American Cancer Society supports FDA regulation of tobacco

Published

The American Cancer Society is urging the U.S. Senate to pass The Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act (S. 982), which would give the FDA authority to regulate the production, marketing and sale of tobacco products. See link below to learn more and to lend your support.

http://acscan.org/protectkids/getinvolved

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, trauma, gerontology, wounds.

I have reservations about this. I'm not sure that FDA regulation will be more effective in reducing youth smoking than public health campaigns. We have already reduced advertising, removed smoking from most public places, and largely defused its onetime high-fashion image. Our government could easily tax it so highly that a pack would cost $10-15. These changes will cut smoking in the absence of FDA regulation.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Even the though the government has eliminated advertising for tobacco, the tobacco industry has countered by "encouraging" filmakers to have key charachters smoking during the movie. Smoking in the movie industy has shyrocketed as TV and print advertising has been reduced. It is sad that they are allowed to "market", their product in the media. JMHO and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER and Home Health.

While we are at it let the FDA regulate marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine, better than a bunch of lawyers making a name for themselves.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The tobacco industry spent $13.11 billion in 2005 on advertising and promotions.

In the U.S., tobacco kills more Americans than auto accidents, homicide, AIDS, drugs and fires combined.

Since 1987, Big Tobacco has increased their spending on advertising and promotions every year, reaching $250.8 million in 2005.

Big Tobacco labels their cigarettes with things like light, ultra-light and low-tar even though they can be as deadly and addictive as regular cigarettes.

Source: http://www.thetruth.com/facts/

Public Health campaigns do not affect the ability of big tobacco to market their product, nor do taxes.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in tele, oncology.

Are we going to encourage them to regulate alcohol as well? Caffeinated beverages? Etc?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

Frankly, I think this is hypocritical.

If the ACS were conistent in their position that tobacco use causes unnecessary suffering and physical, emotional and social destruction, they would favor banning the substance entirely. Their position in support of regulation betrays the fact that they want tax $ generated by tobacco sales to use for their purposes.

Either tobacco is a legal product, or it's not.

Profiting from a product that causes harm to its addicted users is unseemly, whether it's the government or the ACS reaping the benefits.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Frankly, I think this is hypocritical.

If the ACS were conistent in their position that tobacco use causes unnecessary suffering and physical, emotional and social destruction, they would favor banning the substance entirely. Their position in support of regulation betrays the fact that they want tax $ generated by tobacco sales to use for their purposes.

Either tobacco is a legal product, or it's not.

Profiting from a product that causes harm to its addicted users is unseemly, whether it's the government or the ACS reaping the benefits.

I see nothing hypocritical in the American Cancer Society seeking greater regulation of tobacco, as opposed to an outright ban. Such a measure would never pass through congress successfully, so why would they invest precious time and resources in attempting to do so? And if indeed the ACS did receive revenue from tobacco tax dollars (which I'm not claiming that they do), I think it is an excellent application of those funds. In many states, tobacco tax revenue funds road construction- hardly beneficial to the promotion of health and treatment of disease.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER and Home Health.
Are we going to encourage them to regulate alcohol as well? Caffeinated beverages? Etc?

That sounds reasonable as well. Why not control alcohol better. Caffeine better. Lets just lump alcohol, nicotine, Caffeine,Cannabis,Heroin, amphetamines, lets just put it all the control of on government agency, just like GM. And lets make a better product. Use the profits for education, health care, world peace.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Either tobacco is a legal product, or it's not.

Oh, come on -- there are countless products that are legal but regulated. It's not an "all or nothing," "either/or" situation.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
there are countless products that are legal but regulated. It's not an "all or nothing," "either/or" situation.

Yes, there are. But I can't think of another non-profit that stands to benefit from the very product it proclaims to protect us from.

Either tobacco is safe or not. The ACS is clouding the issue, likely for its own gain.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

This isn't a vote on tobacco taxation, or about the method in which tobacco tax dollars are spent, it's a vote on what agency will regulate the product. Since tobacco is, by all definitions, a drug, it would seem quite reasonable that it be regulated by the FDA. I, for one, would love to see cigarette manufacturers actually have to print what ingredients they are putting in their product (plutonium anyone? or how about a little orificenic or cyanide?)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion