Senate panel approves FDA oversight of cigarettes

I wonder if the Honorable Sen. Kennedy will sponsor legislation putting alcohol under FDA oversight.

get over it..... cigerettes should be outlawed... anyone want their kids to smoke? Then outlaw them.

tobacco kills 400,000 in US eery year.. and the health costs?????

Maybe they should regulate fast food. You want your kids to be obese?

LOS ANGELES (CNN)-- A series of new medical studies on obesity describe America's weight problem as an epidemic, killing some 300,000 people a year.

Coolmind wrote:

get over it..... cigerettes should be outlawed... anyone want their kids to smoke? Then outlaw them.
tobacco kills 400,000 in US eery year.. and the health costs?????

If that were true we should hand out cigatettes on the street for FREE. since it kills 400,000 a year think how much we could save on Social Security with no one getting old anymore....

IF??? the US government thought for one minute any of the Second Hand Smoke arguments were even half true about killing everyone they would have had a Federal Ban Years ago. just like they did with all the other drugs. BUT in fact the US Labor Department (OSHA) after much pressure from the Health groups said.=


"Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."

In other words your federal government finds Not enough danger to ban smoking in the work place. So why are all these IDIOTS making all kinds of claims to the contrary and banning smoking in the work place???

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_...

Coolmind wrote:

get over it..... cigerettes should be outlawed... anyone want their kids to smoke? Then outlaw them.
tobacco kills 400,000 in US eery year.. and the health costs?????

In a perfect world that would happen. Unfortunately there are too many still addicted to the nicotine and it would be impossible to police. Smugglers would get wealthy. The best idea is to give smokers lots of encouragement to quit. Raise prices, get rid of advertising. Put cigarettes under the counter and make all packaging black and white or grey. No phony Light or Mild labelling that makes smokers believe falsely that they are safer. Though public smoking bans are primarily to protect Non Smokers from the known adverse effects of the smoke, it also helps smokers smoke less and therefore easier for them to quit. Former smokers in areas that have public smoking bans have reported that the ban made quitting easier. People weren't always smoking around them and tempting them. Smoking cessation plans should be subsidized and offered on a wider scale. If the smoking rate could be reduced to less than the current 20% a lot of lives would be saved and a great burden taken off the overburdened health care system.

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
In a perfect world that would happen. Unfortunately there are too many still addicted to the nicotine and it would be impossible to police.

Don't forget the politicians are addicted to the tax revenue that tobacco sales generate every year.

Gotta Ask wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't forget the politicians are addicted to the tax revenue that tobacco sales generate every year.

Yes and there's plenty of money for political campaigns from the big tobacco companies. Don't think for a minute that they don't interfere with government efforts to get people to quit. Here's just one example
Reynolds Heir Slams Firm for Tactics in Ohio Smokefree Debate
October 27, 2006
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has hit a "new low" by trying to trump an Ohio antismoking ballot item with a proposal to enshrine weaker indoor-smoking rules in the state constitution, the grandson of the company founder says.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is spending $40 million this year to try to defeat indoor-smoking bans in states like Ohio, as well as ballot items calling for higher cigarette taxes. "Why do they do this? Because they want to protect their future profits," Reynolds said, noting that antismoking regulation has reached a tipping point. "R.J. Reynolds sees a tidal wave of smoking laws coming on them and coming on them fast ... They've decided to fight back and they're fighting back with a vengeance."
Here's the link..check out the entire story
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/in...
That could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Ticker wrote:

They can't even regulate the food industry and now the idiots in Congress what to add more to the load?
The pollution inside you house is worse than all the second hand smoke you might breathe walking down the street. EPA says that the air in the homes in urban and rural America is routinely 5 to 30 times as toxic as the outside air, and can be as much as 100 times as toxic. Consequently, the Agency (EPA) rates indoor air pollution among the top environmental health risks.
50% of all illness is due to poor indoor air quality(EPA)
A recent report from the EPA stated: "Because these mutagens damage DNA, children are even more at risk than adults
150 chemicals found in the home are connected to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological disorders.
[Source: Consumer Protection Agency (CPA)]
A Swiss-German-American study makes the strongest case yet that a genetic mutation can cause an eating disorder, the researchers say. Trying to understand the reasons for an epidemic of obesity, some researchers have begun to link several mutant genes to obesity, which raises the risk for heart disease, diabetes and many other ailments.(The New England Journal of Medicine.)
There are pages and pages of stats such as this. And you folks worry about second hand smoke that you might breathe walking into a a resturent. Get out side and breath some fresh air. It beats what is in your house and appears to have already caused brain damage.

