The subject of FDA's June 4th Draft Guidance to the Tobacco Industry & FDA Employees is centered around “Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents” in Tobacco Products. Below is an excerpt of just Section III. Pay particular attention to III b. 3).:
For the purpose of establishing “a list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including smoke constituents, to health in each tobacco product by brand and by quantity in each brand and subbrand,” as required under section 904(e) of the Act, FDA believes that the phrase “harmful and potentially harmful constituent” includes any chemical or chemical compound in a tobacco product or in tobacco smoke:
a) that is or potentially is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed into the body; and
b) that causes or has the potential to cause direct or indirect harm to users or non-users of tobacco products. Examples of constituents that have the “potential to cause direct harm” to users or non-users of tobacco products include constituents that are toxicants, carcinogens, and addictive chemicals and chemical compounds. Examples of constituents that have the “potential to cause indirect harm” to users or non-users of tobacco products include constituents that may increase the exposure to the harmful effects of a tobacco product constituent by: 1) potentially facilitating initiation of the use of tobacco products; 2) potentially impeding cessation of the use of tobacco products; or 3) potentially increasing the intensity of tobacco product use (e.g., frequency of use, amount consumed, depth of inhalation). Another example of a constituent that has the “potential to cause indirect harm” is a constituent that may enhance the harmful effects of a tobacco product constituent.
While it may be about as dangerous as caffeine in coffee or chocolate, we do know FDA doesn't like nicotine (unless it's in gum or a patch) with a passion. The Tobacco Control Act does specifically forbid FDA from banning nicotine in tobacco products but doesn't stop them from reducing either the legal amount or affect nicotine has. Since pH is one of the components key to making nicotine more bio-available to the user, moisture or anything else enhancing moisture such as the infamous E500 humectin could be banned....maybe even rewetting the portions which is a critical part of Swedish original portion snus manufacturing could be considered a war crime!
Translation? Everything will look like dried out Camel/Marlboro snus and have about just as much free nicotine.
Before all you Anti-All-Tobacco Extremists start congratulating yourselves, consider a few things. Tobacco and Swedish Snus in particular may not be to your liking, but they are legal products in the United States. They are already punitively taxed to pay for programs totally unrelated to tobacco or "the children". The tobacco tax rape has now spread to the Internet with the Pact Act.
How many of you AAT Extremists enjoy non-diet soda and soft drinks? The Fat Tax is already being written which would punitively tax sugared and high calorie soft drinks. I've enjoyed reading the Letters to the Editors sections around the country where indignant citizens are up in arms over this. "Hey, I like Coke but I'm not fat. Why don't you just tax the FAT people?"
So we have a crisis of tobacco related illnesses, the primary illness being the amount sold without being "fairly" taxed. Washington's response is to rape the wallets of cigarette smokers, smokeless tobacco and snus users......but not cigar smokers. In fact, America has lots of "crisis's" just calling out to be solved by increased taxation.
Now we have a fat crisis. Childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes cases have increased exponentially from just 15 years ago. The Big Government solution? Tax soda....to start with. Energy drinks? they are practically all glucose, caffeine, and stimulant herbs. Those will have to be taxed too. FDA has already gone after the food industry concerning salt content.
I must ask a key question of Washington , Tobacco, and Food Extremists: how is this helping "the children"? How is this solving your core issues? The answer seems simple: it's not. It is already illegal for children to purchase or possess ANY tobacco products. It's also illegal for children to buy, drink, or possess alcohol and for anyone to possess illegal drugs in the United States. Does the California Solution of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and taxing it make your children any safer? It certainly won't make them thinner. Or does it just rape the wallets of yet another sub-set of Americans?
Children are fatter today because the most exercise they get is playing Wii basketball. Adults in the US are fatter today because they too are so wired into the electronic reality of today. Why grow a garden when you can play Farmville on Facebook?
Not everyone can afford the gym five days a week. Not everyone has the time or energy for jogging or walking when they work two or more jobs trying to stay afloat in the ongoing Depression of 2010.
Speaking of depression, the entire Country is stressed out over current events and their own circumstances. Comfort food is easier than treadmills. Comfort and high carbohydrate foods are also much less expensive than then organically grown, hand raised, free range lettuce. With all the taxes, fee's and other 'revenue enhancers' the citizens of the US are being hit with today combined with the poor economy, not everyone can afford to shop at Whole Foods, Market Street, or any other "healthy" yet incredibly expensive food market.
Is the solution to all the above and anything else enough people don't like really as simple as just raising the taxes? Will "the children" become thinner and healthier by punitively taxing their parents? Should an adult have to pay more for Coca Cola because they just don't like Diet Coke? How does this help anyone except those in government who feast on tax dollars?
In the case of "the children", first and foremost they and their actions are the responsibility of their Parents; not the State. The phrase, It takes a Village used to mean neighbors helped neighbors. Today it means the Nanny State is responsible for raising your children and micro-managing your behavior to what ivory tower social engineers in Washington consider proper. Or what industry lobbyists and special interests consider to be in their best interests.
We live in a society today where Words ARE Actions. Showing concern for a problem equates to constructively addressing it. Today as millions of gallons of crude oil continue to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama is taking 21st Century Action. Monday night, he is forcefully going to interrupt prime time television and make nasty and hard-hitting statements about BP.
This Presidential address is critical to solving the catastrophe as Mr. Ombama's previous solution of finding out "whose ass to kick" proved ineffective in stopping the gushing oil. Sadly, the President's address will accomplish nothing beyond disrupting DVR/Tivo programming schedules for millions of Americans who have other, more important things to do Monday evening....like trying to survive or watch the TV hit, Dancing with your Sister.
The difference between Mr. Obama's words and the FDA's words is that in the case of FDA, words DO mean something. In the case of cigarette smokers, FDA is taking action to ensure no real-world viable alternative to cigarette smoking such as Swedish Snus ever takes hold in the US....because the Congress voted to let them....the President signed it into law....all the while, being cheered on by the Anti-All-Tobacco Extremists, Big American Tobacco, and Big Pharmaceutical.
Welcome to Amerika 2010; land of the taxed and home of special interests. It's no tea party living here anymore.
Activist Snus Lord
Shining the Light of Truth from SnusCENTRAL.org