Flavored tobacco ban

[texans]

Does this bother anyone else? Not only have they banned clove cigarettes but they are "examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes." So am I to understand Newports, Kools, and Skoal will also soon be banned? That bothers me because it seems we are losing more and more of our fringe rights every day. Does it escalate to the point where our larger freedoms are taken from us? I wish government would concentrate on fixing our nation's economy and stay out of our personal lives. What's next, a regulation stating how much bread a person can buy in a month because it's loaded with carbs? Probably not but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility anymore.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...zBUgAD9ASI7JO0

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/FlavoredTobacco/default.htm

[Herky]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

I don't even smoke and I think this is silly.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

They banned clove cigarettes? The hell? Those things are god awful for you and I don't know anyone that smokes them, but that just seems strange... not like that's what's hot with the kids or something.

Oh man, if they make menthols illegal, there will be some riots...

Reading the article shed a little light on their reasoning... I can believe that kids are more likely to smoke flavored cigarettes.. I guess I just didn't put cloves in that category since I always see them smoked by old hippie types and not younger people. If they wrap menthols up in the "flavored" category, there will be blood for sure... don't think they'd go that far.

The intent of this bill is honorable though, especially blocking the use of "light" and "low tar" and other such misleading BS statements meant to trick people into thinking they're smoking something healthier than the standard.

[VDusen04]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

What is the motivation behind such a move? Is it strictly for the better health of the nation? It seems like it'd be an interesting debate. My guess is they felt comfortable creating this ban because the cigarrettes have a zero percent health benefit - regardless of usage. On that note, I do not believe they would ban anything that actually had the potential to offer benefits, such as the aforementioned bread.

Still, I am curious to hear the logic in all of this. Am I to assume that the government believed too many citizens were not educated on the harmful effects of these items and therefore had to bring it to light? My brain says that eventually this would trickle down to smoking-related health problems that cost the health systems time and money and all that other great stuff.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

The simple way to put it is that kids are more likely to smoke flavored cigarettes than normal ones and anti-tobacco advocates would see this is a continuation of the "Joe Camel" marketing that is at least partly targeted at kids. And eliminating the misleading statements such as "Light" and "tar-free" is just simple advertising regulation, since the "light" versions of cigaretttes generally have just as much or more nicotine and tar as their normal counterparts... it was blatant false advertising.

I just found it odd that cloves were included in the "flavored cigarette" category... yes, they are technically flavored cigarettes, but like I said, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been some huge spike in teen smoking thanks to cloves, which have been around forever and are mostly smoked by hippies who already have bleeding lungs. Camel coming out with "Turkish Mint" cigarettes and whatever else they have done in the past is different though... I remember smoking those in high school just to try them (I smoked Marlboro Reds though mostly since those were the "bad-***" cig of choice in high school ha), but I could certainly see teens (espeically girls) going to the flavored cigs since the normal ones taste like complete ***.

[cranes74us]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

So no more black n milds?


How bout the blunt wraps?

[lasthour]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

The simple way to put it is that kids are more likely to smoke flavored cigarettes than normal ones and anti-tobacco advocates would see this is a continuation of the "Joe Camel" marketing that is at least partly targeted at kids. And eliminating the misleading statements such as "Light" and "tar-free" is just simple advertising regulation, since the "light" versions of cigaretttes generally have just as much or more nicotine and tar as their normal counterparts... it was blatant false advertising.

I just found it odd that cloves were included in the "flavored cigarette" category... yes, they are technically flavored cigarettes, but like I said, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been some huge spike in teen smoking thanks to cloves, which have been around forever and are mostly smoked by hippies who already have bleeding lungs. Camel coming out with "Turkish Mint" cigarettes and whatever else they have done in the past is different though... I remember smoking those in high school just to try them (I smoked Marlboro Reds though mostly since those were the "bad-***" cig of choice in high school ha), but I could certainly see teens (espeically girls) going to the flavored cigs since the normal ones taste like complete ***.

I agree with Stumbleweed, and as an ex-smoker those things should be banned. If it were not for the chemicals that are sprayed on them to get people addicted to them, people would not even smoke cigarettes. Oh, and the same for most canibus.

[Cebby]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

If it were not for the chemicals that are sprayed on them to get people addicted to them, people would not even smoke cigarettes. Oh, and the same for most canibus.

Not only can you not be physically addicted to weed, but spraying or adding addictive drugs to weed seems incredibly counterproductive and doesn't occur (at least by drug dealers).

[texans]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

So no more black n milds?


How bout the blunt wraps?

Not yet, but soon on both, unless something changes.

I agree with Stumbleweed, and as an ex-smoker those things should be banned. If it were not for the chemicals that are sprayed on them to get people addicted to them, people would not even smoke cigarettes. Oh, and the same for most canibus.

I don't see where Stumbleweed says these should be banned, I think he was just stating the facts. I disagree with you as far as you saying if it weren't for chemicals, ppl wouldn't smoke. I don't smoke as much as I used to (maybe a pack a week?), but a cigarette and a beer have always gone hand in hand for me, as well as a good relaxing smoke after some great sex.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

Well I agree that the flavored ones should be banned on the basis that they are inherently more appealing to kids and new smokers than normal cigarettes are. I guess I don't see cloves and menthols being marketed in the same way (as tasting like something... cloves are just cloves and smoked by such a small percentage of smokers overall and menthol is "menthol" not "tastes like mint"), so I would've left those out of the ban. But yeah, for consistency's sake and for the sake of clear and enforcable legislation, it was probably easier and made sense for them to include cloves.

I am less in favor of banning the flavored cigarettes than I am in curbing the false advertising that has plagued cigarettes for years in "Light" and "low-tar", both of which are deceptions at best and dangerous outright lies at worst. I'm also in favor of limiting the amount of nicotine and tar that they can have, as it's been proven plenty of times that cigarette companies increase levels beyond what occurs naturally in order to create a higher addiction percentage.

[HealyMonster]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

Not only can you not be physically addicted to weed, but spraying or adding addictive drugs to weed seems incredibly counterproductive and doesn't occur (at least by drug dealers).

yeah, I dont know where he was going with that one but im with you.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

Keep the politics out of this, please.

[p_rushing]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

This is stupid. There are already laws in place to keep kids from buying them. I'm not a smoker, can't stand smoke, and don't want to be around people who smoke, but why ban them. If you are going to ban these, why stop there. Why not ban all flavored alcoholic drinks? Start enforcing the laws that are already in place and actually do something to the people who break them.

For the people that don't care or are too stupid to know it affects your health, sorry but you are making the choice. Same with people who eat whatever they want and get fat. Its survival of the fittest, we don't want to end up like the movie Idiocracy.

[Cusefan]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

Yay another Blackmarket to Exploit!

[Laffer]

Re: Flavored tobacco ban

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html

This article wasn't 100% on topic, but it did make some interesting points.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.
The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else.