Could it be that there is second hand smoke in the air that is helping to cause the air pollution? Eliminating the toxins is a good start to cleaning up the inside air. Banning smoking indoors is a good way to start eliminating the toxins.

Leave the poor nicotine addicted smokers alone. Smokers will buy cigarettes because it's a terrible habit to break. They don't eat as well because the goverment has made them as expensive as illegal drugs. We let the drinkers drink in peace...let the smokers alone.

Who Cares wrote:

<quoted text>
Could it be that there is second hand smoke in the air that is helping to cause the air pollution? Eliminating the toxins is a good start to cleaning up the inside air. Banning smoking indoors is a good way to start eliminating the toxins.

Have you ever heard of "a needle in the haystack"?

That's exactly what smoking is to air pollution.

The biggest polluter is the family vehicle, lead or no lead. Also, see another forum about diesel fuel. You know the trucks that bring your goods, school buses, trains, etc.

Also, even though a lot of our factories were sent overseas by the ignorant politicians, they still contribute heavily to pollution.

Higher cigarette taxes.
Ban smoking in cars.
Ban smoking in parks.
Ban smoking indoors.
Ban smoking in apartments and condos.

Good read below..reality check for smoking fanatics
http://www.ersnet.org/ers/show/default.aspx...

Maybe a more productive use of time would be passing a bill that would make it illegal for fat senators from the state of MA to kill young girls while driving drunk.

One would think there was such a law, but there is a fat senator who got off scot free after running off the side of a bridge into the bay below ... and leaving the girl to die ... all the while managing to get his disaster team together to report the incident 6-7 hours later.

The name of this person is Teddy Kennedy, and the place is called Chappaquidic.

The chick he MURDERED was Mary Jo Kapecnick, if memory serves.

Now if you want a killer lecturing you about cigarette smoke ... be my guest.

Glass Houses and stones!

Peter wrote:

Good read below..reality check for smoking fanatics
http://www.ersnet.org/ers/show/default.aspx...

The second example is the more recent study
by J.E. Enstrom,(a “long-time paid scientist”34 of the tobacco industry) and
G.C. Kabat, which was published in the British Medical Journal in May 2003.
Enstrom and Kabat used the data from a longitudinal cohort study started in the
USA in 1959 and concluded that passive smoking does not increase the risk of
lung cancer and heart disease. Their result was widely publicised in the media.
However, it was soon discovered that the methodology used by the authors was
deficient, since the data they used did not have a proper control group of unexposed
subjects. The data collected in the original study had not been intended
for the kind of analysis done by Enstrom and Kabat. Although acknowledging
some financial support from the tobacco industry, the authors did not reveal the
full extent of their relationship with this industry and did not mention that the
study was actually an industry’s “directed project” under the close supervision
of tobacco executives35. The industry continues as of today to refer to the
Enstrom-Kabat article as the authoritative result on passive smoking.

Senator Kennedy has a vendata against Big Tobacco but in the mean time he he punishing the smokers.
Why doesn't he just mind his business and we will mind our own business

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/d...

James Enstrom

It is very disturbing that a major health organization like the ACS made false and misleading statements in a press release about our study before even reading our full paper and then cooperated with Glantz in distributing these defamatory statements on a wide scale basis in violation of the strict BMJ press embargo policy. It is very disturbing that our study continues to be condemned, even though we have presented extensive evidence to refute the unsubstantiated claim that our paper is “fatally flawed.” In addition, it is reprehensible that the ACS and Glantz have continued their campaigns to discredit us and “silence” honest research when this research is entirely valid. These actions must be kept in mind when evaluating the honesty and integrity of the ACS and Glantz. The fact that the BMJ paper was omitted without comment from the recent Surgeon General’s Report must be kept in mind when evaluating the honesty and integrity of Samet.

