Looks like the Senate is trying to upset 25% of the voters!

This will put Soprano wannabees back in business.

Sent my senators a note. Not necessary to do this!

Like they give a rats a$$ about 25% of the public. As long as the soccer moms are on board, everyone else gets hosed.

They only care about the 25% that signed up for the do not call list.......

........and the 5% that claim to be GLBT!
........and the 12% African-American!
........and the 20% Hispanic!
........and the 1% without health insurance!

-My numbers may be slightly off, but the message is the same!

Tax payers are treated with contempt. But if you're looking for a handout, government will be your friend.

I'm sure the mob is lobbying hard for this bill--it will surely increase their business in bootleg cigarettes. Ditto the Indian tribes who don't pay the white man's taxes.

Looks like the Senate is trying to upset 25% of the voters!

no, it looks like the Senate is going to allow Philip Morris to become a monopoly at the expense of 25% of voters, because we all know from the expereince of the MSA, every penny of this tax will be passed directly to the consumers.

Smokers - start rolling your own, better yet - Grow your own!!!

Dig dig dig.............they just won't let us rest, will they? Budget falling........sure.....put the budget on the backs of the smokers again. Most states are doing it, why not the Senators!

BTW, the Senators who smoke buy their cigarettes TAX FREE in the commissary. Why should THEY care!

And yes, 25-30% of their constituents smoke. I guess they think they don't need the 25-30%. They have another thought coming!

Smokers - start rolling your own, better yet - Grow your own!!!

Is it legal to grow your own? With all of the quotas and limits on growth, will I be begging for some black clad Department of Agriculture stormtroopers to toss in a couple of concussion grenades and knock down my door if I grow my own?

no, it looks like the Senate is going to allow Philip Morris to become a monopoly at the expense of 25% of voters, because we all know from the expereince of the MSA, every penny of this tax will be passed directly to the consumers.

I am sure we all have seen the latest TV commercials by Phillip Morris. About how much they are against smokers and smoking.

If they are SO against smoking, then why the hell don't they pull their tobacco products and get out of the cigarette business?

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. I can't stand Phillip Morris. Two faced jerks!

It's perfectly legal to grow youown.

there is a limit on how much acreage you may plant for personal use, but it is legal if you stay within that amount.

I believe it is 1/10 of an acre per person.

I plan on trying it in the spring.

Ditto the Indian tribes who don't pay the white man's taxes

Ya know, sometimes it's better to just shut up, so people don't mistakenly think you are an idiot.

If they are SO against smoking, then why the hell don't they pull their tobacco products and get out of the cigarette business?

Their goal is put the competition out of business by making the others look bad and them look like little goody two shoes.

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. I can't stand Phillip Morris. Two faced jerks!

Not to agree with them, or how it came to be, but that is part of the big settlement. They really don't have a choice anymore. If they took the high road in the beginning, they would be bankrupt, it was rigged, a government shakedown. But you are of course free to rant, it feels good sometimes. ;-)

As for the part of screwing 25% of the electorate, I would venture a guess that smokers disproportionately fall into the about 50% non-voting catagory, but hopefully that will start to change after another reaming.

Big article in the WSJ last week about how Philip Morris was going around lobbying tobacco farmers to support FDA regulation of cigarettes. Apparently, Philip Morris thinks that if the FDA "approves" cigarettes, they will appear less dangerous to consumers. Philip Morris also has a supposedly less dangerous (healthier?) cigarette that has been developed for the past year or so which they have been waiting to release until the FDA regulates tobacco, so it'll have the FDA stamp of approval.

If I find the article, I'll post it up on the thread. Interesting reading.

The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Thursday, September 25, 2003

New Leaf: Why Philip Morris Decided to Make Friends With FDA
---
Seeking End to Uncertainty, It Builds Unusual Coalition For Regulating
Cigarettes
---
Crucial Ally: Tobacco Farmers
By Vanessa O'Connell

Corrections & Amplifications SEN. JOHN EDWARDS of North Carolina is a
Democrat. A Page One article yesterday about proposals for Food and Drug
Administration regulation of tobacco incorrectly said he is a Republican.
(WSJ Sept. 26, 2003)

WASHINGTON -- Philip Morris lobbyist John Scruggs journeyed from his office
here to a Kentucky warehouse in March 2002 to meet with tobacco farmers. His
mission: Persuade them to back a plan for the Food and Drug Administration to
regulate the cigarette industry. He knew it would be a hard sell when he saw
several farmers sporting baseball caps with the legend "Keep FDA off the
Farm!" -- hats that Philip Morris had given the farmers a few years ago.

