http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_co/us_fda_tobacco

WASHINGTON – No more "light" cigarettes or candy-flavored smokes. Bigger, scarier warning labels. Fewer ads featuring sexy young smokers. Historic anti-smoking legislation sped to final congressional passage on Friday — after a bitter fight lasting nearly a half-century — and lawmakers and the White House quickly declared it would save the lives of thousands of smokers of all ages.

Even more important, they said, the measure could keep countless young people from starting in the first place.

President Barack Obama, admittedly still struggling with his own nicotine habit, saluted passage of the bill, which he will soon sign. He said, "For over a decade, leaders of both parties have fought to prevent tobacco companies from marketing their products to children and provide the public with the information they need to understand what a dangerous habit this is."

Specifically, the measure for the first time will give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products, demand changes or elimination of toxic substances and block the introduction of new products.

Will it matter as much as supporters say? Smokers lighting up outside Washington offices had mixed reactions.

Government researcher Reginald Little, 47, who said he swiped his first cigarette from his grandfather at age 15, thought regulation was needed "because you don't know exactly what's in it."

But Becky Cook, a 22-year-old program analyst, said that, while she supported limits on ads aimed at children, "I already know it's bad for me, so I don't think knowing how much is really in one cigarette is really going to make a difference."

And nonsmokers?

Yan Meek, 42, a finance analyst from Jacksonville, Fla., who was visiting the nation's capital with her 8-year-old son, Jesse, doesn't smoke and suggested the legislation would lead to "too much government control over personal lives, personal choices."

Lionel Richardson, 26, an electrical engineer visiting from Huger, S.C., is a a nonsmoker, too, but called the legislation a good thing. "It's a drug," he said, and "the FDA plays a big part in what drugs are sold." As for restricting advertisements, he said, "They make it sexy so kids think it's the cool thing to do."

Under the legislation:

• Cigarette packages will have warning labels that cover 50 percent of the front and rear. The word "warning" must be included in capital letters.

• Any remaining tobacco-related sponsorships of sports and entertainment events will be banned, as will giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product. A federal ban will be imposed on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.

• Point-of-sale advertising will be limited to adults-only facilities, and remaining vending machines will disappear except in places restricted to adults. Retailers who sell to minors will be subject to federal enforcement and penalties.

• Smokers, particularly the younger crowd, will find they can no longer buy cigarettes sweetened by candy flavors or any herb or spices such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon or vanilla. Cigarettes advertised as "light" or "mild," giving the impression that they aren't as harmful to health, will no longer be found on store shelves.

Personally, as a non-smoker, I am against most of this bill--I think it's a sad thing when the government can regulate it to this extent. . .

What I agree with:
Not allowing ads in places Children and Young Adults can be heavily influenced
Increased penalties for sales to minors
Increase in inclusion of what is in cigarettes on the packaging

What I disagree with and why. . .
No "Mild" or "Light" versions of Cigarettes:  I understand the reasoning on this, but think about it for a second.  Bud Light, Diet Pepsi, LowFat Milk, Low Sodium Ramen. . I can go on and on with misleading marketing ploys, but are they going to go after all these products next?  I personally think that it is unconstitutional to regulate companies like this, cigarettes are horrible, they smell bad, they are terrible for health. . .so is Soda and Beer--are they next?  Shouldn't I be allowed to decide for myself what I want to drink/eat?  Cigarettes Light and Mild brands have a different flavor of tobacco to them, and while still overall very harmful-are significantly different from their major counterparts. . .I don't think it's fair to say they can't have that.

No "Flavored" cigarettes/tobacco:  Again Cherry Pepsi, Bud Light Lime, Chicken Ramen . . . same stuff here from the previous argument, aim at educating children that flavored tobacco is no safer than their non-flavored counterparts yes, but they are overstepping their bounds by regulating the cigarette companies rights to make less disgusting tasting products.  Some smokers, who have been addicted for a long time, use the flavored ones because they don't smell as bad on the breath or taste as bad, I for one appreciate both of those elements since smoking itself really can't be eliminated

50% of Package covered with basically 'ew' ads: C'mon now, should Fanta have to have their fantanas be fat obese chicks with trouble sleeping and bad teeth?  How about Budweiser's bottles be shown with a fat drunken slob passed out being taken advantage of, or better yet beating his/her lover in front of a convenience store.  Perhaps Red Barron should have to make the entire back side of it's box a giant fat kid warning "If you eat this you could look like me"  It's going to far in my opinion, and it's scary but don't think that cigarettes are the only thing that they can come after.

