newsobserver.com projects - Philip Morris - Comments

Re: Hagan is 35th richest lawmaker

bniolet — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:03:40 -0400

Thanks, Sky.

Re: Hagan is 35th richest lawmaker

sky5714 — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:46:38 -0400

"The feature sited" - it's "cited", not "sited".

Yes, I thought it was only evil mean right-wingers who have lots of filthy lucre.

And stock in Pfizer? Wonder how much Pfizer money & resources went into the drafting of HR3200 & the $160 mil advertising blitz by PhRMA.

I'm shocked, simply shocked.

Re: Hagan is 35th richest lawmaker

PaulTerrell — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:18:40 -0400

I thought all of the rich were Republicans?(sarcasm)

Re: Hagan is 35th richest lawmaker

bniolet — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:36:57 -0400

Good catch. Dome regrets the error. Thanks, guys. BN

Re: Hagan is 35th richest lawmaker

GrayJ — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:10:54 -0400

Seconding that Altria is base in Richmond, VA. Reynolds American and Lorillard are the big cigarette companies that call NC home.

Re: Hagan is 35th richest lawmaker

cdtew — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:44:10 -0400

I may be wrong, but Altria is based in Richmond, VA.

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

Atnor — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:41:04 -0400

How about the money that would go towards this new government agency... instead go towards more funding at the FDA.... according to the article back in August, this bill does that.

If you think the industry needs oversight, say so and spend the money. I doubt people care what banner flies over the regulating agency.

If you don't support it, man up and say so. When people say they hate politicians who try to have things both ways and glad-hand both sides, it's stuff like this they mean. Don't try the smokescreen of creating a new agency to avoid regulation and scrutiny.

And if they do oppose it, i'd love to hear them explain why they oppose tobacco regulation and oversight :)

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

profbam — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:52:17 -0400

Sad commentary. We already knew that Sen. Burr was in the pocket of the Tobacco Industry and chosen their profits over our children's lives. Know Sen. Hagan has announced that she is owned by them too. What a pitiful pair that we have elected.

Which will cost more, adding a few scientists and staff to the FDA to meet the new obligation or creating whole new agency? Give me a break!

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

FFC1304 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:16:23 -0400

Just OUTLAW tobacco products altogether and forget this crap, Hagan!

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

acidqueen — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:09:03 -0400

Hell, I *AM* a smoker, and I want to know what's in my smokes.

Looks like it's time to write the right dishonourable Senator Burr and light him up.

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

carbonLib — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:01:27 -0400

how long will NC wear their "badge of honor" in dealing death around the globe? to what lengths will the state go to harvest the taxes of the addicted? why don't we just legalize pot too and tax it? at least pot isn't causing 400,000 + deaths a year ...

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

interested860 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:56:18 -0400

Looks like tobacco has got Kay in their pocket. We already knew Burr was a tool of big business in general.
I'm a smoker, but I'd really like to know all the ingredients.
IF the FDA is so overburdened, who's fault is that? Duh!

Re: Sens. oppose FDA tobacco oversight

j1c2kp — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:13:41 -0400

"create a Federal Tobacco Regulatory Agency."

Oh great, create another agency. Pay huge salaries and probably staff it with former tobacco lobbyists. Brilliant idea.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

cdtew — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:31:59 -0500

I haven't seen any numbers on this directly, but according to the NCDA's statistics, we exported $409,600,000 of raw tobacco in 2007. If that is included in the total cash receipts for tobacco (~$586,451,000), then it can be assumed that nearly 70% of tobacco profits come from exports out of the state.

I would still say that $186 million is a large amount of money for certain eastern counties,and there's possibly a generalized interest that the legislators that represent all tobacco counties might have in seeing no state adopt such regulations. The regulations are, let's admit it, ultimately aimed at reducing smoking by making it more inconvenient to be a smoker (as well as the short-term benefit of reducing second-hand smoke). That attenuated concern, however, is probably why ~45% of legislators from "Grower" districts voted for a smoking ban.

Re: The Tobacco Caucus

danmanley2299 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:25:00 -0500

Locke,

I would expect nothing less from you, using your holier than thou research to pull up such repugnant regimes to prove a point. Very clever, you might want to realize it’s 2K9, and that fear mongering is not working like it use to. A ten second research into places that ban smoking can easily counteract your rhetoric of “societies” and will show places that most folks wouldn’t mind being compared to. I think you are plenty smart, but it may be time to reinvent your self and find a new way to trounce on peoples emotions and fears.

No one is attempting a “puritanical ban” on smoking; folks will be able to still get their highs from smoking. I think when someone else’s puritanical enjoyment of smoking leaves their lungs and enters into airspace shared by children, elderly, and pregnant women is when concern arises.

On another note, I would like to know the percentage of leaf grown in NC that stays in NC. That is the real question. These companies are buying leaf grown oversees because it is not regulated and less controlled. Moreover, there high quality products are being sent overseas where there is a market for it.

Good day.