U.S. bans flavored cigarettes

[Klepa]

Smoking and it's consequences aren't really that black and white.
You don't die of lung cancer if you smoke, and you're not immune to cancer if you don't.

So here's my opinion.
Much like swine flu, second hand smoking is a concern, but blown way out of proportion.
If my granddad has sucked through 20 cigarettes a day, filtered and non-filtered, for 70 years, and is still alive, I don't think standing next to some burning tobacco for five minutes is going to instagib you.
All I'm saying is, yes, it'll have risks, but don't let the media hype get to you.

regarding flavored tobacco..
We don't have it in Finland, so I don't know what sort of a loss to the general public this is.
We had a similar case here though, about fifteen years ago, when salmiac vodka was taken out of the shelves. The deal with it was, that salmiac (which is a nordic variation of liquorice), covers the taste of alcohol almost completely, and kids would hospitalize themselves with salmiac vodka, drinking it like it was applejuice. They put it back on the shelves a few years later though, with a bigger price tag, and with less alcohol.
So if flavored tobacco is something that is mainly smoked by underaged kids, I can sort of see where they're coming from. I don't know if I approve of it, it does step on some rights, and kids shouldn't be able to buy tobacco in the first place, but I'm sitting on the fence with this one.

Smoking in general is fine at the moment though. Since you can't smoke inside anymore, there's really no reason for non-smokers to be stuck in a place covered in smoke. Nine times out of ten, there's an option to take two steps back, and enjoy fresh air.

trivia: I smoked three cigarettes when I wrote this. Talking about it makes me crave it.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I have to say i started smoking on menthol, but i liked roll ups so much more...

 

[TMAN10112]

Ah, a fine example of the oh-so-refined process of law that we have here in the staes.

Maybe I'll make a flowchart while I should be payin attention in class today.

 

[Flying Dagger]

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

if thats true, hells probably not that bad a place.

 

[kasperTFG]

As long as this only effects goth/emo kids, then I'm fine. Word around the campfire, however, is that lights are next. Thoughts?

 

[WeedWorm]

"17-year-old smokers were more than three times as likely as those over the age of 25 to smoke flavored cigarettes, and they viewed flavored cigarettes as safer."

So fucking what? If they wanna smoke, theyre gonna smoke. Also, theyre clearly dumbfucks for thinking the flavoured ones are safer.

"if consumers believe a product is a cigarette, then the law defines it as one no matter how it is wrapped or labeled."

So if any dickhead walks into a cigar or tobacco shop and says that something is a cigarette, it has to be taken off the shelves? What a load of shit.

 

[Ghostkai]

To be honest, I remember back in High School anyone who smoked did so with flavoured stuff so in my opinion, they're kinda right about it luring young people into smoking. Here's hoping they ban it here in the UK.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

as long as they dont touch my shisha, I'm happy

They probably will.

Anywho, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [small]my clove cigarettes.[/small] Those bastards took my flavorite cigarettes away.

P.S. Love the meatwad avatar.

 

[iJosh]

"You can't have flavored tobacco, If you want to smoke it, It has to taste like SHIT"

Rofl, Smoking suckzzz,

SKOAL FTW

 

[Nieroshai]

What's next, flavored alcohol? That would leave beer, whiskey and vodka, and I'm more of a wine guy.

 

[Maheemo]

I see that freedom of choice isn't that big of a concern in the US

 

[asinann]

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.

And the staff? Don't give me that "it's their choice to work there either, I don't know anyone that works in food service or as wait staff in bar because they had it as a career choice (bartenders excluded, they get paid well enough to die for it)

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.

Which car releases mustard gas now? Inventing hypotheticals that won't happen isn't going to state your case.

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

So by that logic, if you want to drive drunk it's ok then? Laws are there to protect the masses from people harming them and to keep societies views in place.

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 the last 50 years of talk and debate aren't enough for you to say it wasn't just an arbitrary decision?

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

No, there really aren't. Studies cost lots of money. Money that has to come from somewhere. The tobacco studies are funded mostly by one of two groups: the tobacco industry and the anti-tobacco groups (including the ADA and the federal government.) The studies on both sides say the same things. Smoking bad, second hand smoke is bad. Smokers expose their children to it every day, they expose food service and bar workers to it every day. The workers get more smoke in second hand smoke than a pack a day smoker does.

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?

OK, here's how it works since you can't make the connection.

I want a study saying eating taco bell every day will cause me to lose weight. I pay for it, watch over and try to show the results in a favorable light no matter what they are (as is normal in studies.)

The study says that taco bell food not only won't help you lose weight but will make you fatter.

Are you going to listen to the study commissioned by me that says the exact opposite of what I was paying for, or the one that says exactly what the people paying for it wanted it to say?
(note, I removed all your attempts to turn this into a flamewar.)

As for freedom of choice, what about the non-smoker's freedom to choose not to be around the smoke? No smoking sections don't work without a huge investment in a negative pressure system for the door into it. As I said before, some people are just allergic to it. Places can toss you for wearing too much perfume or cologne because people are allergic to it, why can't the same be done to a smoker?

Another part of this might be that the majority of smokers in America live below the poverty line and the health care industry and federal government are tired of footing the bill for these people to get treatment when they get cancer or their children get asthma.

