U.S. bans flavored cigarettes

[silasbufu]

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I thought the issue was with taste, smoke can linger in the air, why not in the air between the person and mask? That renders it completely useless and painful/difficult to use.

So is wearing high heels, but has that ever stopped women from wearing them when they "dress up"?

Don't underestimate trend factors. It can make people go through the most ridiculous, uncomfortable and flat out painful things, like waxing their chest or actually playing with a Nintendo Wii...

 

[ThePeaceFrog]

The only reason that such a dangerous habit has been allowed to prosper in the world is because of the actions taken by cigarette companies bent on peddling their addiction to new markets.
Choosing to Smoke is nothing about demonstrating your own'Rugged Individualism' and free-will to do what you choose, but instead just another form of conditioning that we are constantly subjected to in Capitalist market economies.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I must be out of touch, didn't realise mouth-masks were in fashion.

They could be. All it takes is some hired fashion moguls (who tend to do exactly ANYTHING for money, being the integrity prostitutes as they are) sticking by it.

Seriously, take a look at fashion history. There have been some really over the top ridiculous ideas that have once been trendy and a lot of people caught on. It's all a matter of proper marketing. : )

 

[CuddlyCombine]

This is just so... stupid.

It's like banning flavoured water. Pointless.

Flavoured water isn't highly addictive. Nor does it cause lung cancer.

They're just worried about the kid-friendly aspect of the cigarettes luring in more people. Trying to reduce the rate of lung cancer is A Good Thing.

 

[theultimateend]

i try to keep up on political news, but a friend linked this to me, and i'm amazed no one seems to be talking about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html

i'm surprisingly furious at this. i'm not a regular smoker, and i'm completely in favor of taxes on tobacco and public smoking bans, but this makes no sense from a public health standpoint and pointlessly restrains free trade. it also bothers that the federal government is trying to raise our children for us; i'm afraid a ban on violent games is next. Or maybe the FDA will require all liquor to taste terrible, so they won't be as appealing to kids?

I think the main problem was that the cigarette flavors that were being released were like "Candy Apple" or "Bubble Gum Plum" or other names that basically screamed "We want to stick one of these in every hole your kid has on their body."

If the names didn't tend to be so candy oriented I doubt they'd have been so anal about it.

Still find it odd that the drug with the absolute longest withdrawal length is the only legal one.

Seriously...am I the only one that thinks that is weird? I realize that is rhetorical but it is a pretty intriguing bit of info. Just about every other drug has a short pretty uber shitty withdrawal period and then it is just a matter of not staying around the stuff. Ciggies take ages to stop pounding at your brain for more.

 

[asinann]

Someone doesn't read too many studies do they.

Someone seem to swallow a bit too much political propaganda here. You might want to check with some real scientific studies NOT sponsored by some anti-smoking lobbyist group before forming an opinion...

How about the ones Phillip-Morris did in the 60's? That's where most of the info I got comes from. Phillip-Morris, you know the cigarette manufacturer.

Nope. It would be the same fucking thing.


Key ingredients to having a stable opinion are:

*Reading up on research conducted by neutral third parties

*Take a look at the evidence gathered by these neutral third parties and THINK FOR YOURSELF!

*Having an education or at the very least a laymans interest into the relevant subjects also help (like biology, chemistry etc. etc.)

Try that, and im quite sure you will be able to carry a more sound and reasonable argument instead of just copy/paste:ing political propaganda like you do now...

So the tobacco companies saying that second hand smoke is bad, and having studies that they did and they funded before there was a political agenda behind it isn't good enough for you then?

You are something I normally only apply to religious people: a zealot.
You will defend your little habit until the day it kills you no matter what other evidence you are presented with making any debate with you pointless. It's like trying to talk to a wall, sure it's fun for a while, but it gets you nowhere because the wall isn't bright enough to understand what you're saying.

And there are no neutral third parties in any debate sparky, every study is funded by somebody, and that somebody has an agenda that will show through somewhere in the study.

The only studies that can be trusted are the ones that a single side conducts and says the opposite of what the side paying for it would want the study to say (like a cigarette manufacturer's study saying that second hand smoke kills.)

 

[theultimateend]

If everything gets banned, and no bans are ever lifted, what happens to our freedom?

There are so many bans, you would think one would be lifted, but I can't think of any.

Yeah. I know folks still can't drink Alcohol.

