|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10526674 - 06/17/09 08:53 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: hey... did you know that hypertension is also far more common in blacks, it's sure a damning case against blacks, we should ban them
This is the second time you've talked about banning black people and I still don't know what you're getting at, besides the obvious fact that some people have a higher risk factor for stroke than others. You'll notice I'm not the one making any arguments for killing smokers or banning black people, which is kinda making me wonder...
Quote:
Quote:
What exactly are you trying to get at with all of this?
I'm saying that your argument is retarded
Which argument is that? This one?:
Quote:
Carrying around a pack with fucked up mouths and hemorrhaged brains is much less cool than current designs.
Quote:
well Mr. DARE officer, tell us about the hemorrhaging brain from tobacco products
Tobacco products increase the risk for stroke...graphic warnings increase awareness of that risk...increasing awareness of health risks is a good thing. None of that has anything to do genetic abnormalities that also increase the risk of having one, at least not in the context of placing warnings on cigarette packages.
You call my argument retarded, yet you don't think smoking 5-6 packs a day and keeping a nicotine habit for half a century is a massive risk factor for someone developing colon and liver cancer
You apparently don't think hemorrhages are related to health problems brought on by smoking
Are you Joe Camel
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: THC Titan]
#10527025 - 06/17/09 09:33 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said: Which argument is that?
the one where we need tighter controls, more government intervention, more education on health issues, more exposure of the ingredients in cigarettes, more taxes, more fees by cigarette companies, more what ever, even though all this has been done in the past and has failed, it's like you believe we should repeat the experiment over and over again and each time hope for a different outcome
Quote:
You call my argument retarded, yet you don't think smoking 5-6 packs a day and keeping a nicotine habit for half a century is a massive risk factor for someone developing colon and liver cancer
there you go making assumptions again without providing proof of your original statement, where did I make the claim or express the belief that smoking didnt contribute as a risk factor, it's nice that you can read but reading comprehension is important
Smoking with Hepatitis C Raises Liver Cancer Risk http://www.hepatitis-central.com/mt/archives/2009/04/smoking_with_he.html
Hepatitis C raises risk of liver cancer, expert warns http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2009/06/18/2003446487
so wait a second... what's our risk factor?
lets keep looking
http://cancer.about.com/od/livercanceradult/p/livercancecause.htm Smoking: Smoking is a risk factor many types of cancer, and liver cancer is no exception. Several studies suggest a link between smoking and liver cancer.
well shit, you suggested it too so it must be true
lets look at stroke, your info provided 700,000 strokes per year my info suggest that hemorrhagic stokes account for 25% of the total, as smoking is a risk factor in hemorrhagic stokes we'll focus on those and that brings the total to 175,000, I'm going to make up an arbitrary number of stroke 'victims' that were also smokers, I'm sure that 50% is a high estimate since there's so many other factors which brings the total to 87,500 stroke victims in which smoking played a role in their stroke
only 87,500
MY GOD MAN, DOCTORS KILL MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE AS THAT! http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
should we ban or regulate doctors or incompetence
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10527686 - 06/17/09 11:41 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
THC Titan said: Which argument is that?
the one where we need tighter controls, more government intervention, more education on health issues, more exposure of the ingredients in cigarettes, more taxes, more fees by cigarette companies, more what ever, even though all this has been done in the past and has failed, it's like you believe we should repeat the experiment over and over again and each time hope for a different outcome
So, all methods of government intervention have failed to lower the consumption of cigarettes? Increasing taxes, expanding education, and putting warning labels on cigarettes have not convinced anyone to stop smoking?
Quote:
87,500 stroke victims in which smoking played a role in their stroke only 87,500
Only 87,500? What is your point, that's not enough to justify caring about? If a Surgeon's General warning (and, more specifically, graphic picture warnings) reduces the number of people smoking, and education reduces smoking, then hundreds of thousands of fewer people will eventually die of stroke, cancer, and heart disease. That doesn't sound insignificant to me considering the relatively low costs of putting stickers on cigarette packs and spreading information about health.
