U.S. bans flavored cigarettes

[slackbheep]

I think people should have the right to smoke, but I personally think its retarded (no offense o you smokers). So I'm kind of torn on the matter, while I oppose it due to its constraint on personal freedoms, I also like the fact that the government has taken the tobacco companies down a notch. I never saw the beneft of smoking: the serious increased health risks are balanced by what good side? I mean at least marijuana gets you high.

And the Government has what right to tell you you're not allowed to smoke your fancy cancer sticks? Non-smoker here, but personal freedom is a big deal.

 

[esperandote]

i agree, but maybe is because i dont smoke at all.

 

[LockHeart]

Wahey for the government outlawing choice! /sarcasm

Why is it that I can see this happening in Britain sometime soon?

 

[The Youth Counselor]

Most of my friends started right off with Marlboro Reds. That stuff is about as foul tasting as you can get.

Only in the long term do I ever hear about any Smoker trying flavored or Herbal tobacco.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Smoking does not hurt anyone but the smoker

WRONG!

Despite normally being extreemly anti-smoking, I am actually opposed to the ban because there is no valid point to it. Little kids aren't legally allowed to buy fags (Brit usage) so the idea that flavoured ones are being marketed at kids is just daft.

 

[cobra_ky]

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?

here's one showing that the toxicity of sidestream tobacco smoke increases as it ages. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/6/424

this one demonstrates an increased risk of heart disease after long-term exposure to secondhand smoke.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/329/7459/200

and here's a position paper from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers which states that complete isolation is the only way to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke. http://www.ashrae.org/content/ASHRAE/ASHRAE/ArticleAltFormat/20058211239_347.pdf

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.

you're absolutely right, when i brought up a liberal agenda i was referring to the cigarette ban, which i think we can agree is a more liberal policy position. as a liberal myself, i'm frustrated that the Obama administration has gone ahead with this, but hasn't done anything to repeal DADT, an action most americans would support and one that would have clear, immediate benefits for the country.

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...

Hmm? there's been hundreds of studies sone on the effecs of illegal drugs. that's how we know that marijuana smoke isn't as addictive or carcinogenic as tobacco. just the other day i heard some university was looking for long-term cocaine users on craigslist, for some study they're doing.

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...

your argument seems to be that secondhand smoke isn't really that dangerous, that you're only increasing the cancer rates for people around you a little.

it's worth minimizing any public health risk we can, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. hell, the sun can give us cancer, but that doesn't mean should have to put up with asbestos or lead paint.

There are a number of minor health hazards that we put up with because they benefit and improve our quality of life in other ways. Car exhaust is a good example. it's not good for us, but automobiles undeniably improve our quality of life so we accept the potential health risks. Secondhand smoke, on the other hand, has absolutely no positive effects whatsoever.

Even <a href=http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52AMJ4>tobacco <a href=http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/Secondhand_Smoke/default.aspx>companies support public smoking bans. When we choose to smoke, people have the right to enjoy public spaces without having to breathe it in.

 

[thiosk]

I used clove cigs to quit. Switch to cloves exclusively-- your lungs will fail and you'll never want to smoke again.

 

[Kiutu]

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?

Wow, really? I guess you hate laws against people raping your kids too? They SHOULD make alchohol (universally, since it already tastes aweful) taste bad if it will make people stop drinking it.
Smoking should be gone. Just banning it wont really work, but smoking should not really be accepted, only tolerated until removing it can be achieved.

 

[tsb247]

This really bothers me, and I'm not really even a smoker. Sure, I will enjoy a nice cigar now and then (the good ones... The one's that can cost $30 each! - so it may only be once every 3-5 months or so), and they are threatening one of my few vices!

 

[Bobkat1252]

I think people should have the right to smoke, but I personally think its retarded (no offense o you smokers). So I'm kind of torn on the matter, while I oppose it due to its constraint on personal freedoms, I also like the fact that the government has taken the tobacco companies down a notch. I never saw the beneft of smoking: the serious increased health risks are balanced by what good side? I mean at least marijuana gets you high.

And the Government has what right to tell you you're not allowed to smoke your fancy cancer sticks? Non-smoker here, but personal freedom is a big deal.

I never said the Government had the right to tell you that you couldn't smoke, in fact I think they have no right to tell you that. All I said was that I personally find smoking to be stupid, not that it should be banned.

 

[Klepa]

I don't know how it works in other countries, but a pack of cigarettes costs 3,80e to 4,80e in here. Recently, all tobacco selling establishments are supposed to pay a sum of 150euros/year (that's 12,5 euros a month, kids), and surprisingly, a lot of grills and kiosks refused to pay that, and can't now sell tobacco.

In other words: These establishments are not even making 150 euros of profit per year from tobacco.
In other words: the price is all tax.
In other words: Instead of banning smoking because of the expenses it causes to healthcare, just up the price. Make the smokers pay for eachothers healthcare. Government gets it's money, smokers get their smokes. Nonsmokers can stand by and smile, knowing that they don't live in some totalitarian police state. And cough at my face of course.

I know for a fact, that as long as a country is making money with tobacco, it's not going to get banned.

 

[tsb247]

that's how we know that marijuana smoke isn't as addictive or carcinogenic as tobacco.

