Senate Passes Historic Tobacco Bill

abc ^ | 7/15/04

[knak]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate overwhelmingly approved a landmark tobacco deal on Thursday to give the Food and Drug Administration long-sought power to regulate cigarettes and give $12 billion in aid to tobacco farmers.

Though hailed as a breakthrough by public health groups, the measure faces an uncertain future because it was approved as part of a massive corporate tax bill that must still be reconciled with the House of Representatives's version. Those talks are expected to be long and complex.

The lopsided 78-15 vote will strengthen the Senate position in those negotiations, and many lawmakers who want greater public health jurisdiction over tobacco were more optimistic than they had been since 1998, when a tobacco bill linked to multibillion-dollar state lawsuits against tobacco companies collapsed.

"This represents a fundamental change and a fundamental step forward," said Matt Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

While the House and Senate have had extensive hearings and probes of Big Tobacco, Myers noted this would be the first time either chamber had passed meaningful regulation of the companies' advertising, marketing, ingredients and safety claims.

The FDA itself tried to assert its authority over tobacco in the 1990s, but the battle went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2000 that the FDA did not have jurisdiction under existing law. This legislation would change the law and grant the agency that explicit power.

Under the proposal, the tobacco industry would finance a $12-billion buyout of Depression-era crop quotas, an arcane price support system that no longer serves farmers' economic interests in an increasingly global market.

Mitch McConnell, who represents the tobacco-growing state of Kentucky and is the number two Republican leader in the Senate, agreed the components of the bill had to be linked if either was to pass.

MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE

"It's not a shotgun wedding, it's a marriage of convenience," said McConnell, lead author of the buyout legislation.

"Yes it's a marriage of convenience, but I believe it's a good marriage," agreed Ohio Republican Mike DeWine, a co-author with Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy of the FDA bill.

"This is the most important step we can take for public health short of curing cancer itself," Kennedy said.

The proposal would give the FDA expanded powers to require more forceful health warnings on cigarette packs, regulate advertising, more aggressively combat underage sales and regulate ingredients to make cigarettes less harmful. It could not ban cigarettes or completely eliminate nicotine.

The major cigarette companies are divided over the measure. The Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, has endorsed it, but R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co on Thursday repeated its "vigorous opposition."

A rival House version of the tobacco measure attached to the corporate tax bill would cost taxpayers -- not the industry -- $9.6 billion, and is not linked to FDA regulation.

Smoking is the top preventable cause of death in the United States, leading to 400,000 deaths a year. Ninety percent of smokers get hooked as children or teen-agers, according to public health groups.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Are there 435,000 smoking-related deaths per year in America? Maybe. I can tell you this with absolute certainty, however: No human beings are ever studied to find out.

Sheesh... Ms. McWhirter picks up the phone, spend a more or less random hour trying to find someone to answer her question, and when she can't find out where the data comes from, announces with "absolute certainty" that the entire scientific and medical community must have just have made it all up.

Uh huh...

Perhaps she should asked someone actually involved in such work, or GOOGLED up a few of the numerous studies of smoking and health and checked the citations, or perhaps even poked around in GOOGLE for the sources of such data, any of which would have led her in about two minutes to the to CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) - which conducts long terms studies of the behavior of actual human beings to define such risk factors:

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/aag_brfss.htm

And from there she could have GOOGLED up studies based on such data, for example:

http://www.usrf.org/breakingnews/bn_020708_perspective/woolshin_paper.pdf

Which is pretty sobering stuff if you are a smoker, for instance around age 40 a male smoker's chances of death over the next decade from Lung Colon or Prostate cancer rise to around 700% of those of a non-smoker and remain there well inotm their 70s.

[SheLion]

Which is pretty sobering stuff if you are a smoker, for instance around age 40 a male smoker's chances of death over the next decade from Lung Colon or Prostate cancer rise to around 700% of those of a non-smoker and remain there well inotm their 70s.

Well, men get those two diseases if they smoke or DON'T smoke.

