US finally has a chance to legislate against smoking

[Justforfun000]

It's been a holdout...Here in Canada we've had smoke free malls and bars for years in many provinces....but I've still been able to go to Vegas and smoke anywhere in a restaurant or Casino. Maybe soon they will be able to stem the tide..

Realistically you have to truly just say "no" to certain things in an unquestionable manner. When you cannot truly justify their personal use, and can also demonstrably show their harm to you and society as being above and beyond acceptable, it's time to do things for people's own good. Tobacco is an evil vice that has poisoned and killed so many people...It's time for it to leave...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... _to_obama/

Bill to toughen tobacco rules sent to Obama
President says he will sign legislation
Globe Wire Services / June 13, 2009


WASHINGTON - Congress gave final approval yesterday to a bill that will give the federal government sweeping new powers to regulate tobacco - a historic action that President Obama said "truly defines change in Washington."

Obama portrayed the bill as the latest legislation during his young presidency that shows he is bringing the change he promised voters.

"Along with legislation to protect credit-card owners from unfair rate hikes, homeowners from mortgage fraud and abuse and taxpayers from wasteful defense spending, this kids' tobacco bill would be the fourth piece of bipartisan legislation that I've signed into law, over the last month, that protects the American consumer and changes the way Washington works and who Washington works for," the president said.

The House had passed a nearly identical version of the bill in April, and yesterday voted 307 to 97 to accept the version that the Senate approved on Thursday.

Minutes later, Obama congratulated lawmakers in brief remarks in the White House Rose Garden and said he looks forward to signing the bill into law.

"We've known for years, even decades, about the harmful, addictive, and often deadly effects of tobacco products," said Obama, whose spokesman said yesterday is still struggling to quit smoking himself. "Each year, Americans pay nearly $100 billion in added healthcare costs due to smoking. Each day, about 1,000 young people under the age of 18 become regular smokers."

He said leaders of both parties have fought for the bill's provisions for more than a decade, battling stiff opposition from the tobacco companies. Those leaders included Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Henry Waxman of California, a key sponsor of the House version of the bill.

"I think we are today at the last gasp of the tobacco industry's efforts to protect their profits at the expense of the health and lives of the American people and to get children to take up this habit," said Waxman, the chairman at a 1994 hearing where tobacco industry executives denied that nicotine was addictive.

The legislation gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the advertising, marketing, and manufacturing of tobacco products. It comes 50 years after the surgeon general first warned about the health effects of tobacco.

Tobacco is used by one in five Americans, yet it is one of the least-regulated consumer products. Pet food and cosmetics are more heavily controlled by the government.

For smokers, the law will mean confronting graphic warnings of the risks of their habit every time they pick up a pack, and possible changes to the formulations of cigarettes and cigars. The law bans most cigarette flavorings and orders the FDA to study the issue of whether menthol should also be banned, on the theory that the flavorings mask the harsh taste of tobacco and make it easier for first-time smokers to get hooked.

For the $89 billion tobacco industry, it will mean new requirements to disclose the ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco products, as well as severe limitations on how they are advertised and promoted. The government could also issue new rules on nicotine content, flavorings and other product features. The industry will also pay for the new program through a new user fee. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that assessments could rise from $235 million in 2010 to $712 million in 2019.

The legislation stops short of allowing the FDA to prohibit tobacco or to eliminate nicotine, the addictive drug in tobacco, entirely. But aggressive FDA efforts to reduce nicotine content could "stimulate as dramatic a change in the product as anything we've seen in the last 50 years," said Adam Goldstein, director of the University of North Carolina Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program.

He said it was not inconceivable that adult smokers, now more than 20 percent of the population, could be reduced to less than 5 percent in 20 years.

The FDA tried to exert authority over tobacco products in the 1990s, but the industry fought back and the Supreme Court in 2000 ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the agency did not have such regulatory powers under then-existing law.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

[The Romulan Republic]

Heavier regulation is probably a good thing, but at the same time I'm glad it stops short of an outright ban, since that would likely turn out as impractical as alcohol prohibition. Or are the circumstances sufficiently different that that's not an issue?

