Senate Passes Landmark Anti-Smoking Bill

Legislation Gives FDA Sweeping Controls Over Production, Sale And Marketing Of Tobacco Products

(CBS/AP)  The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

President Barack Obama, who has spoken of his own struggle to quit smoking, said he was eager to sign the legislation, and the House planned a vote for Friday. Cigarette foes said the measure would not only cut deaths but reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

Fierce opposition by the industry and tobacco-state lawmakers had prevented passage for years, along with veto threats by the George W. Bush White House. In the end, the nation's biggest tobacco company supported the measure, though rivals suggested that was because it could lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 45 million U.S. adults are smokers, though the prevalence has fallen since the U.S. surgeon general's warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer.

The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the surgeon general's report, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

"This legislation represents the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States," declared Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.

---

Hot Topic: How Much Regulation Of Tobacco?

---

The 79-17 Senate vote sent the measure back to the House, which in April passed a similar but not identical version. House acceptance of the Senate bill would send it directly to Mr. Obama, who said Thursday that final passage "will make history by giving the scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps."

"At any given moment, millions are struggling with their habit or worrying about loved ones who smoke," said Mr. Obama.

His signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater government supervision since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care.

Supporters of FDA regulation of tobacco have struggled for more than a decade to overcome powerful resistance - from the industry and elsewhere. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the agency did not have the authority under current law to regulate tobacco products, and the Bush administration opposed several previous efforts by Congress to write a new law.

Thursday's legislation gives the FDA power to evaluate the contents of tobacco products and to order changes or bans on those that are a danger to public health. The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes.

Regulators could prohibit tobacco companies from using candy or other flavors in cigarettes that tend to attract young smokers, and restrict advertising in publications often read by teenagers. Rules on sales to minors would be toughened, as would warning labels. Tobacco companies would have to get FDA approval for new products, and would be barred from using terms such as "light" or "mild" that imply a smaller health risk.

Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.

"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids - children - will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that FDA regulation could reduce underage smoking by 11 percent over the next decade.

The bill, said American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown, "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults."

But the bill is not as strong as some had wanted, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

For example, the bill bans all flavorings, like banana or cinnamon, but not the most common flavoring - menthol. It allows the FDA to reduce nicotine content - but not remove it altogether, Cordes reports.

"We will never be able to get rid of the addictive nature of tobacco because we are now forced to maintain the nicotine," said Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Health. "That is a tremendous victory for Philip Morris and for big tobacco."

The tobacco lobby, contended Durbin, has long been the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, "and they managed to create an exemption in virtually every law so that no federal agency could take a look at them and regulate them."

---

Former FDA Chief On Tobacco Reform

---

But the industry has also taken hits in recent years as the dangers of smoking became more apparent and states moved to limit smoking in public places. In 1998 the industry agreed to pay the states $206 billion to help cover health care costs, and this year Congress raised the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack, to fund a health care program for children.

The nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, Philip Morris has come out in support of the legislation. Its parent company, Altria Group, said in a statement that on balance, "the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."

Its main rivals, however, have voiced opposition, arguing in part that FDA restrictions on new products will lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Lawmakers portrayed the bill as a major first step in bringing down health care costs, an essential goal of the health care overhaul legislation that is the top priority of the Obama administration this year.

"This bill may do more in the area of prevention, if adopted, than anything else we may include in the health care bill in the short term," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who managed the legislation on the Senate floor in the absence of the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has long promoted FDA regulation.

Opponents, led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina, argued that the FDA, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of food and drug products, was the wrong place to regulate an item that is injurious to health.

He also contended that the bill would restrict tobacco companies, including several based in his state, from developing new products that might be less harmful to users. He unsuccessfully proposed the creation of a new agency that would both regulate tobacco products and encourage efforts to make cigarettes less harmful.

[rf35]

From the article: "scientists and medical experts at the FDA..."
I didn't think there were any such things at the FDA. They're all politicians, right?

The article also mentioned that the bill would not allow the complete removal of nicotine, the primary addictive componant of tobacco. This should not come as a surprise, since cigarettes are a huge cash cow for the government. If they lost the income from the ungodly taxes on cigarettes, the government's current financial difficulties would look like an oil company profit report by comparison.

[tincup356]

Putting the FDA in charge of anything is a mistake,the FDA is the MOST corrupt agency in the government next to congress itself. The FDA has NEVER done a good job at ANYTHING,,,,,a decade ago they approved about everything the big drug makers wanted to make,,,,in the last few years many of those approvals were recalled as unsafe,,,the question is,,,how did they get approval in the first place ?,,,,,either all those billions the drug companies CLAIM they spent on research and development were wasted or not spent at all. The biggest disaster they ever approved, Aspartame, is still on the market, used in foods and drugs, recent research has confirmed Aspartame causes diabetes and cancer, in addition to making the human body allergic to medications taken while consuming Aspartame. The biggest kicker to the story,,,,Aspartame was originally formulated ,,,,,for CHEMICAL WARFARE.

