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

[OscarB63]

smoking causes global warming. And every time you light a smoke a kitten dies and baby Jesus cries.

 

[hazlnut]

What's next? Further prohibition?

Do you have a link to the actual proposal and/or some type of information in favor of the ban?

I mean, as a critical thinker, I'm sure you'll agree that we should examine both sides of the argument before making up our minds.

I think the Fed Gov would do better to commission Hollywood to address this issue. Pay hollywood to write anti-smoking plots into several popular TV shows.

*have Hannah Montana almost lose her voice from smoking
*on a drama serious, write an older character off the show by having him die of smoking-related illness. Have him drop dead while playing catch with his grandson.
*on a sitcom, introduce a new comic protagonist, smokey-trashy boss lady. Make fun of her coughing fits, phlegm hawks, and teeth.

Just do the opposite of what they did in the 1940's, instead of making smoking sexy and heroic, portray it as disgusting and trashy. Selfish people with no concern for their own lives, committing a slow suicide while their loved ones watch.

 

[Mensch]

Do you have a link to the actual proposal and/or some type of information in favor of the ban?

I mean, as a critical thinker, I'm sure you'll agree that we should examine both sides of the argument before making up our minds.

Why? Is it really that unbelievable? A quick search on Google returned the following sources:

Mayor Bloomberg vows to snuff out smoking in parks, beaches

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

I think the Fed Gov would do better to commission Hollywood to address this issue. Pay hollywood to write anti-smoking plots into several popular TV shows.

Good ol' corporatist double standard. It is ok for the federal government to subsidize the production companies in order to facilitate pro-government messages or to subsidize GE in order to spur the growth in the energy market, but bad to subsidize oil and insurance companies.

Just do the opposite of what they did in the 1940's, instead of making smoking sexy and heroic, portray it as disgusting and trashy. Selfish people with no concern for their own lives, committing a slow suicide while their loved ones watch.

Why support more government propaganda initiatives? Isn't the real-life experiences of people dying from cancer enough?

 

[hazlnut]

Why? Is it really that unbelievable? A quick search on Google returned the following sources:

Mayor Bloomberg vows to snuff out smoking in parks, beaches

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

I wanted to hear the Health Services side -- let's hear both cases.

Good ol' corporatist double standard. It is ok for the federal government to subsidize the production companies in order to facilitate pro-government messages or to subsidize GE in order to spur the growth in the energy market, but bad to subsidize oil and insurance companies.

You don't think oil and insurance gets breaks from Gov?

Why support more government propaganda initiatives? Isn't the real-life experiences of people dying from cancer enough?

Hollywood has a great history of producing propaganda that helped the country unite. And change our views about past wars.

There's something very powerful about a well-made film. The addict has a selective memory about his own life. He can't visualize his children standing over his grave. But allow a great actor to die a horrible death from lung/heart disease, show his kids begging him to stop... That will stick with a person. Art imitating life like a mirror.

 

[drz-400]

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.

There is a distinction that you miss though. A bar/restaruant/place of business is (for the most part) open to the public, while your house is not.

 

[Caine]

There is a distinction that you miss though. A bar/restaruant/place of business is (for the most part) open to the public, while your house is not.

And yet, you can be asked to leave at any time by the property owner for any reason.

 

[drz-400]

And yet, you can be asked to leave at any time by the property owner for any reason.

Yep, but it is not the logical equivalant of your own personal home like elijahGalt was saying. I can have sex, masterbate, watch porn, pass out drunk, and any other private thing in my home, but I could not do it even in a bar. I would be arrested if I did any of those things in a bar. The reason is a bar/resturaunt/place of business is a fairly public place, whereas your house is not.

 

[Caine]

Yep, but it is not the logical equivalant of your own personal home like elijahGalt was saying. I can have sex, masterbate, watch porn, pass out drunk, and any other private thing in my home, but I could not do it even in a bar. I would be arrested if I did any of those things in a bar. The reason is a bar/resturaunt/place of business is a fairly public place, whereas your house is not.

