Flavored cigs and clove cigs to be illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thread is misleading. You will still be able to buy any flavor. The bill was an anti-advertising bill making it so the cig companies could not advertise in magazines, websites, etc where people under 18 are the main demographic and the cig companies would not be able to advertise flavor as the main selling point. I think it is needed because I see cig advertising anymore for the flavored stuff that looks more like a starburst ad than a cig ad. I mean be real I think we all know the cig companies still have way to much money, they aren't going to be able to ban anything because in the US we still live by the "golden rule", the man with the gold makes the rules.
 


bprimeelite said:
The thread is misleading. You will still be able to buy any flavor. The bill was an anti-advertising bill making it so the cig companies could not advertise in magazines, websites, etc where people under 18 are the main demographic and the cig companies would not be able to advertise flavor as the main selling point. I think it is needed because I see cig advertising anymore for the flavored stuff that looks more like a starburst ad than a cig ad. I mean be real I think we all know the cig companies still have way to much money, they aren't going to be able to ban anything because in the US we still live by the "golden rule", the man with the gold makes the rules.
Click to expand...
You really believe they were marketing to people under 18? They're really not. And they're banned from advertising on nearly any other medium.
Adults like flavor too
But in addition, let's quote time.com
In addition to banning flavored tobacco, it would stop advertising that targets children, make it harder for underaged youth to buy cigarettes and require stronger warning labels.
Click to expand...
-Sauce

Tobacco companies already do more than enough to discourage people from using their product. I mean, Burger King is bad for you, but they don't have to set aside millions of dollars to tell people to stop eating burgers.
Meanwhile, Tobacco gets to fund a bunch of projects to get people to NOT buy their product(on mediums they can't advertise on in favor of their product). That's more than enough in my book.

Last point in this rant: It gives the FDA the ability to regulate nicotine. Tobacco companies *love* that. If/when they reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, people aren't going to smoke the same and get less nicotine; they're going to smoke more cigarettes for the same nicotine, and buy more.
 
xmcp123 said:
You really believe they were marketing to people under 18? They're really not. And they're banned from advertising on nearly any other medium.
Adults like flavor too
But in addition, let's quote time.com

-Sauce

Tobacco companies already do more than enough to discourage people from using their product. I mean, Burger King is bad for you, but they don't have to set aside millions of dollars to tell people to stop eating burgers.
Meanwhile, Tobacco gets to fund a bunch of projects to get people to NOT buy their product(on mediums they can't advertise on in favor of their product). That's more than enough in my book.

Last point in this rant: It gives the FDA the ability to regulate nicotine. Tobacco companies *love* that. If/when they reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, people aren't going to smoke the same and get less nicotine; they're going to smoke more cigarettes for the same nicotine, and buy more.
Click to expand...

Spot on my friend, for some reason when it comes to cigarettes everyone seems to forget it's a personal choice. I don't smoke anymore, but I used to and I started in 9th grade. I remember my friends and I laughing at all the ridiculous anti-smoking campaigns.

It's shameful what the courts and the government have made the cigarette industry do as far as forcing them to advertise in order to prevent people from using their product.
 
Keep in mind the central state often introduces legislation as a ramp. Once implemented, it's incredibly difficult to dismantle and relatively easy to build upon.

I would be floored if we didn't see a slow erosion of rights in this area over the next decade. By 2020, I suspect we'll look back and say, "Remember the good 'ole days when you could buy cigarettes at most stores."

I don't smoke. Never have and never plan to. But, any unconstitutional erosion in civil liberties is painful to me. It wasn't so long ago that bootleggers were killing people over alcohol. It happens today over drugs. It would be a shame if it happened over nicotine products in the future.
 
Smoking is a filthy, stupid, disgusting, unhealthy habit.

That said, I support your right to kill yourself any way you please. This is stupid. Legalize it all. The government has no right to tell me what the fuck to put in my body as long as I don't hurt anyone else to do it.
 