[Justforfun000]

Heavier regulation is probably a good thing, but at the same time I'm glad it stops short of an outright ban, since that would likely turn out as impractical as alcohol prohibition. Or are the circumstances sufficiently different that that's not an issue?

That's a very good question....I actually think an all out ban would be generally be workable..but I think in all fairness to the people, it's not right to jail people for such addictions. The best way which is proving to be effective so far is combining heatlh information along with constant new restrictions on smoking that people become used to. Ulitmately peer pressure factors in and people are like, "Are you fucking nuts??? You're still smoking? You really want lung cancer at 60? Raise your risk of heart attack? Don't you care about your kids?"

Ultimately you have to wake up people's individual morality. If you win through someone's vice defence mechanisms, it's usually because of principle. Making not smoking far more important than the right to smoke is the key.

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

I have seen people on other forums that I belong to acting like this bill is the death knell for anyone who wants to enjoy a cigar (these forums do tend to lean more to the conservative spectrum). However, from what I've read, it seems this bill is primarily aimed at cigarettes, and far from banning cigar sales. Am I following the implications of this bill correctly?

[TheLostVikings]

That's a very good question....I actually think an all out ban would be generally be workable..but I think in all fairness to the people, it's not right to jail people for such addictions. The best way which is proving to be effective so far is combining heatlh information along with constant new restrictions on smoking that people become used to. Ulitmately peer pressure factors in and people are like, "Are you fucking nuts??? You're still smoking? You really want lung cancer at 60? Raise your risk of heart attack? Don't you care about your kids?"

Ultimately you have to wake up people's individual morality. If you win through someone's vice defence mechanisms, it's usually because of principle. Making not smoking far more important than the right to smoke is the key.

Well if they really want to ban people from smoking I think it would be the most efficient to ban the produce/sale/import/etc of it, rather than tons of laws targeting the citizens. There would still be people smoking, if history has shown us anything it is that the "black marked" is quick to responds to peoples "needs". But with no stores carrying cigarettes anymore I'm pretty sure the majority of smokers would en up quitting eventually.

(of course this would need to be combined with your idea for maximum effect, obviously)

[Starglider]

Prohibition would absolutely be an awful idea. The US already has a ridiculously high incarceration rate and overstretched police resources from the 'war on drugs', adding a new drug with a pre-existing base of hopeless addicts will make it far worse. Don't think you can 'hit the suppliers' without consequence either, look at the massive gang violence in Mexico and on the US border due to existing illegal drugs, and expect it to get much worse.

However I have no objection to a ban on tobacco advertising. No sense getting more people addicted than absolutely necessary.

[The Original Nex]

That's a very good question....I actually think an all out ban would be generally be workable..but I think in all fairness to the people, it's not right to jail people for such addictions. The best way which is proving to be effective so far is combining heatlh information along with constant new restrictions on smoking that people become used to.

How would a cigarette ban be any more successful than the banning of alcohol in the '20s?

Ulitmately peer pressure factors in and people are like, "Are you fucking nuts??? You're still smoking? You really want lung cancer at 60? Raise your risk of heart attack? Don't you care about your kids?"

That doesn't work with most smokers at all. Most smokers KNOW that they have a dangerous, disgusting habit already. People telling them what they already know in a self-righteous way won't make them quit. Many of them TRY to quit with regularity and can't. Being an asshole to smokers won't stop them from smoking.

Ultimately you have to wake up people's individual morality. If you win through someone's vice defence mechanisms, it's usually because of principle. Making not smoking far more important than the right to smoke is the key.

Again, most smokers I know already know that they should quit, already know the damage they're doing to themselves etc. Peer pressure isn't enough to stop an addiction.