It was a reminder to Mr. Scruggs that he and his employer were on a strange
political odyssey. After years of rallying farmers, sympathetic politicians and
other friends of the industry to oppose government efforts to regulate
cigarettes, Philip Morris had switched sides.

Now, 18 months after Mr. Scruggs's tour of tobacco warehouses, Philip Morris's
wooing of tobacco farmers may be on the verge of paying off. A bill headed for
the Senate floor would put the tobacco industry under the regulatory purview of
the FDA. That shift would create new marketing and manufacturing rules, such as
more-stringent disclosure of harmful ingredients and more-visible health
warnings in ads and packaging. The FDA could require that nicotine levels be
reduced, even to zero.

In the long, circuitous journey that led to this legislation, a motley
collection of interest groups managed to find common ground. Tobacco executives
and antismoking advocates, Northeastern legislators and tobacco-state
politicians, farmers and urban liberals came together in a most unlikely
alliance.

It couldn't have happened without the lobbying clout of the tobacco farmers.
Philip Morris recruited them by combining the bill with a measure the farmers
badly wanted: to ditch an old federal subsidy program and set up a new system
that would let them sell their leaf more easily and profitably.

To Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc., the FDA plan is the paradoxical
key to its future success. Regulations have historically helped the company
fend off rivals and hold onto its Marlboro brand's No. 1 position.

Before the cigarette industry's sweeping 1998 settlement of state lawsuits,
Philip Morris fought the states' proposed restrictions on advertising. Today
those rules amount to big barriers that keep rival brands from taking away
Marlboro's market share. But now Philip Morris faces unprecedented competition
from low-priced cigarettes made by a swarm of upstarts with names such as
Bronco and Roger.

FDA regulation would force the upstarts to abide by a new code of manufacturing
practices and ingredients. Philip Morris says FDA oversight also would help the
company develop a plan to produce less-hazardous cigarettes that just might
gain the agency's acceptance. The company says it has a potentially less-
hazardous product -- code-named internally "Score" for "smoke constituent
reduction" -- ready to bring to market, but would prefer to release it under
FDA oversight. In the past, the industry has been reluctant to make safety
claims because it worried about legal fallout from consumers, rivals and
regulators.

The bill still faces opposition. Some Philip Morris competitors consider the
measure a cynical ploy for the market leader to cement its dominance. Yesterday
evening, Senate negotiators were still haggling over a draft bill's specific
language on issues such as whether tobacco companies could appeal FDA rules
that significantly cut into cigarette sales.

Philip Morris says FDA regulation is good business and good policy because it
would create uniform standards for manufacturing and marketing by all tobacco
companies. "The fact is that until FDA oversight is in place, we will not have
an accepted and official external process to review our work," Michael
Szymanczyk, chief executive officer of Philip Morris USA, said in a June 3
hearing on reducing the risk of tobacco use.

Philip Morris's about-face on the FDA began taking shape in the late 1990s and
was set in motion in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court invited Congress to act
on whether cigarettes should be regulated by the agency. Tobacco-industry
executives had always seen any such move as anathema. But some Philip Morris
executives were concerned about the image problems of "Big Tobacco." They began
to wonder if regulation might improve the image, prevent more draconian
measures down the road and solidify the dominance of the Marlboro maker over
its rivals.

The executives were particularly worried about the inroads made by deep-
discount cigarette manufacturers. Their market share has soared as high as 12%
since they became active in 1999, and they aren't party to the 1998 Master
Settlement Agreement, which required huge payouts from the big companies.

Most of all, Philip Morris wanted predictability. Its stock price doesn't
respond well to the uncertainties of today's competitive and legal pressures.
Steven Parrish, senior vice president for corporate affairs at Altria, recalls
that John S. Reed, a former co-CEO of Citigroup and Altria's most senior
director (until he left the board last week to head the New York Stock
Exchange), agreed that a moderate stance on FDA regulation might benefit the
company in the long run.