Or to be less sarcastic. All sorts of gun bans have been lifted all over over the years. Various other bans on issues either banned by mistake or misinformation end up being lifted. It just takes a bit of work.

Someone doesn't read too many studies do they.

Someone seem to swallow a bit too much political propaganda here. You might want to check with some real scientific studies NOT sponsored by some anti-smoking lobbyist group before forming an opinion...

How about the ones Phillip-Morris did in the 60's? That's where most of the info I got comes from. Phillip-Morris, you know the cigarette manufacturer.

Nope. It would be the same fucking thing.


Key ingredients to having a stable opinion are:

*Reading up on research conducted by neutral third parties

*Take a look at the evidence gathered by these neutral third parties and THINK FOR YOURSELF!

*Having an education or at the very least a laymans interest into the relevant subjects also help (like biology, chemistry etc. etc.)

Try that, and im quite sure you will be able to carry a more sound and reasonable argument instead of just copy/paste:ing political propaganda like you do now...

So the tobacco companies saying that second hand smoke is bad, and having studies that they did and they funded before there was a political agenda behind it isn't good enough for you then?

You are something I normally only apply to religious people: a zealot.
You will defend your little habit until the day it kills you no matter what other evidence you are presented with making any debate with you pointless. It's like trying to talk to a wall, sure it's fun for a while, but it gets you nowhere because the wall isn't bright enough to understand what you're saying.

And there are no neutral third parties in any debate sparky, every study is funded by somebody, and that somebody has an agenda that will show through somewhere in the study.

The only studies that can be trusted are the ones that a single side conducts and says the opposite of what the side paying for it would want the study to say (like a cigarette manufacturer's study saying that second hand smoke kills.)

I always found it odd they had to do a study on the danger of smoke inhalation.

It seems kind of obvious to me. Your lungs don't want any foreign agents in them. Just found it so surreal that folks needed a study.

Just feels like people end up in this weird alternate universe where they need to verify that indeed if you try to breath underwater you are likely to drown.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You've got a point, although the lipstick industry would go apeshit.

Well, not necessarily. I mean, not all masks has to be opaque, they could be transparent. Better yet, they could have small UV lights in them specifically designed for flouresent lipstick making them glow in cool colours and stuff. (or act as a tell tale sign if you've recently given someone a blowjob XD)

Still, I'd love to see "Gas mask chic" coming true. It would be like Unhallowed Metropolis coming to life! : )

 

[willgreg123]

Or maybe the FDA will require all liquor to taste terrible, so they won't be as appealing to kids?

I don't think that would work

otherwise (1) this would not happen, or (2) it would at least have happened with a better tasting beer.

You make a good point and that was downright hysterical.

 

[theultimateend]

Or maybe the FDA will require all liquor to taste terrible, so they won't be as appealing to kids?

I don't think that would work

otherwise (1) this would not happen, or (2) it would at least have happened with a better tasting beer.

You make a good point and that was downright hysterical.

When they aren't near me drunks are hilarious.

 

[Horticulture]

The ban is intended to end the sale of tobacco products with chocolate, vanilla, clove and other flavorings that lure children and teenagers into smoking. The agency will study regulating menthol products and hinted that it might soon take action against the far larger market of flavored small cigars and cigarillos.

Isn't the right to enjoy flavored blunts in the Bill or Rights or something?

 

[theultimateend]

Oh yeah and to all the drama queens talking about Bans never being lifted.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bans+lifted+in+US+history&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&hs=AAj&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=yui5SsqSKIfIsQOa8pEh&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11

OMG!

Most of them are trivial but they are bans non-the-less.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I hate smoking with a passion, and I'm all for an all-out ban on smoking in public, but I'd never want to completely take away people's choice to smoke these things. I only want to prevent them from shoving it in my face, but if people want to poison themselves in the comfort of their own houses, I'm never going to stop them from doing so.

So in short: I'm definitely not in favour of a ban.

 

[theultimateend]

I hate smoking with a passion, and I'm all for an all-out ban on smoking in public, but I'd never want to completely take away people's choice to smoke these things. I only want to prevent them from shoving it in my face, but if people want to poison themselves in the comfort of their own houses, I'm never going to stop them from doing so.

So in short: I'm definitely not in favour of a ban.

Pretty much how I feel.

I want anyone who wants to smoke to be able to smoke until their butt turns purple.

But I don't want to smell the shit.

I'm nice enough not to fart in folks mouths and I'd hope they'd do me a similar courtesy.

