FDA will now like to ban candy cigarettes and flavored cigarettes. What's next?

[Mensch]

What's next? Further prohibition?

 

[The Uncola]

What's next? Further prohibition?

Why am I not surprised that John the Boner would stand up in defense of one of the largest causes of horrifying disease and long, painful deaths on the planet?

 

[Mensch]

Why am I not surprised that John the Boner would stand up in defense of one of the largest causes of horrifying disease and long, painful deaths on the planet?

Either one of two things. Either did you not listen to his argument, or simply didn't understand it. He was standing up for liberty, not for lung cancer. Second, you obviously believe the FDA and others are right in this instance. You obviously have not learned the lessons of prohibition.

 

[Deuce]

Either one of two things. Either did you not listen to his argument, or simply didn't understand it. He was standing up for liberty, not for lung cancer. Second, you obviously believe the FDA and others are right in this instance. You obviously have not learned the lessons of prohibition.

Uhh. Cigarrettes are still legal.

 

[Mensch]

Uhh. Cigarrettes are still legal.

Where? What kind of cigarrettes? And finally, for how long?

 

[ScottD]

Where? What kind of cigarrettes? And finally, for how long?

I have no problem with Cigarrettes being banned in public. There is this thing called Second Hand Smoke, I'd rather not find out that I have cancer because of someone elses lifestyle choice. Other then that I see no need to ban cigarrettes for what kind they are, even though I think they definitely should ALWAYS make it plain that you are basically slowly commiting suicide by smoking them.

 

[Deuce]

Where? What kind of cigarrettes? And finally, for how long?

Just about everywhere. Most kinds. For the forseeable future.

 

[Mensch]

I have no problem with Cigarrettes being banned in public. There is this thing called Second Hand Smoke, I'd rather not find out that I have cancer because of someone elses lifestyle choice. Other then that I see no need to ban cigarrettes for what kind they are, even though I think they definitely should ALWAYS make it plain that you are basically slowly commiting suicide by smoking them.

I believe the real consequence from second hand smoke comes when you've been exposed to it for long periods of time (ie living with a smoker). The evidence is not strong enough to justify a blanket ban on public smoking. It would be just one more way for the government to put their hands in our pockets, by ticketing us for every time we light up outside (thereby forcing us to smoke inside where the contained smoke will have far greater consequences). Also, where does the smoke from inside your home go? It doesn't just disappear because you're inside. Ultimately, it leaks out into the world where others can inhale it. You're just on a path to prohibit anything you deem appropriate.

 

[Mensch]

Just about everywhere. Most kinds. For the forseeable future.

Yea, try lighting up a cigarrette in your local NY or SoCal bar.

According to this video, the FDA has banned (or was it proposed to ban?) candy cigarrettes, menthol cigarrettes, and other flavored cigarrettes. The obvious next step is an outright ban on all cigarrettes. They've already created a black market in NYC. Gangs are now in the business of smuggling and dealing cigarrettes. Nice.

 

[Wiseone]

Is it 1995? Didnt this already happen?

 

[Mensch]

Is it 1995? Didnt this already happen?

I guess Deuce lives in the Appalachian mountains, where people are free to smoke in public and distill moonshine (just don't tell the feds!).

 

[The Uncola]

Either one of two things. Either did you not listen to his argument, or simply didn't understand it. He was standing up for liberty, not for lung cancer. Second, you obviously believe the FDA and others are right in this instance. You obviously have not learned the lessons of prohibition.

Bull****. If I didn't "listen to" the Boner's argument, how the **** did I even know it was him making it? Also, using the tired "you didn't understand" crapola argument because I disagreed, is about the lousiest attempt to silence someone there is. I damn sure understand exactly what that pimp for tobacco said, I'm just saying he is a liar, and that his motives have NOTHING to do with "liberty."

 

[Aunt Spiker]

While I don't feel the FDA should be regulating what my cigarettes TASTE like and think any attempts are stupid. . .
But, being a casual smoker, I don't like flavored ones - and they've yet to crack down on my classic cancer sticks in any shape or form because they're less popular - so I'm dandy

My Message - choose the right smoke!