Mr. Parrish hired Republican lobbyist Mr. Scruggs in 1998 and together they
quietly began to pursue the legislative initiative. The first step was to test
the waters with the enemy -- the antismoking camp. In March 2000, at the Ronald
W. Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, in Simi Valley, Calif., Mr. Parrish
appeared on a panel with former FDA commissioner David Kessler, who pioneered
the idea of FDA regulation of cigarettes in 1994. Mr. Parrish made several
statements that no one had ever heard from a tobacco executive before.
Admitting that nicotine is addictive, he told the audience, "There needs to be
serious regulation of the tobacco industry at the federal level." Antismoking
groups were immediately suspicious, and some griped that Mr. Parrish was trying
to influence the jury pool in future lawsuits.

Mr. Parrish next got together with Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and
the industry's fiercest political foe. In a House meeting room, Mr. Parrish was
contrite about his company's past mistakes and said it wanted to work more
closely with health advocates, Mr. Parrish recalls. Rep. Waxman now says he was
dubious about Mr. Parrish's intentions.

If it seemed difficult to win over Rep. Waxman and other antismoking advocates,
it would be even tougher to woo conservative politicians, who on principle
hated government regulation of any kind and didn't want to increase the FDA's
power. Some Southern senators had close ties to Philip Morris's rivals --
including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc., British American Tobacco PLC's
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Loews Corp.'s Lorillard. In the senators'
view, any FDA regulation would strengthen Philip Morris.

The plan seemed dead until Mr. Parrish had the radical notion of courting the
tobacco farmers. The farmers had great influence over these same senators, and
many were struggling as declining consumption and imported tobacco crimped
demand for their crop.

The "golden leaf" had once been highly profitable, aided by government price
supports that assigned quotas to keep supplies down and guarantee a profit to
the farmers. But a secondary market was created in those quota rights. Today,
many of the holders of these rights aren't the farmers who till the land. That
means most tobacco farmers face the added costs of renting or acquiring these
rights from middlemen, known as "quota owners." These bureaucratic requirements
bogged farmers down with additional expenses of as much as 50 cents to 60 cents
for each pound of tobacco leaf grown. The proposed buyout would terminate the
quota program once and for all, so that U.S. tobacco could be grown more
efficiently and better compete with leaf grown overseas.

The buyout plan had garnered little political support in Washington in the
past, but if it were linked to a larger package that included FDA regulation,
it had a chance. So as Mr. Scruggs traveled the South to lobby farmers, he had
a simple pitch: Philip Morris stood ready to support a one-time buyout plan,
providing as much as $15 billion to the growers and others involved with the
crop, in exchange for support of FDA regulation. (That windfall now looks to be
closer to $13 billion.)

Mr. Scruggs, who is vice president of government affairs for Altria, was
careful to say that the FDA would stay off the farm.

"We didn't want the FDA on our farm telling us which chemicals we can use. We
don't see the need for FDA running our business," said farmer Scott Whitford,
of Grantsboro, N.C., a contract grower for Philip Morris. "But lately, the
people from Philip Morris have come here and told us they feel the FDA
regulation will help us." Now he has joined the effort and called the offices
of his Republican senators, John Edwards and Elizabeth Dole, to say so.

"People were skeptical -- skeptical of the FDA and skeptical of Philip Morris,"
says Mr. Scruggs. "But when you talk to them about a quota buyout, the response
is overwhelming."

In May, Philip Morris sweetened the pot for the farmers by settling a
nettlesome lawsuit in which the farmers alleged that Philip Morris and the
other companies essentially rigged bids at tobacco auctions. Philip Morris
agreed to make a series of payments to farmers totaling $145 million --
including $5 million earmarked for the farmers to lobby for the new
legislation.

As Mr. Scruggs and others tried to court the farmers, Louis Camilleri, Altria's
CEO, and Mr. Szymanczyk, Philip Morris USA's CEO, began making appearances on
Capitol Hill.

In June, at one hearing before a House committee on reduced-risk tobacco
products, Rep. Waxman lit into Mr. Szymanczyk, saying that weak FDA regulation
of the sort the Philip Morris had previously endorsed would only lead to a
repeat of the "light" and "low-tar" public-health debacle. Philip Morris and
other cigarette companies had marketed their "light" brands as less harmful
than regular cigarettes. But cancer researchers discovered that light cigarette
smokers inhaled more deeply, taking in more of the harmful ingredients than
smokers of regular cigarettes.

