Saturday, June 13, 2009

Pete Sessions votes against Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

In April, the House passed H.R. 1256, and on Thursday, the bill passed the Senate with "yes" votes from both of our Senators, Cornyn and Hutchison.

On Friday, the bill passed the House again, resolving differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill; the bill received overwhelming bipartisan support, passing 307 - 97, with Pete Sessions as one of the 97 voting against. (See Roll No. 335).

4 comments:

John Peterson said...

I would have thought we would have learned our lesson with the Drug War and Prohibition. Yes, I know this doesn't make tobacco illegal, but I'm worried that this puts us on that path.

What's next FDA regulation of alcohol? Seems like a reasonable assumption. What's to stop them if they already regulate tobacco?

BTW, I hate the smell of cigarettes in restaurants, bars, airplanes, etc... However, I'm a firm believer in the business owners rights to govern how they run their own businesses. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I do occasionally smoke and enjoy a cigar every now and then.

BTW, check the news for "FDA" and "Cheerios" for some real bureaucratic ridiculousness. I'm glad the Colbert Report picked up on it.

JOhn

Sessions Watch said...

Here's the link to the Colbert Report's take on Cheerio's:
http://tinyurl.com/mhym2a

Hilarious stuff!

Doug said...

Kind of curious how much tobacco money he's been taking. You think there might be a connection?

I have to agree that simply legislating away smoking is probably not the best way to do it, but certainly raising "sin" taxes isn't doing it, either. Of course if the money actually went to smoking cessation and prevention programs instead of the general budget, it might do some good.

Lisa said...

I'm conflicted here--I don't smoke, and I certainly don't like breathing other people's smoke when I'm trying to eat! I used to not go out to eat at all because of the smoke, and go out a lot more since Dallas passed the non-smoking ordinance. It protects owners, too, who have to breathe all that second hand smoke. I know they think smokers tip more and spend more, but what's the cost of lung cancer?

But, hey, I don't want to make smoking illegal, either, and I don't like the idea of "sin taxes."