I enjoy smoking And will continue to do so until the Lord calls me home.  Personally, at that time, I don't think the Lord will care if I smoked or not When it's my time to go, I will go.

[SheLion]

Also, please bear in mind that of the 150,000 lung cancer deaths each year, three-quarters of them are smokers. There are about 120,000 deaths due to emphysema and other chronic obstructive lung diseases, and most of these are also in smokers.

Really? You fell prey to this?

Hey! I'm not gay, do not drink, eat not much red meat and coffee and cigarettes are me. Since I was 16. And I love both!

Recently had my yearly physical and my lungs are still clear as a bell! :)

[megatherium]

Recently had my yearly physical and my lungs are still clear as a bell! :)

Lucky you. When you were 16 and began smoking, you had no way of knowing that you wouldn't be one of those smokers that does get lung cancer.

Against every anecdote such as yours, one can give anecdotes to the contrary. Last year, I heard that a former colleague (where I used to teach), who was a heavy smoker, had brain and lung cancer and only had six months to live. I don't think he was 50.

Epidemiologists don't deal in anecdotal evidence. They deal with large data sets, from which it becomes clear what the relative risks of different vices are. They are very confident in their conclusion that more than 400,000 Americans die prematurely each year from smoking, an average of 12 years prematurely. About 100,000 die of lung cancer, about 100,000 die of obstructive lung diseases, and about 200,000 die of heart disease. (The Framingham study, involving 12,000 individuals and lasting 50 years, enabled epidemiologists to tell how much heart disease is caused by smoking and how much is due to diet and lack of exercise.)

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"I enjoy smoking And will continue to do so until the Lord calls me home. Personally, at that time, I don't think the Lord will care if I smoked or not When it's my time to go, I will go."

Well, smoking is not only pleasant, it's also a quite altruistic act - smokers die younger enough that on the average they consume less than they have paid into SS and Medicare.

We don't talk much about this fact in the US, but in parts of Western Europe (where public support of the sick and elderly is even higher than here) they are quite explicit abut this fact in debates over attempts to reduce smoking.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Against every anecdote such as yours, one can give anecdotes to the contrary.

Yup.

My father, a heavy smoker until the week he died, lived to 94 (and buit us a room full of furnature at 93). My mother, a heavy smoker until her 70s, is still with us at 85.

OTOH I'm 56, two of my girlfriends from my teens or early 20s died of lung cancer in their 40s, a third was diagnosed, this spring, in her early 50s. All were smokers.

If you graph the data in the link I provided above one of the things that really jumps out at you is that smokers their 40s experience a rapid rise in the listed cancers to around seven times the rate of non-smokers, and that this difference persists on into their 70's, at which point the gap begins to close.

That's to me one of the really tragic aspects of smoking: that for many smokers it not days in the twilight of their lives that are lost, but that they are taken from us in the prime of life.

I'm no prohibitionist, and I have nothing but sympathy for smokers who want to quit, and can't.

But given that these three women were typical in that they started smoking in their early teens, that nicotine is highly addictive, and that if you don't start smoking until your early twenties you are unlikely ever to do so, I don't think they were in a position to make a rational decision to start smoking.

And if I was Supreme Despot, providing ciggies to those under 16 would be a crime with pretty draconian consequences for the adults who at some point in the process have to make such diversions possible.

[SheLion]

Lucky you. When you were 16 and began smoking, you had no way of knowing that you wouldn't be one of those smokers that does get lung cancer  

Excuse me, but all my family members smoked.  NO one died of LUNG cancer.  They all died over the age of 76.  One grandmother lived to be 86 and smoked three packs of unfiltered Camels a day.  Who are you to tell ME that I will get lung cancer?  That's a joke. 

Against every anecdote such as yours, one can give anecdotes to the contrary. Last year, I heard that a former colleague (where I used to teach), who was a heavy smoker, had brain and lung cancer and only had six months to live. I don't think he was 50.

I'm sorry about your friend, but "I" am not a heavy smoker.  Not that it's any of your business.

