Talk:Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vague

Does this ban apply only to vendors, or does it also ban the import of the banned products (kreteks, mainly) for personal use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.219.163 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look through the legal code, I see no mention of them being illegal to import for personal use. All mentions of importing relate to the "import for sale or distribution", or similar. 66.56.219.163 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV dispute by IP

Nothing at all?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.96.14 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UTTERLY BIASED POV FLUFF. There is no real controversy listed in this article at all. " that would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the multi-million dollar tobacco industry" - As if the only thing that has denied the FDA this power is the tobacco industry's millions of dollars?! Didn't Austin Powers establish how NOT evil and NOT daunting "millions of dollars" are these days? The Supreme Court rulings barred this post-Constitutional, Big-Pharma-owned, aspartame and Rezulin and Vioxx revering regulatory agency (I refer to the FDA, for the people dumb enough to support this bill) from seizing this very "authority" years ago, and this is mentioned as though the FDA has god-given-and-Constitutionally-mandated unlimited authority as well as unbiased, uninfluenced, and unquestionably benign omniscience as to what is good for the public, to hell with whether or not those of us who buy into the idea of freedom and notice things like aspartame and Rezulin and Vioxx disagree with Nanny. AND THAT'S JUST THE INTRODUCTION! The next section is "Reception". HA! Apparently, the only people who received this pile of Fascist crap were it's supporters.... and of course the people who thought it wasn't harsh enough (because WHO could POSSIBLY disagree?). There's also some vague wording which amazingly and ambiguously conflates believers in free speech with people who condone and market harmful products (besides the FDA, that is); this of course, AFTER the CEO's of the American Cancer Association and the American Heart Association are cited as though they are not PAID OFFICERS of organizations whose jobs and relevance and PAYCHECKS DEPEND upon their perceived action against a perceived public threat, but rather some type of benevolent, unquestioned forces for good. But (and you can quote me on this one) I'm sure that these paragons of virtue would be as happy to resign their cushy posts if you told them there was a cure for cancer and heart disease as would the evil CEO's of Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds if you told them no one wanted to smoke. Just as I'm sure that when your favorite annoying habit becomes taxworthy, you'll be only too happy to pay ever-larger prices for increasingly inferior product, go outside, and accept bulls**t 2nd class treatment and exploitation in the name of "discouraging" you (disclaimer: 'discouraging' has been found to mean 'making revenue from' in the state of California')" and "saving the children" from the you-like assholes who persecute you. You people really illustrate that both God's "free will" and Darwins "survival of the fittest" are frauds. -Section802


Wahhhh no Djarums wrapped in paper boo hoo D,,,,: 75.67.47.56 (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


lol wtf are you rambling about 72.155.14.213 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Worthy to note that the ban on flavorings applies to cigarettes only. Pipe tobacco, cigars, and the like are not included.

--Yeah, just wait 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.41.163.23 (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Supreme Court Cases

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. is pretty relevant, is it not? This act was made because SCOTUS ruled FDA regulations were not allowed unless a clear law was passed explicitly regulating it.
Blindman shady 23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would add it to the infobox. Remember (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Congressional Black Caucus=

Maybe one of you Wikipedia types could edit the line about the exclusion of menthols being "influenced by the Congressional Black Caucus". Actually, according to the New York Time article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/25menthol.html the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to ban mentholated cigarettes because of their influence on the African American Community, but others felt amending it would lead to its defeat. As it written now it makes it sound like the Congressional Black Caucus pushed for the exemption, which sounds a bit like a racist joke, IMHO. I'd do it myself but I don't know how to write the references. KTHANX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.5.142 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comments

I found this article interesting but perhaps it could also include what it would cost the FDA to implement this law and how they are overseeing the law so that it goes into action. Moriah25 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear something up

"Since 1998, Altria (Philip Morris) has spent more on lobbying Congress than almost any other business." Now by Philip Morris are you referring to Philip Morris Companies Inc., Philip Morris USA, or Philip Morris International?24.115.19.178 (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing, also there's no refernce there to support it. In 1998, all of those would have been the same company since Philip Morris Intl was spun off until 2008. The other references to philip morris earlier in the aritcle would be to Philip Morris USA. Also, I dont believe Philip Morris is the largest maker of menthols, I believe that is actually lorillard (newport), alothough philip morris is certainly the largest producer of all cigarettes which is why the supported the legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act"