Thread: Obama Signed it
View Single Post
Old August 26th, 2009, 03:31 PM
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Alright, in that case, lets have a look at the actual bill, rather than squabbling about the competency of the FDA, since to every rule, positive or negative, there is an exception, and personal ideology will take preference in almost all cases. (Plus Im lazy and don't feel like spending 4 hours googling FDA related court cases, approval procedures, reasons for denial on corporate products, ect. ect.) We'll leave it at the FDA is generally good, but a complete bureaucratic nightmare for compliancy issues. (Which I wont dispute, its a government agency with thousands of pages of documents for every manufacturer to read, despite their good intentions for public safety).

The Bill in its complete form can be found here :

The Highlights :

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The use of tobacco products by the Nation’s children is a pediatric disease of considerable proportions that results in new generations of tobacco-dependent children and adults.

The definition as a pediatric disease is shakey at best, but the general will of the statement is understood for the most part, however, I dont believe parents being smokers affects a childs desire to start smoking on a chemical level, possibly on a psychological level as defined by a "Role Model"

(2) A consensus exists within the scientific and medical communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health effects.


(4) Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under the minimum legal age to purchase such products.

True in a logical sense. I don't think anyone turns 18 and says "Gee, time to start smoking"

(5) Tobacco advertising and marketing contribute significantly to the use of nicotine-containing tobacco products by adolescents.

True, this was evident in the decline of overall underaged smoking when the ban of Animal Mascotts with Human Characteristics was implemented in the 90's.

(6) Because past efforts to restrict advertising and marketing of tobacco products have failed adequately to curb tobacco use by adolescents, comprehensive restrictions on the sale, promotion, and distribution of such products are needed.

True, I don't think anyone can dispute this. The purpose of the act is to eliminate smoking in minors before being at a legally responsible age to make their own choice free from peer pressure and wrong parenting.

(7) Federal and State governments have lacked the legal and regulatory authority and resources they need to address comprehensively the public health and societal problems caused by the use of tobacco products.

Federal Yes, State No. The states have been largely ignoring the issue due to state income from tobacco sales taxes. The Federal Government let the decision rest upon the States, and on this specific issue, States failed.

(8) Federal and State public health officials, the public health community, and the public at large recognize that the tobacco industry should be subject to ongoing oversight.

What industry shouldn't ?

(11) The sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, and use of such products substantially affect interstate commerce through the health care and other costs attributable to the use of tobacco products.

Well they certainly will after Obamas new healthcare system comes into place.

(12) It is in the public interest for Congress to enact legislation that provides the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate tobacco products and the advertising and promotion of such products. The benefits to the American people from enacting such legislation would be significant in human and economic terms.

Depends on whos terms you're talking about. Regulation in Advertising is a suitable thing, people are gullible, the government looks to protect the people (In theory), some regulation of corporate advertising is reasonable. Economic terms, possibly, how much money are we going to lose in tax revenue from tobacco, will it justify the healthcare savings ? Most certainly after this round of healthcare reform, but what about current medical expense reform for advertising. Note advertising is the key problem popping up here again and again.

(13) Tobacco use is the foremost preventable cause of premature death in America. It causes over 400,000 deaths in the United States each year, and approximately 8,600,000 Americans have ******* illnesses related to smoking.

Possibly, but was it from smoking cigarettes ? Camp Fires ? Cigars ? Pipes ? NHT ? Shisha ? Rubber Factory Fumes ? Shady call at best, and not all smokers get diseases, and many non-smokers get "smoking related illnesses" as well.

(15) Advertising, marketing, and promotion of tobacco products have been especially directed to attract young persons to use tobacco products, and these efforts have resulted in increased use of such products by youth. Past efforts to oversee these activities have not been successful in adequately preventing such increased use.

Duh, young people live longer than old people. Its called brand awareness. Coca-Cola does it too. However, the TYPE of marketing is whats in question here, not the actual act of advertisement

(16) In 2005, the cigarette manufacturers spent more than $13,000,000,000 to attract new users, retain current users, increase current consumption, and generate favorable long-term attitudes toward smoking and tobacco use.

How much money did the US government spend in 2005 to sway public opinion in polls ? How much money did the US government spend in 2005 on pork politics and paperwork ? The US Congress shouldn't chastise anyone for spending money.

and the list goes on and on, go read the full findings of the committee if you're interested.

Moving on to the actual ramifications of the bill :

The purposes of this division are--

(1) to provide authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), by recognizing it as the primary Federal regulatory authority with respect to the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products as provided for in this division;

Good. The federal government needed an overseer for the Tobacco Industry, the states wern't doing their job, Im sure many can agree.

(2) to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to address issues of particular concern to public health officials, especially the use of tobacco by young people and dependence on tobacco;

(3) to authorize the Food and Drug Administration to set national standards controlling the manufacture of tobacco products and the identity, public disclosure, and amount of ingredients used in such products;

National Standards are good. We all want to be told up front and honestly whats being used in the products we consume, be it smoking, eating, drinking, ect.

