Obama to sign anti-smoking bill in Rose Garden

[WhisperHorse]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is set to sign into law an anti-smoking bill that will give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

Obama is scheduled to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act during an event Monday in the Rose Garden. The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Anti-smoking advocates looked forward to the bill after years of attempts to control an industry so fundamental to the U.S. that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the Capitol.

Opponents from tobacco-growing states like top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA has proved through a series of food safety failures that it's not up to the job. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or to prevent others from starting, lawmakers should ensure that people have other options, like smokeless tobacco.

As president, George W. Bush opposed the legislation and threatened a veto after it passed the House last year. The Obama administration, by contrast, issued a statement declaring strong support for the measure.

Obama has spoken publicly of his own struggles to quit cigarettes.

Obama to sign anti-smoking bill in Rose Garden | Comcast.net

 

[PowerON]

I hope to see one day that there will be federate ban on smoking anywhere in the building.

 

[Steel X]

anti-smoking bill...lol yeah right. not really going to help anything. I agree with Obama on most of the ideas but this...? Not going to help at all.

Smoking is someone's own responsibility. It invades or violates the privacy of anyone who wants to have a cigarette to at least relax or whatever.

And please...don't give me that "smoking cause lung cancer" lecture. I'm very sure many smokers are aware of that. Like I said, it is someone's own responsibility to this.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

will Obama be smoking while he signs it?

 

[Hwy99]

Smokeless tobacco is not helping, I'd rather to have lung cancer over mouth cancer. That's why I don't chew the tobacco.

And, I am wondering when will they ever mention about the electronic cigarettes? I went to nonsmoker's place and I walked to outside to smoke my tobacco cigarette, they came to me if it was electronic cigarette to make sure that I don't have to go outside. Electronic cigarette are more tolerance smoking stuff.

Anyway, I strongly disagree with this about removing the label of "ultra light", "light", "full flavor" etc because the smokers are not all the same. My ex-roommate told me that he prefer to smoke the lights because the full flavor make him have hard time to breath while I prefer the full flavor because the lights make me smoke more than I smoke regular with the full flavors.

This bill is nonsense and doesn't balance the smoker's habits.

 

[JervisGermane]

will Obama be smoking while he signs it?

As a recent ex-smoker myself (three weeks today) I'm not sure how I feel about an anti-smoking law. It is rather hypocritical of Obama, as a smoker, to sign something like that.

I don't like the federal government trying to regulate our personal lives anyway, but ultra-liberalism in America is probably going to win over privacy concerns.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

kinda ironic Liberals (from liberation) support more confining policies & regulations

 

[diehardbiker]

HA! Somebody next to me thinks he or she gots right to smoke next to me violates my right to live in smoke-free environment! I don't care about smoker's rights crap, they got to stay at home and smoke not smoke next to me! Where hell is my right to have smoke-free environment!

Thank god for stricter smoke free environment, but still more work need to be done.

anti-smoking bill...lol yeah right. not really going to help anything. I agree with Obama on most of the ideas but this...? Not going to help at all.

Smoking is someone's own responsibility. It invades or violates the privacy of anyone who wants to have a cigarette to at least relax or whatever.

And please...don't give me that "smoking cause lung cancer" lecture. I'm very sure many smokers are aware of that. Like I said, it is someone's own responsibility to this.

 

[jillio]

HA! Somebody next to me thinks he or she gots right to smoke next to me violates my right to live in smoke-free environment! I don't care about smoker's rights crap, they got to stay at home and smoke not smoke next to me! Where hell is my right to have smoke-free environment!

Thank god for stricter smoke free environment, but still more work need to be done.

That could work both ways. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, stay home.

 

[deafbajagal]

My issue is with the children...they do not have a voice when it comes to their well beings. It's upsetting to me when I see adults smoking around babies and children with no regard to their developing lungs. It infuriates me. This particular law doesn't deal with this though...

 

[shel90]

Whenever I get out and inhale 2nd hand smoke, my chest tightens up. It is painful. I guess I dont have as much tolerance to it like I used to growing up.

 

[cdaigle430]

Smoking is someone's own responsibility. It invades or violates the privacy of anyone who wants to have a cigarette to at least relax or whatever.

If you smoke in a designted area, I am all for that-you can have your cancer stick. The problem is that if these laws never existed, most smokers would invade or violate the privacy of non-smokers and children, wether they realize it or not. Nobody wants to breathe in your smoke-even if it weren't bad for your health. I don't much like government intervention but this is just one of the few cases where I am all for them cracking down.
Smoking is "bad", because anytime you constantly breathe in a contaminant your bound to break something in your body and I will not debate what.

I quit smoking 20 years ago after a two year spell and I urge you all to do the same because smokers stink-literally.

 

[Daredevel7]

It's odd, seems like whenever someone talks about a bill being vetoed or signed, some people tend to oversimplify it. For example, by reading "Anti-smoking bill", people automatically assume "a bill that stops smoking." It seems like no one talked about what the bill ACTUALLY does:

"The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings."

Aside from reducing nicotine, it doesn't seem all that restrictive to me...

 

[kokonut]

Here's something really odd and makes no sense and it's related to the smoking issue.

A Channel 2 story in New York had this out: story. "The New York City health department is moving forward with a plan that would require about 12,000 cigarette retailers to post large anti-smoking signs. It's billed as the first such regulation in the United States."

NYC Could Require Anti-Smoking Signs At Retailers - wcbstv.com

Here's a quote from someone who made some very salient points.

Do you know how much tax revenue the State of New York uses and where it goes? It goes to health care coverage for kids. It goes to the general fund. They have just raised taxes on cigarettes and now they're trying to intimidate people into not buying the product. What's going to happen when that revenue source dries up? They're going to come after you and raise taxes somewhere else that you live, folks. Why not just ban the product? If it's deadly, if it kills people, it's causing these monumental health care costs, why not just ban the product? Well, they can't ban the product; the tax revenue's too high. There just isn't any common sense in anything. Zilch. Nada.

Exactly.