Don't they already regulate farms to a certain extent? Isn't it called the FOOD and drug administration?

yeah family farms right. are they the ones lobbying you or is it the multibillion dollar tobacco companies?

Sing for your supper, Howie.

Woof! Woof! Woof!

Good boy!

Expanding their power is the one thing that federal agencies absolutely do not want to do. What a dumbass.

This is an insanely stupid piece of legislation, parts of which are likely to be struck down by the courts, but once again Congress shows that no piece of legislation is stupider than the people who vote on it.

Churchill2004: This is an insanely stupid piece of legislation

Why? I mean, I don't know much about it, but what's so insanely stupid about it?

GAT_00: Churchill2004: This is an insanely stupid piece of legislation

Why? I mean, I don't know much about it, but what's so insanely stupid about it?

It contains a grab-bag of needlessly destructive bans (flavored cigarettes, for example, minus PM's preferred menthol flavor), but more importantly this is simply handing over the keys of the regulatory state to Phillip Morris. That's why they support this- it has nothing to do with safety, it's corporatist protectionism, plain and simple. Phillip Morris knows its smaller competitors can't handle the regulatory burden as well as it can. It's a classic "baptists and bootleggers" coalition against economic freedom.

What exactly is this supposed to do? Is the FDA supposed to somehow make cigarettes safer? Of course not- in fact tobacco companies are specifically banned from telling anyone that the FDA is regulating tobacco to avoid exactly that impression (one of the provisions that might be struck down even under the looser 1A standards for "commercial" speech). If anything, the FDA is trying to make tobacco use more dangerous with their hostility to things like electronic cigarettes and snus, on the absurd theory that relatively-safer alternatives to cigarettes have to be suppressed lest they attract non-smokers. Such a rationale is specifically incorporated into the law, and it amounts to a de facto freezing of the status quo.

Churchill2004: GAT_00: Churchill2004: This is an insanely stupid piece of legislation



Yeah, I was kind of miffed by some of that stuff. However, I don't have the ability that some folks, particularly in the media, have to be outraged about every single tiny thing.

The Rep's remark is also mindbogglingly stupid. Statistically, family farms have been dead for decades. A family tobacco farm? Fuhgetaboutit.

/lived on a family farm
//got chased out of it by the fact that its impossible to out-compete corporate farming
///not a supporter of trade protections to try to inefficiently prop up any non-strategic industry

Churchill2004: it has nothing to do with safety, it's corporatist protectionism, plain and simple.

This. It's ironic that liberals hate large corporations, but at the same time support government regulation, when the sole purpose of most legislation and regulation is to benefit those large corporations, and no corporation can do much harm to society unless it has the help of the government.

GAT_00: Why? I mean, I don't know much about it, but what's so insanely stupid about it?

It contains a large number of useless bans (flavored cig ban, are you frigin serious?) and just like with drug companies, the larger tobacco companies will be able to squish their compitition though government regulation. (Banning reimporting drugs from Canada just one example.) The wording is very vague and prone to different interpretations depending on who is writing the checks.

If giving the FDA control of cigarettes is a good idea, why not give them control of beer as well? Why not perfumes and colognes?

Crosshair: GAT_00: Why? I mean, I don't know much about it, but what's so insanely stupid about it?

It contains a large number of useless bans (flavored cig ban, are you frigin serious?) and just like with drug companies, the larger tobacco companies will be able to squish their compitition though government regulation. (Banning reimporting drugs from Canada just one example.) The wording is very vague and prone to different interpretations depending on who is writing the checks.

If giving the FDA control of cigarettes is a good idea, why not give them control of beer as well? Why not perfumes and colognes?

Flavored cig ban? Does that include menthols? Cause that would be, you know, racist.

ne2d: Churchill2004: it has nothing to do with safety, it's corporatist protectionism, plain and simple.

This. It's ironic that liberals hate large corporations, but at the same time support government regulation, when the sole purpose of most legislation and regulation is to benefit those large corporations, and no corporation can do much harm to society unless it has the help of the government.

