It's about F-DA-in time!

Jun 11, 2009 13:40

The Senate has approved a bill that would give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco. It stil has to go to the House, but they seem inclined to pass this. Obama has said he wants to sign it.

One word: "Duh".

From the article:For the first time, the $89 billion tobacco industry would have to disclose the ingredients in its products. Under the ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 33

tirant June 11 2009, 22:23:19 UTC
just ban it.

this gradual crap, and cig companies working with the FDA is stupid. It kills people. It is not needed. Ban it.

Reply

geomusicon June 11 2009, 23:10:28 UTC
I completely disagree. It doesn't kill everybody, and when it does it's likely because of the 6000-1 chemicals that are not tobacco that they put in their products. Regulate it, and let people smoke cigarettes that are what cigarettes should be, rolled up tabacco.

Alochol kills people and is most certainly not needed, should we ban that too? So are high fat foods, trans fat foods, high sugar foods, and other foods that are alternatives to much healthier foods.

I want to be able to smoke an occasional cigar or pipe. If you're allowed to drink gin, why can't I smoke a cigar or pipe in my own home where nobody will be exposed to my second hand smoke?

You know what else is not needed? A commuter infrastructure devoted to gasoline powered cars. The crap accumulating in the air down here in southern cal is more likely to kill us than getting the occasional whiff of my neighbor's ciagrettes. Let's ban car commuting.

Reply

tirant June 11 2009, 23:22:34 UTC
we tried to ban alchol, and it did not go well. Something about being able to make it at home. Trying again seems unlikely, but should there be an attempt, I will support it.

Banning car commuting would be wonderful, however it is still needed due to a lack of public transit. (which gets worse every year)

And I am certain that fake fats etc will be banned in the future as well. People will deal in contriband transfats that they got hooked on as children.

Reply

keithgustafson June 12 2009, 15:50:14 UTC
I have to say I strongly disagree with you here. Why should the government regulate something an adult does that only affects him or herself? That is, if I smoke up a storm but don't expose others to my smoke, why on earth should that be banned? Or if I drink myself into a stupor every night but never negatively impact another person? Or spend all of my time on nerdsrant to the detriment of all my other responsibilities? Surely I have to take responsibility for some of my choices, and if some of them are "bad" (as judged by whom?) then what the hell do you care?

In summary, why do you have to get all up in my bidnass, tirant? :)

Reply


hamtrap June 12 2009, 04:53:20 UTC
I hate to put the cap on this, but the bill expressly forbids the FDA to ban cigarettes.

Reply

usofe June 12 2009, 05:21:53 UTC
Spoil-sport.

Reply

geomusicon June 12 2009, 05:33:57 UTC
yeah, this was getting out of control ;-) I still can't find the source data for those high numbers. Every legitimate health organization repeats those numbers, but I want to know how they were tabulated. Ah, it's hard arguing such points when 1.) you know there's a legitimate major health risk, and 2.) the guys responsible are such b&*t&%ds. I just don't understand why I can't see the source data.

Reply

tirant June 12 2009, 17:49:35 UTC
yes, and how much does that have to do with having a President who smokes?

Reply


geomusicon June 12 2009, 22:54:08 UTC
The bill passed the house. I'm curious to see who the 97 holdouts were and why.

Reply

voting is tirant June 12 2009, 23:08:55 UTC
easily discovered from here http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/1/votes/335/

the post says "Obama, himself a smoker who has struggled to quit,...", so I would guess that means he has not.

it also has this disapointing statement: "Pet food and cosmetics are more heavily controlled [than tobacco]by the government."

Reply

Re: voting is geomusicon June 12 2009, 23:57:39 UTC
I noticed that language on Obama in the WP article, yet a similar one in the LA Times referred to him as a "former smoker".

Reply

Re: voting is annachronism June 13 2009, 04:18:23 UTC
How timely! This just in from the AP on Obama's struggle with nicotine addiction:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBjW6btDpPBV33E8Uuj3XiQX_09AD98PA5PG0

Gibbs apparently sidestepped the question over whether the Prez still smokes the ciggies. Translation, in my opinion, is that he still "falls off the wagon" occasionally like he did on the campaign trail.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up