I have seen people on other forums that I belong to acting like this bill is the death knell for anyone who wants to enjoy a cigar (these forums do tend to lean more to the conservative spectrum). However, from what I've read, it seems this bill is primarily aimed at cigarettes, and far from banning cigar sales. Am I following the implications of this bill correctly?

AFAIK this bill does nothing to directly affect cigarette SALES. This legislation finally puts tobacco under the purview of the FDA, meaning they could forcibly change the chemical mix of cigarettes, amount of nicotine etc. The other aspect of this legislation cracks down on advertising and packaging of cigarettes.

Well if they really want to ban people from smoking I think it would be the most efficient to ban the produce/sale/import/etc of it, rather than tons of laws targeting the citizens. There would still be people smoking, if history has shown us anything it is that the "black marked" is quick to responds to peoples "needs". But with no stores carrying cigarettes anymore I'm pretty sure the majority of smokers would en up quitting eventually.

(of course this would need to be combined with your idea for maximum effect, obviously)

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the US did during Prohibition? They DID target the line of production and the sale of alcohol, rather than merely legislate against drinkers. The black market immediately steps in to pick up the slack. No stores carried alcohol, and the majority of drinkers did NOT quit drinking "eventually". Why would this strategy work with smoking where it failed with alcohol?

[RedImperator]

Well if they really want to ban people from smoking I think it would be the most efficient to ban the produce/sale/import/etc of it, rather than tons of laws targeting the citizens. There would still be people smoking, if history has shown us anything it is that the "black marked" is quick to responds to peoples "needs". But with no stores carrying cigarettes anymore I'm pretty sure the majority of smokers would en up quitting eventually.

(of course this would need to be combined with your idea for maximum effect, obviously)

Well sure. This has worked so well for marijuana, cocaine, and heroin that....oh, wait.

I don't know why anyone would think a tobacco ban would work any better than any other drug ban in the history of, like, ever. Especially given that tobacco's user base is orders of magnitude larger than existing illegal drugs when they were banned. And let's be honest here: you can advocate all you want for a "soft" ban that targets suppliers and leaves consumers alone but 1) that was the approach during Prohibition, and it was still a clusterfuck, and 2) in the United States, the way a ban would be handled would be through "RARGH TOUGH ON CRIME!" legislative posturing.

At any rate, an outright ban would never pass. The states would howl--tobacco taxes are a significant source of state income. For that matter, cigarette taxes just jumped a buck a pack to pay for an SCHIP expansion. The government makes too much money off cigarettes.

[Big Phil]

Why not also ban sugar and saturated fat and reality television and other things that are clearly bad for you? Hell, let's ban alcohol again since that worked so well the first time...

Good Christ Justforfun - did you even think of the practical consequences before you started this thread?


Edit - your poll should have an option for "no because prohibition creates more problems than it solves"

[Justforfun000]

The Original Nex Wrote:

How would a cigarette ban be any more successful than the banning of alcohol in the '20s?

In retrospect I withdraw my suggestion that it might work...I think I was right in the second half of my sentence where I said it's not fair to jail people for addictions. Along with that I agree it must be done voluntarily in the main.

That doesn't work with most smokers at all. Most smokers KNOW that they have a dangerous, disgusting habit already. People telling them what they already know in a self-righteous way won't make them quit. Many of them TRY to quit with regularity and can't. Being an asshole to smokers won't stop them from smoking.

No, you're absolutely wrong. Smokers moan and bitch about people complaining and "being on their case" and sometimes ever threaten to smoke more, but it's all a smoke screen.
Believe me, every little bit of nagging, every article they read about the dangers of smoking, ever person they know that dies of lung cancer, this all has an effect on their psyche. It may take a long time before it truly motivates them enough, but don't think it's ineffective. It's not.

Again, most smokers I know already know that they should quit, already know the damage they're doing to themselves etc. Peer pressure isn't enough to stop an addiction.

