~* CLOVE CIGARETTES * ~ Thing of the Past

Historic anti-smoking bill aims at stopping teens

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer – 20 mins ago
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."

The thousand health and consumer groups that endorsed the bill say that, combined with other anti-smoking efforts, it can significantly reduce the 400,000 deaths and $100 billion in health care costs attributed every year to smoking in the U.S.

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.

With an estimated 3,500 young people smoking their first cigarette each day, the ban on flavorings alone could have significant health benefits, said Dr. Adam Goldstein, director of the University of North Carolina Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program.

In the longer run, aggressive FDA efforts to reduce nicotine content — the bill prohibits an outright ban on nicotine or cigarettes — could "stimulate as dramatic a change in the product as anything we've seen in the last 50 years."

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.

Other factors that could cut into tobacco use include the sharp rise in prices — Congress earlier this year approved a 62-cent a pack increase in the federal cigarette tax to pay for a children's health program — and measures by the states to ban smoking in public places. Goldstein noted that even North Carolina, the nation's biggest tobacco grower, recently moved to ban smoking in public areas.

Paul Billings, vice president at the American Lung Association, agreed that pricing, education and laws are all needed to drive down smoking and reduce the health consequences. FDA regulation has been "a huge missing piece in the arsenal against tobacco," he said.

New FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said the agency was ready to "roll up our sleeves" to meet its new obligations. "We really do feel, by being able to regulate tobacco and tobacco products, we can reduce the burden of disease, especially by preventing teen smoking."

The Senate passed the FDA bill on Thursday by a 79-17 vote and the House followed suit on Friday, with a 307-97 vote. Despite those one-sided tallies, the bill has been years in the making.

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 regulatory powers over tobacco under then-existing law. Several efforts by lawmakers since then had fallen short, victims of industry lobbying and opposition from the Bush White House.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sponsor of the bill and chairman at a memorable 1994 hearing where tobacco industry executives denied that nicotine was addictive, relished the long-sought victory.

"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," he said.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco company, came out in support of the bill, saying it was behind tough but fair regulation. Its chief rivals were opposed, saying that FDA restrictions on new products would lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Costs of the new program will be paid for by a new user fee imposed on the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that assessments could rise from $235 million in 2010 to $712 million in 2019.

There was some opposition from Republicans who questioned the ability of the FDA to handle tobacco regulation and criticized what they said was another Democratic-led intrusion of the federal government in private business. North Carolina Republican Howard Coble said the bill is unpopular in his state, with its 12,000 tobacco farmers. "Their fear is tobacco today, the family farm tomorrow."

___
Associated Press Writer Ann Sanner contributed to this report.

*****************

Less you roll'yer own.

Don't they realize that the more they try to make something taboo, the more people will seek it out?

^^If they realized that then NO drugs would be illegal.

I don't think Ginger was even thinking of drugs, just the tabacco and cigarette bill.

I myself don't consider tabacco the same as drugs. But then again there are people who don't consider alcohol as a drug either. It just makes me wonder if certain types of flavored alcoholic drinks will someday be banned from being made or sold as a way to not appeal to the interest of younger crowds. You never know. The health concerns connected to drinking could also one day be up with the smoke.


Something a little interesting, if I can ever find the article again, the biggest push for this bill to pass came from one, if not the, biggest tabacco companpies.

Crap, I don't even smoke and I think these new laws are ridiculous. I'm gonna grow my own tobacco now, just out of spite.

This law is a bunch of crap. No matter how much they raise the price of cigarettes people will still pay it, I know because I do it. It won't reduce the number of current smokers it just takes unfair advantage of their addiction. Included in the ban as well are e-cigarettes, which most if not all people who use them say it has been the best way to quit smoking the real thing.

Prohibition anyone?

That worked well

Guess something else will have to be found to look cool smoking outside the local waffle house at 2 AM.

>.>

cynfullov wrote:

I don't think Ginger was even thinking of drugs, just the tabacco and cigarette bill.

I myself don't consider tabacco the same as drugs. But then again there are people who don't consider alcohol as a drug either. It just makes me wonder if certain types of flavored alcoholic drinks will someday be banned from being made or sold as a way to not appeal to the interest of younger crowds. You never know. The health concerns connected to drinking could also one day be up with the smoke.

Yeah, I didn't think she was talking about illegal drugs, but my point was that anything that the government makes illegal will be more desired and sought after via any means possible. A drug is anything that changes the body's homeostasis. Nicotine is a very powerful drug, as is alcohol, as is cocaine. It doesn't mean it should be illegal, let people do what they want. If it were all readily available, people wouldn't get so violent and crazy over getting it. The stupid ones with no self-control would quickly die out and the others could enjoy their change in homeostasis in a responsible way. Of course, stupid things done on that drug would be unlawful (like drunk driving), but the rest of us shouldn't be punished for what a handful of dumb a$$es do. Let me smoke my cloves if I want to!


I do favour not advertising to kids, though. That's pretty screwed up.

Screw you, Obama. Now we will be even broker because my boyfriend will pay even more money for cigarettes. Oh and he will.

