Who would like to help? For the people who would chose to continue to smoke, (again, I'm limiting this?

Question

question to tobacco products, otherwise, we could debate forever. One chunk at a time. The real quesition that I have is, How many people, smokers and non-smokers, believe that all of the information was given in a mode that everyone on this planet had access to? I have smoked Philip Morris products for 25 years. At no time, was I informed that the cigarettes I smoked contained food products, flavorings such as licourice, that became carcinogenic when heat/fire was added to their mixture. I was under the assumption the a drug ranked in the top five addictive drugs in the world was under the stipulations of a "Controlled Substance/Drug" classification. I would be given inserts, special instructions by my physician and pharmacy as to the dangers of this drug. I assumed our FDA would instantly remove a product that contained a highly addictive drug, carcinogenic food products, etc. by removing this product from the market. I'm no "Village Idiot". I don't like partial info.

Answer 1

the FDA specifically has no jurisdiction over tobacco.  the ATF does.  The government for 25 years has mandated that all tobacco products carry warnings that they are harmful to health.

obviously the choice has been made to let you decide whether to use tobacco or not.

Answer 2

Do I believe all information about the ingredients of cigarettes was given to the public?  No, I do not.  At least, it was not generally available until the big lawsuits that ocurred in the past few years which forced release of a lot of the internal tobacco company documents, including lists of ingredients.  

As for your assumption about cigarettes being a "controlled substance", you should have known better, since you did not need a prescription to purchase them.  Should they have been a "controlled substance"?  Probably.  Unfortunately, I am not sure that the federal government had any more information about the ingredients used in cigarettes than the general public did, as most of the "formula" was seen as protected company secrets.  The government would have to know the ingredients in order to have justification for labeling them as carcinogenic and thus making them a "controlled substance".  

Why the steps you mention have still not been taken is a mystery to me, though.  Maybe people think the tobacco industry has been punished enough, or perhaps the theory is that since all the information is out to the public it is no longer necessary to more heavily regulate cigarette products.

Answer 3

I agree with you. Keep it up.

Answer 4

I agree fully that all the health risks should be made public

I guess this is why batfe control tobacco instead of the fda

Answer 5

Speaking as a smoker, would it have made any difference?

There has been a lot of info floating around about the additives in Marlboro's, but their sales haven't lessened, they are arguably the most popular cigarette among young people, in spite of the fact that it is common knowledge that they add ammonia to the tobacco.

People have their favorite brands, and the ammonia in Marlboro's gives them a kick that isn't available in other cigarettes, so they are popular, and people keep smoking them.

If you had the information, you might have tried other cigarettes, and you might have found that there was an adequate substitute, but even if you did, you would still smoke something, and now we all know that they are bad for us.

No, you are not a "village idiot", but smokers rarely are, and they smoke anyway.  We are human beings, and we look at the alternatives in our lives and we make decisions.

For smokers who still smoke, the alternatives are not acceptable.  For those who don't, hooray for you.

Each of us find ways to cope with the difficulties of our lives, smoking is just one of them, a pretty innocuous one, one that works.  Now it has become socially unacceptable, and some will quit and find other outlets for their frustration, but some of us will continue to smoke, because it is part of who we are.

Answer 6

well,Im not a smoker and hate being anywhere near them,but more to the point,we were told back in the 1950's/60's that smoking is dangerous,so why the fuss now,the only difference is the tobacco companies have added additves to get you people more hooked,and do you think your government is bothered,with all the tax's they make out  of you?.

I just lost my wife through cancer(she didnt smoke)but all I saw every time I went to the hospital with her were men and women fighting for their lives where their lungs are all furred up,and barely breathing on one lung.

At the end of day it's your choice that you smoke.

Answer 7

Cigarettes must be examined by credible doctors to know if there are addictive substances added so that appropriate charges will be filed against the culprits.