But, with that, it is also a privately owned place.

I don't think the government should be authorized to trump private property owner's rights by telling them they can't allow smoking in their own facilities.

Make a requirement that an establishment has a big ass sign out front denoting that they allow smoking inside? Yeah, I can reason with that for public health purposes.

Tell a private property owner he isn't allowed to let his patrons do an otherwise perfectly legal habit inside his doors? No way. I disagree.

The public makes a decision to enter a business based upon its business practices. I see no reason why the government should get to trump that in the name of anti-smoking.

 

[drz-400]

But, with that, it is also a privately owned place.

I don't think the government should be authorized to trump private property owner's rights by telling them they can't allow smoking in their own facilities.

Make a requirement that an establishment has a big ass sign out front denoting that they allow smoking inside? Yeah, I can reason with that for public health purposes.

Tell a private property owner he isn't allowed to let his patrons do an otherwise perfectly legal habit inside his doors? No way. I disagree.

The public makes a decision to enter a business based upon its business practices. I see no reason why the government should get to trump that in the name of anti-smoking.

For maybe like a bar or a 21 club, casino, strip club, etc. I agree with you, mostly for the reason that such things like smoking can be expected there. A family restaruant or at an office, no for reasons I have already stated.

If you are smoking in a bar, well I don't care because I am in a bar. If you are outside not bothering anyone, I don't care. If you are in perkins, well thats a little different.

 

[Mensch]

I wanted to hear the Health Services side -- let's hear both cases.

The NYT is a mouthpiece of the government, so I figured it was sufficient enough. Are you still in denial that the FDA wants to make such bans, or do you simply just want their opinion why? If you're only interested in the opinion of why, then isn't it blatantly obvious? They want to outlaw candy cigarettes in order to prevent young children from getting enticed to smoke real cigarettes. They want to ban menthol because they argue it is more dangerous than regular smokes. They want to ban flavored cigarettes for the same reason they want to ban candy cigarettes. You heard the democrat representative in the video (who was also the FDA authority on tobacco products). It's a moral crusade.

You don't think oil and insurance gets breaks from Gov?

I absolutely KNOW that oil and insurance companies get generous breaks from the gov (in MANY different forms). A man willing to socialize public losses and privatize private gains through subsidies and other unfair market/government practices is a corporatist, IMHO. Unlike some people, I realize that eliminating this unfair market where govt. caters to specific corporations will not end by just eliminating the benefits to oil and insurance companies. You have to eliminate ALL subsidies, and then we'll have a fair market.

Hollywood has a great history of producing propaganda that helped the country unite. And change our views about past wars.

Sure, if you don't mind neglecting the unity of racism that Hollywood helped facilitate, or the stereotypical roles of minorities perpetrated by Hollywood (they still do it! Out of 100 movies depicting Arabs or Arab-Americans, you might find less than ten that DON'T depict the individual in a negative light.)

You want to use government to finance propaganda, why am I not surprised?

There's something very powerful about a well-made film. The addict has a selective memory about his own life. He can't visualize his children standing over his grave. But allow a great actor to die a horrible death from lung/heart disease, show his kids begging him to stop... That will stick with a person. Art imitating life like a mirror.

First of all, those movies already exist without government support. Second of all, real-life experiences are the driving force behind the foundations that work to research and develop new methods to treat and/or prevent these bad things from happening. Real-life experiences are far more powerful than the media. My close cousin was detached from his father for years while he abused meth and coke. Then one day, he died before they be reunited. My cousin will never touch a hard drug, ever! And it's not because he saw the movie Requiem for a Dream.

 

[Mensch]

There is a distinction that you miss though. A bar/restaruant/place of business is (for the most part) open to the public, while your house is not.