Epidemiologists don't deal in anecdotal evidence. They deal with large data sets, from which it becomes clear what the relative risks of different vices are. They are very confident in their conclusion that more than 400,000 Americans die prematurely each year from smoking, an average of 12 years prematurely. About 100,000 die of lung cancer, about 100,000 die of obstructive lung diseases, and about 200,000 die of heart disease. (The Framingham study, involving 12,000 individuals and lasting 50 years, enabled epidemiologists to tell how much heart disease is caused by smoking and how much is due to diet and lack of exercise.)

Well, I have been studying the research long enough not to believe these computer generated figures.  At least I won't die of liver cancer from being an alcoholic, now will I?

Everyone has to die from something, my friend.  And in my society, it will be the Lord that decides when and where.  Thanks!

[William Terrell]

That's to me one of the really tragic aspects of smoking: that for many smokers it not days in the twilight of their lives that are lost, but that they are taken from us in the prime of life.

[paleocon patriarch]

"the average smoker loses 12 years of his life, according to the government epidemiologists"

Yea, but those are the wheelchair, adult diaper years, so smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

[megatherium]

You don't suppose instead of having your adult diaper years from 82 to 88, you'll end up having them from 70 to 76?

Sorry, I don't want to be too much of an anti-smoking nazi, but I couldn't resist. I just hope everyone understands the risks they are taking.

This brings to mind a journal entry from Commander Robert Scott, on his fatal 1910-1912 Antarctic expedition: We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, therefore we have no cause for complaint.

[BriarBey]

I was just going along with the 12 year crap. Both my Grandfathers smoked unfiltered cigarette one lived to 92, the other 87. Pall Mall and Camels. Neither died of any illness, they just quit living.


WHEW!! I thought Conspiracy Guy had lost his mind! lol
There are alot of people out there anymore you know who have lost their minds and don't know where to find it.

[paleocon patriarch]

Trust me. The wheelchair, adult diaper years aren't all they are cracked up to be!

[SheLion]

Jul 15, 8:24 PM EDT

Senate RollCall Tobacco

The 78-15 roll call Thursday by which the Senate voted to give the FDA the power to regulate cigarettes and approved a $12 billion buyout for tobacco farmers.

On this vote, a yes vote was a vote to approve the measure and a no vote was a vote to defeat it.

Voting yes were 43 Democrats and 35 Republicans.

Voting no were 14 Republicans and one independent.

Alabama

Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska

Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona

Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California

Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado

Allard (R) No; Campbell (R) Yes.

Connecticut

Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (D) Yes.

Delaware

Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Present.

Florida

Graham (D) Yes; Nelson (D) Not Voting.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) Yes; Miller (D) Yes.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho

Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes.

Illinois

Durbin (D) Yes; Fitzgerald (R) No.

Indiana

Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.

Iowa

Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) Yes.

Kansas

Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) No.

Kentucky

Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana

Breaux (D) Yes; Landrieu (D) Yes.

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland

Mikulski (D) Yes; Sarbanes (D) Yes.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Not Voting.

Michigan

Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota

Coleman (R) Yes; Dayton (D) Yes.

Mississippi

Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) No.

Missouri

Bond (R) Yes; Talent (R) Yes.

Montana

Baucus (D) Not Voting; Burns (R) No.

Nebraska

Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada

Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) No; Sununu (R) No.

New Jersey

Corzine (D) Yes; Lautenberg (D) Yes.

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) Not Voting.

New York

Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina

Dole (R) Yes; Edwards (D) Not Voting.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio

DeWine (R) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma

Inhofe (R) Not Voting; Nickles (R) No.

Oregon

Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania

Santorum (R) No; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island

Chafee (R) Yes; Reed (D) Yes.

South Carolina

Graham (R) Yes; Hollings (D) Yes.

South Dakota

Daschle (D) Yes; Johnson (D) Yes.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) Yes; Frist (R) Yes.

Texas

Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah

Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont

Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) Yes.

Virginia

Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) Yes.