Just to clarify - you don't think the government should be in the business of spreading tobacco prevention to kids or public places because it has always failed? Reducing tobacco advertising on TV - hasn't decreased smoking?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: THC Titan]
#10527860 - 06/18/09 12:13 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said: Only 87,500? What is your point, that's not enough to justify caring about?
my point is we need to ban doctors because they kill twice as many people as my high estimate of smoking related hemorrhagic stroke, banning doctors seems as though it would be more effective and it's certainly untested in the US
people will do what they want to do, you included with your constant opinion since you never seem to back it with a link to fact and no amount of regulation will stop it, if smoking has been reduced in the last 20 years it's because people ahve chosen to quit or they died
but hey... we all know it's bad and since we do we'd all quit
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/26919-en.html
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10528002 - 06/18/09 12:43 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In all fairness, pris, cigarettes clearly meet the requirements for a drug under control of the FDA.
Controlled Substance Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 (1970), http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html.
Federal Trade Commission v. Ligget & Meyers Tobacco Co., No. 108 F. Supp. 573, LEXIS 2320 (2d Cir. Dec. 1, 1952).
Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., No. 98-1152 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2000) (LEXIS).
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 201 (2004), http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm.
Sullivan, B. (2008, November 21). Ten Years Later, Tobacco Deal Going Up in Smoke. In MSNBC: The Redtable Chornicles. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/11/ten-years-later.html#posts
United States of America v. Kasz Enterprises, No. 93-0455P , LEXIS 8597 (United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island May 6, 1994).
United States v. 46 Cartons, More or Less, Containing Fairfax Cigarettes, No. 557-52, LEXIS 2576 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey June 10, 1953).
Read through those, it's pretty clear that the only reason tobacco wasn't regulated was because of the profits made. it seems retarded now that they're finally doing when the govt needs the money the most
EDIT: If you don't have access to these cases, heres a quick summary i made of each of them.
Quote:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. LIGGET & MEYERS TOBACCO CO. 108 F. SUPP. 573; 1952 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 2320 DECEMBER 1, 1952 A company advertised that their cigarettes could be smoked without any adverse effects upon the body of the smoker. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claimed that the cigarettes would be considered a drug as defined by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for said reasons and that the company advertised soothing properties which influence the mind, and would also make the cigarettes fall under the term drug. However, the court said that many things “Soothe the troubled mind of modern man” and did find that this effect was considered in their decision. As a result, the court found no drug within the company’s product.
UNITED STATES V. 46 CARTONS, MORE OR LESS, CONTAINING FAIRFAX CIGARETTES, ETC 113 F. SUPP. 336; 1953 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 2576 Fairfax introduced 46 cartons of cigarettes with 51 leaflets titled “How Fairfax Cigarettes May Help You” into interstate commerce. They were seized under U.S.C.A. 301 et seq. The libel claimed that the cigarettes were drugs and were misbranded when in interstate commerce. The leaflet suggests that the cigarettes are effective in preventing, inter alia, pneumonia, acute tonsillitis, scarlet fever, measles, tuberculosis, and parrot fever. The issue at hand is whether or not the public would purchase the cigarettes for the alleged therapeutic benefits or purely for enjoyment. The court concluded that it was clear that Fairfax intended the public to believe that the cigarettes would mitigate illness and thus fall under the definition of drugs.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, ET AL. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 529 U.S. 120. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alleged that under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that it had jurisdiction over tobacco products. The court affirmed the decision that Congress did not intend to grant the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products. If tobacco products were within the FDA’s jurisdiction, the FDA would be required by law to completely remove them from the market. This would be contradictory to Congress’ intentions which were made clear in recent tobacco legislation. Thus, the FDA did not have jurisdiction over tobacco.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. KASZ ENTERPRISES INC. MAY 6, 1994 855 F. SUPP. 534 Defendant sold Solutions 109 as hair growth product. This product was considered a drug by the United States under the FDCA and that it is subject to regulation by the FDA. The defendant did not seek approval by the FDA and so the United States filed an action against the defendants for entering unapproved products into interstate commerce. The court granted the United States’ motion, finding that the product was a drug under the FDCA. The U.S. was correct in its contention that it only had to show the product was intended to either to treat a disease or to affect the structure or function of the body of man.
EDIT AGAIN: If you look at the flimsy reasoning and read into the rest of it, Brown & Williamson basically says that there's too much money in tobacco for it to be regulated.
