Following in the footsteps of Nancy Pelosi’s 100-Hour Plan and the Democratic hope to make a few changes, now that they have control of both houses, Congress has decided to bring the issue of tobacco regulation back into the limelight. According to MSNBC.com, Congress will hear proposals for a bill which allows the Food and Drug Administration to regulate, but not ban, tobacco. The bill was proposed two years ago, but with Republicans controlling Congress it never passed. But what does “tobacco regulation” mean?
It means the FDA would have the power to restrict tobacco advertising even further, require larger and more detailed warning labels, punish tobacco companies for providing false information, and force tobacco companies to remove all products the FDA deems harmful from cigarettes. It would also allow the FDA to set standards for “reduced risk” tobacco and permit them to oversee tobacco companies adhere to these standards.
Sounds pretty good, right? Another small victory in my quest to see those cancer sticks officially extinct.
Oh, but there’s always a catch…
Philip Morris, (part of Altria Group), is completely supporting this bill, 100%. They claim it creates a, “…competitive environment focused on reducing the serious harm tobacco products cause.” Wait. Hold up. Why would the most powerful tobacco company in the world welcome severe restrictions and constant supervision from the FDA? Basically, the proposed advertising restrictions would ensure Philip Morris remain the market leader in cigarette sales. Being that they are such a wealthy company, they are also better equipped to absorb the costs of bringing their cigarettes up to par with the FDA’s high standards, leaving competing brands such as, Camel and Winston-Salem in the dust.
May they forever remain King of the Tobacco Empire. I’m sorry, but all I have to say is, fuck that. I don’t trust Philip Morris and I surely don’t believe they are looking out for our well-being.
I say it’s about time for a mutiny.
So Philip Morris' selfish motivation for supporting the bill is the basis for your position on it, and not the bill itself?
Or are you saying "yes bill, no Phillip Morris?"
I am not in favor of anything that helps Philip Morris.
Because Camel and Winston-Salem are good humanitarian death merchants?
Let me rephrase...I am not in favor of anything that aides Big Tobacco, or any other "death merchant" for that matter.
But while it would help Philip Morris collect more of the industry's revenue, mightn't a monopoly ultimately raise prices for cigarettes and potentially reduce use, regardless of the effectiveness of the actual warning labels and standards?
I have no idea how much a packet of cigarettes is in the US, but here in Australia with special taxes and excises we pay between $11 ($9USD) and $16 ($13USD) a packet. Without all those taxes it would be around $5 ($4USD) a pack. It hasn't helped significantly having such high prices. The only thing it has helped is the governments revenue.
I have said it once before and will say it again the only way to cut smoking number significantly is to ban tabaco products outright. It is a drug and we are addicted!
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
I don't think that putting a bigger warning label on cigarettes is going to make that much of a difference. Alcohol and cigarettes are proved to be harmful to the human body, and everyone knows this. It's common knowlege now in 2007. The surgeon general's warning takes up the whole side of the box, and making it bigger won't make that big of a difference. People will continue to do what they want.
The law isn't just about labels. It would "...force tobacco companies to remove all products the FDA deems harmful from cigarettes. It would also allow the FDA to set standards for “reduced risk” tobacco and permit them to oversee tobacco companies adhere to these standards."
While this is bad for prospective smokers (it could encourage them to smoke), it's good for current smokers who would like an extra year before their cancer sets in.
Having a bigger warning label for "reduced risk" tobacco would be nice so that it doesn't look safer (even if it is slightly safer).
In Australia we have some extremely graphic warning labels on our cigarette packets. The top front quarter of the packet contains warnings such as:
*Smoking Causes Lung Cancer
*Smoking increases your risk of stroke.
*Smoking harms unborn babies
etc etc etc
These warnings are accompanied by graphic full colour pictures of disected brains with massive blood clots, lungs with cancerous growths and so on.
One of the side panels of the packet contains various warnings in point form about what smoking can do to you. AND The entire back of the packet is printed in full colour with, once again, more graphic pictures of disected body parts etc and more indepth warnings and the phone number and website for the "Quitline". There is no advertising allowed for cigarettes on TV, radio, billboards, newspapers, magazines, sporting events and now they are no longer even allowed to advertise at point of sale displays.
All these warnings and pictures are extremely hard to miss but people treat it like a joke. "Cool you got Gangrene.... swap you for a heart disease....."
You aren't allowed to smoke in any government owned premises, including outdoor sporting arenas, nor in any privately owned commercial building which includes pubs, bars, clubs, resturants, offices, shops etc etc etc. All this does do is promote a more social atmosphere for smokers outside these venues. It is not unusal to see 30-40 people outside a club chatting and smoking then disappearing inside for a drink or a dance then come back outside for more socialising. Some of the most interesting people I have met in the last year since this law came in have been outside pubs and clubs!
On top of this some of the latest figures show that there is actually a rise in teenage girls starting to smoke. Whilst the trend has been for the number of smokers to fall each year the curve is beginning to flatten out and looks like with the increase in teenage smoking may start going back up.
Labelling / warnings / smoke free areas etc JUST DON'T HELP. If the government here in Australia was serious about getting people to quit then they would ban tabaco products outright (and that is comming from a die hard smoker!). They won't of course, because the revenue raised from the taxes and excises on tabaco is HUGE.
Perhaps the democrats should look more closely at what has failed in other countries before committing your country to more of the same failure.
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
Thought I might include some rather crappy photo's just taken on my phone of the warning labels on packets of cigarettes here in Australia
And after all that I am going to prove the labelling doesn't work by going to have a smoke!
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
Congratulations. I am a teenager. You have just convinced me that smoking is cool.
See what I mean. No matter how big, bold and graphic they make the truth, people just won't listen. That includes me too, brb going for another quick smoke!
Cathii
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.
Australia's anti-tobacco campaigns are intense. Especially their TV spots...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YjrkBYDDQM
mmmyeah
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
After reading all of this, I'm going for a smoke......
-------------------------------------------------------
Those who know everything have learned little from life.