Washington

Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming

Enzi (R) No; Thomas (R) No.

[Smokin' Joe]

OK. We quit smoking, live 12 years longer. NOW THE A$$HOLES CAN BALANCE THE Social Security Trust fund they have been buying votes with all these years.

[SheLion]

Sorry, I don't want to be too much of an anti-smoking nazi, but I couldn't resist. I just hope everyone understands the risks they are taking.

To live is to risk. Everything in life is a risk in one way or the other.

Living and driving in northern Maine is a risk. Ever see a vehicle that hit a moose going 50mph down the road? Not a pretty picture.

And it didn't matter one bit if that driver smoked or not. It didn't matter one bit if that driver was 18 or 68. The outcome is mostly always the same.

If you want to be safe, sit in a bubble in your home and let life go by.

[Smokin' Joe]

Yep. The original tobacco settlement money was 'to defray the medical expenses of smokers paid by the states' or somesuch. As has happened, the money has gone for just about anything but health care costs. Smokers are paying for this and being treated shabbily at every turn.

Others applaud. When they whine because it is their turn to fill the pork barrel, I'm going to sound very Vice-Presidential in my remarks...

[Smokin' Joe]

I have raised tobacco, been a fireman, work on oil rigs, have rock climbed, spelunked, and have been riding motorcycles for about 30 years. I own firearms and carry concealed (with permit). I have been a smoker for nearly as long. (I have seen a vehicle which hit a moose also, in North Dakota--messy, but the occupants fared better than the moose). Life is fraught with risk, and frankly, that keeps it interesting.

My remarks were sarcastic, referring to the way our Congress finds endless ways to screw us.

The tobacco settlement was a ripoff.

Smokers knew that, but the Government was getting settled into the idea that you can screw one person in five and the other four will either cheer or abstain from comment.

So now the pogrom continues...

The only question is: Who will be next?

My bet is on all the disabled and elderly.... then the 'mental incompetents'.... then maybe a religous group.....just like the Nazis.

[SheLion]

Others applaud. When they whine because it is their turn to fill the pork barrel, I'm going to sound very Vice-Presidential in my remarks...

Tobacco has been around longer then any of us.  A legal commodity.  Then, along came the anti's that saw a way to make big bucks, and they convinced the government that smokers are 'dirty filthy people.'  The smokers were shamed into believing this.  The smokers were co-orsed into believing that we needed to buy those expensive quit smoking drugs from Big Pharm.

There are 55 million of us in the United States, Joe.  We are quick to stand up for our rights in everything else.  But why did the smokers let it get this far?  I still can't understand this.  Smokers outnumber the NRA and the AARP. 

Gay marriages is on the horizon and pot smokers will soon see their drug of choice made legal.  And the smokers sat back and watched our (legal) relaxation of choice being taken away from us.

Where am I?  Where DO we live???

[SheLion]

My bet is on all the disabled and elderly.... then the 'mental incompetents'.... then maybe a religous group.....just like the Nazis.

Well, someone will be next, you can count on it.

The world the way we knew it is no longer. People scream Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Speech........and soon that scream will just be an echo.

If you ever saw the Terror Map and the Terroriost among us in the United States, it's easier to understand what has happened to our society as we used to know it.

Did you see that map, Joe?

[SheLion]

Yep. The original tobacco settlement money was 'to defray the medical expenses of smokers paid by the states' or somesuch. As has happened, the money has gone for just about anything but health care costs. Smokers are paying for this and being treated shabbily at every turn.

Oh yes! Instead of the money being spent on prescription drugs for the elderly, and to help any sick uninsured smokers, the states turned into gluttons!

MASS built a big $175,000 GOLF course with that tobacco settlement money. Maine sponsored "5" race car teams and race tracks across the state with that money. Called the teams "Kick Butt Racing." I bet the other teams loved being in the pits next to THEM. heh!

Some little old lady in Easton, Maine was given tobacco settlement money to build a big beautiful garden in town. How sweet. Not!