President Obama approves anti-tobacco bill.

[AdamAK]

-snip-

That's one of the dumbest things ever. So nicotine is good for you, does that mean you have to get it from cigarettes? I didn't think so. Using nicotine patches will give you the same result, all the while you don't inhale any tar and other crap.

 

[Cliff_m85]

-snip-

That's one of the dumbest things ever. So nicotine is good for you, does that mean you have to get it from cigarettes? I didn't think so. Using nicotine patches will give you the same result, all the while you don't inhale any tar and other crap.

It's derived from tobacco, so the argument still stands that there is a benefit to tobacco. Yes, you can get it from an addictive nicotine patch as well.


But being 'good for you' doesn't matter. It's about having the freedom to choose to ingest such chemicals. From a flavored or non-flavored cancer stick.

 

[Lucas Auraelius]

-snip-

That's one of the dumbest things ever. So nicotine is good for you, does that mean you have to get it from cigarettes? I didn't think so. Using nicotine patches will give you the same result, all the while you don't inhale any tar and other crap.

It's derived from tobacco, so the argument still stands that there is a benefit to tobacco. Yes, you can get it from an addictive nicotine patch as well.


But being 'good for you' doesn't matter. It's about having the freedom to choose to ingest such chemicals. From a flavored or non-flavored cancer stick.

You only seem to be citing one part of the consumer's freedom. The consumer also has the freedom to be informed about the product they are purchasing. By adding the labels "low tar" or "lite," the tobacco companies are deliberately printing false advertising. Rarely does it occur where cigarette manufacturers actually reduce the amount of tar by lowering the amount of nicotine, nor do they make the cigarettes "lite"er, whatever that means.
Also, how many kids and teens who smoke do you think would still smoke if their only options where unflavored smokes that tasted like ashtrays? Kids have their own marketing demographic for a reason. They are only interested by immediate, non-abstract concepts, such as popularity by getting the latest, coolest gadget or exclusivity, like their own marketing demographic or TV network.
Because of that, I don't believe many kids would appreciate the concept of relaxation and calm via smoking, again, something that tastes like an ashtray. The only way they would smoke would be if there was something about the cigarettes whose rewards they could reap quick and easily, aka good-tasting, fruit-flavored cigarettes. The tobacco companies know this and therefore sell these flavored cigs that wouldn't appeal to anyone else other than kids. Unfortunately, the flavored cigarettes still have all of the health problems like lung and throat cancer and tar.
That's why Obama signed this bill, to restrict cigarette companies from pulling the wool over the eyes of the American consumer, not to restrict the freedom of the companies to sell their product.

 

[Cliff_m85]

-snip-

That's one of the dumbest things ever. So nicotine is good for you, does that mean you have to get it from cigarettes? I didn't think so. Using nicotine patches will give you the same result, all the while you don't inhale any tar and other crap.

It's derived from tobacco, so the argument still stands that there is a benefit to tobacco. Yes, you can get it from an addictive nicotine patch as well.


But being 'good for you' doesn't matter. It's about having the freedom to choose to ingest such chemicals. From a flavored or non-flavored cancer stick.

You only seem to be citing one part of the consumer's freedom. The consumer also has the freedom to be informed about the product they are purchasing. By adding the labels "low tar" or "lite," the tobacco companies are deliberately printing false advertising. Rarely does it occur where cigarette manufacturers actually reduce the amount of tar by lowering the amount of nicotine, nor do they make the cigarettes "lite"er, whatever that means.
Also, how many kids and teens who smoke do you think would still smoke if their only options where unflavored smokes that tasted like ashtrays? Kids have their own marketing demographic for a reason. They are only interested by immediate, non-abstract concepts, such as popularity by getting the latest, coolest gadget or exclusivity, like their own marketing demographic or TV network.
Because of that, I don't believe many kids would appreciate the concept of relaxation and calm via smoking, again, something that tastes like an ashtray. The only way they would smoke would be if there was something about the cigarettes whose rewards they could reap quick and easily, aka good-tasting, fruit-flavored cigarettes. The tobacco companies know this and therefore sell these flavored cigs that wouldn't appeal to anyone else other than kids. Unfortunately, the flavored cigarettes still have all of the health problems like lung and throat cancer and tar.
That's why Obama signed this bill, to restrict cigarette companies from pulling the wool over the eyes of the American consumer, not to restrict the freedom of the companies to sell their product.

lite could mean taste, but that's up for easy research on google or bing or whatever you crazy kids use nowadays.

