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

[OscarB63]

So? Need programmes to regulate both smoking and drinking to account for their social, economic costs. A ban isn't practical, but other methods are.

what? no mention of the fat bastards. we need programs to regulate both the eating of butter and big macs to account for their social, economic costs.

just say no to fat bastards

 

[Technocratic]

what? no mention of the fat bastards. we need programs to regulate both the eating of butter and big macs to account for their social, economic costs.

just say no to fat bastards

I beat you to that, already. I outlined a selective tax on foods, regulations on portion size, control of food ingredients (substitution), combined with a type of "fat tax."

 

[The Uncola]

As opposed to fast food, which causes almost 4X the health problems in Americans each year as tobacco?

The problem is people choosing to smoke, not the fact that smoking (as opposed to caffene, greasy food, and other "legal drugs") are allowed.

Plus, banning flavored cigarettes won't discourage smoking anyway. Most people who smoke flavored tobacco smoke cigarillos (ex. "Black and Mild's), not "cigarettes". "Cigars" make up 99% of all flavored tobacco products (and are much cheaper than "cigarettes"), so smokers who like fruity flavored tobacco will continue to smoke cigars, while long-time smokers will keep smoking whatever their favorite brand is (since the addiction is nicotine, not the flavoring).

They already tried this with Djarum "kretek" cigarettes and failed - within a month, Djarum just made a few changes to their blend, repackaged them as "cigars" instead of "cigarettes", and they were back on the shelves - at even cheaper prices, since cigar tax is much lower than cigarettes.

But don't let that stop you or the rest of the "smoking is bad" crowd from throwing your mantras into another thread without even understanding anything about how the law or the industry works.

Where did I jump up and defend "fast food?"

^^^see above^^^

Another strawman bites the dust.

 

[OscarB63]

I beat you to that, already. I outlined a selective tax on foods, regulations on portion size, control of food ingredients (substitution), combined with a type of "fat tax."

about damn time too. everyone always bitchin about how smokers make healthcare costs go up for everybody. Well, I don't currently have time to check it, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the health problems associated with being a fat bastard cause healthcare costs to go up more than smoking does. and there are probably more fat bastards than there are smokers in the US anywho. But no one hardly ever says diddly squat about how the gubbermint should ban foods/habits that lead to fatness.

 

[The Uncola]

Here we go again. Shall I give you a list of all the things that are linked to cancer? Here in CA, there's a sign that reads: "chemicals known to the state of CA to cause cancer are used on this facilities" at literally every commercial location, from Walmart to Pep Boys to McDonalds to the local supermarket. "Largest causes?" What does that mean? How many people die from motorcycle accidents each year? If you look at that statistic, can we reasonably conclude it is a major cause of death in this country? Of course, we can look at the hundreds of thousands of deaths by car accident each year and then make the logical conclusion (as you have done with cigarrettes) that we should outlaw cars and have everyone ride the train. It is, after all, one of the largest causes of death in this country, especially of young people. So therefore, the logic should remain consistent that whatever is a large cause of disease and death (fast food, fast cars, motorcycles, hiking in the Grand Canyon, rock climbing, skydiving, smoking, drinking, etc) should therefore be illegal. Where do you draw the line? I'll tell you where. At the feet of every individual. Let THEM decide to do whatever they want with their lives, just as long as they don't bring other people down with them.

And shoiuld I decide to advocate for your list of strawman excuses for tobacco corporations and the politicians they buy, be sure and remind of this thread.

 

[The Uncola]

So I am guessing by this comment that you also are against prohibition of currently illegal recreational drugs listed as 'controlled substances'.

You know, like marijuana, heroin, cocaine, LSD, PCP, etc, etc. ?

Assume much?