April 10 [03:00 GMT]- Enstrom cleared of scientific misconduct charges; American Cancer Society owes him an apology - Let us go to the core of the matter: we are living in a moral inversion, where crooks are in charge and are antismoking. Honest epidemiologists who do not twist the data to support the frauds and beliefs of the antismoking mafia are called crooks or at least accused of “scientific misconduct”. The misconduct, in this case, is that the results of Enstrom and Kabat study have not been manipulated to support the fraudulent agenda of antitobacco on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry. All our readers are familiar with the story concerning this study. The story is a confirmation of the lack of ethics of gangs like the American Cancer Society and the legion of con artists in the antismoking industry. For details, visit James Enstrom’s website.

Michael Siegel, in accordance with the rules of ethics and honesty, says that the ACS owes Enstrom an apology – something that every honest person would agree with. But what is overlooked is that the ACS and the rest of the antismoking mafia are not honest, do not care about being honest, have contempt for the truth when it does not serve their political purpose and consider fraud and misinformation a legitimate tool to be used in their pharmaceutical fight against smoking. Therefore, in a system that has been perverted into a moral inversion, it is only “right” that honest researchers such as Enstrom get investigated for not having come up with results corroborating the passive smoke fraud. Crooks have become the system of “public health”. It is time to find the courage to face that.

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/art-ar20...

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
The second example is the more recent study
by J.E. Enstrom,(a “long-time paid scientist”34 of the tobacco industry) and
G.C. Kabat, which was published in the British Medical Journal in May 2003.
Enstrom and Kabat used the data from a longitudinal cohort study started in the
USA in 1959 and concluded that passive smoking does not increase the risk of
lung cancer and heart disease. Their result was widely publicised in the media.
However, it was soon discovered that the methodology used by the authors was
deficient, since the data they used did not have a proper control group of unexposed
subjects. The data collected in the original study had not been intended
for the kind of analysis done by Enstrom and Kabat. Although acknowledging
some financial support from the tobacco industry, the authors did not reveal the
full extent of their relationship with this industry and did not mention that the
study was actually an industry’s “directed project” under the close supervision
of tobacco executives35. The industry continues as of today to refer to the
Enstrom-Kabat article as the authoritative result on passive smoking.

We can come up with study after study on both sides of this argument but it just goes to proove what I have been saying all along. Studies are made by people trying to proove their agenda, And they will twist the facts to make their argument..

Check out what this stupid study shows. all you have to do is breath SHS for 10 minutes in your life and it is all over for you... you going to die...
http://www.hawaii.edu/smokingpolicy/fact3.htm...

I prefer to only believe what I see in front of my face. Yes Smoking can cause all kinds of health problems. But I have to disagree with all the Bull about SHS. Me and over 50 million americans are over the age of 65 and even if we did not smoke we have been around SHS all our lives. And guess what we are still here and going strong..

Tobacco-Style Research -- or Just Blowing Smoke? We have begun investigating front group number two -- The Scientific Integrity Institute www.scientificintegrityinstitute.com which appears to be an electric power industry-funded effort to undermine US EPA attempts to set better air pollution standards for deadly fine particle pollution.

The “Institute” appears to be run by UCLA researcher James Enstrom, who became notorious several years ago for publishing a study which concluded there was no health risk associated with second-hand smoking.(See at
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529... ) Enstrom’s study was panned by mainstream researchers, who noted that it was funded by the tobacco industry.

Undaunted by the controversy, Enstrom is at it again – this time with a new study which challenges the link between fine particle soot and premature death in California. And once again (in the June issue of the scientific publication Inhalation Toxicology), other researchers are saying that Enstrom is just blowing smoke. This issue is probably worth further investigation since the electric power industry is using Enstrom’s study as an argument against better particle pollution standards.

Enstrom Cleared of Scientific Misconduct Charges; American Cancer Society Owes Him An Apology
After an internal investigation, the University of California has cleared UCLA professor and epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom of all charges of scientific misconduct - charges that were leveled by the American Cancer Society.

http://www.data-yard.net/10z2/siegel_enstrom....

Enstrom is just a hired hand,sells himself to the high bidder