Judging from the 1920's-2000's I'd say all the kids who wanted to smoke will smoke regardless of taste just as I tried Pabst Blue Ribbon as my first beer illegally and we all know that's worse than wet dog ass.

I think history complete goes against your "kids won't smoke cuz now it's yucky" thought since flavored cigarettes are fairly new. Also, by kids I hope you mean "below 18" because it's illegal to buy cigs before that age. May I ask your opinion on flavored vodka?

I don't think the cigarette companies are pulling the wool over our eyes as long as they have the surgeon general's warning on the pack. Even if they put on the front "Yum! Des iz om-nom-nom kiddos! It's lite and tasty and low tar and a bit helfier" there would still be a big ass warning saying "This shit'll kill you...really. Fuckin' think before lighting these up" which complete satisfies me.

 

[Pendragon9]

This is good. Alright, Obama. Not too shabby.

 

[Flying-Emu]

*snip*

Cliff, just wanted to let you know that I respect you for keeping your cool over this thread. For eight pages you've argued the exact same point, repeated arguments several times, and you've still kept your cool.

Kudos.

 

[Cliff_m85]

*snip*

Cliff, just wanted to let you know that I respect you for keeping your cool over this thread. For eight pages you've argued the exact same point, repeated arguments several times, and you've still kept your cool.

Kudos.

Thanks.

 

[Sewblon]

It is a poor decision. If an adult wants to purchase and smoke a fruit flavored cigarette that is his/her prerogative, it doesn't hurt anyone else. With the economic crisis-recession-depression we can't afford to remove any economic activity.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

One day smoking will be banned in America. Without tobacco, there would be no America.

I personally think that they should reduce the amount of chemicals in tobacco and the amount of smoke that is produced by a cigarette or cigar.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

I think it's a step in the right direction in curbing respiratory cancer. We still have a ways to go for general health.

Were going to need good health, the Zombie infection is coming after all.

 

[A010110100101102]

bout time, i hope it gets banned soon, just because some people have to have a cigarette I should let them cause harm to my health from second hand smoke, and have to smell that nasty lingering smell,(in public area or outside said public area/establishment) well thats my opinion anyway.

 

[Rensenhito]

So you admit that teens smoke to look cool rather than for the taste.


Then making fruit-flavored cigarettes illegal will do nothing to stem the tide of teen smokers....which makes the ban pointless.



A real question: In our current economic situation is it really smart to prevent people from buying things? Do you think it's ok for the U.S. government to prevent it's citizens from buying things that may be unhealthy? Do you think the U.S. government is usually successful when they ban things?

That's not my point, and you know it. They smoke to look cool, but the taste makes it easier for them to continue the habit. They pick up the cigarette because they feel like it will make them stand out. Then they notice that it tastes good, and it creates a psychological addiction to nicotine that strengthens the physical, chemical addiction.

A real question: In our current economic situation is it really smart to go around promoting products that kill more people annually than car crashes, alcohol, guns and all other types of drugs combined? Is it EVER really smart to stand up for a product that acts as a slow but lethal poison to everyone who consumes it?

An answer to your question: Yes, I DO think it's okay for the government to prevent its citizens from buying things that may be unhealthy. In this situation, the product we're talking about has been proven time and time again to be not just unhealthy, but LETHAL. It kills. It's just like protecting us from terrorism. I don't mind at all when the government acts to save my life and the lives of millions. You, on the other hand, seem to be missing the boat. You're defending a mass murderer.
And the U.S. government IS usually successful when they ban things that are only obtainable through legitimate purchase from a store, i.e. these tasty little arsenic capsules we call fruit flavored cigarettes.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Meh good and bad, America should do what we did have smoking banned in public or indoor places dosent happen anymore (I know some states have this but not sure how many?). That way the smokers can keep doing what they want and the non smokers dont need to be around them, and the whiners can grow some balls and stop bitching people have the right to do what the fuck they want within the law.

Though I think the fact so many embrace government handholding is absolutley laughable.

 

[TOO S0BER]

Snip

Snip

Ok. People don't always know the risks of smoking. Impressionable teens likely don't. Banning the "flavored" cigarillos, or whatever they're called, will prevent younger people from smoking, therefore, preserving their health and allowing them to mature more, get more information about smoking before they make such a serious decision.

Sacrifice a little freedom for a healthier America? Definitely a good decision. +1 Obama

WHAT????