 

[winston53660]

what? no mention of the fat bastards. we need programs to regulate both the eating of butter and big macs to account for their social, economic costs.

just say no to fat bastards

FYI the ingredients of a Big Mac:

Big Mac® Bun:
-- Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes)
-- water
-- high fructose corn syrup
-- sugar
-- soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil

The bun also contains 2% or less of the following:
-- salt
-- calcium sulfate
-- calcium carbonate
-- wheat gluten
-- ammonium sulfate
-- ammonium chloride
-- sodium stearoyl lactylate *
-- datem *
-- ascorbic acid*
-- azodicarbonamide*
-- mono- and diglycerides*
-- ethoxylated monoglycerides*
-- monocalcium phosphate*
-- enzymes*
-- guar gum*
-- calcium peroxide*
-- soy flour*
-- calcium propionate (preservative)
-- sodium propionate (preservative)
-- soy lecithin
-- sesame seed.

* indicates: dough conditioner


Big Mac® Sauce:
-- Soybean oil
-- pickle relish (which is made of
-- diced pickles
-- high fructose corn syrup
-- sugar
-- vinegar
-- corn syrup
-- salt
-- calcium chloride
-- xanthan gum
-- potassium sorbate (preservative)
-- spice extractives
-- polysorbate 80
-- distilled vinegar
-- water
-- egg yolks
-- high fructose corn syrup
-- onion powder
-- mustard seed
-- salt
-- spices
-- propylene glycol alginate
-- sodium benzoate (preservative)
-- mustard bran
-- sugar
-- garlic powder
-- vegetable protein (hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat) – fancy name for MSG
-- caramel color
-- extractives of paprika
-- soy lecithin
-- turmeric (color)
-- calcium disodium EDTA (protect flavor).

A chemical cornucopia of culinary delights huh?

BTW azodicarbonamide has been banned in several countries:
Azodicarbonamide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rivrrat]

I just like smoking :shrug:

Ditto. And that never became more apparent to me than when I quit. Once the addiction was gone, what is left is a deep desire to smoke because I just ****ing enjoy smoking. I love it. I miss it, terribly. If I knew I could smoke casually without getting addicted again, I would. I'm still considering getting a hookah.

 

[OscarB63]

FYI the ingredients of a Big Mac:



A chemical cornucopia of culinary delights huh?

BTW azodicarbonamide has been banned in several countries:
Azodicarbonamide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yeah, WTF is xanthan gum? is that the ingredient that gives you the ****s 15 minutes after you eat a big mac?

 

[OscarB63]

Ditto. And that never became more apparent to me than when I quit. Once the addiction was gone, what is left is a deep desire to smoke because I just ****ing enjoy smoking. I love it. I miss it, terribly. If I knew I could smoke casually without getting addicted again, I would. I'm still considering getting a hookah.

since I never inhaled, I was never physically addicted to smoking. It was always just something I enjoyed doing. SInce I have quit, I have had the occasional desire to smoke and I probably will, if out in a bar or at a party, smoke a fag or two at some point in the future.

 

[winston53660]

yeah, WTF is xanthan gum? is that the ingredient that gives you the ****s 15 minutes after you eat a big mac?

The same thing happens to me whenever I eat that junk.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

The same thing happens to me whenever I eat that junk.

I promise the same thing would happen if you ate a heavy meal at a resturant. It's not the "junk" food that does it (and if it's junk, why are you eating it anyway?) it's the fact that it is a heavy meal, and when you put something in the top, something has to come out of the bottom to make room. Pretty simple.

 

[Mensch]

Well, the problem with your argument is that it assumes everything is equally practical or has the same consequences of regulation or banning. Whether or not something causes harm isn't the only variable to way in a cost-benefit analysis. It may be the case that the benefits are greater than the harms.

The federal government should not be in the business of dictating our daily decisions for us. That is the bottom line. I'm willing to tolerate x number of deaths per year so long as human beings are free to live their own lives as they see fit (just as long as they don't trample over others in the process).

There is a caveat. Human beings are morally free to pursue their own hopes and dreams, but they must bore 100% of the costs themselves. So, in other words, you can smoke, but don't expect me to pay for your medical treatments.

 

[Mensch]

And in both of those cases, we should look at the aggregate harm and respond appropriately.

Define "respond appropriately."

 

[Mensch]

And shoiuld I decide to advocate for your list of strawman excuses for tobacco corporations and the politicians they buy, be sure and remind of this thread.

Here we go again. Blaming everything on the corporation.