That was the same argument used against Upton Sinclair

Yer' right though -- most government protection is anti-competitive in nature when there is not significantly compelling national interest to enact it. However, if you think the regulatory bodies are retarded, look at our trade protections -- particularly with respect to corn and ethanol. Absolutely abominable.

One idea for reinvigorating the Sherman Antitrust Act would involve a sort of test where if a company is deemed, "Too big to fail" then a case needs to be opened to investigate whether it should be split up into more fail-able sizes.

ne2d: This. It's ironic that liberals hate large corporations,

Hey, Obama said we would be getting "Change". He never said it would be change for the better.

006andahalf: However, if you think the regulatory bodies are retarded, look at our trade protections -- particularly with respect to corn and ethanol. Absolutely abominable.

You want disgusting, look at sugar tariffs. The only reason that HFCS is so popular in colas and the like is that it's economically less feasible to pay what sugar costs here. If sugar was completely left to the market to price, you'd be getting five-pound sacks for less than a buck, and people wouldn't be scouring the stores (like I am currently) for the last few 8-packs of Pepsi Throwback.

006andahalf: Churchill2004: GAT_00: Churchill2004: This is an insanely stupid piece of legislation



Yeah, I was kind of miffed by some of that stuff. However, I don't have the ability that some folks, particularly in the media, have to be outraged about every single tiny thing.

The Rep's remark is also mindbogglingly stupid. Statistically, family farms have been dead for decades. A family tobacco farm? Fuhgetaboutit.

/lived on a family farm
//got chased out of it by the fact that its impossible to out-compete corporate farming
///not a supporter of trade protections to try to inefficiently prop up any non-strategic industry

Actually, the family tobacco farm is still alive and well in Western Mass. Mind you, it's shade tobacco for cigars. And Western Mass raises some of the finest cigar wrapper in the world, so it still pays even if you've only got 4 of 12 acres actually up and productive at a time--tobacco grows crazy fast, and it leeches the soil something awful. Worked on a small family run tobacco farm in college--actually with Rebecca Lobo, and her sister Rachael and her brother Jason. It was hard work, but it paid pretty well for a summer job.

CruJones: Flavored cig ban? Does that include menthols? Cause that would be, you know, racist.

It specifically exempts menthols. Not because of any disparate impact on minorities, but because Phillip Morris calculated that they have more to gain from being allowed to sell menthols, whereas they're not as invested in other flavors.

It's all about blowing smoke up people's asses.

I'm sorry, but tobacco has been unregulated so long that I think it's more important to legalize and regulate weed.

Dirty Hot Linker: tobacco has been unregulated so long

What planet have you been living on for the past four decades?

y'know, if we were a truly civil society we would either completely ban and destroy tobacco entirely or we wouldn't regulate it at all. Right now we're funding a lot of government programs (both at the state AND federal level) with tobacco taxes, and we're doing our level best to tell people not to use the product. which makes no sense at all, since if we're using tobacco taxes as a source of funding, you actually want to ENCOURAGE use, not discourage it.

Ban it, or stop regulating it completely. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

Weaver95: Ban it, or stop regulating it completely. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

That dichotomy of yours... there's something fishy about it.

Occam's Chainsaw: Weaver95: Ban it, or stop regulating it completely. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

That dichotomy of yours... there's something fishy about it.

If we're going to fund government programs by taxing the use of a product or service, then we need to encourage the use of said product or service, not discourage it. it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

ne2d: This. It's ironic that liberals hate large corporations, but at the same time support government regulation, when the sole purpose of most legislation and regulation is to benefit those large corporations, and no corporation can do much harm to society unless it has the help of the government.

I think that's ridiculously over-simplified. Is your argument "Well, we might as well not regulate them at all if they're just going to get what they want anyway?"

The problem is corruption. It comes from both sides. Assuming your claim is correct, why would government regulation EVER benefit large corporations? The government would not do so just for shiats and giggles. It's an issue of money, obviously. Lobbying is only part of it.

