Should tobacco be regulated under the FDA

[Winterblues]

Republicans have consistently blocked any measures to add tobacco to FDA's jurisdiction but now Democrats have a substantial Majority that it just might come to pass. Is there any reason it should not pass?

[roguevalley]

1. I don't know. I hope it does. It kills.

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. So does breathing...

... and eating... and drinking... and walking.... and driving... and etc., etc., etc.....

Let's regulate EVERYTHING!!!

[roguevalley]

17. sigh

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. OMG!!! Sighing can kill too!!!

:hi:

[NaturalHigh]

2. No.

I'm a smoker, and I'm with it enough to know that it's bad for me. Most smokers know it's bad for them, will reduce their life expectancy, and can cause them to get some pretty bad health conditions. We don't need the government to somehow "regulate" it.

[endarkenment]

3. yes: but only if marijuana is put in a less restricted class.

[slackmaster]

4. Only interstate commerce in tobacco should be regulated

You should be able to grow your own and exchange it locally without any .gov intervention.

(Bracing for lively discussion of Wickard v. Filburn.)

[Warpy]

5. They'll have to amend the constitution

unless they manage to get around it by saying that combination tobacco products (which is what any flavored or otherwise "enhanced" tobacco product is) comes under FDA jurisdiction for the additives, alone.

There's so much added junk in cigarettes and some pipe and chewing products that oversight is needed somewhere.

[damntexdem]

15. Nicotine itself has long been manipulated by tobacco companies.

That came out in the state suits against the companies. Nicotine is exceedingly addictive, which is why the companies manipulate its concentrations in their products. Nicotine is thus the drug that should be FDA regulated.

[Mojorabbit]

6. No,

no plants should be regulated.

[gratuitous]

8. Damn straight!

Who cares if folks die because of e. coli contamination in spinach? The FDA shouldn't be sticking its nose into farms and their cultivation methods! The free market will sort out the bad farmers from the good ones, and people should hire their own food tasters if they want to be sure of wholesome produce.

It's a no brainer!

[Mojorabbit]

24. I was thinking more of bans

I am sick of govt making plants illegal or putting controls on them. I am all for regulation of foodstuffs.

[damntexdem]

16. Yes, products, including food, should be and generally are regulated.

And the FDA is the appropriate agency (once the Obama Administration cleans up the mess the Bushistas have made there, as everywhere in the federal government).

[NeedleCast]

7. With the End Result Being What?

"Safer" tobacco?

[NYC_SKP]

10. Yes, actually. Tobacco Additives.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/

[NeedleCast]

12. Honestly I don't have much of a problem with that

I've grown my own before and it was the best ever but the curing process is a pain in the ass to roll a few smokes and I did it more to see if I could. I'm a casual/light smoker or a non-smoker depending on what day it is.

But, having seen the OPs views on smoking in the past, I'm left suspecting that this would be a first step in a full ban.

As was pointed out down-thread, tobacco is already regulated by the ATF, so why the need to move it under a different federal umbrella?

[NYC_SKP]

19. I fear you're right about it being a first step.

I'd prefer it get oversight by FDA in the same way a new food additive might, that tobacco companies be required to show that the additives when burned and inhaled are not unhealthy.
I suspect lots of money has been spent to prevent this.
It seems a no-brainer, you can't just put, say, acetoxydihydrotheaspirane, into peanut butter and call it automatically OK.

Or, actually you can, tobacco companies claim it's used as a food additive so must be OK. (but what about burning it and inhaling the products of combustion?)

http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/acetoxydihydrotheaspirane.html

ATF only regulates distribution, things like evading state taxes, not health related matters.

[backscatter712]

9. It's already regulated.

Tobacco's regulated, along with alcohol and weapons, by the ATF.

There's something to be said about moving the T and the F under the umbrella of the FDA.

Just so long as it's regulated (limit the fire hazards, the hazards of second-hand smoke & such), and people get fair warning about the health hazards, but it's not banned (as prohibition does not work,) why not?

[NYC_SKP]

11. It's sale and distribution is regulated (taxes vary by state) but not the chemicals.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/

[damntexdem]

13. Yes, it should. Nicotine has for decades been manipulated by cigarette producers.

This makes it a drug, subject to FDA regulation. That was going to occur under Clinton when the GOP-led Congress changed the rules to prevent it. The Dems are finally in a position to restore the old rules -- which should allow nicotine to be regulated as a drug.

[RB TexLa]

18. No

[JerseygirlCT]

20. YES nt

[wuushew]

22. Yes

n/t

[High Plains]

23. That would be another step toward tobacco prohibition, so no.

Prohibiting substances doesn't seem to work too well; too many unintended consequences.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Anything that leads to smokers being upset is something I will happily embrace. nt