I'm really proud of my Senator. He is very pro-snus, and has spoken specifically on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/bu...acco.html?_r=1
Even that bitch Kay Hagan is on his side (and she is in no way pro-tobacco).
But, like Mr. Lucky posted above, the democrats vote against any sort of common sense amendments to the bill. I think that this should close all talks of this being bipartisan legislation, because it's clearly not.
I'm hoping some sort of miracle comes along a'la Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Deeds because Richard Burr seems to be the only voice of reason in this twisted senate. He has his supporters there but he's the only one being vocal about this.
The legislation would set tough standards for industry efforts to promote new products as lower risk. A company would have to show that new products not only reduced harm for current smokers, but also “benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account the impact on both users and nonusers of tobacco products.” The phrase encompasses nonsmokers and would-be quitters who might be tempted to try the new products rather than abstain.
Mr. Burr said that was a nearly impossible standard even for lower-risk products like snus, a packaged, powdered tobacco developed in Sweden that is placed under the lip, and dissolvable smokeless tobacco products like pellets and filmlike strips.
But Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said in Senate debate that those products were intended to addict a new generation of children. He termed them “tobacco candy.”
Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said, “The tobacco companies know that if they’re going to have 400,000 of their customers die each year, that they have to replace them with children.”
An alternative proposal filed by Mr. Burr and Kay Hagan, Democrat of North Carolina, would set up a tobacco office in the Department of Health and Human Services to promote cessation and “reduced harm” products.
Mr. Burr said Thursday evening that his alternative had about 45 supporters in the Senate. But the stricter F.D.A. bill had 58 co-sponsors.
Mr. Burr said that was a nearly impossible standard even for lower-risk products like snus, a packaged, powdered tobacco developed in Sweden that is placed under the lip, and dissolvable smokeless tobacco products like pellets and filmlike strips.
But Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said in Senate debate that those products were intended to addict a new generation of children. He termed them “tobacco candy.”
Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said, “The tobacco companies know that if they’re going to have 400,000 of their customers die each year, that they have to replace them with children.”
An alternative proposal filed by Mr. Burr and Kay Hagan, Democrat of North Carolina, would set up a tobacco office in the Department of Health and Human Services to promote cessation and “reduced harm” products.
Mr. Burr said Thursday evening that his alternative had about 45 supporters in the Senate. But the stricter F.D.A. bill had 58 co-sponsors.
Even that bitch Kay Hagan is on his side (and she is in no way pro-tobacco).
But, like Mr. Lucky posted above, the democrats vote against any sort of common sense amendments to the bill. I think that this should close all talks of this being bipartisan legislation, because it's clearly not.
I'm hoping some sort of miracle comes along a'la Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Deeds because Richard Burr seems to be the only voice of reason in this twisted senate. He has his supporters there but he's the only one being vocal about this.
Comment