Edited by learningtofly (06/18/09 12:56 AM)
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10528119 - 06/18/09 01:10 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
THC Titan said: Only 87,500? What is your point, that's not enough to justify caring about?
my point is we need to ban doctors because they kill twice as many people as my high estimate of smoking related hemorrhagic stroke, banning doctors seems as though it would be more effective and it's certainly untested in the US
people will do what they want to do, you included with your constant opinion since you never seem to back it with a link to fact and no amount of regulation will stop it, if smoking has been reduced in the last 20 years it's because people ahve chosen to quit or they died
but hey... we all know it's bad and since we do we'd all quit
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/26919-en.html
And why do you think they quit? Do you think it comes to them in a dream, or does it have something to do with public awareness? Higher taxes? Less advertising? Combination of all three?
That articles explains what I've been saying in near-exact words:
Quote:
...in developed countries, an increasing awareness of the damaging health effects of smoking, together with the anti-smoking measures of government including intensified anti-smoking campaigns, the banning of advertising and increased taxation, have had a strong negative effect on consumption of tobacco products.
As for that graph you posted, that reflects global cigarette consumption. While it is increasingly becoming an public health issue in developing countries (I brought this up on the last page - smoking is contributing to cyclical poverty), that graph does not reflect the success or failure of anti-smoking policies in individual countries. As the article points out, cigarette consumption in the United States alone has decreased by 10% since 2008. It's also down in other developed countries that are getting richer and have more public policy programs aimed at preventing tobacco use.
Quote:
It is the higher demand for tobacco in the developing countries that drives the world tobacco economy, the report said. Public policy to reduce tobacco use should focus on demand rather than supply, it suggested.
Quote:
Mitigating these trends, however, and reducing consumption per adult [in developing countries] using a combination of tax and direct restriction policies, would also be an important achievement.
The article says that government policies and intervention, where there currently are none, can reduce consumption per adult, and it has already done so in developed first-world countries
Exactly the opposite of what you said in your last post.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10528339 - 06/18/09 02:14 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: a link to fact and no amount of regulation will stop it, if smoking has been reduced in the last 20 years it's because people ahve chosen to quit or they died
There's also less people taking up the habit.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: learningtofly]
#10528730 - 06/18/09 06:15 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
learningtofly said: In all fairness, pris, cigarettes clearly meet the requirements for a drug under control of the FDA.
so does cheerios, tomatoes and coffee
Nicotine is a drug but there's no one out there claiming health benefits associated with cigarettes
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
#10528734 - 06/18/09 06:16 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: a link to fact and no amount of regulation will stop it, if smoking has been reduced in the last 20 years it's because people ahve chosen to quit or they died
There's also less people taking up the habit.
on a world wide scale that's untrue, in some western countries yes
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10528747 - 06/18/09 06:23 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Would that be the same western countries that have graphic health warnings on cigarette boxes perhaps?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: THC Titan]
#10528847 - 06/18/09 07:12 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
people will do what they want to do, if smoking has been reduced in the last 20 years it's because people ahve chosen to quit or they died
but hey... we all know it's bad and since we do we'd all quit
And why do you think they quit?
personal choice, how many people do you thing are suffering from emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, COPD and what ever else and they're still smoking and they knew 30 years ago what the effects were, they knew they could avoid what they're going through 10 years ago and yet still continued to smoke
Quote:
That articles explains what I've been saying in near-exact words:
you sure they're not just taking credit for changes in lifestyles, I mean surely the whole movement of living healthier didnt stem from anti-smoking campaigns, it start with peoples choice to have a healthier lifestyle, more vegetarians, more organic purchasers, more people getting involved in outdoor activities like camping, bicycling, hiking. more health conscious people wanting to get away from bad foods and lifestyles
but yeah, you keep attributing it all to some campaign, and ignore the fact that the market for fresh and organic foods has grown about 20% per year every year for the last 20, ignore the fact that to keep up with that demand more outlets like farmers markets have cropped up, ignore all the fact and assume that it was some campaign by government
of course on the opposite end there's increases in unhealthy lifestyles as well making for a more polarized population
Quote:
The article says that government policies and intervention, where there currently are none, can reduce consumption per adult, and it has already done so in developed first-world countries
Exactly the opposite of what you said in your last post.
