Implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Request for Comments (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
ctp20103 family smoking tobacco CTP
2010-05-24 2010-04-30 2010-04-15 2013-01-23 2010-03-25
FDA-2010-N-0136-0019 FDA-2010-N-0136-0009 FDA-2010-N-0136-0004 FDA-2010-N-0136-0036 FDA-2010-N-0136-0003
04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 04:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2010-N-0136-0019 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2010-N-0136-0009 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2010-N-0136-0004 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2010-N-0136-0036 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2010-N-0136-0003
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
I do not think that the outdoor advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco should be regulated. Although I am a non-smoker and do not support the tobacco industry, I am highly against censorship and feel that this form of censorship is inappropriate. It would only set the precedence for other such censorship actions if approved. This is not the answer to controlling the tobacco use.In the background information the FDA cites that this consideration is being made in an effort to protect children and adolescents from the harms caused by tobacco use and, if they are, whether the restrictions under consideration would be justified, lawful, and appropriate.  I believe that any new regulations that implement the proposed steps will only be overturned by a judge anyway. On March 18, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration announced rules that restricted the way the tobacco industry can advertise and sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products (Layton, 2010). Among those rules was a requirement for tobacco advertisements to be limited to black text with no graphics except in adult magazines or retail establishments only open to adults (Layton, 2010). Tobacco producer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Lorillard challenged the rule on the basis that it violated their first amendment rights. A federal judge later ruled in favor of the argument stating that the company could use imagery and colors to communicate what the product is and who makes it (Layton, 2010). Protecting children and adolescents from the harms of tobacco use should be the parents responsibility, not the governments. One of this countries founding principles is the right to free speech. We violate this by approving the proposed actions and will only set the precedence for such future actions. What is next? The censorship of junk food, fast food, and alcohol?References:Layton, L. (2010). New FDA rules will greatly restrict tobacco advertising and sales. Washington  Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803004.html The FDA is doing the United States a great public service by pursuing the regulation of outdoor advertising ofcigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The youth of America must be protected from advertisement strategies which draw future voters into the dilemma of developing a widely known fatal habit. As developed by Marc C. Willemsen, Dutch Foundation on Smoking and Health we must look to study the relationship between tobacco consumption and tobacco advertising through 1.econometric research on the link between expenditure on advertising and tobacco consumption2.research comparing tobacco consumption within a country before and after an ad ban3.international comparison of trends in tobacco consumption and anti-tobacco measures   A recent meta-analysis of 48 econometric studies found that tobacco advertising significantly increased tobacco sales ([2]). Recent reviews by the United States Institute of Medicine ([3]), the United States Department of Health and Human Services ([4]) and the World Health Organization ([5]) reached the same conclusionIn order to ensure the regulation will not violate the First Amendment because it is not adequately tailored to achieve the substantial state interest of protecting children and adolescents from tobacco products, the FDA must pursue the total ban of outdoor advertisement since it is statistically shown to reduce tobacco consumption by up to 9%.(http://www.globalink.org/en/advertising.shtml)Since it seems the tobacco companies will somehow throw enough money around in court in order to avoid such a crippling business regulation, it would be in the best interest of the United States government to empower cities to deal locally with violations of outdoor ad regulations. Legislation may be needed to force advertisers to honor their pledge to protect children from alcohol and tobacco ads. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S07493797080050 I agree that restrictions should be placed on tobacco advertisements. According to the CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2000) regulating advertising and promotion, particularly which directed at young people, is very likely to reduce both the prevalence and initiation of smoking. I am for the current age restrictions to purchase tobacco products. However, further restrictions can possibly lower the number of tobacco users.  Advertisements for tobacco products persuade consumers to purchase products that can potentially be life threatening. On average, during 20002004 smoking accounted for an estimated 3.1 million years of potential life lost for males and 2 million years of potential life lost for females annually, excluding deaths from residential fires and adult deaths from secondhand smoke, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 2009). Tobacco doesnt only affect those people that use the product; it can affect those that are around the product as well. Second hand smoke is very dangerous. Laws forbidding smoking in restaurants is a great regulation and should be carried out nationwide. It is on a person to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to use tobacco. However, it is not up to them to decide for other and that is why those regulations, and this proposal, are very important. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Smoking and tobacco use: tobacco advertising and promotion. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2000/highlights/advertising/index.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Smoking and tobacco use: Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity lossesUnited States, 2000-2004. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/mmwrs/byyear/2008/mm5745a3/highlights.htm Another sad day to be an American. The regulations are crippling business and consumers alike. The more I learn the more I realize that honesty, integrity, and morality have left our leaders in every avenue. I still have faith though please reconsider the nicotine requirements on electronic cigarettes. Its sad were not worried about GMOs in our food. Please start helping us and not the special interests. Stand up for whats right. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control ActThe Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) is a great start on a problem that should have corrected long ago. Just by the fact that the U.S. continues to allow the smoking industry to operate the way that it does is an insult to all taxpayers. I recently knew a man who passed away from lung cancer as a result of 20+ years of smoking. While he was a friend of mine I was infuriated that he had absolutely no insurance thus the hospital had to pick up the bill and from there the taxpayers in my city had to pay for. Not to mention the passing of the new healthcare reform bill. Personally I feel that advertising for tobacco industries should be severed from public view, on top of that smokers should be limited to where they can smoke to prevent people like myself or an adolescent from inhaling the toxic fumes. Why should the non-smokers have to pay for advertising for tobacco industries or worse their medical bills? I say that the FDA should cross the road less traveled and cease the sales of tobacco products and outlaw them and treat them as any other drug (or poison) that people put into their bodies.