Religious leaders urge lawmakers to let FDA regulate cigarettes

Posted by Kendall Harmon

A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention says religious leaders have a "moral imperative" to urge Congress to allow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes.

Richard Land, head of public policy for the SBC, was among leaders from several religious denominations who gathered at a Nashville church today to urge members of the Tennessee congressional delegation to support such legislation.

Read it all.

Filed under:

7 Comments
Posted August 29, 2007 at 5:17 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Br. Michael wrote:

Why not simply ban them?

August 29, 5:43 pm | [comment link]
2. William P. Sulik wrote:

This is something coming from the SBC, where tobacco has been king.

I often wonder how long churches will be complicit in the marketing of these coffin nails?

BTW, the only place I know in Virginia which still markets candy cigarettes to kids is Bishop Peter James Lee’s Cathedral, Shrine Mont.

August 29, 5:57 pm | [comment link]
3. Wilfred wrote:

Smoking is the least harmful vice.

It robs your pocket-book, but won’t bankrupt you like gambling.

It won’t break up your marriage, get you fired from your job, or cause you to wreck your car, like alcohol or drugs.

Sure it kills you, but only towards the end of your natural life, unlike, say, getting AIDS.

I think religious leaders have a lot more important moral imperatives to concern themselves with.

August 29, 8:43 pm | [comment link]
4. Rocks wrote:

Shouldn’t he leave this kind of stupidity to TEC, et al?
Way to jump on the bandwagon Mr. Land. Real moral courage there buddy.

August 30, 12:52 am | [comment link]
5. Katherine wrote:

The SBC is on solid ground if it chooses to warn its members that smoking is unhealthy, but what is the church, as a church, doing involved in secular public policy?  Is there something in the Bible I missed about the FDA?

August 30, 3:47 am | [comment link]
6. TENTEX wrote:

There are many more reasons to fear the FDA than cigarettes.  It would be of greater benefit to ban the FDA than any consumer product.  This worthless agency is not concerned with health.  It serves the interests of drug companies, which want to have food, food suppliments, and all else to be named as “drugs”.  The FDA and drug companies want Congress to give FDA authority to regulate all of our purchases.  It may be just a matter of three or five years until we might be required to have a prescription to purchase vitimins or cod liver oil.  Nicotine delivery devices would also be avaliable this way, and only produced by drug companies.  If anyone doubts this, many in Congress, including Sen. Richard Durbin and Rep. Henry Waxman are constantly introducing legislation to give drug companies and the FDA more control of our lives. 
Sure, cigarettes are dangerous.  I do not smoke.  But, if I wanted to, that should be MY choice.  This IS America.  Deal with it!

August 30, 5:57 pm | [comment link]
7. Adam from TN wrote:

Wilfred,

Smoking is the least harmful vice.

Sure it kills you, but only towards the end of your natural life, unlike, say, getting AIDS.

I would disagree here.  Smoking can take decades off of your life.  I’d still rather smoke than have AIDS, but calling it the “least harmful vice” is exaggerating it.  Nearly half a million early deaths each year in the U.S. alone is pretty harmful.

Granted, I think people should have the freedom to smoke if they want to.  I don’t want the FDA messing with my pipe tobacco.

August 30, 8:08 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Chicago Sun-Times Article on the Chicago Episcopal Nominees

Previous entry (below): Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone: The Liturgy Should inspire Christians to be Good Citizens

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)