Black & White Fallacy. It's not always enough to start an addiction either. That doesn't mean it doesn't influence them whatsoever.

SancheztheWhaler Wrote:

Good Christ Justforfun - did you even think of the practical consequences before you started this thread?

As in the practicality of reducing cancer rates, heart diesease and the numerous other major health conditions that smoking is DIRECTLY linked to causing or worsening? Do you have any idea the sheer amount of money these illnesses cost the health system as a whole? It seems that everytime I ever read any government sources tackling the idea that they would never give up the tax on cigarettes becuase of the revenue has always responded with it's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost it eventually brings.

Practically, it's a very wise move to limit the public consumption of tobacco at the very least. It's worked extremely well in places here like Canada even though people whined and bitched for a while, but now even the majority of the smokers admit they like the pubs and restaurants smoke free.

[Solauren]

I am for banning smoking in public places where people may not want to inhale your second hand smoke, or in places where children have no choice but to inhale it.

i.e Shopping Malls, Restaurants, Office buildings, Cars with kids in them, Public Transportation.

However, if you want to smoke in your own home, or while out for a walk or something, or let people smoke in your home, that's your own business.

[Qwerty 42]

I am for banning smoking in public places where people may not want to inhale your second hand smoke, or in places where children have no choice but to inhale it.

i.e Shopping Malls, Restaurants, Office buildings, Cars with kids in them, Public Transportation.

However, if you want to smoke in your own home, or while out for a walk or something, or let people smoke in your home, that's your own business.

I'd go a step further and outlaw it in places like public parks, etc. Just because it's out of doors doesn't mean people don't want to put up with it, but I agree that it should remain legal within a private residence.

[CmdrWilkens]

I have seen people on other forums that I belong to acting like this bill is the death knell for anyone who wants to enjoy a cigar (these forums do tend to lean more to the conservative spectrum). However, from what I've read, it seems this bill is primarily aimed at cigarettes, and far from banning cigar sales. Am I following the implications of this bill correctly?

The bill places all tobacco products under the FDA's purview, specifically:

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).

So yes cigars are included under FDA guidance. That said I don't see a big push to edit cigar packaging mostly because they are not as widely used, and they do not contain an equivalenetly high level of nicotine.

[Seggybop]

Could systematic discrimination against smokers work as a form of deterrence? We know that outright bans fail, but perhaps if the consequences of smoking were made unavoidable enough, it would reduce the number of smokers down to the truly apathetic.

For sure, deny government-sponsored health insurance to anyone who smokes. They're medical resources that could be used on people who didn't intentionally wreck themselves. But also deny them other forms of government aid, like unemployment benefits or tax deductions. Essentially say to them, "you're hurting society, so why should we help you?"

[Starglider]

For sure, deny government-sponsored health insurance to anyone who smokes.

Cigarette tax more than covers the cost of smoking-related healthcare provision. In the UK at least, if it doesn't in your country you should raise it until it does.

But also deny them other forms of government aid, like unemployment benefits or tax deductions. Essentially say to them, "you're hurting society, so why should we help you?"

How are they 'hurting society', any more than any other selfish behaviour?

[Qwerty 42]

Second-hand smoke is unhealthy, in any quantity, to people who can smell it. That alone seems a rather good reason to prohibit its public use.

E: can't read.

[Jaepheth]

I guess this is as good a place as any to ask:

Why are vaporizers not in widespread use for tobacco? Are disposable cigarettes just too convenient?

[FireNexus]

Probably for the same reason they're not in wide use for marijuana: They're a gigantic pain in the ass to use.

[RedImperator]

Probably for the same reason they're not in wide use for marijuana: They're a gigantic pain in the ass to use.

There are "electronic cigarettes", which are basically cigarette-sized, portable vaporizers (they vaporize a solution of nicotine and a common food additive). They might become more common as the price of cigarettes goes up and the number of places you can smoke them go down.