I'd like to throw something else in the mix here. People always say "Who cares if you want to kill yourself, as long as you don't harm others" (which is debatable with the second and third hand smoke issues which kills about 440k people a year) but what about my tax dollars? Who pays for you after you've spent your life killing yourself? Me. Smokers cost tax payers 10 billion dollars It's estimated that more than 196 BILLION dollars are spent each year on health related costs due to smoking. And that stuff just trickles down to the taxpayers.
 
erect said:
^^ yes this is what hurts



The real pity is that someone with "logic" in his name would give Obama his vote anyways

______________________

It's a stupid law since we have these in all gas stations and the bill won't touch this product.

tasty_puff_poster_small116.jpg


And on a side note ... anyone pushing blucigs yet? I've seen them around but haven't heard any buzz yet

blu-250x250banner.jpg
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that too. What's going to happen to e-cigs that don't actually contain tobacco, technically they just contain the nicotine? I know they're illegal in Hong Kong, but what about here?
 
turbolapp said:
I'd like to throw something else in the mix here. People always say "Who cares if you want to kill yourself, as long as you don't harm others" (which is debatable with the second and third hand smoke issues which kills about 440k people a year) but what about my tax dollars? Who pays for you after you've spent your life killing yourself? Me. Smokers cost tax payers 10 billion dollars It's estimated that more than 196 BILLION dollars are spent each year on health related costs due to smoking. And that stuff just trickles down to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

So the answer is for the government to regulate our lives? What people don't understand about the smoking debate is that it's not so much about smoking as it is about empowering the government. Just look at the shining example of New York City where you can't cook with anything that has trans fat in a restaurant. I mean come on, have we lost our minds here?
 
BeerHat said:
So the answer is for the government to regulate our lives? What people don't understand about the smoking debate is that it's not so much about smoking as it is about empowering the government. Just look at the shining example of New York City where you can't cook with anything that has trans fat in a restaurant. I mean come on, have we lost our minds here?
Click to expand...
The answer is to get rid of public health care. :frenchman:
 
turbolapp said:
I'd like to throw something else in the mix here. People always say "Who cares if you want to kill yourself, as long as you don't harm others" (which is debatable with the second and third hand smoke issues which kills about 440k people a year) but what about my tax dollars? Who pays for you after you've spent your life killing yourself? Me. Smokers cost tax payers 10 billion dollars It's estimated that more than 196 BILLION dollars are spent each year on health related costs due to smoking. And that stuff just trickles down to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...
Propaganda(2nd & 3rd hand smoke).
And fatasses cost more than smokers do. When we start making twinkies have a warning label, the expense thing will be a valid argument. Living life is expensive. No matter what you do.
 
ahh shit... does anybody know for sure if this will effect flavored blunt wraps? they're technically considered cigars, so if this applies to cigars too then that really fucking sucks :(

a lot of strippers I've known have loved flavored blunt wraps... if they're going to ban them I better stock up now...
 
xmcp123 said:
Propaganda(2nd & 3rd hand smoke).
And fatasses cost more than smokers do. When we start making twinkies have a warning label, the expense thing will be a valid argument. Living life is expensive. No matter what you do.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except for the 2nd and 3rd hand smoke thing. It may be propaganda, but it doesn't mean it's not true.
 
turbolapp said:
I'd like to throw something else in the mix here. People always say "Who cares if you want to kill yourself, as long as you don't harm others" (which is debatable with the second and third hand smoke issues which kills about 440k people a year) but what about my tax dollars? Who pays for you after you've spent your life killing yourself? Me. Smokers cost tax payers 10 billion dollars It's estimated that more than 196 BILLION dollars are spent each year on health related costs due to smoking. And that stuff just trickles down to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I'm calling bullshit here

The government actually has a MAJOR surplus here since tobacco is taxed to the hilt. A pack costs me $5 and ~$2.50 of that is for the actual product (depending on the state) ... everything else is state/federal tax money that gets lost in the budget.

source
 
wow what a bunch of bullshit and fear mongering
Click to expand...
Agreed

in signing it, he supports it:
Click to expand...
I'm guessing he signed it because of this:

  • All new tobacco products must be approved for sale by the FDA.
  • Tobacco companies and importers must disclose to the FDA all ingredients of their products.
Just like the UIGEA was signed by bush (a republican), even though he didn't support it. He was signing a bill to make our ports secure, not ban online gambling processing; that was just something added to please certain lobbyists. Which has nothing to do with bipartisanship.

Fact is, both side, Rep and Dem have been eroding our fredom and creating an ever bigger government since Theodore Roosevelt.

The only president that stood for a real change was mysteriously shot by a lone gunman.

The only other presidential candidate that was willing to really change things was Ron Paul... and I'm sure if he won... there would probably be another lone gunman somewhere.

Republican VS Democrat? Those are just small differences that make you feel like you have a decision. I see it is working good, even among people in marketing who should be the first to see this bs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom