S. 625 would protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products.
Detailed Summary
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of tobacco products by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Food and Drug Administration, including through disclosure, annual registration, inspection, recordkeeping, and user fee requirements.
Sets forth criteria by which tobacco products are deemed adulterated or misbranded.
Allows the Secretary to require prior approval of all label statements.
Allows the Secretary to restrict the sale or distribution of tobacco products, including advertising and promotion, if the Secretary determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. Prohibits such regulations from: (1) limiting product sales or distribution to authorization of a practitioner licensed to prescribe medical products; (2) prohibiting product sales in face-to-face transactions by a specific category of retail outlets; or (3) establishing a minimum age greater than 18 years of age for product purchases.
Prohibits cigarettes from containing any artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, cinnamon, or coffee.
Requires the Secretary to establish tobacco product standards to protect the public health, but reserves to Congress the power to ban any tobacco products or reduce the nicotine level to zero.
Allows the Secretary to take specified actions, including public notification and recall, against unreasonably harmful products.
Requires premarket approval of all new tobacco products.
Sets forth standards for the sale of modified risk tobacco products.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) judicial review; (2) coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC); (3) congressional review of regulations; and (4) state and local authority.
Requires the Secretary to establish a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
Amends the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act to change cigarette warning label and advertising requirements.
Amends the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 to change smokeless tobacco warning label and advertising requirements.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 8/1/2007: Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Neil
July 17, 2007, 7:54am (report abuse)This sounds like the first step to completely outlaw the sale of cigarettes in the United States. I hope this bill fails for the sake of basic freedom. I don't smoke but I think tobacco sales should be legal and unregulated. How can the FDA approve cigarettes for sale to the public if cigarettes are not a safe product? You can't make a safe cigarette. We should have the right to do things that are unhealthy if we so choose.
Shawn
July 17, 2007, 9:00pm (report abuse)Its prohibition creeping in all over. This only leads to a war on drugs. Do we really want the violence and the crime associated with more prohibition? They just want to open a new front to the war on drugs. I say no more prohibition and draw the line here and tell the drug war profiteers that America will no longer be selling liberty to the prison system for a profit.
Bill
July 17, 2007, 9:12pm (report abuse)Look at the backers of this bill. Americans that enjoy freedom have no where to turn.
John
July 25, 2007, 12:28am (report abuse)I am appalled at the Republican sponsors of this bill. It is social legislation spawned by those who think we all need to be cared for by the government. I smoke cigars, know the risks, and accept them. Get the government off my back!
Shawn
July 27, 2007, 7:50pm (report abuse)Americans have little hope left of being free from the grip of prohibition. This bill is the tip of the ice burg.
George
September 20, 2007, 8:43am (report abuse)Freedom to smoke, perhaps. Freedom to impose smoking's harms and costs on non-smokers, no. Freedom of corporations to deceive customers, strongly no. Food and drug makers must explicitly disclose risks and dangerous ingredients. Cigarette makers should be required do the same.
Brad
February 3, 2008, 12:17am (report abuse)I don't really see the point of this bill. It really doesn't appear to much that hasn't been done already.
smith
February 4, 2008, 11:54am (report abuse)This bill has as much constitutional authority as the laws that prohibit the consumption of certain drugs. None. When you have to ask your government "is it ok if I eat this, drink this, or smoke this?" you are not free in the least.
Amy
February 4, 2008, 4:25pm (report abuse)The freedom to smoke, sure! As long as you are willing to pay for the healthcare costs that you are imposing on the rest of us! I don't want to pay for your healthcare costs through government funds or insurance allocations.
Brian
February 9, 2008, 4:55pm (report abuse)Since we're concerned about the costs of unhealthy lifestyles to the rest of us, let's introduce a bill that mandates how much every American must weigh in proportion to their height, too.
Matt
June 2, 2008, 3:01pm (report abuse)John says 'he knows' the risks of smoking. But most smokers do not. And most have not saved enough money to pay for their, their children's, and their coworkers health care costs related to their smoking. There are currently over $9 in health care costs for each pack of cigarettes sold in the US. Most smokers don't put $9 of savings towards future health care for each pack of cigarettes smoked.
deb
July 14, 2008, 2:29pm (report abuse)AGAINST! What's next? How many pieces of toilet paper we 'ALLOWED' to use? This gov't has gotten out of hand, too big, they produce NOTHING, ignore the constitution....fire them.
Emma
July 22, 2008, 10:39am (report abuse)What is wrong with the folks commenting here? EVERYTHING else is regulated (cereal, cosmetics, etc...) but big tobacco spends spends zillions on lobbying to keep tobacco unregulated. Why should tobacco not be subject to the same requirements as everything else? They are not even required to list their ingredients!! You can still eat the unhealthy big mac but at least you know what the hell is in it! I'm an ex-smoker and I wouldn't have wanted to hear this while I was a smoker either.
james
August 10, 2008, 6:46pm (report abuse)Just another way for the government to control us. This used to be a free country.
Deborah Simpkins
September 8, 2008, 3:19pm (report abuse)What is freedom....It's becoming less and less everyday living in this country! If the government wants to protect me...Close the borders, pentalize companies that send jobs overseas and taking them away for the American people. Give our children the best education on earth, find and distroy Binladen. Cut taxes, reduce our dependence on oil from other countries. Give taxes incentives to builders and the public for using solar or wind power to support their homes. But quit taking rights away from the American people who many died to keep this country free.
Rob
October 5, 2008, 4:29am (report abuse)The USA... where "they" mind your own business!
How about passing bill that prohibits government from prohibiting so much of our personal lives? Oh wait, dont we already have something like that or didnt we at one time?
Im with you deb, FIRE THEM ALL!!!