:laughat:impdaddy:

:thumbs::devil:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The fact that I'm a smoker has nothing whatsoever to do with the candy cigarettes I consumed as a kid and everything to do with the heroine they load the filters up with. :lol:


TED,
Keeps writing to Phillip Morris to ask for meth, to no avail.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I just like smoking :shrug:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

In all seriousness, I smoke for two reasons:

1) Stress reduction
2) Brain chemistry modification not related to stress

 

[The Uncola]

In all seriousness, I smoke for two reasons:

1) Stress reduction
2) Brain chemistry modification not related to stress

Back when I did smoke, I told myself similar lies. However, now I have to admit the truth, I smoked for one reason, and one reason only, I was addicted. Completely and helplessly addicted. Addicted to a substance that would kill me, in a long, ugly, and painful way. That is the reality of why people still smoke, given everything we KNOW about the results of it, not some obscure notion of "liberty" or other such noble reasons. Addiction, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Back when I did smoke, I told myself similar lies. However, now I have to admit the truth, I smoked for one reason, and one reason only, I was addicted. Completely and helplessly addicted. Addicted to a substance that would kill me, in a long, ugly, and painful way. That is the reality of why people still smoke, given everything we KNOW about the results of it, not some obscure notion of "liberty" or other such noble reasons. Addiction, nothing more, nothing less.

Okay, well, maybe you were lying to yourself. As for me, I'm not.

I've quit in the past, cold turkey. It was hard, but I made myself work through it. I felt all proud of myself, until I remembered why I'd been smoking to begin with. I then made a conscious decision that the benefits outweighed the risks, and I picked it back up.

 

[OscarB63]

Back when I did smoke, I told myself similar lies. However, now I have to admit the truth, I smoked for one reason, and one reason only, I was addicted. Completely and helplessly addicted. Addicted to a substance that would kill me, in a long, ugly, and painful way. That is the reality of why people still smoke, given everything we KNOW about the results of it, not some obscure notion of "liberty" or other such noble reasons. Addiction, nothing more, nothing less.

back when I smoked it was for two reasons. stress reduction and boredom. (I only smoked while in uniform) once I decided to quit, I finished of the pack currently in my pocket and I haven't had a smoke in 4 months.

Is smoking bad for you? yes but so is being a fat bastard and the FDA isn't trying to ban butter.

 

[The Uncola]

Okay, well, maybe you were lying to yourself. As for me, I'm not.

I've quit in the past, cold turkey. It was hard, but I made myself work through it. I felt all proud of myself, until I remembered why I'd been smoking to begin with. I then made a conscious decision that the benefits outweighed the risks, and I picked it back up.

Benefits? Of smoking?

I'm sorry, but that is about as funny a line as I've ever heard.

 

[The Uncola]

back when I smoked it was for two reasons. stress reduction and boredom. (I only smoked while in uniform) once I decided to quit, I finished of the pack currently in my pocket and I haven't had a smoke in 4 months.

Is smoking bad for you? yes but so is being a fat bastard and the FDA isn't trying to ban butter.

Smoking isn't required to keep living, eating is.

Your analogy doesn't make sense.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Benefits? Of smoking?

I'm sorry, but that is about as funny a line as I've ever heard.

I guess you haven't done any research on the subject. Oh well, I sure as hell am not going to do it for you, since I don't give a hoot if you agree with me or not.

I made the decision for myself, based on the information available to me, and that's how I expect everyone else to make that same decision.

 

[OscarB63]

Smoking isn't required to keep living, eating is.

Your analogy doesn't make sense.

eating is required to keep living....eating so much that you weigh 400 pounds is not. the analogy makes perfect sense. the fact that you happen to disagree is irrelevent

 

[The Uncola]

eating is required to keep living....eating so much that you weigh 400 pounds is not. the analogy makes perfect sense. the fact that you happen to disagree is irrelevent

I no longer smoke and I don't weigh 400 lbs. nor do the vast majority of Americans, so no, your analogy is false.

 

[OscarB63]

I no longer smoke and I don't weigh 400 lbs. nor do the vast majority of Americans, so no, your analogy is false.

duh. you do not have to eat foods like butter to live. therefore the analogy between the FDA banning cigs and not banning butter is valid.