Usually, the person arguing to eliminate candy cigarettes and Joe Camel because they're aimed at children and the person arguing that second-hand smoke harms everyone and causes lifelong ailments like asthma are the same person. I ask, what's stopping this one person from arguing that cigarette smoking shall be prohibited in homes where children are present? What's stopping this one person from arguing that cigarette smoking should be banned entirely? This isn't a slippery slope; this is the underlying logic.

As an analogy, take nation-building. If we were suppose to go to Iraq in order to liberate the people and give them democracy, then what's stopping us from going into every other unfree country and freeing the people there? Obviously, we haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia. And in this case, we obviously haven't learned the lessons of prohibition.

And I would argue that commercial private property and residential private property are the same thing. Government shouldn't be controlling the decisions of a businessman or woman anymore than they should be controlling the decisions of a family man or woman.

 

[drz-400]

Usually, the person arguing to eliminate candy cigarettes and Joe Camel because they're aimed at children and the person arguing that second-hand smoke harms everyone and causes lifelong ailments like asthma are the same person. I ask, what's stopping this one person from arguing that cigarette smoking shall be prohibited in homes where children are present? What's stopping this one person from arguing that cigarette smoking should be banned entirely? This isn't a slippery slope; this is the underlying logic.

As an analogy, take nation-building. If we were suppose to go to Iraq in order to liberate the people and give them democracy, then what's stopping us from going into every other unfree country and freeing the people there? Obviously, we haven't learned the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia. And in this case, we obviously haven't learned the lessons of prohibition.

And I would argue that commercial private property and residential private property are the same thing. Government shouldn't be controlling the decisions of a businessman or woman anymore than they should be controlling the decisions of a family man or woman.

The underlying logic is that most commercial places are fairly public, whereas your house is private. I am telling you that equivicating the two is incorrect.

 

[Mensch]

The underlying logic is that most commercial places are fairly public, whereas your house is private. I am telling you that equivicating the two is incorrect.

There is no such thing as "fairly public." An institution, or facility is either public or private, not "fairly public." Commerical business owners may reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. The only public places are those run by government. Just because many business owners open their doors to the public doesn't mean it's a public institution. The owner is free to refuse service, and the customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke.

 

[drz-400]

There is no such thing as "fairly public." An institution, or facility is either public or private, not "fairly public." Commerical business owners may reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. The only public places are those run by government. Just because many business owners open their doors to the public doesn't mean it's a public institution. The owner is free to refuse service, and the customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke.

I think it was pretty obvious from my previous statements I was not talking about who owns them. I am saying your house is not open for business with the general public, most businesses are. Those are two completely different situations. You are saying they are the same. No. If we say you can't smoke at a family restaurant it is not logically the same as saying you cannot smoke in your house.

 

[OscarB63]

I think it was pretty obvious from my previous statements I was not talking about who owns them. I am saying your house is not open for business with the general public, most businesses are. Those are two completely different situations. You are saying they are the same. No. If we say you can't smoke at a family restaurant it is not logically the same as saying you cannot smoke in your house.

I beg to differ.

You own your house, you should decide if smoking is allowed or not
The restauranteur owns the family restaurant, he/she should decide if smoking is allowed or not.

If I allow smoking in my home and you don't like it, visit someone else
If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, eat somewhere else


If we can tell a business owner what he can and cannot do on his own property it is the same as telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home.

whether you like it or not, smoking is still a legal activity.

 

[OscarB63]

I am saying your house is not open for business with the general public, most businesses are. Those are two completely different situations. .

as long as they don't violate any anti-discrimination laws, businesses are free to limit their clientele as they see fit.

 

[Mensch]

I think it was pretty obvious from my previous statements I was not talking about who owns them. I am saying your house is not open for business with the general public, most businesses are. Those are two completely different situations. You are saying they are the same. No. If we say you can't smoke at a family restaurant it is not logically the same as saying you cannot smoke in your house.

I think Oscar and myself have completely blown this argument out of the water. There's nothing else that needs to be said here.