tobacco laws

Menthol cigarettes aren’t cool to the FDA

by Fran Smith on April 1, 2010 · 2 comments

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

In what could be one of its most paternalistic moves, the Food and Drug Administration is considering banning menthol in cigarettes – not because menthol itself is considered dangerous but because too many African-Americans smoke menthol cigarettes, and menthol may be a “gateway” smoke for young people.  An FDA panel focused on these thorny issues relating to menthol this week, with a view toward taking possible future action.

So let’s get this logic straight: members of a particular race particularly like that cool menthol taste, so the FDA wants to keep them from enjoying their smokes.  The top government nanny also says that menthol — because it tastes good – is used by cigarette companies to lure young people to smoke.

Given the fact that the FDA has tight restrictions on cigarette marketing and sales to young people under new rules that go into effect in June, and companies aren’t distributing free menthol cigarettes in the schools, it sounds like any youth who is “lured” into smoking menthol cigarettes is bumming the smokes.  Here’s a summary of the FDA’s new rules from a medical website:

  • Bans sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to anyone under age 18.
  • Forbids tobacco brand-name sponsorship of any “athletic, musical, or other social or cultural event, or any team or entry in those events.”
  • Bans sale of cigarette packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
  • Bans sale of cigarettes via vending machines or self-service displays “except in very limited situations.”
  • Prohibits free samples of cigarettes and limits samples of smokeless tobacco.
  • Forbids gifts in exchange for buying tobacco products.
  • Allows only words — and no music or sound effects — in audio ads for tobacco products.
  • Bans the sale or distribution of gear, such as hats and T-shirts, with tobacco brands or logos.

Those rules are pretty stringent, but Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says they’re not enough where children are concerned.  She noted that somehow, some way, tobacco companies are getting to the kids:

“Despite a ban on direct marketing to young Americans, tobacco companies have still found a way to reach out to them,” Sebelius said at a news conference. “It’s no accident that Marlboro, Camel, and Newport, the three brands that spend the most on ads, are more preferred by children than by adults.”

The FDA panels this week are part of what is expected to be a year-long review of menthol, even though Dr. Joshua Rising, an FDA scientist, said that limited data “do not suggest that menthol cigarettes are associated with an earlier age of initiation.” And what words for adult smokers who like their menthol cigarettes?  Trust the FDA to protect you with a ban or a phase-out or an additional warning for menthol.

E-Cigarette Smokers Could Be Left Out in the Cold

by Evan Banks on June 21, 2009 · 4 comments

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The “smokes” may be different, but the Food and Drug Administration’s ever-vigilant watch to keep us safe from ourselves in its quest to quantify and purge all health risks from society continues. Their latest target? Smokeless cigarettes, or so called “E-cigarettes.”

The devices in question utilize an atomizer to vaporize a nicotine and propylene glycol (a substance commonly found in fog machines) solution that the user inhales and exhales as a vapor. Since there’s no tobacco, combustion, smoke, or smell involved, savvy individuals have taken advantage of the devices, which can be bought online or in mall kiosks here in the States, to get around heavy taxes on tobacco products and stringent smoking bans in public places.

But that hasn’t stopped the FDA, which as of this writing has “refused [the importation of] 17 shipments of various brands of these ‘electronic’ cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, and their components,” on the basis that the devices are drugs and as such need regulatory approval before being marketed in the US.

Even without the FDA’s newly-gained jurisdiction over tobacco products (though clearly e-cigs aren’t tobacco products), the Administration already had the authority to regulate drugs containing nicotine (such as patches, sprays, inhalers, or gum) that are designed to help users kick the habit.

All this recent buzz about e-cigarettes seems to have come from a front-page article in the June 1 New York Times, in which the director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic stated that “We basically don’t know anything about them. They’ve never been tested for safety or efficacy to help people stop smoking,” despite this Health New Zealand safety report on Ruyan e-cigarettes, the Chinese product on which U.S.-imported versions are based, and the fact that the FDA has approved of nicotine for use in various and sundry quitting aids (some of them inhalant-based). As for propylene glycol, the substance is already generally considered by the FDA to be safe for consumption. From the FDA’s report:

“Propylene glycol is metabolized by animals and can be used as a carbohydrate source. Propylene glycol can be ingested over long periods of time and in substantial quantities (up to 5 percent of the total food intake) without causing frank toxic effects.”

If the FDA were to succeed in banning or restricting e-cigarettes, which are already illegal to sell in Australia and Hong Kong, the potential health risks to American smokers looking for a tar-free and less offensive cigarette alternative would be enormous.