Sacrificing a little freedom is NEVER a good decision.

Goddamn, don't you understand that people DIED for our freedom and you think it's alright for it to be diminished just to panderingly 'protect' certain individuals that'll just smoke the real deal now? You know the damned quote. Those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither.

They didn't die for the rights to smoke cigarettes. Soldiers died in the American Revolutionary War to free us from oppressive rule of the English kings. People died in the Civil War because slavery was bad (However, the real reason the war was started was because of the separation of the North and the South. In the Constitution it states that no state has the right to secede from the Union [more or less what it says, dont quote me]), People died in WW1 and WW2 because America and her Allies were under threat from foreign oppression.

No one died in wars to protect such a minor freedom as smoking. Next to what those brave men did protect makes smoking a very insignificant right. Also, don't sully their honor with poison from your smoking.

Anyways, as long as the Supreme Court stands, whatever the president and Congress pass, must be constitutional. There is nothing that specifically protects "smoking" in the constitution. The only reason smoking is legal (even at certain age), while it defiles health, is the same reason why Alcohol is not illegal. It's Popular. Smoking and Alcohol is legal because of its popularity.

No i didn't know of that quote, but it seems that it has some backwards logic in it...

 

[KiKiweaky]

By now people well know the dangers of smoking. I smoke myself just wait till they do what my government did and ban them in the workplace (yes thats pubs included) and see what happens.

I support banning them in the workplace, and I think people smoking candy and fruit flavoured cigarettes should be kicked in the face. Your smoking fucking deal with it. But that does leave me wondering what will be proposed next :\

 

[Cliff_m85]

Snip

Snip

Ok. People don't always know the risks of smoking. Impressionable teens likely don't. Banning the "flavored" cigarillos, or whatever they're called, will prevent younger people from smoking, therefore, preserving their health and allowing them to mature more, get more information about smoking before they make such a serious decision.

Sacrifice a little freedom for a healthier America? Definitely a good decision. +1 Obama

WHAT????

Sacrificing a little freedom is NEVER a good decision.

Goddamn, don't you understand that people DIED for our freedom and you think it's alright for it to be diminished just to panderingly 'protect' certain individuals that'll just smoke the real deal now? You know the damned quote. Those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither.

They didn't die for the rights to smoke cigarettes. Soldiers died in the American Revolutionary War to free us from oppressive rule of the English kings. People died in the Civil War because slavery was bad (However, the real reason the war was started was because of the separation of the North and the South. In the Constitution it states that no state has the right to secede from the Union [more or less what it says, dont quote me]), People died in WW1 and WW2 because America and her Allies were under threat from foreign oppression.

No one died in wars to protect such a minor freedom as smoking. Next to what those brave men did protect makes smoking a very insignificant right. Also, don't sully their honor with poison from your smoking.

Anyways, as long as the Supreme Court stands, whatever the president and Congress pass, must be constitutional. There is nothing that specifically protects "smoking" in the constitution. The only reason smoking is legal (even at certain age), while it defiles health, is the same reason why Alcohol is not illegal. It's Popular. Smoking and Alcohol is legal because of its popularity.

No i didn't know of that quote, but it seems that it has some backwards logic in it...

Technically they didn't die to allow us to have free speech on the internet neither. Quite frankly, the founding fathers wanted us to have choices and supported crops of tobacco and marijuana during early times. If you told Washington that you wanted to outlaw tobacco he'd give you a crazy look and ask if you were serious. When one dies in war, it's for every freedom made possible in America. One may not hollar "For freedom of the press!!!" or "For the right to drink liquor!!!!", but they are protecting those freedoms nonetheless.

Wrong. As long as the Supreme Court stands, they can still fuck up. See: Slavery.

 

[AdamAK]

If you told Washington that you wanted to outlaw tobacco he'd give you a crazy look and ask if you were serious.

And do you honestly believe that he knew of the involved health risks when it comes to smoking? If he knew what smoking caused he might show a different reaction.

 

[Cliff_m85]

If you told Washington that you wanted to outlaw tobacco he'd give you a crazy look and ask if you were serious.

And do you honestly believe that he knew of the involved health risks when it comes to smoking? If he knew what smoking caused he might show a different reaction.

True, and if the pilgrims knew the health risks of traveling from England to America via slow boat they might've never left.


Danger means nothing to me. Freedom does.

 

[Conveant0]

It's a good step, how much longer can you allow people to become addicted to a drug that causes a plethora of health problems?