Sweeping New Tobacco Legislation Goes To Obama

MSNBC ^ | June 12th, 2009 | Associated Press/Staff

[TheSentry]

Associated Press-June 12, 2009

"Today Congress sent legislation to the Whte House which woul give the Federal Government vast new powers to regulate and restrict cigarettes..."

[TheSentry]

Today's Federal FDA power-grab over the entire tobacco industry
MUST BE OVER-RULED BY THE SUPREME COURT !
=========================================
*

This UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL ATTEMPT by the Federal Gov't. would ELIMINATE the existing FREE-MARKET SYSTEM for ALL tobacco products
and is UNPRECEDENTED
among present and past regulatory laws
enacted within defined reasoned guidelines based in
logical necessity,
NOT Federal USURPATION and
DOMINATION of INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION. *

The SUPREME COURT has ruled to STOP this type of ABUSE
of Federal regulatory power aquisition ======================================
in N U M E R O U S CASE LAW rulings
==================================
in our judicial history.
=======================
*

Despite the negative effects of alcohol product use/abuse on society in the U.S.,
NEVER has an atempt been made
to grant to the Federal Gov't., through the FDA,
the power to DECIDE THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING
of ALL ALCOHOL PRODUCTS and
THIEIR VARIOUS INGREDIENTS.
THIS ENTIRE CONCEPT IS ABSURD and UNWORKABLE
in the extreme.

PROHIBITION in a free society does NOT work to anyone's benefit.

IT WAS TRIED BEFORE; IT FAILED.

ALL Federal Gov't. statistics regarding mortality effects from smoking and secondary tobacco smoke are BASED ENTIRELY on SYSTEMS of ESTIMATION in place of HARD PROVABLE FACTS ! THESE INCLUDE those deaths from FOREST FIRES ! "SMOKING-RELATED" is the mantra of these NON-SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATORS. NOT "CAUSED", no causation is ever mentioned, just by insinuation do these "estimations" magically become "FACTS" in the minds of those who predetermine the results they want. *

The Wash. Research Service concluded years ago that an estimated impact on the U.S. Medicare program from tobacco smoking to be approx. $.33 cents per pack of cigarettes sold/USA which is MORE than covered by the $1.09 per pack FEDERAL TAX NOW IMPOSED ! *

ANY FURTHER REGULATION by MANIPULATION
of the FREE MARKET PRODUCTION of TOBACCO PRODUCTS is
NOT NECESSARY FOR ANY REASON
and BY ANY RATIONAL REASONING PROCESS WILL NOT PASS A
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
in the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, ( and other politicians I'm sure),
have mailed out FABRICATED FORM LETTER RESPONSES
to those they claim to represent.
These are ANTI-TOBACCO PROPAGANDA NOT BASED IN TRUTH,
NOT BASED IN EXISTING FACTUAL STUDIES,
but instead make TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED and FALSE CLAIMS,

without ANY DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER
regarding an "ESTIMATED" loss to U.S. production and industry,
AGAIN, using their vague mantra of"SMOKING-RELATED"
to FABRICATE IMANGINED FIGURES to PREDETERMINE the
ABSOLUTELY FALSE RESULTS WHICH THEY THEN
CLAIM TO BE FACTUAL RESULTS ! *

In our FREE MARKET COUNTRY,
==============================
this PREMEDITATED FEDERAL POWER GRAB
=====================================
MUST BE CHALLENGED
==================
and HALTED IMMEDIATELY.
=======================
ANY FDA CONTROL OVER TOBACCO is
================================
A N A T H E M A to the
======================
FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM WE
=========================
NOW STILL ENJOY
===============
if we can KEEP IT F R E E !
==========================
*

I call upon those reading this to TAKE ACTION NOW.

IF your COMPANY has the means,
TAKE THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT !
===================================
WE MUST STOP THIS INSANITY BEFORE IT TAKES EFFECT. *
E V E R Y O N E CAN AND MUST WRITE TO CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS of the U.S. Supreme Court at: *
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts
===============================
U.S. Supreme Court
==================
1 FIRST STREET
==============
WASH.,DC 20543
==============
and,
DEMAND A SWIFT JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR
CONSTITUTIONALITY of THIS TYRANICAL
FDA TOBACCO CONTROL LAW.
IT IS A HUGE VIOLATION of CIVIL RIGHTS.
======================================
* Sincerely, J.Daniel USAF Veterans Committee For Truth K.C.KS

[Little Pig]

If I recall correctly, the main thrust of this is to control the amount of nicotine allowed in cigarettes. If you truly contest that nicotine is harmless, and has no effect on human physiology, then you won’t have any problem putting a drop of pure nicotine in the palm of your hand. There’s overreaching, like dictating where and when someone can smoke, and there’s legitimate concern, like how much of a known poison to include as an additive in a consumer product. I have a large problem with government attempting the former, and very little with the latter.

