Disclosing and/or banning FREE BASE conversion could make cigarettes unsatisfying and kill off the industry (my opinion).

[jfor]

Dude your last sentance is ridiculous since people have always smoked. I doubt our founding fathers added piss to their tobacco. People smoke because of two things. one people like it and two people are idiots.

[WorkingClass]

So its ammonia. I knew there was something. I have had personal experience with alcohol addiction. I was able to get over the hump and have not had a drink for many years. When I quit smoking cigarettes (I said cigarettes not tobacco) the withdrawal was severe and long lasting. The nicotine replacement devices were no help whatsoever for me. I concluded that whatever I was addicted to it wasn't nicotine. I'm happy to say I no longer smoke or drink. I think people should be allowed to smoke if they want to and not be taxed for the privilege. But I also think they have a right to know what they are smoking. By all means. Put a list of ingredients on the package.

[Titonwan]

You leave my ammonia alone. I want my ammonia INCREASED! You're not even allowed in my shop unless you light one up. Bunch a pansies.

[holeybuybull]

Environmental pollution attributable to unenforced regulation of industry is the real threat to health, but hey, let's just demonize cigarette smokers, instead.

[TexasDem0]

Let's just live in denial, instead.

[holeybuybull]

TexasDemo, that's an oxymoron, right. I've spent some time living in Texas. Nice state, except for a majority of it's inhabitants. Living in denial, all things considered, is preferable to living in a state that values property over human life. Put your faith in government certified "scientific" reports. I'm sure they would never lie or try to distract us.

[JimR]

Yeah, you should have the right to make all the people around you inhale carcinogens and smell like crap.

[holeybuybull]

JimR, you have the right to not associate with me. It's your choice. Glad to see you're so willing to deny me mine. Got your brown shirt on? Don't forget your armband.

[holeybuybull]

Dear Dan, please stop trying to regulate my behavior. I am an adult and do not share your fascistic agenda. Why not expend your efforts in supporting our rapidly disappearing constitutional rights. I don't want your nanny state.

[TexasDem0]

OK. Please sign a legally binding contract that you accept responsibility for, and will compensate anyone harmed by your second hand smoke. Also agree not to submit an insurance claim for any tobacco related disease you contract. If you have an automobile accident because you were fumbling around with a cigarette, agree that you accept full responsibility and will not pursue an insurance claim. Pick up every cigarette butt you have ever thrown on the ground. Agree to smoke only in a controlled environment, with proper filters, where you do not pollute the air that we all have to breath.

[jsarets]

I don't believe that anyone could make an honest case against ingredient lists for tobacco products, and this is the sort of thing that should be done at the federal level. However, regulations restricting where people are permitted to smoke should be a issue for state and local government, regulations restricting the marketing of tobacco products violates the First Amendment in my view, and regulations restricting the sale of tobacco products to adults will create black markets.

The people have the right to know the composition and risks of the products we buy, and the tobacco companies were criminally negligent in suppressing evidence that their products have health risks. But everybody, including our children, is now thoroughly aware of the fact that tobacco causes various health problems and is highly addictive, yet we choose to smoke them anyway. As long as the people are told the whole truth about tobacco products, then people should have the right to buy them and smoke them at least in the privacy of their own homes.

The same thing goes for subprime loans. People should be protected from making decisions based on misleading or incomplete information, but they should not be protected from themselves when they are duly warned of the risks. That's not what America is all about, and that shouldn't be a part of the progressive platform.

[lthuedk 1]

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known; tougher to kick than alcohol, heroin, or cocaine. It should be at the top of the controlled substance list, not on the shelves of the local market.

[jfor]

Not true, you have no facts to support your claim. Nicotine can kill you in higher dosages but to compare it to heroin or cocaine? means not only do you not know what your talking about but your harming our society by being a part of the uninformed echo chamber that propagates lies like the one you just repeated.

To be blunt how many smokers have offered to perform sexual favors for a smoke?
How many broke smokers have you seen holding a sign will work for a butt?
How many smokers get convicted of robbing stores so they can buy a pack of smokes?

[JimR]

That is a stupid argument. Smokers who have no money do sometimes rob stores. And I have never seen anyone with a sign that says "will work for heroin."

Study after study after study after study has proven nicotine is a highly addictive drug. You can take the George Bush approach and just ignore science, but that doesn't change the facts.

[BeeOplentee]

Tobacco use is well past its time...

[KillTheMessenger]

But having lung cancer is still considered cool...

[ChiGuy]

Urge your representatives in Congress to block the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act.

(Unless you are a member of, as Zay Smith of the Chicago Sun-Times calls it; The International Association of People That Like To Push Other People Around And Have Found A Socially Acceptable Way To Do It.)

[leftcoastindy]

So you are for legalizing heroine, right?

If you see a difference, please inlighten me.

[ChiGuy]

I'm not only for legalization of heroin, but marijuana, and many other banned substances as well.
Strict government regulation of sales and the institution of addiction treatment programs would decrease street crime by, I have read, more than 65%.
Look at countries like the Netherlands where the regulated sales of substances INCLUDING some opiates similar to heroin are legal.

