USGov Moves to Regulate Tobacco

[Pangloss]

On Thursday the US House passed a bill that proposes directing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the tobacco industry. Interestingly, they would not actually be allowed to ban tobacco, but would instead be required to state what nicotine levels the companies could include in their products.

 

Which in my mind raises a really significant question: Doesn't that put the FDA in the position of saying what nicotine levels are "safe"? I realize they won't state it that way, but that's how we normally view government regulation -- they're saying that this level is safe and this other level is not. At least that's how we normally view food and drug regulation. Drawing this kind of "it's not really safe but it's what we'll let them do, and you still shouldn't smoke" distinction seems really gray to me.

 

What do you all think?

 

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-tobacco3-2009apr03,0,5223437.story

[jackson33]

Traditionally Congress passes hundreds of 'Bills' each session which never see a Senate Committee, much less floor debate/vote. It's a political game, where 435 members dependent on their single district for reelection (this case maybe 20) can say they followed through on some promise.

 

If it were to be heard, passed Congress and for some reason the President signed the bill, you are indirectly correct. The FDA would be forced to make any Nicotine Product, either a prescription drug or outlaw it altogether. It's already been determined nicotine in any degree is harmful.

[bascule]

This is awesome. The FDA has not had regulatory powers over the contents of cigarettes, which is horrible. Carcinogens like nitrosamine wind up in cigarettes through shoddy manufacturing, namely curing tobacco over an open fire as opposed to using clean air and a heat exchanger. Cigarettes ship containing radioactive particles which emit damaging alpha radiation, and scientific studies have shown these radiation levels are carcinogenic. (Here's a follow up paper on radioactivity in cigarettes.)

 

This is something I think has been needed for awhile, and I even wrote my senator about it some time ago. I'm really happy to see something was finally done about this, and I'm interested to see if the FDA will pursue safer cigarettes. I think smokers have unduly been a drain on the healthcare system because tobacco manufacturers have not been given minimum standards for the safety of their product. Two of the worst carcinogens in cigarettes are preventable by simple changes to the manufacturing process (three if you count cigarette vaporizers). With proper regulation I don't see why cigarettes could not be made completely safe.

[Pangloss]

Two of the worst carcinogens in cigarettes are preventable by simple changes to the manufacturing process (three if you count cigarette vaporizers). With proper regulation I don't see why cigarettes could not be made completely safe.

 

Interesting. You remember those threads where KLB said that there is no safe level for smoking, right? It's been a few years; I wonder if the technology has changed.

[bascule]

It's been a few years; I wonder if the technology has changed.

 

Short answer: yes.

 

http://www.crown7.com/

 

As to whether you can accomplish the same thing with vaporized tobacco remains to be seen.

[bascule]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/tobacco.lobby/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Looks like it's about to be signed into law. This seems like such an obvious move to me too: the FDA should have the power to regulate a drug like nicotine. Why they haven't in the past only makes me wonder how much the tobacco lobby previously controlled our government.

 

Now if only we could do something about corn...

[SH3RL0CK]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/tobacco.lobby/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Now if only we could do something about corn...

 

 

Corn is addictive? and causes cancer? and should be regulated by the FDA? Wow, thanks for the heads up on this, I will be sure to watch what I eat...

 

 

Seriously, I agree the agricultural lobby is quite strong and for good reason. But the comparison is apples to oranges as corn is very much different than tobacco.

 

Back to the topic at hand, all I have to say is that its about time. Still, considering the vast tax money cigarettes bring to the governments, I really question if the government is really at all serious about reducing smoking. At some point (and maybe this revenue isn't high enough...yet), I would think that curbing smoking would become unaffordable by the government.

[iNow]

But... since you raised the specter of affordability, it's important to remember that right now... with the government taking a larger role in health care... looking for every conceivable way to drive down unnecessary costs... to remember that the decreased revenues from cigarette taxes may be totally eclipsed by the overall cost savings to our healthcare system which would result from fewer in our populace lighting up those coffin nails and inhaling.

[padren]

But... since you raised the specter of affordability, it's important to remember that right now... with the government taking a larger role in health care... looking for every conceivable way to drive down unnecessary costs... to remember that the decreased revenues from cigarette taxes may be totally eclipsed by the overall cost savings to our healthcare system which would result from fewer in our populace lighting up those coffin nails and inhaling.

 

Actually.... smokers save health care money. They did a study in Canada (this was a decade ago, sorry can't cite reference) to evaluate how much smoking costs the health system, and it was found smokers have a lower total cost due to a lower life expectancy.

 

Not saying it's a "good thing" but in pure numbers, that's the last thing I heard. Newer studies could say something different of course.

[iNow]

Yes, I know the study to which you refer. A challenge with that study is how they've defined the costs. Obviously, costs fluctuate, and part of what we're doing now in the US with the healthcare discussions is finding a way to reduce costs.

 

Without getting too bogged down in the issue you've raised, I'll just say more simply what I should have the first time around.

 

 

I see the action against tobacco to be tied into the dialogues regarding healthcare. It's sort of like we're trying to come at this thing from multiple angles to reduce costs of healthcare across the board (at least, in the short term ) wherever we can. The idea being... It's like a holistic approach to legislative action, or something.

[JohnB]

The funny thing is that we've gone the other way. It used to be that the tar content of each cigarette (in mg) was on the outside of the pack.

 

This appears to be no longer required which makes it difficult for those looking for low tar smokes.

[bascule]

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE55G6RA20090617

 

Strange to see this bill bans cloves. It also sounds like they're mulling banning menthol, which would really suck.

 

Want to ban something from cigarettes? How about polonium 210 and nitrosamine?