Mr. Szymanczyk told the congressman that he felt the FDA would even have the
authority to demand that certain harmful ingredients be removed from
cigarettes, a surprising concession. Rep. Waxman commended him. "When we talked
about our differences, it seemed to me that we were pretty close," he said
later.

Soon, key senators from tobacco-growing states began joining the fold. Mitch
McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, in July introduced a buyout bill co-sponsored
by at least 12 other Senators from tobacco-growing regions on July 30.

That month, Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican and chairman of the
Senate Health Committee, began circulating drafts of FDA legislation. He
expects to introduce a bill this fall with the support of Massachusetts Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy, the committee's top Democrat. Sen. Kennedy introduced a
similar bill last year, but Philip Morris had objections to his plan and the
bill failed to gain traction.

Now he is an important ally. He has high credibility on health issues among
urban liberals, and though he had long favored FDA regulation, he had been
skeptical of this plan because of Philip Morris's support. He warned public-
health advocates of "industry-inspired plots" and called Philip Morris's plan
one that "would only create a toothless regulatory tiger." His staff warns that
Sen. Kennedy's support for the current proposal is offered only guardedly. But
as of last night, he was involved in the negotiations.

Then the plan is to merge the two bills on the Senate floor. Both Philip Morris
executives and leading tobacco critics thus far are working together with Sen.
Gregg's staff, although the coalition could still wind up rupturing over the
details.

The latest draft of Sen. Gregg's bill would authorize the FDA to reduce or
eliminate nicotine. To placate Altria and its Senate allies, it also prevents
regulators from making any changes that would "directly or indirectly" ban
cigarettes. Antitobacco groups and lawmakers such as Sen. Kennedy oppose making
that change to the draft bill because they fear Philip Morris and other
companies will use it as a loophole to fight the FDA in court, arguing that the
removal of key ingredients is tantamount to a ban. Another option advocated by
Philip Morris is for the legislation to say that the FDA couldn't impose any
rules that would make cigarettes "unpalatable" to consumers. Philip Morris
didn't want to be required to make a product that smokers would reject. Critics
view that as a potential escape clause from real changes that may make
cigarettes less dangerous.

---

About-Face
Philip Morris's halting path toward accepting Food and
Drug Administration regulation of cigarettesn 1994: FDA
Commis-sioner David Kessler wants to regulate nicotine as
an addictive drug. Executives at Philip Morris and other
tobacco companies deny nicotine is addictive and that
smoking conclusively causes cancer.
-- 1998: Major tobacco companies agree to pay 46 states
$206 billion over 25 years for health costs associated with
smoking.
-- 2000: Supreme Court invites Congress to act on whether
cigarettes should be regulated by the FDA. Steven Parrish,
senior vice president at Philip Morris, admits nicotine is
addictive, calls for federal regulation of tobacco.
-- 2002: Sen. Edward Kennedy introduces bill putting
tobacco under FDA authority. Philip Morris objects to bill
and doesn't endorse it. It fails to gain traction.
-- Fall 2003: A Philip Morris-supported bill is expected
to be formally introduced in the Senate to put tobacco
under FDA regulation, with some senators planning to link
it to a $13 billion buyout package for tobacco farmers.

Big article in the WSJ last week about how Philip Morris was going around lobbying tobacco farmers to support FDA regulation of cigarettes. Apparently, Philip Morris thinks that if the FDA "approves" cigarettes, they will appear less dangerous to consumers. Philip Morris also has a supposedly less dangerous (healthier?) cigarette that has been developed for the past year or so which they have been waiting to release until the FDA regulates tobacco, so it'll have the FDA stamp of approval.

The FDA has said that if they are to regulate tobacco, they would have to BAN it, because they can not deem it safe.

If the FDA gets tobacco under it's control, it's all over. As well as the Big Bucks going into all the states.

So, if tobacco is banned, and smokers no longer have to carry the state budgets on their backs, and pay no more cigarette taxes, I wonder who the lawmakers will go after next to make up for the lost revenue.............

Think about it.

Philip Morris has found a loop hole around this. They have been shipping cigs at discount overseas and selling them through websites.

One of which is GetMyCigs.com. They are registered in Switzerland and sell Philip Morris brands for approx. $7.00 to $14.00 per carton with free shipping.

I've been contemplating buying my cigs from there...but am a little leary about doing business like that overseas.

I don't think they ship them there to sell, I think they mfg. them there. If you do purchase them be prepared for some slight differences in taste, etc. Of course I may be wrong.