Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 27, 2007, 07:49:07 AM
-
The tobacco company cartel is shaking in their boots. Or not.
Senate to Consider Regulating TobaccoKEVIN FREKING | AP | February 27, 2007 09:00 AM EST
The FDA couldn't ban nicotine outright, but the legislation would give it the power to reduce nicotine levels, as well as require larger and more informative health warnings.
The legislation would also prohibit terms such as "light," "mild" and "low-tar," which officials say can mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer than others.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was to take up the legislation Tuesday.
Dr. Elmer Huerta, president-elect of the American Cancer Society, was on the witness list. He said the legislation is a historic opportunity to reduce health care disparities.
"Tobacco-related cancers remain disproportionately high among lower-income and minority communities," Huerta said in a statement.
Previous legislative efforts to give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco have faltered. In 2004, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called the legislation an effort to "ban tobacco in America."
Democrats now control both congressional chambers, giving the legislation's prospects a major boost.
More than 40 million people are hooked on cigarettes, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate committee.
"FDA action can play a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death," Kennedy said.
Some Republican lawmakers will voice opposition to the legislation. One argument against the bill is that the FDA is having a hard enough time doing its job without adding such a major responsibility.
"The FDA approves cures, not poisons," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. "Forcing the FDA to regulate tobacco but not letting them ban it would undermine the long history of the agency protecting and promoting the public health."
For decades, the FDA said it lacked authority to regulate tobacco so long as cigarette makers did not claim that smoking provided health benefits. In 1996, it reversed course and cited new evidence that the industry intended its products to feed the nicotine habits of the roughly 45 million Americans who smoke.
Tobacco companies sued, and the case eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In 2000, the court ruled 5-4 that Congress did not authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070227/senate-tobacco
-
The FDA couldn't ban nicotine outright
The big question is:
Why the hell not? ???
What do we have legislators for?
-Hedge
-
Banning cigarettes = good.
Banning cigars = a crime against good taste.
-
Banning cigarettes = good.
Banning cigars = a crime against good taste.
Government interference in private health decisions = very bad
-
Government interference in private health decisions = very bad
Not in all cases. Certain things like narcotic drugs = a burden on society, just like tobacco. One could use the "private health decisions" argument to justify legalizing heroin, yet for well known reasons, such drugs should never be approved.
But in most cases, your argument = correct. What if the government set a "max weight" limit for every citizen? It could very well be defended with the argument Debussey wrote above. Less average weight = less burden on society.
Conclusion: Very complex area. Requires in depth analysis and comprehension. Yet. Intuitive thought = usually correct here.
Conclusion #2: Banning cigars would be a crime against good taste. Debussey loves cigars. Debussey hates cigarettes. Cigarettes = nothing but destructive.
(Debussey = know this post has some interesting errors in logic, yet Debussey does not give a fuck. Cigars = the essence of cool)
(http://www.buseyworld.com/Busey_15.gif)
-
The big question is:
Why the hell not? ???
What do we have legislators for?
-Hedge
Good question. This might be the only product on the market that kills people, in a slow, painful, and expensive manner, when used as directed. In other words, unlike food or alcohol, you don't have to abuse the product for it to kill you. Our government gives tobacco companies a pass on this and even subsidizes the industry. Our courts don't hold them accountable. It is an evil industry IMO.