Are the new FDA restrictions on tobacco products an abuse of government power?

In a recent news article posted on Yahoo! "Historic anti-smoking vote to give FDA new power", it states that "The legislation [...] would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

I don't smoke cigarettes, nor do I advocate them, but think is a gross abuse of government power. Tobacco products already have the strictest rules concerning advertising (in CA ads are practically limited to magazines and gas stations only). Now the government is attempting to regulate it even more.

Also, in an odd "change-of-the-poles" effect, the government now IS Big Tobacco. Picture this, the government is now in control of what Big Tobacco makes, how it makes it, what it markets, how it advertises, and profits from it substantially through 300%+ tax rates excised on tobacco products in cities such as New York.

Does anyone else see several very wrong things with this scenario? Please no heated remarks about how cigarettes kill - WE KNOW.

Update:

gomanyes - "do you think that requiring FDA approval to sell a drug is also an abuse of government power?"

Yes, I do think that is another example of the government's abuse of power. I believe gov. should only act as a facilitator, never* an inhibitor. Build roads, build schools, but let the markets do as they please. If the FDA wants to put a stamp on things it approves, that's fine. But making non-approved products illegal is an abuse of power, because people have the right to choose what they put in to their bodies, whether it be cigarettes, alcohol, or medicine.

Update 2:

Bill M - I would agree with you if corporations forced people to consume their products. However the fact remains that individuals have the ability to choose whether or not they use tobacco products, and in what capacity. Would you like to edit your comment to include a rebuttal?

Update 3:

Lea R - I did not know until reading your post how severe the circumstances were in Canada surrounding tobacco and alcohol. It is interesting to learn how different things are.

Update 4:

It worries me because we are continuously creating more restrictive laws, but hardly ever do we abandon them. We are losing our freedoms inch by inch.

Many think cigarettes should be bad because of the health implications, but where does that road end? Will they next ban chocolate, and butter, and candy, and steak, and ham, because they all in some way or another can be detrimental to ones health?

People cit how many people have died from cigarettes frequently. It's as if people think "If it weren't for tobacco, no one would ever die, so we should get rid of it." I fail to see the logic in fruitlessly attempting to prevent something that is inevitable. (death)

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    The bill gives the FDA to not only regulate nicotine and tar, it allows them to outlaw tobacco completely. The reasoning is that curtailing smoking is in the public good, promotes better health, and will lower health costs.

    All admirable.

    However, it is the camel under the tent that bothers me.

    The same argument can be said about regulating butter, red meat, alcohol, and sugar.

    While obesity and heart disease are far larger health risks and cost society much more in terms of long term health care, (lung cancer is a very efficient killer, most patients die within 2 years. Diabetes, on the other hand takes decades of care, and vis a vis lung cancer, costs the medical system much more. So if they can justify limiting nicotine, they can surely justify limiting your sugar content.

    Problem is I dont want the government telling me how much sugar I , or you, can partake in.

    Beware, more governmnet dictums are on the way.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The government taxes the crap out of Canadians for tabacco and booze.

    A large pack of name brand cigs here in Toronto costs 10.00.

    That's why so many of us go for the Native smokes that go for 2.00 a pack or 10.00 for 200 cigs.

    Here,in all of Ontario, all cigs and tabacco products are hidden behind the clerk so as not to entice the young crowd into looking at all the pretty packaging.

    Cig ad's are gone from magazines and billboards.

    When depicting people "drinking" on t.v ads, you'll notice that no one is actually drinking.

    I agree, it's all bulls--t, however, you in the states have far more freedom of speech than us Canadians.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This is nothing new. The FDA already has the authority to regulate hundreds of products, from medicines to drinking water to food. They are just adding one more product to the list. If you consider it an abuse of government power, then do you think that requiring FDA approval to sell a drug is also an abuse of government power?

  • dmoney
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Just about anything the gov't does is an abuse of power. They are no longer for the people but they are now a heirarchy who run the people. We are now socialists and bordering into communism

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    ok well i know you know but i personally think tobacco should be banned anyways. i think that the goverment is kind of controlling, everybody is getting so extreme about stuff get rid of this do that, we are so dramatic even in politics and rights and everything. But you guys there are so many people biting the goverments butt about anti tobacco that they have to do something or get fired you shoule really start talking to the anti tobacco people may be if you got it through to them they wouldn't be pushing the goverments butt about this kinda stuff.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    yes, they're punishing a perfectly legal company for selling a perfectly legal product. as a matter of fact tobacco is one of the only truly american products out there.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes it is, just like forcing taxpayers to pay for lung transplants for smokers, liver transplants for drunks, AIDS drugs for sluts (male and female), and diabetes drugs for fat people. Those who play the games need to be held responsible for the consequences.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The fact that tobacco is still sold is an abuse of corporate power.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nope

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.