Advertising at Entertainment and sports events: This is total bull$#it in my opinion.  The biggest hockey and baseball sponsors are beer companies, Lays/Pepsi sponsor like everything including the Run/Walk program and sports--how many great hockey players sit around eating lays and drinking Pepsi all day and still have the shape to do those kind of things???  Nascar is sponsored heavily by unhealthy products, and we are going to tell cigarettes it's OK for everything unhealthy except you? 

In all I think this has the potential to destroy one of our nations biggest and oldest industries.  Smoking is something I do not support, and I generally am in favor of laws aimed at education or reduction of public smoking, but this has gone to far.  I fear my rights as a citizen of the United States because I can see easily how these laws could eventually be passed against other vices I personally choose. 

I don't like the nanny state overtones of this, however, I do like the limiting of nicotine content.

If tobacco products had less nicotine, fewer people would get addicted in the first place.

Light cigarettes aren't the same as light beer or diet soda. Light beer has less calories and alcohol than regular beer (of the same brand). Diet soda has less sugar/calories than regular. Light cigarettes have holes around the filter to fool the machines that measure nicotine and tar, and give lower readings than normal.

I'd like to see cigarettes banned altogether - that's coming from a smoker. If the FDA gets their hands into the mix, cigarettes will be banned.

Big tobacco has nothing to worry about though - if I were running things, they'd be making joints instead.

Ant

I think banning cigarettes would be a big mistake, but I can see where you're coming from.

If pot is ever legalized, Big Tobacco will hold the only rights to growing and selling it.  Government only likes things legal when it controls who can produce or provide it.

They're coming so close to banning tobacco all together  Has anyone considered the fact that there still are farmers who earn their living by growing tobacco?  I don't think the government is going to subsidise what they were getting.  Also since smoking is so commonplace how are they going to be able to enforce the ban?  Will it become like pot?  That'll go over like a lead balloon.

They're coming so close to banning tobacco all together  Has anyone considered the fact that there still are farmers who earn their living by growing tobacco?  I don't think the government is going to subsidise what they were getting.  Also since smoking is so commonplace how are they going to be able to enforce the ban?  Will it become like pot?  That'll go over like a lead balloon.


Tobacco farming is largely corporate, much like farming of food crops.  There aren't really that many "small farmers" for tobacco anymore.  This is why I support the end of farming subsidies, tobacco or otherwise.  The few families still in farming need to move on and stop expecting us to pick up their tab.  Corporations are much more efficient at farming and don't need the subsidies (although they still get them unfortunately).

As you said though, a ban would be very impractical -- which is why I believe it won't happen.  We learned our lesson with Prohibition, and hopefully, we'll apply the same lesson to pot.

I heard about this on NPR today.  What's the problem? 

Smoke light cigarettes, die of light cancer.  No problem.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/clown.gif

I dunno how they're gonna list all the ingredients on one pack, though!

Here in Ontario, the law now is that cigarettes cannot be on display in stores, they have to be kept behind closed cases or out of sight from general view.  On top of the warning labels on packaging that show images of what smoke does to you, the government is doing whatever they can to get people to stop smoking.

I used to work nightshift with a girl that went home early one night because she ran out of smokes and didn't think she could finish the night without having a smoke on her next break ::)

Seems to me that this bill violates the First Amendment.

But more importantly... Wil lthe bill effect the new "dissolvable tobacco" product segment? ???

Here in Ontario, the law now is that cigarettes cannot be on display in stores, they have to be kept behind closed cases or out of sight from general view.  On top of the warning labels on packaging that show images of what smoke does to you, the government is doing whatever they can to get people to stop smoking.

I used to work nightshift with a girl that went home early one night because she ran out of smokes and didn't think she could finish the night without having a smoke on her next break ::)


Same in Quebec. I find the whole thing ridiculous. And now they want to ban flavoured cigarillos and cigar wraps etc... All for the children. What a crock of sh!t.

