Steps taken to limit tobacco sales

by amyjudd | April 2, 2008 at 05:39 pm | 606 views | 6 comments

A bill was approved today by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that if passed, will give the Food and Drug Administration authority over the tobacco industry for the first time ever.
This kind of bill has been sought for years by anti-tobacco activists, although it will make smokers very unhappy indeed.

If adopted, the bill is expected to dramatically reduce tobacco marketing, to ban many flavored cigarettes, and to prohibit the labeling of cigarettes as “light” or “low-tar.”

But despite broad support for the bill in both the House and Senate, where a similar proposal cleared a committee in July, the legislation is believed to face formidable opposition.

Both the administration and the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have indicated that they would oppose it. The bill is also running up against an abbreviated election-year legislative schedule.

Shortly after the committee vote a White House spokesman said the administration was concerned that F.D.A. oversight of tobacco could create a public misperception that regulated tobacco products are safe. “The administration believes that tobacco is not a device or a drug to be regulated by the F.D.A.,” said the spokeswoman, Emily Lawrimore.

Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, has reportedly threatened to filibuster against the legislation. In a statement Wednesday, shortly after the committee vote, Mr. Burr said he remained opposed to the legislation. A spokesman for Mr. McConnell said that the senator has said he would review the legislation.

The committee approved the bill 38-12 with much of the opposition from Republicans who argued that the Food and Drug Administration was already overwhelmed and could not take on regulating another industry.

Flag this story

Upload

Make your good story a great story. Click here to add your photos & video to this story.

Crowd Power

Scan the web to add photos and videos to this story or add them from the NowPublic Archive.

Jarrett Martineau

at 19:33 on April 2nd, 2008

good stuff:

Regardless of the opposition to these measures, disincentives do work to discourage smokers. The more the better.

rkempjr

at 21:36 on April 2nd, 2008

There is a collection of cigarette butts on the ground in my neighborhood so i decided to take a picture of one.

rkempjr has contributed a photo to this story.

Barry Artiste

at 20:47 on April 4th, 2008

good stuff:

amyjudd, I like this story. It's good stuff. You know what stuns me? Pharmacies, the bastions of health are allowed to sell cigarettes, yep only in BC, most Provinces for a decade have banned Pharmacies from selling cigarettes.

BC has also allowed Hookah parlours in BC to operate? Now that is stunned, one rule for some and none for others, so much for the Liberal Theory we are all equal.

And don't even get me started on the Sikh helmet law, allowing them not to wear a helmet, Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, are BC Morons? Guess BC Lawmakers wish to thin the Sikh motorcycle herd. What stupidity, as for the Sikhs and the construction helmet debate, that is another matter, these poor guys were allowed to wear Turbans for 20 years, and now it is not safe to do so? You know if one has really looked at a Turban close up, like I have done, They offer quite a bit of side protection over the Construction helmet, save for the crown on top which they could just insert additional padding,if I were a construction worker up north in the winter, I would wear a Turban, its warm too. As for the Turban in place of a Motorcycle Helmet, a 10 mile per hour crach can be fatal, even with a helmet. In my Opinion, rules for some and not for others, just another series of a long list of fine example of BC Political Party Stupidity of which your choices are the NDP (Dumb) and the Liberals (Dumber).