[htg32000]

Here we go with your {CBS] BS propaganda. What about all the posions in the food that the FDA lets go into the market. these gov agencies dont give a **** about our health anyone that believes they do is a dam sheep, this is all about money and control. How many people will be criminals when they ban it altogether, how many people will be fined a measley $10 dollar fine, It will be ok because it will go for the education or some other kind of bull ****. The government needs to get the hell out of our Business and stay the **** out!!!!!!!!!! enough is enough, oh I better stop they might label me a terroist. Oh by the way I dont smoke never have. to the Jesus freaks and the holier than thou, There have been smokers since the dawn of time do you think some Wanna be control freak in DC is gonna stop it, ie Prostituiton, nothing will happen other then losing more of your liberties. this is what its all about people. they are trying to outlaw Vitamins, I geuss Jesus would want that also so we will be at the Govs mercy for getting the right kind of nutrients for our bodies because we as citizens are not smart enough to choose it couldnt be because, codex and mansantos is paying Billions for lobbist to get that done could it?? Wise up even if you dont like smokers look beyond the picture thats in front of you and stop this against our freedoms!!

[BigTobaccoStooge]

This is long overdue. Tobacco companies, free from regulation, have ramped up nicotine levels in cigarettes during the last decade so kids get hooked faster and smokers find it harder to quit. And now there should be less marketing to kids, not bad for a start. And no more fruit-flavored cigarillos, one of the industry's favorite ways to get kids puffing.

What I find really amusing is that people like Michael Siegel have convinced many in the media that tobacco companies love this law just because one of them participated in the process, despite the fact that Philip Morris's competitors oppose it. The ability to completely eliminate nicotine from cigarettes is a red herring because doing so would defeat their purpose. This is first and foremost a nicotine delivery device.

I think the tobacco companies are scared about where this could lead. If they are ever limited to a low enough nicotine content to fall below the addiction threshold for most people, they could soon find themselves out of business.

Michael Siegel says reducing nicotine levels will hurt smokers because they will just smoke more. If Siegel is so concerned about the health of smokers, perhaps he could have spent a little more time in the last few years encouraging them to quit, and a little less time opposing measures that would make it harder for them to smoke - such as outdoor smoke-free laws, and car smoking restrictions to protect children and infants: "it is my hope that as many of the car smoking ban proposals fail as possible" (March 12, 2007: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/03/trading-small-risk-for-severe-harm-why.html)

I also believe tobacco companies love the idea of e-cigarettes, another of Siegel's pet causes, because they mimic smoking while helping to keep smokers addicted. Can't light up at work, at your favorite restaurant, bar, or shopping mall? No need to quit. Just have an e-cigarette, that should tide you over until you can smoke a real one. In this way, e-cigarettes would help to keep smoking a viable drug habit.

[MarchingOn]

Tricky move. Reduce the nicotine level in cigarettes so those addicted will have to smoke even more cigarettes to satisfy their craving.

[anti-global2]

People need to think positive. There are still going to be plenty of smokes around, they will just be smuggled in from Mexico and Canada (at least mexico will finally be good for something) and there will be plenty of opportunity to get rich selling them.
What is even better is the fed and the states will be losing all the tax revenue they have no right to to begin with.
I am in PA and make runs south all of the time. I refuse to pay a so called sin tax on smokes to pay for some poor kids health insurance. It is all about principal, if the kid needs insurance have his under educated or addicted parents get jobs at McDonalds or join the military. My kids are insured, thats all I care about.
There will be no more unfair taxes when this goes through, but believe me there will still be cigarrettes available and they will be cheaper. It is like pot, I know people who smoke and they never have any problems getting it.
I hope they do the same with booze, in the end it will make it cheaper and it will always be available.
This is America, true americans don't let the govt' dictate what we can and cannot do. We'll find a way around it as usual.

[freechoice4all]

what a blow to the economy!
...$100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco will be lost leading to unemployment of doctors, nurses, and other health field related workers.

The tax revenue by the gov will be greatly reduced and thus require the gov to raise our taxes to make up for the lost $$$ and to pay for the bailout of the medical industry! :-)

[Dgunner]

I dont think the FDA needs to worry about tobbaco as much as the s---t that is put in our food supply. The largest cause of medical health care among our youth is not tobbaco related . The main cause of bad health is the lazy ignorant parents who are feeding thier kids to death. I was at a lutheran curch the otherday loaning some equiptment to clean up after a storm. I counted 143 children of 160 counted for safety reasons that were at least 40 to 50 lbs overweight. I filmed all the huufing and puffing of all the children. Then I left a copy for the pastor and the elders to view. After they had viewed the film. They called me and asked me what they were supposed to be looking for. I said : Pastor if you can't seeit then you and your congergation are in terriblr denial. Just keep viewing the film surely a educated man of your statuer will eventually see what I see. It took him six times before he called back and said I get it now . he said it is common among lutherans to be a little overweight. I said pastor those children passed little overweight last year.