We tried an outright ban on alcohol once, and it created more problems than it solved, and to ban tobacco now would cause at least two states' economies to completely collapse. That is not a worry smokers should have, but they are panicking and screaming that next is an outright ban on cigarettes. Won't happen.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Cigarettes and pedophiles(and possibly fou conservatives/liberals marring meaning of conservatism/liberalism until anything goes) are the new "Nazis" in the US when someone speaks of them you can hear any and all logic being sucked out of the room.

 

[cobra_ky]

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...

are the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health all anti-smoking lobbyist groups? because they all agree, secondhand smoke exposure is harmful, even if you're just sitting in the same restaurant.

First they came for the flavoured tobacco
But I did not smoke flavoured tobacco, so I said nothing

my thoughts exactly. they've admitted they're going to blooking at flavored cigars and cigarillos next (which would affect me) and they're also going to be looking at banning menthols. it's not clear where they're going to stop with this.

well to be fair certain parents do a really lackluster job at raising kids...so someone has to make up for it.

there's no substitute for good parenting. absolutely none.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Cigarettes are evil and smokers should pay high taxes for their filthy habit.

I'm of the opinion that it should be outright illegal.

I'm of the opinion that trolls should be made illegal. Oh yeah, smokers already pay over 80% tax for their filthy habit. How much do you pay to make provocative statements?

are the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health all anti-smoking lobbyist groups? because they all agree, secondhand smoke exposure is harmful, even if you're just sitting in the same restaurant.

Wrong. They all rely on one study done by an anti-smoking lobby in the 70's. Which is provably biased and comes up with an unsubstantiated conclusion.
They all support the BMI, the 8 glasses of water a day and the 5 fruit/veg a day. None of which have a shred of scientific evidence, two of which have been admitted to being made up.

To further muddy the waters

a lawyer in the agency?s tobacco center, got on the call and said that if consumers believe a product is a cigarette, then the law defines it as one no matter how it is wrapped or labeled.

So, if I walk into a shop and think that that a pencil is a cigarette, then it can be banned.

This law was enforced in 90 days after it was signed, but they can't do things like supply help to victims of Hurricane Katrina, repair Ground Zero, stop gunfights or even provide a decent health care system? Way to miss the priorities, guys.

 

[cobra_ky]

are the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health all anti-smoking lobbyist groups? because they all agree, secondhand smoke exposure is harmful, even if you're just sitting in the same restaurant.

Wrong. They all rely on one study done by an anti-smoking lobby in the 70's. Which is provably biased and comes up with an unsubstantiated conclusion.
They all support the BMI, the 8 glasses of water a day and the 5 fruit/veg a day. None of which have a shred of scientific evidence, two of which have been admitted to being made up.

i've seen a number of studies done throughout the 90's and early 00's. where are these unbiased, third-party studies demonstrating the safety of secondhand smoke? i can't find any mention of them.

This law was enforced in 90 days after it was signed, but they can't do things like supply help to victims of Hurricane Katrina, repair Ground Zero, stop gunfights or even provide a decent health care system? Way to miss the priorities, guys.

or repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell for that matter. if you're going to have an unabashedly liberal legislative agenda, why not go all out?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

i've seen a number of studies done throughout the 90's and early 00's. where are these unbiased, third-party studies demonstrating the safety of secondhand smoke? i can't find any mention of them.

Simple. They can't exist because of the aforementioned entities making such studies illegal due to "health concerns".

Want to show me some of your studies?

or repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell for that matter. if you're going to have an unabashedly liberal legislative agenda, why not go all out?

I was always confused by that. So if I'm gay, I can't go into the military? Where's my frilly dress? (That is satire btw)

And what's so liberal about wanting to help people who have been made homeless or stopping murders? I'd have thought that was being human.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

i've seen a number of studies done throughout the 90's and early 00's. where are these unbiased, third-party studies demonstrating the safety of secondhand smoke? i can't find any mention of them.

Gee, maybe that's because NO ONE (including me) has tried to convince you that smoking isn't bad for your health at all.

What I (and the other "pro smokers" or whatever the hell we should call them) have said is that the supposed threat caused by second hand smoke isn't as alarming is some people try to claim it is.

When you get me a trained doctor who, with a straight face, tell us that ALL cigarette smoke is LETHAL if inhaled sporadically, to EVERYONE, and he has the relevant facts and figures to back it up, THEn I might believe you.

So far, the proof hasn't shown anything else than "smoking is bad for you". And then we come back to my other argument that LIFE is bad for you, since there are so many things EVERYONE is exposed to EVERY DAY 24/7 that can be detrimental to their health and are very likely to kill you.

If no one bans all that other stuff, then there is NO REASON AT ALL to ban smoking, WHAT SO EVER. Unless the goal is to pass yourself off as sanctimonious hypocrites that is...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Simple. They can't exist because of the aforementioned entities making such studies illegal due to "health concerns".

Indeed.

The same thing is being done to many illegal drugs as well. No one can really tell exactly how harmful most drugs is to your health since in most countries ALL research involving illegal drugs is illegal to conduct in the first place.

So until something is done, we will never know exactly how harmful weed is to the human body or the exact effects it has. Nice way to silence any opposition...