But since you decided to go there, what about alcohol?
It destroys families and society FAR more than cigarettes or any other drug.
It is also considerably more damaging to the human body than even heroin.
Are you on board with banning beer? Ale? Wine? Champagne? Mojitos? Apple-tinis? Grey Goose? Glenfiddich? GRAIN ALCOHOL?

I have been an all day, every day smoker for 35+ years. I run 5 miles, 3 times per week, and I started just a couple of years ago. I am also active in other recreational sports.
(And no, I don't have a hacking cough.)

Had I consumed alcohol like I smoke, I'd have been dead 25 years ago.

Spare me the knee-jerk politically correct fulminations. If you're going to claim to protect the rest of the world from the evils of cigarettes, you either have to be as committed to the banning of other substances more harmful to the body, or continue the hypocrisy that dominates the anti-smoking crusade.

[Shamroker17]

Well, primarily, heroin is a Schedule 1, Class A drug...possession could land you in prison for 7 years. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are not...Oh, and tobacco ads are already regulated. And you can legally purchase them...if you are 18 years old. Oh, and there's a giant warning from the Surgeon General on every pack, every ad, every website, everything and anything that has to do with tobacco companies or the products they sell.

Actually, I kind of don't see any correlation between legalizing heroine, and not regulating tobacco companies...please enlighten me to the similarities of the two..

[edwcorey]

Tobacco-related deaths in the U.S. are 438,000 a year. How many people die from heroin? Heroin is a brand name, by the way, marketed by Bayer, the same people who brought you aspirin. And one of the reasons marijuana was criminalized was at the behest of heroin manufacturers, who saw it as competition. The whole business about what people choose to pursue their personal happiness with is a heresy against the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

[edwcorey]

Added to that, according to the CDC, "More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined."

[LazarusLong]

If it ain't legal, you can't regulate it...

[demfriend]

Too many people think there is regulation of tobacco already due to the laws about the outsid of the package saying it may cause cancer. Also with the age limit imposed on buying of the products which isn't often enforced in some areas/stores. The package on any tobacco should include the ingredients for sure with so many additives that smokers themselves are not aware of. The other piece of what should be changed on the packaging is that the wording should be changed to tobacco WILL cause cancer. Maybe not the smoker but the kid or other person who breathes it in. Dana Reeves never smoked but it killed her. Like many other boomers who grew up with smoke filled rooms the norm and smoke filled cars of parents many of us will suffer and die because of someone elses habit. The argument that "everything can cause cancer now days" isn't good enough when it comes to the tobacco products not being sold for what they are...cancer causing.

[leftcoastindy]

~25% of people who smoke WILL get cancer. All other products that cause cancer when USED IN THE WAY THEY WERE INTENDED cause cancer less than ~1 or 2% of the time.

Anyone who complains about regulating tobacco either works for a tobacco co. or is a complete idiot.

[holeybuybull]

What % of children who drink milk will become drug addicts? Don't let your babies drink milk.

[PixieLeeInOC]

Oh right, new "education" to people who smoke is really going to make a difference. For DECADES there has been well enough information, changes, laws (and lawSUITS), etc., etc., so that anyone who doesn't know all the facts about smoking has to extremely mentally defective. The increasingly restrictive bans, alone, should have forced smokers to see the handwriting on the wall long ago: cigarettes WILL be banned entirely within the upcoming decades.

People who still smoke do so because they WANT TO, not from lack of regulation and education. They will continue to smoke until smoking is illegal. Children, animals and other unfortunate and helpless innocents will be exposed to the filth of smoking until rude, self-obsessed, rebellious, illiterate smokers quit from unavailability of the product. Trust me, even the threat of arrest or fine won't stop them; it hasn't in many bars here in California who still allow patrons to smoke despite having to pay huge amounts of money when caught. How many times have the rest of us had to walk through clouds of smoke from morons who flaunt the law by smoking RIGHT OUTSIDE the door of a place that we have to walk through?!

Anyone who still smokes knows exactly what's in cigarettes, and what effects smoking has, but they JUST DON'T CARE. I know many people who have quit, but many, many others who haven't or, more iimportantly, won't

[ChiGuy]

"Dana Reeves never smoked but it killed her."
______________________________________________

One of the anti-smoking bunch's favorite tricks: Lying.

There is ZERO proof that cigarette smoke caused her lung cancer. I can't even find a suggestion of that on sites that post extensive biographical information on her.
My mother died as a result of complications after lung cancer surgery. She never smoked, and cigarettes weren't even allowed to be smoked by others when in our home.
My father took up smoking after he moved to the east coast for a promotion to a high pressure job.
(We stayed in Chicago)
He smoked Camel straights (No filter) for nearly 45 years. He's now 82 years old and very active, with a clean bill of health.

There are thousands of other substances in daily life that can cause lung cancer, and one can never know which of them we are exposed to, or are genetically weaker at fighting.

The specious argument that all lung cancer is caused by cigarettes isn't good enough either.