Edit: Just noticed 3 out of 4 lines in my response involved the ass in some way.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So the tobacco companies saying that second hand smoke is bad, and having studies that they did and they funded before there was a political agenda behind it isn't good enough for you then?

It's beside the point. LIFE is bad for you. You could die from it!

The question here is whether second hand smoke really pose enough of a threat to people for it to be reasonable to ban it. So far, no scientific studies have shown that getting a whiff from second hand smoke at a pub or a resturant between one to ten times a week is likely to kill you.

If we were talking about releasing second hand mustard gas from cars, then it would certainly be an issue, since mustard gas is an agent proven to be harmful to exactly EVERYONE in the vicinity, regardless of genetic predisposition, and it will be instantly harmful as well, unlike tobacco smoke.

You are something I normally only apply to religious people: a zealot.

Fuck you. Im not the one trying to ban people from doing what they want. That's zealotry for you.

You will defend your little habit until the day it kills you no matter what other evidence you are presented with making any debate with you pointless.

Okay, now you're just wrong. I don't have a habit of smoking. So it's not a "little habit of mine" like you claim. Yet still I oppose the banning of it in public places. Now how can that be? : )

Also, where do you see the "debate" in arbitrarily banning smoking from public places? Is that considered a "prime example" of debating and listening to the other side of the story to you?

So fuck you, and your sanctimonious bullshit you try to heap on people.

It's like trying to talk to a wall, sure it's fun for a while, but it gets you nowhere because the wall isn't bright enough to understand what you're saying.

You do realie that any claims you make are completely relative to everything else right?

Meaning that if you call me "not so bright", that will make you "below mentally retarded". At least I think for myself and check with different sources before forming an opinion, unlike you.

And there are no neutral third parties in any debate sparky, every study is funded by somebody, and that somebody has an agenda that will show through somewhere in the study.

Of course there are. You're just obviously to lazy to try and find them.

The only studies that can be trusted are the ones that a single side conducts and says the opposite of what the side paying for it would want the study to say (like a cigarette manufacturer's study saying that second hand smoke kills.)

Wow, just wow. When was it that you so competely disconnected from reality?

 

[IncenseAndPeppermints]

I don't really care, flavoured cigarettes are crap anyway. They're just normal cigarettes that don't taste like tobacco and have a ton of unhealthy additives, as if tobacco itself isn't dangerous enough.

 

[edinflames]

i try to keep up on political news, but a friend linked this to me, and i'm amazed no one seems to be talking about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html

i'm surprisingly furious at this. i'm not a regular smoker, and i'm completely in favor of taxes on tobacco and public smoking bans, but this makes no sense from a public health standpoint and pointlessly restrains free trade. it also bothers that the federal government is trying to raise our children for us; i'm afraid a ban on violent games is next. Or maybe the FDA will require all liquor to taste terrible, so they won't be as appealing to kids?

It does seem somewhat arbitrary and pointless, but when you consider how politics is done on the Hill then it becomes clearer; consider these points:
1) There are powerful pro-smoking and anti-smoking lobbies at work in DC
2) Some legislators are backed by the former, some by the latter
3) The Democrats are running the show, and while I like many Democrats, there are many other Democrats who do not appreciate the whole 'freedom to enjoy one's own life' thing and prefer to ride their moral high-horse and dictate which freedoms we are still allowed to have
4) An outright ban on Tobacco is impossible
5) This may not be about Tobacco at all, it may have more to do with pot smokers than any thing else (as I will elaborate on below)

The ban is intended to end the sale of tobacco products with chocolate, vanilla, clove and other flavorings that lure children and teenagers into smoking. The agency will study regulating menthol products and hinted that it might soon take action against the far larger market of flavored small cigars and cigarillos.

Isn't the right to enjoy flavored blunts in the Bill or Rights or something?

Which brings me back to point 5.

I have never met or heard of any (standard) cigarette smoker who actually bought flavored tobacco. The only people I know who purchase tobacco in any way but 20-packs of factory-made filtered cigs are pot smokers.

If they intend to ban 'flavored cigar wraps' (or blunt wraps as they are known in the pot community) next then to me it looks like someone is on a mission to make stoners' lives a little bit worse.

If that happens then expect a ban on bongs, shishas, hookahs, pipes (maybe), vaporizers etc. Followed then by a ban on all forms of rolling tobacco.

But then maybe that's just the paranoia talking