[abbe91]

Cant wait to see whats next.... maybe foods with Trans Fats. .....oops thats already happen.
Posted by enriquieGonzales at 6:42 AM : Jun 12, 2009

Food is already regulated by FDA, indeed. Why should tobacco be exempt ?

[abbe91]

Sorry: I meant to write

Read: A agency under direct control of the tobacco companies.
Posted by abbe91 at 6:38 AM : Jun 12, 2009

[abbe91]

"Opponents, led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina, argued that the FDA, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of food and drug products, was the wrong place to regulate an item that is injurious to health. "

Read: Because it's harmful, it should be less regulated than milk.

"He also contended that the bill would restrict tobacco companies, including several based in his state, from developing new products that might be less harmful to users. He unsuccessfully proposed the creation of a new agency that would both regulate tobacco products and encourage efforts to make cigarettes less harmful. "

Read: A company under direct control of the tobacco companies.

[drivelphobe]

phwtb...

You are correct. I, for one, don't care anymore about smokers' plight. I have put up with their second hand smoke for over 50 years. The arrogant disregard they have for non-smokers and the trash they throw on the public areas. The heavy burden on our health care system, insurance rates and their general stench.

The smokers have had their day and due to their obnoxious behavior, they have left society no choice but to take more aggressive action to save the healthier, more intelligent from the insidious fatal implications of second hand smoke.

It seems inconceivable to me that smokers even exist. To actually suck poison into your lungs voluntarily is clear proof of the defectiveness of those who do. They are in general, the bottom feeders of society, usually addicted to alcohol as well, and of little social value.

This isn't communism. it's survival of the fittest and smokers are a long way from qualifying. It is time to purge our society of those who have no respect for themselves or anyone else. If they must smoke, make them smoke where no one can smell it or see it. They are a dying minority and that's the way it should be. There is no stench more vomit inducing than a smoker's breath. Good riddance.

[endurorob]

Well someone needs to know....the Republicans don't that's for sure.
Posted by stuart2000 at 5:41 AM : Jun 12, 2009


And the dems do?

[phwtb]

How sad we have let our country come to this.

All of you out there that agree with what has just happen, I pity you. I pity you for your ignorance in what is truly happening.

None of you really care what happens to the people who smoke. You don't give a hoot about who is ill or who is dieing or even how much you "could" have changed. All you honestly care about is that they are being forced to comply with what you WANT them to do.

It's an issue of control.
Control the people and you have the power...

"A country strong enough to give people all they need is powerful enough to take it all away."
Thomas Jefferson

Congratulations and welcome to Communism 101.

[sam-kiley]

bonjour
bravo messieurs, sage decision, on ne fera jamais assez pour arreter ce fléau, j'espére que "d'autres" tous les pays en feront de meme, il est temps d'arreter le massacre et preserver la santé de nos enfants ..

[omnibus66]

Nicotine is highly addictive, and unfortunately highly poisonous. But the bottom line is tobacco products are legal. I do not and never have used any tobacco product, but support the right of any adult to use it if they so choose.

On the other hand, if I were addicted to nicotine, I think I would try to quit. It is very expensive, and I think I accept that it can damage your health. But the main point I want to make is that I see absolutely nothing wrong with anyone, including, friends, parents, or government, discouraging non-smokers from lighting up for the first time.

If you never try it, you will never miss it. I know I do not.

[zonkzilla]

It looks like the legislation has left out the favorite tool to convince young people to smoke, Hollywood.
Since the 20's, Hollywood has used the movies to promote smoking and has been paid well by the companies to do it.
Almost every movie I see now has the lead actor smoking, in fact it is worse now than ever.
I am disappointed that issue was not addressed.
I am all for freedom of expression, but if the movie producers are taking money to promote smoking, that is a different thing altogether.

[endurorob]

No, the real communism was some punk republican declaring stupid wars.
Posted by charlie345 at 4:13 AM : Jun 12, 2009


You lefties always try to play the Bush card. Get over him already. He is gone and Obama wanted the job.

[endurorob]

"ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people. "

Maybe they should think about the same thing for alcahol. I know when I was a young teen that Southern Comfort was some damn tasty stuff.

[endurorob]

I hope MORE regulation comes from this bill and I hope they get so expensive that people can't afford them.
Posted by YCantWeAllGetAlong at 3:50 AM : Jun 12, 2009


Self righteous ex smokers are the worst kind of ex smokers.