Stamping out Big Tobacco

[Tev]

So the FDA finally got its wish and is set to be granted powers to regulate tobacco products in ways that were before just a crazy man's pipe dream.

The news!

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.
......
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.
......
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.
......
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.

So yeah, by the time I get around to having kids and they are old enough to even care about cigarettes, there might not even be any around. I wonder what we're going to find to draw in revenue to pay for healthcare once Big Tobacco finally folds. I mean, sure there will be a lot less people in need of healthcare in the first place so it will be cheaper......but that's an awesome source of income.

[Fifthfiend]

I seriously don't know how this is supposed to work given that if tobacco was regulated the way any other drug was regulated it would be flat-out illegal.

Not even marijuana style "it's not all that bad for you but we're gonna pretend it is so we have an excuse to be dicks about something" illegal just like "this is hella fucking addictive* and completely fucks you up healthwise and there's really just like no good reason to sell this shit" illegal.



*And by addictive I mean I quit like four years ago and I am getting cigarette cravings right now as I am typing this.

[Tev]

Well the FDA now has the power to not only force tobacco companies to reveal their full list of ingredients in cigarettes, but also has the power to make them take out harmful substances from the menu as well as reduce the levels of nicotine. That in and of itself should cut down on addiction at least a little. Also, they have set up a flat out ban on new products. This way the companies can't try to make something new to weasel around whatever guidelines the FDA sets up.

[Jagos]

Here's a big question:

Does the US government still subsidize tabacco farming?

If so, then I see this as a moot point. If we were REALLY going to stop tobacco, give the farmers 5 years to change crops and stop subsidies.

[Tev]

I guess my question is this: How harmful is tobacco (the leaf) vs. tobacco (the chemical laced cig)?

Asking farmers to get rid of something that may not be that bad just because the industry spend billions to lace it with toxic death seems kinda unfair.

Also, going back to a more "smoke it as it's grown" culture may even herald in a more accepting look on other grown leaf-smoked plants.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Wouldn't that hurt the economy? I thought cigarettes were a big part of it.

And before the accusations fly, no I'm not pro-cancer.

[Mirai Gen]

I'm very very on the fence about this. I mean trying to force people to quit cigarettes sounds right up the US Government's alley (Which is to say it is completely fucking wrong), but on the other hand I can think of nothing more life-saving and cost-effective than trying to kill off cigarettes or at least reduce their addictive/chemical properties.

So I'm at passe.

[Eldezar]

Originally Posted by Tev

I guess my question is this: How harmful is tobacco (the leaf) vs. tobacco (the chemical laced cig)?

How about this. I have been smoking cigars and pipe tobacco for years. I smoke occasionally, but when I do smoke, it is a lot in one sitting or in one week. Then I stop, and don't feel any problems. I could go months without any tobacco.

I tried the same with gas station cigarettes. Although I forced myself not to smoke after I had finished that one pack in a week and a half, I felt the cravings very much. It was probably a month or so before I had stopped noticing any cravings altogether. There are the occasional cigar companies that lace their products with extra chemicals, but brands such as Rocky Pattel and CAO are very good. Pipe tobacco is usually good, but I do not know any specific supplier that is genuinely additive free. Also, never get anything from the Cheap Tobacco franchise, because their name spells out the quality of their product.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Wouldn't that hurt the economy? I thought cigarettes were a big part of it.

Unlikely. If people don't spend money on cigarettes, then they can spend it somewhere else. Either on the next crazily addictive product that comes out or maybe actually use it to save for college or buy groceries/pay bills or go to the oncologist or whatever. As long as the money is in circulation, the economy won't be affected.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Eldezar

How about this. I have been smoking cigars and pipe tobacco for years. I smoke occasionally, but when I do smoke, it is a lot in one sitting or in one week. Then I stop, and don't feel any problems. I could go months without any tobacco.

I tried the same with gas station cigarettes. Although I forced myself not to smoke after I had finished that one pack in a week and a half, I felt the cravings very much. It was probably a month or so before I had stopped noticing any cravings altogether. There are the occasional cigar companies that lace their products with extra chemicals, but brands such as Rocky Pattel and CAO are very good. Pipe tobacco is usually good, but I do not know any specific supplier that is genuinely additive free. Also, never get anything from the Cheap Tobacco franchise, because their name spells out the quality of their product.

Right, so there is nothing for the honest tobacco farmer to worry about. Their product is fine if used as a recreational tool and is not terribly addictive.

I think this will help reform the industry to a more.....green(?) perspective.

[Magus]

I'm pretty sure any sort of prohibition on cigarettes would go about as well as the prohibition on alcohol, probably even less well because a lot more people are addicted to cigarettes as opposed to addicted to alcohol. I mean, people just wanted to drink alcohol and you'd see them willing to risk jail time to drink it in a speak easy and organized crime shooting other gangs to death over selling it to the people. I think an addictive substance would be much harder to eradicate.

Unless they simply made cigarettes illegal and people still had access to other tobacco products, or went the route of changing the ingredients in the cigarettes as opposed to banning them. Or some other less harsh measure.