Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Opinion of the Court Gave Away Too Many Hints, in my opinion
assigator
keturah wrote in legalize_kretek
In the mid '90s, the FDA took it upon themselves to regulate tobacco. In March 2000, a 5:4 Supreme Court ruling ended that. In the ruling, delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it was noted that compliant with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), if the tobacco were to fall under the jurisdiction of FDA, FDA would be obliged to ban it altogether. The ruling is fine but the diction rather too motivational.

1. For the economy (and consumer health too)
The ruling recognizes that Congress rather than banning tobacco products, implemented a health warning labelling and advertising system. "Its express policy is to protect commerce and the national economy while informing consumers about any adverse health effects.

So maybe this is why Congress had to weed out that pesky Indonesian market in these scarce times? At least one pathetic defence for this bill that I have heard was for protection of domestic market. John Geoghegan of Kretek International, California-based importer of cloves, says "The total flavored cigarette business is a little bit less than two-tenths of one percent of all the cigarettes sold." Our < 0.198% translates as about 20% for Indonesia, by the way. So while it has little effect on our national economy, it will shake up Indonesia.

2. Congress has to say so (so just ask lobby them!)
The penultimate statment of the ruling set legislators to work: " No matter how important, conspicuous, and controversial the issue, and regardless of how likely the public is to hold the Executive Branch politically accountable, an administrative agency’s power to regulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress."

So here we are. Congress has granted that authority, but it is not valid-- at least, the reasons for granting that authority are not valid, and the current head of the Executive Branch did not exercise his power of veto (just because he loathes his own smoking habit, apparently).

3. Congress be not cryptic (only sneaky)
Here is where Justice O'Connor is mistaken, in my opinion: "It is highly unlikely that Congress would leave the determination as to whether the sale of tobacco products would be regulated, or even banned, to the FDA’s discretion in so cryptic a fashion."

But they did manage this in a cryptic fashion. Congressman Waxman introduced H.R 1256 in the midst of the the mortgage crisis, crippling unemployment rates, and chatter over the corporate bailouts. The papers were pushed through the House and the Senate, just a month before the "socialized" medicine controvery was ignited with the introduction of H.R. 3200. And by now, it seems that no one is talking about anything else. That is how to do it. Phillip Morris has enjoyed a lovely conspiracy of circumstances, and only the Gothic community really cares. Unfortunately, political activism seems not to be a hallmark of Gothic counterculture.

  • 1
From the last link:

Lol, this is funny. Ok, #1 the ability to use tobacco isnt a right in the constitution, therefore they are taking no right away from you. #2, trust me, they will never ban all forms of smoking tobacco, our econemy is too dependant on it.

No. And no.

But I guess, people who can't spell 'economy' should be excused for having opinions like this.

Yeah, the people just do not get it [1],[2]. If they are going to joke around, cannot they at least be funny?

  • 1
?

Log in