The differences stated are a fair thing to say, but, light beer is not light--lighter-but not light,

semantics, really, but light beer *is* lighter than regular beer. The same cannot be said for cigarettes.


diet soda is not good for a "diet"

Why? Diet soda is 0 calories.  ???

we have 6.8 million unemployed people in this country and counting--we haven't worked in two months--and you would support a ban that would put millions more directly, and have ripple effect on places that rely on smoking for their income, out on the streets looking for work?  Sorry--can't say that I agree with you one iota on that opinion.


"Big tobacco has nothing to worry about though - if I were running things, they'd be making joints instead." = No one who's involved with tobacco would be unemployed.

Would you continue to keep them legal and killing hundreds of thousands per year as well as costing this country a sheeshload of money in medical expenses, just so a few hundred thousand people can have jobs? Funny how you always remind me to quit smoking, yet when I come up with an ironclad way for me and everyone else to do it, now you're against it?

Ant

Smoking is an addiction.  People are going to smoke whether there are warning labels or not.  Whether it's legal or not.  I get what you're saying, BAD, but at the end of the day, the government doesn't always see past the nose on it's face.  It's the same with the "War on Drugs."  Until you deal with the addiction, people are always going to smoke. 

Same in Quebec. I find the whole thing ridiculous. And now they want to ban flavoured cigarillos and cigar wraps etc... All for the children. What a crock of sh!t.


It's all about the children.  Kids are going to find a way to smoke no matter what, so hiding the cigarettes from plain view isn't really doing anything, it's just the governments way of solving the issue ::)

I have no issue if people want to smoke.....and possibly die earlier! As long as they don't then cry foul and blame the tobacco giants for giving them cancer. Personal responsibility is the name of game. I DO have an issue with having to breathe in second hand smoke though! I think it's pathetic the way some smokers have to leave the workplace every hour or so to get their fix.

The governments make too much money off the cigarette taxes to ban it outright.

I'm not too sure how I feel about this bill. I'm still struggling with my addiction. I have been on the wagon for 20 months now and I know I am only one puff to going back. And man, I REALLY miss it. I would LOVE to have a cig (or 5 or 20 ).



Cat

Well it is nice to see that the Congress has created a new product line for criminals.  ::)

We'll start seeing tobacco grow-houses, and shady characters selling "real cigarettes" out the back of their hoopties down by the riverfront. Rival cigarette runners will start shooting each other to protect their turf.

Well it is nice to see that the Congress has created a new product line for criminals.   ::)

We'll start seeing tobacco grow-houses, and shady characters selling "real cigarettes" out the back of their hoopties down by the riverfront. Rival cigarette runners will start shooting each other to protect their turf.


So drug dealers will be selling cigs along with the crack and pot.  Business is going to skyrocket. :o

I understand a lot of people struggle with smoking addictions. I, however, do not. I love sitting down with a bunch of friends, having a couple cold ones and smoking my face off. One of my favourite things to do, which is why I only do it when I'm on vacation. I enjoy the activity, and when I get back from my holiday, I don't smoke... ever. I don't even feel an urge to because I don't feel I'm in the situation that calls for it.

So what I'm worried about is people like me who honestly just enjoy a smoke from time to time, when I'm on holiday away from home and trying to cut loose. I sympathise with the ones who are addicted and want to quit, but just can't muster the willpower. I don't feel, however, as a responsible adult who can make his own decisions, that the government should ruin my fun just because they *think* they can help some of those true smokers (whether they want to be helped or not).

 

Well it is nice to see that the Congress has created a new product line for criminals.   ::)

We'll start seeing tobacco grow-houses, and shady characters selling "real cigarettes" out the back of their hoopties down by the riverfront. Rival cigarette runners will start shooting each other to protect their turf.


Not likely...  because we don't really see that with alcohol, and yet it's also heavily taxed.

At most, moonshining is a niche market.

Well it is nice to see that the Congress has created a new product line for criminals.   ::)

We'll start seeing tobacco grow-houses, and shady characters selling "real cigarettes" out the back of their hoopties down by the riverfront. Rival cigarette runners will start shooting each other to protect their turf.


Ever tried to bake your own Oreos?  Doesn't work.  That's 'coz some are industrial chemicals you can't buy on the consumer market and the exact recipe is a Nabisco secret.  Same thing with commercial cigs.  You can roll all the loose-leaf you want, but you'll never duplicate that Camel taste!
:(