House approves FDA regulation of tobacco products

[onehandle]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – The federal government would for the first time have regulatory powers over the tobacco industry under a bill the House approved Thursday after years of campaigning by anti-smoking forces. 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 have expressed confidence they can overcome expected resistance 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 vote brings us closer to putting a deceitful and dangerous industry under the watchful eyes of government regulators," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a statement. The bill was sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who in 1994 summoned the heads of big tobacco to a memorable hearing where they testified that nicotine was not addictive.

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. "We have come to what I hope will be an historic occasion, and that is finally doing something about the harm that tobacco does to thousands and thousands of Americans who die each year," Waxman said Wednesday as lawmakers debated his Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_go_co/fda_tobacco_12

---

If not for the "Republican Revolution" of '94, Waxman and Kennedy would have gotten this done over a decade ago.

Thank You, Senators!

[Romulox]

1. How can the FDA "regulate" a deadly substance with no recognized health benefits?

It will be required to ban tobacco, unless a massive legal loophole is created...

[marketcrazy1]

2. so where is this headed??

prescription cigarettes?? the start of the "war on tobacco" fines or jail for smokers?? new black market for cigarettes?? neighbors calling the cops on the guy next door for smoking while mowing the lawn?? teachers calling CPS when a student reveals mom or dad smokes at home? is this REALLY something we want???

[Ian David]

10. What universe do you live in? And what color is the sky on your planet? n/t

[marketcrazy1]

13. yes I was being pretty extreme

but nothing would shock me considering all that is happening in the world..

[crimsonblue]

4. The FDA can regulate the growing and production conditions of tobacco

You probably don't know this, but most of the tobacco grown in the US is shipped to Europe, because Europe has more strict regulations as it relates to the consumption of tobacco. That is, human-consumable tobacco in Europe must have less pesticide usage, less chemicals added during the manufacturing process. We have good regulations in the US in place only as it relates to the farming of tobacco. We import most of the tobacco Americans smoke from countries with very suspect regulatory mechanisms. The FDA will have the power to ensure that pesticide usage is minimized, and will also regulate the additives put in tobacco during the manufacture process.

[Romulox]

19. I used to smoke Davidoff, "pure Virginian" (Made in Germany of 100% US tobacco)

Nonetheless, the FDAs mission is to regulate food and beneficial drugs; it will require a wholesale change in its mission and powers in order to regulate a substance with no known medicinal benefit.

[crimsonblue]

20. tobacco is a natural antacid, and it is a stress reliever. n/t

Also, the FDA regulates methamphetamine and heroin, neither of which can be considered beneficial.

[Romulox]

21. Tobacco also calms the nerves quite well--it is not *approved* by the FDA for this use, however.

"FDA regulates methamphetamine and heroin"

Both of these substances have approved medical uses. Tobacco does not.

[crimsonblue]

22. heroin has no approved medical use.

from addictions.org:

Schedule I Drugs
Schedule I drugs have a high tendency for abuse and have no accepted medical use. This schedule includes drugs such as Marijuana, Heroin, Ecstasy, LSD, and GHB. Recent activists have tried to change the schedule for Marijuana citing the possible medical benefits of the drug. Pharmacies do not sell Schedule I drugs, and they are not available with a prescription by physician.

It is true that methamphetamine has approved uses (and is a Schedule II narcotic). Notably, amphetamines such as Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall, etc, are widely used in the treatment of ADHD.

[Romulox]

23. Opiate derivatives are approved for dozens of uses. I won't pick nits with you about "heroin". nt

[crimsonblue]

26. there is nothing to nit pick about heroin....

methadone, morphine, and other opiates are not the same thing as heroin. Heroin is dangerously addictive, destructive, and life ruining. To put other opiates in the same class as heroin is a bit dumb.

[Romulox]

27. The distinction you posit is bogus.

I.e. "Heroin is dangerously addictive, destructive, and life ruining."

This is true of all opiates. :hi:

[crimsonblue]

29. The distinction is not bogus...

morphine has important medical usage, namely to alleviate severe pain. Morphine is much safer than heroin, both physiologically and due to its purity. Name me one valid use for heroin.

[Romulox]

30. Er, you are arguing a point nobody has made.

A poster upthread mentioned that the FDA regulates heroin. Of course it does not. I (taking note of the context of the thread) understood that he meant opiates.