In a perfect world, the government wouldn't pass legislation that props up corporations by hurting competition. Of course, in a perfect world, laissez-faire capitalism would work, too. So would communism.

It's all the same problem: greed.

Weaver95: If we're going to fund government programs by taxing the use of a product or service, then we need to encourage the use of said product or service, not discourage it. it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Or we could discourage a potentially harmful act and tax the means of committing that act to offset costs of mitigating that harm. As the incidence level declines, so should the cost of mitigation, and therefore the necessary revenue stream.

Occam's Chainsaw: Or we could discourage a potentially harmful act and tax the means of committing that act to offset costs of mitigating that harm. As the incidence level declines, so should the cost of mitigation, and therefore the necessary revenue stream.

two problems tho:

1. that's hypocritical in the extreme and
2. did we mention how addictive tobacco is? 'cause that should be a factor worth considering in this discussion.

Weaver95: If we're going to fund government programs by taxing the use of a product or service, then we need to encourage the use of said product or service, not discourage it. it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and call that sarcasm, since you'd otherwise be advocating taking up smoking to fund government programs... Aren't you way too libertarian to want to fund government programs at all, anyway?

In 2008, the honorable Rep. Howard Coble voted against H.R. 1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act out of heart-felt concern for the wellbeing of the FDA. He felt the Act would, "further exacerbate an already stretched FDA".

Nothin' but luv for the FDA

fark the FDA. Go after cheerios some more while missing big elephants in the room that caused people to die of heart attacks.

DemonEater: Weaver95: If we're going to fund government programs by taxing the use of a product or service, then we need to encourage the use of said product or service, not discourage it. it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and call that sarcasm, since you'd otherwise be advocating taking up smoking to fund government programs... Aren't you way too libertarian to want to fund government programs at all, anyway?

Hell I am okay with legalizing pot and taxing the hell out of it to fund the government........I can see no huge moral gap when talking about tobbacco, tax the crap out of it and fund the gov.

/ And hookers too, legalize it, tax it.

-1. Should have said (R - J. Reynolds)

I forgive you.

Churchill2004: Dirty Hot Linker: tobacco has been unregulated so long

What planet have you been living on for the past four decades?

He is right. As a smoker the FDA has fallen down on the job. They have not regulated cigs at all.

Weaver95: two problems tho:

1. that's hypocritical in the extreme and

How so? We expect chemical companies to pay for toxic spill cleanups, why shouldn't the cost of mitigating the harm of smoking be levied on the smokers?

2. did we mention how addictive tobacco is? 'cause that should be a factor worth considering in this discussion.

So is caffeine. Hell, so are video games. At what point does the government get to legislate self-inflicted consumption of a potentially harmful substance?

Didn't read article. Didn't read any comments.

Just want to comment on the typical stupidity of the subby.

Phillip Morris supports the bill to let the fda regulate tobacco. If they didn't then we wouldn't even be hearing about this. Why? This will let the big tobacco companies dominate the market more than ever. What better way to stifle the competition than to pay off politicians to do it for you under the disguise of "public health".

You stupid sheep liberals are going to applaud this just because your team is in charge and without even realizing it is yet another example of big government and big corporations working together for their own benefit.

If you don't want your kids to farking smoke then give them a curfew, search their coat pockets and check their bedrooms. Be a god damn farking parent and stop asking other people to do your job.

Weaver95: Occam's Chainsaw: Weaver95: Ban it, or stop regulating it completely. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

That dichotomy of yours... there's something fishy about it.

If we're going to fund government programs by taxing the use of a product or service, then we need to encourage the use of said product or service, not discourage it. it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

I still don't get it. Ban it or stop regulating it? That makes no sense at all. Ban MSG or stop regulating it. Ban pesticides or stop regulating it. Ban veggie imports from Mexico or stop regulating them (although it seems they did during the Bush admin). To say that you should either ban something or stop regulating it...makes no sense whatsoever.