[Aaron]

I have seen people on other forums that I belong to acting like this bill is the death knell for anyone who wants to enjoy a cigar (these forums do tend to lean more to the conservative spectrum). However, from what I've read, it seems this bill is primarily aimed at cigarettes, and far from banning cigar sales. Am I following the implications of this bill correctly?

Smoking is basically banned everywhere in Ontario, malls, restaurants, in your car with kids, within a certain distance of buildings etc. However, if you belong to a "private club" (the definition of which escapes me at the moment) you can smoke in it, there's one in Kingston on Ontario St. And they sell cigars, pipe tobacco etc that you can smoke in their lounge. There's a ready made solution for the folks on the other forum, should the US government care to look how things work elsewhere.

[Stormin]

Throw some of these on the packages as a start maybe. It won't work on the already addicted but it might cut down on the cool factor of smoking if the package is half covered by a picture of a blackened tar and cancer infected lung.
Continue with a ban for smoking in public buildings and in cars with children. Raise cigarette taxes and work out a deal with Canada so it's kinda worthless to continue the cross border smuggling that goes on now, probably by having the same level of tax on both sides of the border. The Mexican border would just need slightly stepped up security which would also help curb other forms of smuggling there.

[Big Phil]

No, you're absolutely wrong. Smokers moan and bitch about people complaining and "being on their case" and sometimes ever threaten to smoke more, but it's all a smoke screen.
Believe me, every little bit of nagging, every article they read about the dangers of smoking, ever person they know that dies of lung cancer, this all has an effect on their psyche. It may take a long time before it truly motivates them enough, but don't think it's ineffective. It's not.

What does this have to do with the OP? Seems like a pointless tangent.

As in the practicality of reducing cancer rates, heart diesease and the numerous other major health conditions that smoking is DIRECTLY linked to causing or worsening? Do you have any idea the sheer amount of money these illnesses cost the health system as a whole?

What does this red herring have to do with the OP?

Practically, it's a very wise move to limit the public consumption of tobacco at the very least. It's worked extremely well in places here like Canada even though people whined and bitched for a while, but now even the majority of the smokers admit they like the pubs and restaurants smoke free.

And this is a response to whose argument that smoking should be allowed EVERYWHERE? Oh wait, it's another red herring. Since you conceded your original argument that cigarettes should be outlawed, is there even a point to this thread any longer?

[sketerpot]

Prohibition sucks and is ineffective. I just like having public places not smell like seven asses because some dickbutt of a smoker decided that his Personal Rights include making every non-smoker in a ten meter radius gag from the toxic stench. Those public smoking bans are fucking awesome, and one of the truly great things that have happened in the past few years where I live.

Really, the best way to cut down on smoking is the same strategy you use to deal with fundamentalist wackjobs and the Ku Klux Klan: make them extremely uncool. It works.

[Justforfun000]

SancheztheWhaler Wrote:

And this is a response to whose argument that smoking should be allowed EVERYWHERE? Oh wait, it's another red herring. Since you conceded your original argument that cigarettes should be outlawed, is there even a point to this thread any longer?

Did you forget your distemper shots? What's the big deal? The thread TITLE was about ultimately banning smoking, but my post in the OP was discussing public usage and health concerns in the main which are still relevant and completely germane to the subject. What, should I ask to lock the thread and start a brand new one titled "Should the government ultimately be able to ban smoking in limited amounts" before we can discuss my ultimate position on the issue? Unlike some people, I don't come into arguments with my mind made up, I'm open to discussion and other people's opinions. Why should the thread be killed?

[Big Phil]

Wow dude, moving goalposts much? The OP didn't leave a whole lot of room for discussion (you called for a total ban on smoking in your second post, to be fair), and unless you think a bunch of people all agreeing that banning smoking in public places is an argument, there's no point to the discussion. That being said, I haven't asked for the thread to be locked; I just pointed out that since we're in near universal agreement on banning smoking in public and you conceded that criminalization was a bad idea, there's not much left to discuss.