However, if I have misconstrued the actual text of the initiative, then I retract my statements.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I am surprised that it’s come to this with cigarettes.

I understand all the health issues and all of that. What gets me is that #1 cigarettes are a big source of tax income, and gov’t really doesn’t want to discourage the tobacco business too much, #2, whatever we think about smoking and tobacco products, cigarettes are a legal product, and #3, yes, there are health issues. But there are health issues with alcohol, fatty foods, candy and sugary foods, etc. etc. So where exactly will the lines be drawn as far as the “nanny state” regulations vs. your own personal responsibility in your use of a legal product.

[R. Scott]

I don’t see what it will do except expand the FDA. I haven’t seen a tobacco ad in a long time and the packs already have warnings that are ignored. Will making them bigger do anything? Young people don’t think like adults - they feel they’re invulnerable. About the only thing the larger warning will do is add to the feeling of machismo when a kid starts smoking.
I wonder when the FDA will take control over alcohol.

[twistedwrench]

[In veno, veritas]

Probably a whole different topic, but I would contend that even if there is legitimate concern, is that a good reason to let the government regulate it? I would argue if the government kept out of testing and safety business, other organizations would arise to provide the information (Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for instance).
Now on the other hand, it could be that the government should be involved when a good is addictive. Addictive goods can cause society more harm than good (like heroine). Libertarians suggest the market takes care of the problem, but I disagree.

But I agree with the main point, dictating when and where is horrible. If it's so bad, make 'em illegal. Else, let people control their own property rights to determine if people can smoke there or not.

[Little Pig]

We tried letting corporations police themselves early on, and the resulting chaos and snake oil salesmen prompted the implementation of the FDA to begin with. Too many people are too easily taken in by unproven claims, and the temptation to cut corners is too strong. Who’s to say that companies might not start including stronger substances, or stop quality checking altogether. Without the incentive to follow the rules, too many people would be injured or sickened by bad products. I would suggest that regulating the content of comestibles for dangerous substances or proper quality would fall under protecting the general welfare, something the government is authorized to do.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Extra cigarette tax money will be used to fund tens of thousands of ACORN workers who will warn you about the dangers of smoking when you try to purchase a pack of cigarettes.

[ChrisInAR]

Please don't get too upset...the free-market system for marijuana was destroyed 72 yrs ago. Those who smoke tobacco don't have to risk losing their freedom, jobs, vehicles, children, property, etc. like those of us who smoke marijuana do (not yet, anyway).

I hope that day will never come -- but if it does, all I can say is "Welcome to our world!".

[Bullpine]

If health is the issue then why not tax HOMOSEXUALITY. That is truly a life shortening lifestyle.

Life expectancy at age 20 years for Homosexual and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html

Every cigarette a man smokes reduces his life by 11 minutes
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9703.php

[american_ranger]

Man m I gld I bought several hundred tobacco seeds for planting.

I just planted 12 seedlings.

Grow my own.

KMA Zero.

[R. Scott]

Hope they don’t show up around here - I really don’t like violence.

[In veno, veritas]

That's largely a myth, much like the myth of the wildcat banks that necessitated the need for the Federal Reserve. Sure, they existed to some extent (and still do), but the claim is overblown. Now it is hard to compare then with now because of the medical revolution that has happened; technology has drastically improved. But since then, some non-government groups have also developed, like the AMA, which would fill the need for info. I will say that there is a role for government in protecting brand names from counterfeiters, but its a whole different ballgame to say that the market won't provide for a demand.

(http://www.mises.org/story/1805 , http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=272 - a bit too anti-government, but shows some history of the FDA and conversation on current approved drugs.)

[TheSentry]

To the “11 minute” idiot:
NO ONE can predict, determine, or devine anyone’s life expectancy. Your IDIOTIC gov’t. puts out a GAO report on “smoking-related mortality” which includes DEATHS FROM FORREST FIRES, ALL ESTIMATED of course, NO ACTUAL CONFIRMED death from smoking tobacco whatsoever !