no, it's not the opposite of what I've said, why exactly do you think I'm leaving this shit wide open for you, because it's trash, I want you to pick it apart and say 'but your article said' because I dont track retarded campaign statistics, I watch the trends, are people really quitting because government said 'it's bad' or are people steering away from government controls and trying to simply life a healthier lifestyle overall
instead of actually doing the research you're relying on what you're told, what other drop in your lap
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
#10528856 - 06/18/09 07:14 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Would that be the same western countries that have graphic health warnings on cigarette boxes perhaps?
that's worked out pretty well for the RYO market
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10528872 - 06/18/09 07:21 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Er, did you just post a graph of roll-your-own tobacco sales as percent of all tobacco sales, in the hope that we would think it shows an increase in tobacco sales? That's pretty misleading.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
#10528883 - 06/18/09 07:26 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: That's pretty misleading.
well duh
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: zouden]
#10528935 - 06/18/09 07:46 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Er, did you just post a graph of roll-your-own tobacco sales as percent of all tobacco sales, in the hope that we would think it shows an increase in tobacco sales? That's pretty misleading.
Methinks that was the point.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
THC Titan
Spoonman
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10529588 - 06/18/09 10:45 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: you sure they're not just taking credit for changes in lifestyles, I mean surely the whole movement of living healthier didnt stem from anti-smoking campaigns, it start with peoples choice to have a healthier lifestyle, more vegetarians, more organic purchasers, more people getting involved in outdoor activities like camping, bicycling, hiking. more health conscious people wanting to get away from bad foods and lifestyles
You said that education and restrictions have failed to account for any decrease in smoking, yet you put forward the nebulous idea of "healthy living" as a primary motivation for people to stop smoking? Do you have any evidence to support that people just decided one day to stop smoking? Diabetes is up, obesity is up, lack of exercise is up, Americans are actually eating less fruits and vegetables. Unhealthy lifestyles are the norm in our country.
Quote:
but yeah, you keep attributing it all to some campaign, and ignore the fact that the market for fresh and organic foods has grown about 20% per year every year for the last 20, ignore the fact that to keep up with that demand more outlets like farmers markets have cropped up, ignore all the fact and assume that it was some campaign by government
I attribute decreased smoking to less advertising and more education, the logical relationship, while you attribute it to rising popularity of organic foods and I'm the one "ignoring the facts"? What a bizarre correlation. You're scaring me.
To you, I guess it doesn't make sense that making cigarette smoking less attractive and more expensive leads to people consuming fewer of them.
Quote:
instead of actually doing the research you're relying on what you're told, what other drop in your lap
What? The article you posted said that less advertising, more education, and higher taxes decreased cigarette consumption. I've been saying that from the beginning, and your link now supports it. Do you agree that people respond to economic incentives? If you do, you would accept that higher taxes leads to a disincentive for consumption.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1403364&blobtype=pdf http://www.jstor.org/pss/1251927#abstract http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/3/407 http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/95/6/956?ck=nck
I encourage you to find some medical journals that emphasize the link between organic foods and cigarette-smoking.
Edited by THC Titan (06/18/09 10:52 AM)
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10529884 - 06/18/09 11:54 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
learningtofly said: In all fairness, pris, cigarettes clearly meet the requirements for a drug under control of the FDA.
so does cheerios, tomatoes and coffee
Nicotine is a drug but there's no one out there claiming health benefits associated with cigarettes
Wrong, pris. Food is exempt from the FDCA. It states Quote:
(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343 (r)(1)(B) and 343 (r)(3) of this title or sections 343 (r)(1)(B) and 343 (r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343 (r) of this title is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343 (r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement.
Notice section (C) says "Other than food" And notice how section (A) says if its medicine and as I will state below, theres some funny business going on there.
Well actually they were. Before 1906, tobacco was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) because it was widely used as a medicine. In 1906 tobacco was dropped from the eight edition, the same year the Food and Drug Act became law, so it was no longer considered a drug and no longer subject to FDA jurisdiction. It is alleged that legislators from states where tobacco was grown got tobacco removed to avoid FDA regulation in return for their support of the act.
and if you'll look at the court case, UNITED STATES V. 46 CARTONS, MORE OR LESS, CONTAINING FAIRFAX CIGARETTES, ETC 113 F. SUPP. 336; 1953 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 2576, they tried it and got them taken away. The only thing they had to do was stop claiming therapeutic benefits. The thing here though is that the line between drug and not drug really just comes down to the vendor's intent. And while tobacco companies have generally not openly stated their intention is for the product to have psychoactive effects, its pretty much implied. Also, because of that KASZ ENTERPRISE case I listed, all the govt has to do is show that its within reason that the substance is used to affect the structure or function of man.