Churchill2004: Dirty Hot Linker: tobacco has been unregulated so long

What planet have you been living on for the past four decades?

Earth. You?
The smoking of dumbass, not the sale of.

599 chemicals not grown on the family farm, page 1. Thousands more are created by burning them. I appreciate what he's saying though, this is pretty much going to destroy the already poor deep south. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

* Acetanisole
* Acetic Acid
* Acetoin
* Acetophenone
* 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
* 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine
* 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
* Acetylpyrazine
* 2-Acetylpyridine
* 3-Acetylpyridine
* 2-Acetylthiazole
* Aconitic Acid
* dl-Alanine
* Alfalfa Extract
* Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil
* Allyl Hexanoate
* Allyl Ionone
* Almond Bitter Oil
* Ambergris Tincture
* Ammonia
* Ammonium Bicarbonate
* Ammonium Hydroxide
* Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic
* Ammonium Sulfide
* Amyl Alcohol
* Amyl Butyrate
* Amyl Formate
* Amyl Octanoate
* alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
* Amyris Oil
* trans-Anethole
* Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
* Anise
* Anise Star, Extract and Oils
* Anisyl Acetate
* Anisyl Alcohol
* Anisyl Formate
* Anisyl Phenylacetate
* Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
* Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
* 1-Arginine
* Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil
* Ascorbic Acid
* 1-Asparagine Monohydrate
* 1-Aspartic Acid
* Balsam Peru and Oil
* Basil Oil
* Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil
* Beeswax White
* Beet Juice Concentrate
* Benzaldehyde
* Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal
* Benzoic Acid, Benzoin
* Benzoin Resin
* Benzophenone
* Benzyl Alcohol
* Benzyl Benzoate
* Benzyl Butyrate
* Benzyl Cinnamate
* Benzyl Propionate
* Benzyl Salicylate
* Bergamot Oil
* Bisabolene
* Black Currant Buds Absolute
* Borneol
* Bornyl Acetate
* Buchu Leaf Oil
* 1,3-Butanediol
* 2,3-Butanedione
* 1-Butanol
* 2-Butanone
* 4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One
* Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil
* Butyl Acetate
* Butyl Butyrate
* Butyl Butyryl Lactate
* Butyl Isovalerate
* Butyl Phenylacetate
* Butyl Undecylenate
* 3-Butylidenephthalide
* Butyric Acid]
* Cadinene
* Caffeine
* Calcium Carbonate
* Camphene
* Cananga Oil
* Capsicum Oleoresin
* Caramel Color
* Caraway Oil
* Carbon Dioxide
* Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder
* Carob Bean and Extract
* beta-Carotene
* Carrot Oil
* Carvacrol
* 4-Carvomenthenol
* 1-Carvone
* beta-Caryophyllene
* beta-Caryophyllene Oxide
* Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract
* Cassia Bark Oil
* Cassie Absolute and Oil
* Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute
* Cedar Leaf Oil
* Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana
* Cedrol
* Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin
* Cellulose Fiber
* Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract
* Chicory Extract
* Chocolate
* Cinnamaldehyde
* Cinnamic Acid
* Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract
* Cinnamyl Acetate
* Cinnamyl Alcohol
* Cinnamyl Cinnamate
* Cinnamyl Isovalerate
* Cinnamyl Propionate
* Citral
* Citric Acid
* Citronella Oil
* dl-Citronellol
* Citronellyl Butyrate
* itronellyl Isobutyrate
* Civet Absolute
* Clary Oil
* Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract
* Cocoa
* Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder
* Coconut Oil
* Coffee
* Cognac White and Green Oil
* Copaiba Oil
* Coriander Extract and Oil
* Corn Oil
* Corn Silk
* Costus Root Oil
* Cubeb Oil
* Cuminaldehyde
* para-Cymene
* 1-Cysteine

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

Britney Spear's Speculum: Churchill2004: Dirty Hot Linker: tobacco has been unregulated so long

What planet have you been living on for the past four decades?

Earth. You?
The smoking of dumbass, not the sale of.