FYI, I'm for legalization, across-the-board. Here in my homestate of CA, citizens are trying to legalize marijuana while the tobacco companies are spending millions to to prevent it. I do not represent the tobacco companies, and they do not sponsor me.

 

[Deuce]

The federal government should not be in the business of dictating our daily decisions for us. That is the bottom line. I'm willing to tolerate x number of deaths per year so long as human beings are free to live their own lives as they see fit (just as long as they don't trample over others in the process).

There is a caveat. Human beings are morally free to pursue their own hopes and dreams, but they must bore 100% of the costs themselves. So, in other words, you can smoke, but don't expect me to pay for your medical treatments.

You still have the freedom to smoke. Just not in a location that could be harmful to me, and the discussion is whether products designed specifically to hook kids on tobacco should be allowed. Minors in our society are not considered to be completely responsible for or even capable of making their own decisions. You should try not to look at your ideology in a vacuum.

Edit: And from many pages back:

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.

You should also try actually reading the posts you respond to. And slippery slope arguments are just lazy. Banning all cigarettes is not "the next obvious step."

 

[Caine]

about damn time too. everyone always bitchin about how smokers make healthcare costs go up for everybody. Well, I don't currently have time to check it, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the health problems associated with being a fat bastard cause healthcare costs to go up more than smoking does. and there are probably more fat bastards than there are smokers in the US anywho. But no one hardly ever says diddly squat about how the gubbermint should ban foods/habits that lead to fatness.

Not to mention alot of fat people who are smokers have their problems blamed on the smoking rather than being a fat bastard, for obvious political reasons.

 

[Caine]

You still have the freedom to smoke. Just not in a location that could be harmful to me, and the discussion is whether products designed specifically to hook kids on tobacco should be allowed. Minors in our society are not considered to be completely responsible for or even capable of making their own decisions. You should try not to look at your ideology in a vacuum.

So, adults who happen to enjoy flavored cigarettes have to suffer because there might be a TINY chance that some kid is going to get hooked on smoking due SOLELY to the fact that it was avaliable in Cherry?

Give me a ****ing break.

 

[Deuce]

So, adults who happen to enjoy flavored cigarettes have to suffer because there might be a TINY chance that some kid is going to get hooked on smoking due SOLELY to the fact that it was avaliable in Cherry?

Give me a ****ing break.

The chance is not as tiny as you think. It's a product literally targeted at children.

 

[Caine]

The chance is not as tiny as you think. It's a product literally targeted at children.

No, its not.

You want to think so, but its not.

Electronic cigarettes are a product targeted at people who are tired of smoking traditional tobacco but still want to get nicotine, an alternative to patches and gums if you will. Also targeted at people who want to enjoy 'smoking' in areas that they can't actually smoke due to smoking bans.....

Guess what? They have cherry, java, peaches, mint, etc, etc, etc flavors avaliable for their 'smoke juice' and cartidges....

Now suddely you are going to tell me, "OH NOES THEY ARE TRYING TO HOOK KIDS TOO!!!!!"

Where do you get this idea that because something is flavored its not meant for adults? Who said adults are not allowed to enjoy different flavors?

Are you going to tell me Coffee Makers are trying to target kids when they make flavored coffees too?

Get real.

 

[Mensch]

No, people do not have natural rights. Natural Rights are a holdover concept from the Age of Mysticism. There's no such thing. All rights are legal fictions created and enforced by society. Doesn't mean they aren't good, or useful as ethical-political heuristics. They just are neither natural, nor absolute.

But Libertarian philosophy isn't really consistent when it comes to natural, inalienable rights. On the one hand, they say they are inalienable, and yet...also believe they are not. If rights were truely inalienable, they could neither be forfeited nor suspended. For society to function, rights must be alienable. No right is absolute. It always comes with limtations. Practically, if not theoretically, such has been, is, and always will be the case.

Just because people still use the term "natural" to mean "inalienable" does not mean these same people are mystics. The founding fathers were deists, not mystics, and they believed that people have natural rights. Liberal socialists in Western Europe, who are not mystics, use the term "natural rights" to help define the nature of "human rights."