The only person belaboring this (non) point is you! :hi:

[crimsonblue]

31. The FDA regulates heroin. It is naive to assume otherwise.

Heroin is classified by the FDA as a Schedule 1 narcotic, meaning it is highly prone to abuse and has no beneficial medical uses. Other opiates, such as morphine are classified as Schedule II narcotics, meaning that there is a high incidence of abuse, but that there are valid medical uses. Schedule I narcotics are not available in this country with (or without) prescription. Schedule II narcotics are available by prescription from a physician with a valid DEA narcotics license.

[Romulox]

32. Sorry, you're mistaken. And your point is not germaine to the topic anyhow.

Enforcement authority

Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.

The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.

Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the DEA Administrator, by authority of the Attorney General, requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.

The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.

Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed.

Under certain circumstances, the Government may temporarily schedule a drug without following the normal procedure. An example is when international treaties require control of a substance. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) allows the Attorney General to temporarily place a substance in Schedule I "to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety". Thirty days' notice is required before the order can be issued, and the scheduling expires after a year; however, the period may be extended six months if rulemaking proceedings to permanently schedule the drug are in progress. In any case, once these proceedings are complete, the temporary order is automatically vacated.

The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

[crimsonblue]

34. So you're going to continue to argue about semantics?

God, you're a piece of work. The DOJ, in conjunction with HHS (which, incidentally, includes the FDA) and DEA controls the Schedule classification of narcotics. HHS may rely on the opinion of the FDA as to the regulation of narcotics. To say I'm mistaken is asinine, and in your own words "nit picking".

[Romulox]

35. Your statements are factually inaccurate. Why whine at me about it?

"HHS may rely on the opinion of the FDA as to the regulation of narcotics."

You said that FDA regulates heroin; it does not.

[Bandit]

24. I believe the exact opposite is true

I used to bite my fingernails from thew time I was five years old. It was a deep ingrained habit. I started smoking in sixth grade and smoked for over twenty years. I decided one day to quit smoking and I did and have never regretted that decision for one second. One day after about a month after I had quit smoking I noticed I had fingernails, for the first time in my memory I had fingernails. I had not made any conscious decision to try and quit biting my nails, it just happened. It had been a nervous habit and somehow as a side effect I had stopped and that leads me to believe that smoking is certainly not something that ends nervous behavior but something that enhances it..

[Romulox]

25. As a 20 year (now ex) smoker, I speak from my own experiences.

"smoking is certainly not something that ends nervous behavior but something that enhances it.."

I think "nervous behavior" and "nerves" are not the same thing. Smoking itself is a "nervous behavior", no?

[classysassy]

3. Outlaw tobacco

"what is it good for",nothing but death and heartache.

[MineralMan]

5. Then don't smoke. I don't need you to be my nanny.

Let's tax alcohol at the same rate cigarettes are taxed.

[OhioChick]

6. You got it.

Let's hit up fast food and junk food, too.

[Ian David]

11. We should distribute free cigarettes to The RNC. n/t

[onehandle]

14. I welcome you to smoke.

Just keep your smoke out of other's personal space.

Good luck with that.

[MineralMan]

17. Well, if you ever catch me smoking where my smoke affects you,

you're welcome to scold me. I do not do that.

[Vidar]

7. Teaching an old dog new tricks: now the FDA can roll over for the tobacco lobby

as well as the pharmaceutical companies.

[Ian David]

12. And this will probably cost the Democrats any gains we made in The South this year. n/t

[Dogtown]

8. FDA discovers huge new source

of graft.

[tomm2thumbs]

9. still waiting on the porn tax - pay per view?

[ShortnFiery]

16. No a recent study revealed that the use of porn is mostly a GOP Supported Industry.

:evilgrin:

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Take the "T" out of ATF then

:banghead:

[SPedigrees]

18. FDA doesn't have the incentive or the resources

required to regulate food and drugs as it is.

What ever happened to the Bureau of Firearms and Tobacco?

[SlicerDicer-]

28. Step1 Cut a hole in the box

Step 2: Growing tobacco is illegal....

[JCMach1]

33. Gee, that's going to help state tax revenues...

:(

Probably not the best time to do this...