Not entirely true. Marijuana smoke is in no way safer than cigarette smoke. In fact, new studies are showing that it can be just as damaging, if not more damaging.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm

http://www.drugscience.org/Petition/C2B.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/update/NWS_1_1xU_Experts__Pot_Smoking_Is_Not_Best_Choice_to_Treat_Chemo_Side_Effects.asp

http://www.insidescience.org/research/marijuana_smoke_damages_cells

http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2009/06/17/marijuana-smoke-damages-human-dna/

 

[Ninja_X]

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

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

To rehabilitate smokers and separate them from the good pure non-smokers, like I dunno, sending them to a CAMP where they can CONCENTRATE on quitting smoking?

But seriously, that was a bit of an over-reaction. They can be very destructive when smoked in large numbers, but people like me who smoke one a day in my back-garden when there's nobody else around aren't fit for banning forever. It's stress relief.

On topic: That's a bit silly.

Smoking poisons the air with secondhand smoke that others have to deal with.

Nothing stops a smoker from smoking constantly around their kids and giving them lung cancer.

But you wanna keep your filthy habit because it makes YOU feel better? There is allot more bad to smoking than good.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Also, before someone argues that there are worse things in the world for public health than second hand smoke, it doesn't matter. Prosecuting manslaughter is a good idea even though there are murderers about.

Pity they're not so bothered about drunk drivers then.

Let's have a look at these studies though:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/moh.healthmag.smoking.heart/:

In the first study, James Lightwood, Ph.D., and Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., both of the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed data from 13 studies conducted in five countries. They found at least a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalizations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years. The National Cancer Institute funded the study.

And given the study wasn't even linked to...

In the second study, Meyers and his colleagues analyzed data from 10 studies in 11 regions in the U.S. (including Montana, New York, Ohio, and Indiana), Canada, and Europe. The results were similar to those in Lightwood and Glantz's study. (Both research teams looked at similar data.)

Similar...yeah, I bet.
Let's have a look at Professor Lighthood

He is also affiliated with the Center for Tobacco Control, Research and Education, funded by the Legacy Foundation. His research currently focuses on the health and economic effects of tobacco smoking cessation and prevention...He has also published book chapters on the cost of smoking in developed and less developed countries. He as been a consultant to the World Health Organization on the economics of tobacco smoking and control in less developed countries

Wow...he must have been studying really hard in ...Economics

# Bachelor of Arts, Economics, University of California-Los Angeles, 1979
# Masters Degree, Economics, University of Southern California, 1989
# Doctorate in Economics, Field: Econometrics, University of Southern California, 1994

So, that one's gone. Next?

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/6/424
Apart from this being locked down so you have to pay to see it, it's about the aging of rat's skin.
Next?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/329/7459/200
A study of who had heart attacks 20 years after they had their smoking results checked. Boy, bang up to date then. If you can even prove that second hand smoke increases serum cotinine concentration.

http://www.ashrae.org/content/ASHRAE/ASHRAE/ArticleAltFormat/20058211239_347.pdf
So, the people who install air freshening equipment aren't biased for something that may massively increase their workload?

Keep trying.

As for the Marijuana studies, which I don't have time to go through at the moment. Marijuana can't be legally studied because of the criminalization effect discussed earlier, and cannot be smoked free of tobacco because the toxicity level would be too high to enjoy.

And if you're knocking MJ, then President Obama might want a word.

 

[sdafdfhrye3245]

Do we really need to give highschool students another reason to start smoking?

 

[Iskenator67]

As long as I can get my cigars, I don't care what they ban.

You should. They are limiting what you can legally buy.

Not a whole lot you can do about it. This country is one step away from making thinking illegal. I've never understood why people from other countries want to come over here. It's not the land of the free, it's the land of you can only do what we tell you to and we are taking away them rights one by one until there is nothing left.

 

[Steoo]

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

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

and that sir, makes you a fascist

 

[Ninja_X]

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

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

and that sir, makes you a fascist

No it doesn't.

I just think that is something like smoking is gonna cause harm to the smoker and to everyone breathing in their fumes then it is wrong.

You aren't allowed to dump poison into lakes, so why should we let you smokers poison the air?

Besides the fact that some people find sucking poison "relaxing" you name one good thing smokeing does for you.

 

[Aqualung]

Chocolate flavoured cigarettes? ...Why wouldn't you just eat, oh, I dunno, regular chocolate?

Oh that's right. All them insecure teenage girls might get fat.

How about getting teachers and parents to give self-esteem to young students, instead of solely blaming tobacco companies? Then maybe teens wont feel the need to do so many idiotic things.

 

[cobra_ky]

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/6/424
Apart from this being locked down so you have to pay to see it, it's about the aging of rat's skin.
Next?

it's actually about the accumulation of particulate material in the rat's lungs.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/329/7459/200
A study of who had heart attacks 20 years after they had their smoking results checked. Boy, bang up to date then. If you can even prove that second hand smoke increases serum cotinine concentration.

it's a study of the long-term effects, how soon do you think they should've published? and cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine. since these men claimed to be non-smokers, i'm not sure where else it would have come from.

http://www.ashrae.org/content/ASHRAE/ASHRAE/ArticleAltFormat/20058211239_347.pdf
So, the people who install air freshening equipment aren't biased for something that may massively increase their workload?

you think they wouldn't want to sell restaurants on all sorts of fancy air filtration systems, if any of them would work?