Natural rights are, after all, human rights. They are not necessarily granted to you by God (believers in divinity may so wish to think so), but they CANNOT be taken away from you (except in the rare cases that human beings voluntarily violate the natural rights of other human beings). To say that you do not have an absolute right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ultimately means you're willing to tolerate any monstrious political system that treats individuals as cattle in order to achieve political gains. Government killing squads? Why not? The individual's "right to life" is not absolute, afterall.

Reminds me of that sick, twisted rock singer G.G. Allin who used to mutilate himself on stage, throw feces at the crowd, physically abuse the audience, and scream about legalizing murder. Your logic would suit his interests well.

 

[OscarB63]

The chance is not as tiny as you think. It's a product literally targeted at children.

literally targeted at children? even though it is illegal to sell cigs to minors? really? the makers of these products are so desperate to sell that they will knowingly target an illegal market?

hyperbole and scaremongering...what concepts

 

[Mensch]

You still have the freedom to smoke. Just not in a location that could be harmful to me, and the discussion is whether products designed specifically to hook kids on tobacco should be allowed. Minors in our society are not considered to be completely responsible for or even capable of making their own decisions. You should try not to look at your ideology in a vacuum.

I guess you think the government should replace the parents as wards over our society's children. It is ultimately the responsibility of the parents, not the government, to enforce decent household rules and to prevent their children from abusing tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. As a kid, I used to smoke my Slim Jim like it was a cigar. Shall we outlaw Slim Jims (or force them to take a different shape?)

Edit: And from many pages back:


You should also try actually reading the posts you respond to. And slippery slope arguments are just lazy. Banning all cigarettes is not "the next obvious step."

Slippery slope? I gave REALISTIC conclusions that occur when the government goes too far regulating a certain product's consumption. Taxing the cigarattes to **** ultimately means it would be cheaper, and more convenient, for smokers to buy their products out-of-state, or from an illegal source. It can be considered nearly the same as banning the product, entirely.

And what is the obvious step? If the moral crusade is to prevent more people from dying from tobacco-related deaths, then perhaps the eventual step would be to outlaw them, entirely.

 

[OscarB63]

No, its not.

You want to think so, but its not.

Electronic cigarettes are a product targeted at people who are tired of smoking traditional tobacco but still want to get nicotine, an alternative to patches and gums if you will. Also targeted at people who want to enjoy 'smoking' in areas that they can't actually smoke due to smoking bans.....

Guess what? They have cherry, java, peaches, mint, etc, etc, etc flavors avaliable for their 'smoke juice' and cartidges....

Now suddely you are going to tell me, "OH NOES THEY ARE TRYING TO HOOK KIDS TOO!!!!!"

Where do you get this idea that because something is flavored its not meant for adults? Who said adults are not allowed to enjoy different flavors?

Are you going to tell me Coffee Makers are trying to target kids when they make flavored coffees too?

Get real.

dayyum..I guess dat peach schnapps I drank last night was targeted for the kiddies to. :lol: ooooh and dat cherry flavored condom I wore during my last BJ/get down was targeted for children as well. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

 

[Mensch]

You still have the freedom to smoke. Just not in a location that could be harmful to me, and the discussion is whether products designed specifically to hook kids on tobacco should be allowed. Minors in our society are not considered to be completely responsible for or even capable of making their own decisions. You should try not to look at your ideology in a vacuum.

Edit: And from many pages back:


You should also try actually reading the posts you respond to. And slippery slope arguments are just lazy. Banning all cigarettes is not "the next obvious step."

And by the way, I've already responded to the "second-hand smoke" argument. In my worldview, it should be up to the freedom of the managers and owners of commercial locations whether or not they wish to ban smoking on their facilities. Smoking in your own, private house can easily be second-hand smoking if there others present (what about the children!?). If the logic of the second-hand smoke argument remained consistent, we should be banning the smoking of cigarettes in people's own homes, to prevent children from developing asthma and other related ailments (and/or to prevent increasing the risk of nicotene addiction in kids).

And once you've banned smoking in your own home, you've banned smoking entirely.