In previous cases people have argued why tobacco isn't regulated and the judges come up with retarded reasons like "Just because we say so," "Because cigarettes are soothing" and "Because they bring in a lot of money" There is no consistency with these rulings and the law
Edited by learningtofly (06/18/09 11:56 AM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: THC Titan]
#10529922 - 06/18/09 12:02 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: you sure they're not just taking credit for changes in lifestyles, I mean surely the whole movement of living healthier didnt stem from anti-smoking campaigns, it start with peoples choice to have a healthier lifestyle, more vegetarians, more organic purchasers, more people getting involved in outdoor activities like camping, bicycling, hiking. more health conscious people wanting to get away from bad foods and lifestyles
You said that education and restrictions have failed to account for any decrease in smoking, yet you put forward the nebulous idea of "healthy living" as a primary motivation for people to stop smoking?
did I or is that what your lack of reading comprehension tells you
Quote:
Do you have any evidence to support that people just decided one day to stop smoking? Diabetes is up, obesity is up, lack of exercise is up, Americans are actually eating less fruits and vegetables. Unhealthy lifestyles are the norm in our country.
I mentioned the polarization but I guess you decided to skip that and simply by your statement here it shows that it's pointless to quit smoking because if you change your lifestyle to give up smoking, you just die from being crushed under your own weight or go into a coma and they amputate your limbs because of the diabetes
Quote:
I attribute decreased smoking to less advertising and more education, the logical relationship, while you attribute it to rising popularity of organic foods and I'm the one "ignoring the facts"? What a bizarre correlation. You're scaring me.
do you have any proof to support that?
Quote:
Quote:
instead of actually doing the research you're relying on what you're told, what other drop in your lap
What? The article you posted said that less advertising, more education, and higher taxes decreased cigarette consumption. I've been saying that from the beginning, and your link now supports it.
I rest my case
Quote:
I encourage you to find some medical journals that emphasize the link between organic foods and cigarette-smoking.
dont be retarded, do you think there's a study out there that shows a link, you're not even addressing other things like the 'whole lifestyle change' I mentioned, you know, more activities outside of the house, more excersize, you simply addressed a single portion and have certainly overlooked this as the reason more people have quit
http://www.quitsmokingpro.com/2007/01/zerosmoke-new-quit-smoking-method.html
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: learningtofly]
#10529948 - 06/18/09 12:06 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
learningtofly said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
learningtofly said: In all fairness, pris, cigarettes clearly meet the requirements for a drug under control of the FDA.
so does cheerios, tomatoes and coffee
Nicotine is a drug but there's no one out there claiming health benefits associated with cigarettes
Wrong, pris. Food is exempt from the FDCA. It states
really... am I really, really wrong?
http://www.examiner.com/x-3696-Baltimore-Running-Fitness-Examiner~y2009m5d14-FDA-claims-Cheerios-is-a-drug
|
learningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bill Gives FDA Control over Tobacco [Re: Prisoner#1]
#10529962 - 06/18/09 12:10 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
way to bring up an isolated case, you cannot deny that the FDCA does explicitly state that food is exempt
Yeah and the same thing happened with that Fairfaix & 46 Cigarettes case. All they had to do was remove the label or make it within the guidelines and they're no longer considered drugs. Like I said before, its because the Vendor's intent is that it treat/mitigate a health issue. Drugs come down to vendor intent, regardless of the actual properties of the substance (Health effects are surprisingly irrelevant in defining drugs)
And that is why I am at a loss for why some drugs are scheduled and some are not. The only reason tobacco/alcohol aren't on the CSA cuz because "someone says so". If drug is defined by vendor intent, who is defined as the vendor. Could I just say marijuana is a decorative plant? Cuz using their logic, I could.
--------------------
Edited by learningtofly (06/18/09 12:12 PM)
|
|