Re: Obama Signed it
HW, good post! I agree with a lot of it and yeah, I lack the and inclination to start digging up a bunch of papers and stuff to get into a debate about the FDA in general. I do have points which Iíll state quickly.
(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.
Me: I suppose Iíd say that is true but it would be more accurate to say that the risk factors are often wildly exaggerated and biased making a reasonable estimate of the risk of smoking more difficult.
(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.
HW: 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.
Me: It seems that a great deal of regulation with respect to tobacco advertising has existed for a great many years now and since adolescent smoking tobacco use has declined a great deal it appears that those efforts are successful. As a result I donít think that further restrictions are needed. Smoking by minors will not be eliminated for the simple reason that smoking is pleasurable and some kids will ignore the anti-tobacco campaigns. Companies need to advertise and itís impossible to prevent kids from seeing those adds or knowing about tobacco. The enforcement of current restrictions should suffice in my view.
(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.
HW: 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.
Me: Given that a massive, all pervasive anti-smoking campaign has been on going for decades I fail to see why state governments should duplicate those efforts since state governments have lots of more pressing problems to confront and a declining revenue base to support them.
(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.
HW: What industry shouldn't ?
Me: That depends upon what you mean by oversight. I have no problem limiting advertising near schools, banning sales to minors and restricting adds that target minors. The problem is that regulations have a way of expanding and stifling industry. Given the political clout of the anti-tobacco lobby, public hysteria and the nature of governments to expand I have a hard time believing that oversight wonít end up making tobacco even more expensive then it already is.
(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.
HW: Well they certainly will after Obamas new healthcare system comes into place.
Me: It seems that anything sold in more then one state effects interstate commerce yet some how I doubt that should be sufficient excuse for state control of said industry. As to health care costs Iíve pointed out plenty of times evidence that indicates tobacco consumers are a net contributor to state coffers since they have lower life expectancies then the rest of society. I can also point out a great many products and life style choices that have substantial costs associated with them that makes no tax payments at all. Saying that anything with a social cost is grounds for state intervention would mean the end of liberty.
(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.
HW: 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.
Me: I donít like the idea that people are so gullible that itís up to government to decide what they can and canít be exposed to even if a public health issue is at stake. To the extent that ad restricts can reasonablely be expected to make a product less well know or appealing to minors without restricting the advertiser access to adult consumers I am for it. In the end it is the responsiblity of the parent(s) to keep children tobacco free. Other wise I agree fully with what you say.
(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.
HW: 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.
Me: Actually the deaths caused by tobacco use are totally bogus since they are based upon a highly flawed model being pushed by the anti-tobacco lobby. I posted a bunch of stuff about that before which I assume is still floating around the forum. Colbyís site has a bunch of stuff on that subject.
(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.
HW: 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
Me: I canít think of any tobacco advertising campaign directed at minors since Joe Camel went away. Given that past restrictions have reduced tobacco consumption by minors and that ultimately parents, not the state, are responsible for their own children I donít see the point in spending more money taken from the public to pay for telling wildly exaggerated risks to the public and trumpeting more low quality research.
(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.
HW: 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.
Me: Frankly I doubt that 13 billion bucks has been spent marketing tobacco to new smokers and I wonder how that figure was obtained? I do know that the tobacco industry spends a lot of money subsidizing anti-tobacco campaigns which is outrageous and I know that for decades an anti-tobacco campaign funded with tax money has been used to sway public opinion and generate shoddy research. I also know that tobacco companies havenít been allowed to respond to these attacks since they are so heavily restricted in terms of advertising.
(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;
HW: Bam : Right There : The Big One : NO BAN ON TOBACCO SALES
Me: Sorta true. What they want to do is make tobacco so expensive that itís effectively banned for anyone that isnít rich.
(9) to promote cessation to reduce disease risk and the social costs associated with tobacco-related diseases; and
HW: Again, realistic, Unbiased information disclosure.
Me: If we had tobacco consumption studies that were not so openly biased and hysterical the public would be better off.
(10) to strengthen legislation against illicit trade in tobacco products.
HW: Fighting the war on illegal tobacco imports / growth. Ok... no problems with that either.
Me: When tobacco becomes excessively taxed as is now the case you promote organized crime.