Could always... uh... quit smoking and save a ton of cash if being broke is that much of a concern.

http://www.newhopeseed.com/tobacco/tobacco_seed_varieties.htm

*This advertisment was brought to you by the "Diva Tabacco Growers of America, Glamboy Inspirational Industries & Madelchai's Sig. Pic."

Seduction of Madness wrote:

Screw you, Obama. Now we will be even broker because my boyfriend will pay even more money for cigarettes. Oh and he will.

ummm, the smokers as well as the state of NY were skrewed way before Obama showed up. we're already the state paying the most on taxes for cigarettes already, really more "thanks" should go to the govenor way more than obama for that (sarcasm, lots of sarcasm) and I do have a whole rant on paterson but I'll save it for a better thread. Worst comes to worse just drive an hour or so to a reservation and get some there and help their economy, or you know, like Madelchai said... quit...

Quit? O RLY. Gee...what a novel idea.

You so smart, Madelchai.

Strippers putting themselves through college don't need anymore expenses. Also y'know...I don't smoke.

^^I'm pretty sure he and Endless were just thinking out loud, Seduction. Probably not directed at you or anyone else.

And you're right, you don't need more expenses -- college was a fortune 10 yrs. ago when I went, and it's only gotten more expensive.

Seduction of Madness wrote:

You so smart, Madelchai.

I know.

It's what I do.

The laws seem kind of ridiculous. Its not the government's job to babysit. Its the parent's job to get on their kid's case if they catch them smoking. Even the parents who smoke probably won't want their kids smoking because they've dealt with it for so long. If people want to smoke, so be it, let people take responsibility for themselves for a change.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who take up smoking as teenagers weren't blissfully unaware of the side effects, most probably knew exactly what they were doing and chose to do it anyway.

Another reason i'm glad i dont live in the states

Well there's talk now this ban may not only go mobile, but be a complete and total ban of all tobacco products within the US military.


Study recommends total ban on smoking for soldiers

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- You've seen the iconic picture of a soldier with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, but that could soon be a thing of the past.


The Pentagon is considering a ban on the sale and use of tobacco in the military.

A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle.

According to the study, tobacco use impairs military readiness in the short term. Over the long term, it can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The study also says smokeless tobacco use can lead to oral and pancreatic cancer.

The Defense Department's top health officials are studying the report's suggestions and will make recommendations to the Pentagon's policy team and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The study recommends phasing out tobacco products such as cigarettes and cigars over a five- to 10-year period.

However, the suggested ban does not sit well with many in uniform, including retired Gen. Russel Honore, best known for coordinating military relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina-affected areas with an ever-present stogie. He said soldiers at war need to puff.

"When you're tired and you've been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference," said Honore, who was in charge of the Army's training programs before he retired.

Other soldiers questioned whether this was a good time to stamp out smoking, given the Army's concern with a high suicide rate.

"For some, unfortunately, they feel that smoking is their stress relief. Well if you take it away, what is the replacement?" said Sgt. 1st Class Gary Johnson.

The Pentagon supports the goal of a tobacco-free military, said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

"However, achieving that goal will depend on coincident reductions of tobacco use in the civilian population," she said.

Dr. Ken Kizer, the author of the study, found that civilians don't smoke as much as soldiers. One in three active duty soldiers smoke, he said, adding that among the general population, that number is less than one in five.

The Pentagon banned smoking in buildings on bases years ago. It has counselors on call to help service members quit. But while local governments have heavily taxed tobacco, the commissaries often sell it at deeply discounted prices.

"The military sends very mixed signals," Kizer said. "This is what's confusing to people."

The study found that profits from those tobacco sales -- $80 million to $90 million -- often pay for recreation and family programs on base

^^ As if they haven't got it rough enough!

Wait a minute, the troops have heavy artillery, but will have no nicotene... this is a very bad idea.

That is a bad Idea, both of em! I can understand not advertising to the young, but all these bans on cigarettes are just going to get people
p!ssed off. Too much government control is never a good idea. And then try to take it away from our military? Those guys are out there risking thier lives for our freedom and you want to take away the one thing that gives em a break? They should give them a break and let them keep there cigarrettes. and like Angel said, no nicotene and heavy artillery is a very bad idea!

This is stupid and a waste of resources that could be put to better use.

If kids want to start smoking who cares, I don't their not my kids, their parents are the ones who should be responsible for monitoring their children.

Anyway, what a rediculous idea to ban flavored smokes.

So break out the hookahs unless there is a ban on that too

I remember clove cigarettes from my Junior High years (yes, Junior High - I think I'm one of the oldest people on this forum) and I have always wanted to smoke them.

But, an allergy to ciggies doesn't allow it.

So, if they ever become safe, I think I'll try the clove e-cigs.

Nanny state mentality yet again

helen damnation wrote:

Nanny state mentality yet again

Hey bird they still allow smokeing in restaurants bars and pubs and clubs in the UK? Or have they banned it like they have at publics spots here in canada?