Yup, over the past 50 years the FDA could have made sure Phillip farking Reynolds stopped putting poison in cigarettes. They haven't and they have used it as a revenue generator instead. fark them all.

Well, anyway, I don't think Coble understands the meaning of the word "inevitable".

And I'm sorry about the demise of the family farm, but that started a long time ago for reasons other than government regulation. Whenever I hear a politician use the words "family farm", I know utter bullshiat is going to follow.

Wait a minute-

Does this mean the BATF is now just going to be the BAF?

Argh2: Well, anyway, I don't think Coble understands the meaning of the word "inevitable".

And I'm sorry about the demise of the family farm, but that started a long time ago for reasons other than government regulation. Whenever I hear a politician use the words "family farm", I know utter bullshiat is going to follow.

Actually, it came around from government deregulation.

Babwa Wawa: Don't they already regulate farms to a certain extent? Isn't it called the FOOD and drug administration?

Actually, the USDA is more relevant.

Nucleus: I appreciate what he's saying though, this is pretty much going to destroy the already poor deep south. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

LOL WUT? Have you even been to the south in the last two decades? I can think of maybe two or three communities who still depend on single-owner tobacco farms for the majority of their income. Most tobacco growers 'round these parts funnel straight to RJR or PM. If it used to be tobacco and is now laying fallow, that more than likely happened in the 70s-90s as smoking rates plummeted into the toilet and wholesale prices tanked.

FYI - Philip Morris likes this, and has been lobbying for it. It essentially allows them to keep their current market share, and make new entry harder.
Srsly. look into it.

Bucky Katt: Babwa Wawa: Don't they already regulate farms to a certain extent? Isn't it called the FOOD and drug administration?

Actually, the USDA is more relevant.

Good point. I wish both of them were relevant. I am kinda sick of the epidemics caused by Mexican and Chinese foodstuffs.

"Allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco in any capacity would inevitably lead to the FDA regulating the family farm"


...just as allowing gays to marry will lead to people marrying ducks...

...and restricting executive pay for companies bailed out by the government will lead to the federal government restricting pay for ALL corporations and launch us into full-blown socialism...


Over three decades after Vietnam and the "domino theory" is still a major propaganda tool.

shower_in_my_socks: "Allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco in any capacity would inevitably lead to the FDA regulating the family farm"


...just as allowing gays to marry will lead to people marrying ducks...

...and restricting executive pay for companies bailed out by the government will lead to the federal government restricting pay for ALL corporations and launch us into full-blown socialism...


Over three decades after Vietnam and the "domino theory" is still a major propaganda tool.

The FDA can't keep shiat off of Mexican spinach. I don't think they can keep it off their own hands.

...why can I hear the NRC maniacally giggling...

Weaver95: y'know, if we were a truly civil society we would either completely ban and destroy tobacco entirely or we wouldn't regulate it at all. Right now we're funding a lot of government programs (both at the state AND federal level) with tobacco taxes, and we're doing our level best to tell people not to use the product. which makes no sense at all, since if we're using tobacco taxes as a source of funding, you actually want to ENCOURAGE use, not discourage it.

Ban it, or stop regulating it completely. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

Oooooh, Yes!
Of course!
Can't you people see that Weaver is right?
There is no grey area, there is only right or wrong!
Please stand by while we retrieve: Manual of rightness 307.34.056......searching......

shower_in_my_socks: Over three decades after Vietnam and the "domino theory" is still a major propaganda tool.

Following the withdrawal of the United States from South Vietnam it, along with Laos (by the Pathet Lao) and Cambodia (by the Khmer Rouge) were lost to communist forces. Burma had undergone a communist coup a decade earlier, India was already aligned with the Soviet Union and Bangladesh a de facto client state of their Indian liberators. Only Thailand, of all the states in Southeast Asia, remained friendly towards the United States.

Ringshadow: ...why can I hear the NRC maniacally giggling...

Hey, pal, you can regulate my homebuilt breeder reactor when you pry it from my hot, radioactive hands.