Government regulated tobacco industry

[frawin]

Great Post Larry and very well written. I agree 110% with what you say.

[Anmar]

Larry, thanks for the clarification, i agree with your second post.  I think part of the problem is that people are too caught up in bickering over the whole republican vs democrat thing and not paying attention to the real issues.  I think there are people on both sides who recognize we are heading down the road to disaster and it doesn't really matter who the president is.

Every once in awhile, we get a presidential candidate that truly cares for America, and he wants the job so he can save the country.  I think Ron Paul was that candidate, and the last before him was Ross Perot.  It befuddles me why people don't vote for these men.

[redcliffsw]

Anmar you're right.

The debate amongst the Democrats & Republicans is not the direction
we ought to be headed.  Ron Paul knows what the founding fathers
intended and that's where the debate ought to be.

[pamsback]

 

It befuddles me why people don't vote for these men.

Surprise surprise surprise.......I did.

[larryJ]

To be honest, up until this last election I did not know who Ron Paul was.  And only then I just heard the name but did not pay attention to his campaign.  In going back now and looking at his qualifications I can agree with most of his ideas.  However, we have what we have and have to deal with it.  I think that you are both correct about the partisanship.  It is getting in the way.  All presidents, including Obama, always say we need bipartisanship which sounds good, and ain't gonna happen.  The way to change is to write your congressman and let them know how you feel.  You will probably get the stock standard form letter like I have in the past which states that they are glad that you wrote and happy that you, as a citizen, have voiced your opinion as you are constitutionally allowed to do.  There may or may not be any answer to the problem you are writing about.  So, it requires more letters insinuating that you feel he/she is not doing anything to solve your problem.  (CAUTION!  No physical threats.)  If enough people start writing then it becomes more noticeable and forces some sort of action.  If that particular Representative still doesn't write back and tell you what they are specifically doing to solve the problem, remember that in the next election and elect someone who will.

I am, and have been, very passionate about flag burning.  I view it as a sign of disrespect.  It is destroying a symbol of freedom that many have fought for.  So, I wrote a letter to my congressman that I thought a law should be introduced to make it a crime to burn the flag.  I copied the letter to the President and to the editor of the local newspaper.  The president responded by saying that it was indeed a terrible thing to burn a flag and he didn't like it either.  I never heard from the congressman, but the letter was published in the paper and received a few responses in favor of the idea.  Nothing ever came of it though.

So change is hard to come by, but it can be done.

Larryj

[Anmar]

I live in Pete Starks' district, and even though he is one of the most liberal dems in the house, he's open and approachable.  Been to his office a few times and he has regular town hall meetings where he will meet anyone living in his district and answer any question.  I think he's one of those guys that really mens well also, even though i might disagree on some minor policy issues.  I know he's honest and isn't beholden to the lobbyists like the other 95% of the congress.

Obama's talk about bipartisanship is pretty much just lip service, proven by his appointment of Rahmbo, who is just as partisan as Cheney and Rove are/were.

[Tobina+1]

Hasn't the govt already been regulating the tabacco industry for years?  Wasn't there essentially a "tobacco buyout" program about 5-6 years ago where they shut down tobacco farms?  The govt paid the farmers to grow other things (cattle, other crops, etc).

[larryJ]

Indeed the govt did bailout the tobacco industry some years ago but it wasn't a loan.  sorry for the length of this article but it says what happened.  I believe this was from a CBS news source.

Apr 2, 2009 12:00 pm                                                                                                                                                    Anti-smoking forces won a long-awaited victory Thursday as the House passed legislation that would give the federal government key controls over the tobacco industry for the first time.

The measure, passed 298-112, gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate - but not ban - cigarettes and other tobacco products.

The Senate could take up its version of the bill later this month, and supporters are confident they can overcome opposition from tobacco-state senators. The White House supports the legislation, a shift from the Bush administration which threatened to veto a House-passed measure last   year.

President Barack Obama has spoken publicly about his own struggles to kick a smoking habit.

"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco, and I am proud that we have taken such decisive action," said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the bill's sponsor. "Today we have moved to place the regulation of tobacco under FDA in order to protect the public health, and now we all can breathe a little easier."

(I just reread this.  Pun intended?)

Waxman and his Senate counterpart, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have promoted legislation giving the FDA regulatory powers over tobacco products since the Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that the agency did not have that authority.

That ruling came after years of lawsuits and debate on the issue, including Waxman's memorable 1994 hearing where the heads of big tobacco companies testified that nicotine was not addictive.

Waxman's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act wouldn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency would be able to regulate the contents of tobacco products, make their ingredients public, prohibit flavoring, require much larger warning labels and strictly control or prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Kennedy plans to introduce his version of the bill after Congress returns from its April recess. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., is expected to lead the opposition, but supporters are confident they can clear the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster.

"FDA regulation of cigarettes - the most lethal of all consumer products - is long overdue," Kennedy said Thursday. "I am confident that the Senate will approve it expeditiously."

Opponents from tobacco-growing states such as top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA had proven through food safety failures that it's not up to the job. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or prevent them from starting, lawmakers should ensure they have other options, like smokeless tobacco.

That was the aim of an alternate bill offered by Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., who would leave the FDA out and create a different agency within the Health and Human Services Department. His proposal failed on a 284-142 vote.

"Effectively giving FDA stamp of approval on cigarettes will improperly lead people to believe that these products are safe, and they really aren't," Buyer said. "We want to move people from smoking down the continuum of risk to eventually quitting."

Major public health groups, including the American Lung Association and the American Medical Association, wrote to lawmakers asking them to oppose Buyer's bill, contending it would leave tobacco companies without meaningful regulation and able to make untested claims about the health effects of their products.

Buyer pointed out that Waxman's bill is supported by the nation's largest tobacco company, Marlboro maker Philip Morris USA. Officials at rival tobacco companies contend the Waxman bill could cement Philip Morris' market advantage.

Lorillard Tobacco Co. said in a statement that among other problems, Waxman's bill "leads to an industry monopoly by locking in the huge market share of our largest competitor while eliminating our ability to communicate with our adult smokers."

(© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Larryj

[Tobina+1]

No, it wasn't a loan, it was a type of subsidy program.  But I think it was funded by major tobacco companies, but govt mandated (actually I think it was a court ruling).  The company I work for actually got some money out of it, indirectly, as they were able to use the money to fund other ag-related projects such as cattle marketing programs to help aid the former tobacco farmers make money in other sectors.
I do think smoking is bad for you, BUT, I'm not sure that government should have so much say-so in how it's regulated.  I guess I do think that the ingredients of cigs should be printed on the carton, just like all food, so the FDA needs to get in gear to regulate that better.  But as far as the government having a say-so in how much nicotine is in the cigs, I'm not sure about.  Next they'll say how much chocolate can/cannot be in a candy bar?  They haven't gone after alcohol this way (yet).  Yes, they have certain warnings that need to be on packaging and in commercials (about drinking responsibly), but if they're going to regulate the industry, they may as well start trying to make it an illegal substance... because that's what it seems like it's going towards.

[sixdogsmom]

First hubby was from Kentucky, a tobacco growing area. A fellow who owned land wasn't considered important by the number of acres he owned, but by the number of tobacco lands he owned. Back in the 1920s, there were wars among the land owners with many raids by the KKK, trying to regulate the number of acres a farmer could put into tobacco; thus keeping the price up. The government stepped in, alotted so many acres for each land owner to farm tobacco and ended the wars. Those restrictions remain today; a settlement imposed by the United States Government when the locals could not/ would not settle it themselves. Interesting times, not often presented in modern history classes.