(4) to provide new and flexible enforcement authority to ensure that there is effective oversight of the tobacco industry’s efforts to develop, introduce, and promote less harmful tobacco products;

flexible enforcement is a phrase you never want to hear from the post 9-11 government. Though the intention to produce less harmful cigarettes is a good one.

(5) to vest the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components of tobacco products;

Correct. Correct. Correct. We don't want people adding more chemicals to our precious tobacco. Its a natural leaf! Let us smoke it how we want it! Now, the question becomes, are molasses and glycerin harmful ? As of right now, the FDA says no, since its sitting on our grocery store shelves. Tar is a natural by-product of burning any form of carbon based material, good luck regulating that.

(6) in order to ensure that consumers are better informed, to require tobacco product manufacturers to disclose research which has not previously been made available, as well as research generated in the future, relating to the health and dependency effects or safety of tobacco products;

non-biased consumer information is good. No arguements here.

(7) to continue to permit the sale of tobacco products to adults in conjunction with measures to ensure that they are not sold or accessible to underage purchasers;

Bam : Right There : The Big One : NO BAN ON TOBACCO SALES

(8) to impose appropriate regulatory controls on the tobacco industry;

Again, not a bad thing

(9) to promote cessation to reduce disease risk and the social costs associated with tobacco-related diseases; and

Again, realistic, Unbiased information disclosure.

(10) to strengthen legislation against illicit trade in tobacco products.

Fighting the war on illegal tobacco imports / growth. Ok... no problems with that either.


(b) Agricultural Activities- The provisions of this division (or an amendment made by this division) which authorize the Secretary to take certain actions with regard to tobacco and tobacco products shall not be construed to affect any authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under existing law regarding the growing, cultivation, or curing of raw tobacco.

The FDA isnt allowed to get into people shit about growing it either, thats entirely up to the secretary of agriculture. They're restricted only to regulating the production, sale, and marketing of retail tobacco.



(a) Definition of Tobacco Products- Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(rr)(1) The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).

‘(2) The term ‘tobacco product’ does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 503(g).

‘(3) The products described in paragraph (2) shall be subject to chapter V of this Act.

‘(4) A tobacco product shall not be marketed in combination with any other article or product regulated under this Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement).’.



‘(A) IN GENERAL- The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to tobacco leaf that is not in the possession of a manufacturer of tobacco products, or to the producers of tobacco leaf, including tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses, and tobacco grower cooperatives, nor shall any employee of the Food and Drug Administration have any authority to enter onto a farm owned by a producer of tobacco leaf without the written consent of such producer.

‘(B) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if a producer of tobacco leaf is also a tobacco product manufacturer or controlled by a tobacco product manufacturer, the producer shall be subject to this chapter in the producer’s capacity as a manufacturer. The exception in this subparagraph shall not apply to a producer of tobacco leaf who grows tobacco under a contract with a tobacco product manufacturer and who is not otherwise engaged in the manufacturing process.

‘(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to grant the Secretary authority to promulgate regulations on any matter that involves the production of tobacco leaf or a producer thereof, other than activities by a manufacturer affecting production.

You can grow your own and tell the FDA to stuff it.

The bill is targeting the sales of tobacco to minors, the advertisement of tobacco to minors, the coverup that smoking is less dangerous than it actually is, the lack of disclosure to additives in smoking products.

As long as Mu'Assel manufacturers continue to lawfully and willingly disclose a full list of ingredients in their products (Which they do) and those additives are FDA approved for human consumption (Which Molasses, Glycerin, and Natural Flavorings ARE) then they won't be restricted in the manufacture, processing, and sales of their product.

Now, thats not to say in the end we might end up having to PAY MORE, but we're not in danger of being banned from smoking our favorite hobby.

Note that this is also not the government trying to control your life, its the government trying to reduce the sale of a substance to UNDERAGE MINORS who are not LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE or considered LEGALLY CAPABLE of making the choice for themselves. This is no different than restricting the sales of alcohol to underage minors. They arnt telling you that you cant have it, they're telling you that they dont want KIDS to have it. I don't think anyone is against that, besides, from birth to 18 years old the body makes rapid and significant changes to its physical structure, the effects of smoke on any given number of adolescents could be devastating.

Besides, Mu'Assel manufacturers don't have a "target market" in underaged kids. They rely on the college / adult crowd to keep them in business. Kids don't have the money to afford 200+ dollars of hookah equipment, coals, shisha, ect.
Most of them dont have the patience to sit down and enjoy a good smoke.

It only takes $5 and a few minutes to smoke a cigarette and look cool when you're 15... most kids don't bring their hookahs to school either, but plenty of em take their cigs.

Last edited by HookahWaffle; August 26th, 2009 at 03:45 PM.
Reply With Quote