As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Ban on Flavored Cigarettes??!!

the megsterthe megster Registered User regular
edited September 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Okay, wow. So I was perusing the New York Times and I come across this article hailing a new FDA ban on flavored cigarettes (cloves, vanilla, chocolate, etc) and flavored small cigars. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html?_r=1&hp

Now the new "gateway drug" is flavored cigarettes. This was news to me. First off, I wonder about the constitutionality of banning something just because people like it. Especially because it's not as if children are the only ones who like smoking flavored cigarettes. I am not a smoker myself, but this seems so arbitrary. If the problem is teenage smoking, then the problem really is that people 18+ are breaking the law by buying or giving underage smokers cigarettes, or store cashiers are not checking licenses appropriately. I don't think cigarette companies should be punished because they have a good product that people seem to want.

Or, if we are going to start banning tasty things because they lead to problems down the road, we should also ban Mike's Hard Lemonade and all those other tasty "girlie" drinks because clearly teenagers like tasty things, and that leads to hard drinking??? Or we could ban fast-food because clearly it is unhealthy and later on leads to obesity???

Yes? No?

the megster on
«134

Posts

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Can't say I'm a fan of this. I really don't see the connection between flavored cigarettes and minors being influenced by it. And if there is I'd rather the government at least be consistent and ban sweet flavored prepackaged alcoholic drinks.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I dislike this policy.

    Grab your balls and ban cigarettes, or fucking don't. Flavored cigarettes don't get kids hooked. Cigarettes get kids hooked.

    I especially love that they're ignoring a clearly definable technical difference between cigarettes and "small cigars" (the material used in the wrapper) and instead just claiming it applies to both. Yay sloppy legislation!
    Can't say I'm a fan of this. I really don't see the connection between flavored cigarettes and minors being influenced by it. And if there is I'd rather the government at least be consistent and ban sweet flavored prepackaged alcoholic drinks.

    I do know that sweet alcoholic drinks (Hornsby's, Mike's, etc.) are (in my experience) more popular among underage drinkers, just like flavored smokes (supposedly) are.

    EDIT: Though of course I shouldn't assume my experience applies universally. But I'd be unsurprised if an actual study showed this to be the case, for much the same reason.

    EDIT: And apparently not "legislation." Just "policy." Still just as sloppy, though.

    mcdermott on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I'd guess that flavored cigarettes are primarily enjoyed by youths. Smoking is the largest cause of preventable death in the US. Gotta do something, and I'm not exactly weeping over the ban on some tobacco products. And it is just sale, not possession. There's nothing stopping you (presumably) from importing them from Canada or adding your own flavors to tobacco. Head shops sell little dropper bottles that kids use to make their cheap weed not taste as shitty.

    TL DR on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Oh I agree they're probably the most popular, but I don't really think not having them would prevent minors from using them. They just make it easier. Mixing coke and whiskey isn't exactly above most teenager's abilities.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I'd guess that flavored cigarettes are primarily enjoyed by youths. Smoking is the largest cause of preventable death in the US. Gotta do something, and I'm not exactly weeping over the ban on some tobacco products. And it is just sale, not possession. There's nothing stopping you (presumably) from importing them from Canada or adding your own flavors to tobacco. Head shops sell little dropper bottles that kids use to make their cheap weed not taste as shitty.

    And now you've shown why this ban will be largely ineffective, and will succeed primarily in preventing adults from buying the tobacco products they prefer. Super.

    mcdermott on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh I agree they're probably the most popular, but I don't really think not having them would prevent minors from using them. They just make it easier. Mixing coke and whiskey isn't exactly above most teenager's abilities.

    Sure. I think the main issue here is the question of whether associating cigarettes with fruit flavors leads to an increase in smoking by youths, perhaps because it makes the product more closely associated with candy in their minds.

    TL DR on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh I agree they're probably the most popular, but I don't really think not having them would prevent minors from using them. They just make it easier. Mixing coke and whiskey isn't exactly above most teenager's abilities.

    Sure. I think the main issue here is the question of whether associating cigarettes with fruit flavors leads to an increase in smoking by youths, perhaps because it makes the product more closely associated with candy in their minds.

    Is there anything showing it does? I tried to smoke a cigarette when I was a kid just because my mom did and it looked neat. Candy didn't really enter the equation.

    Quid on
  • the megsterthe megster Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I guess I am most concerned about the arbitrary nature of it. The same logic for banning flavored cigarettes can be applied to a lot of different products. So if we're setting a precedent, we could continue down that road. Not that I see anyone trying to regulate alcohol in this same way.

    Also, the National Center for Health Statistics says the leading cause of death in the U.S. is heart disease, which I think can be more directly linked to obesity and obesity-related complications. So why not ban fast food? Or is that just coming next?

    the megster on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    It's worth noting that not one single person smoked dumbass flavored crap in my high school.

    There were like two hipsters that smoked cloves, but chocolate cigarettes or whatever? Nah, just Marlboros or Camels.

    Salvation122 on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I think I do recall Djarums being popular in a group I hung out with for about six months in junior year of high school. Maybe this is more prevalent among black kids?

    TL DR on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I agree with the "either ban all cigarettes or leave all cigs alone" notion. Flavored/sweetened alcoholic drinks exist so if you allow one vice but ban another, that seems unfair.

    Now candy cigarettes, on the other hand, ban those fuckers. Candy shaped like cigarettes or cigars and come in packaging that resembles real brands? No. No adult is going to bother with that.

    emnmnme on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited September 2009
    Seems kinda silly.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    It's worth noting that not one single person smoked dumbass flavored crap in my high school.

    There were like two hipsters that smoked cloves, but chocolate cigarettes or whatever? Nah, just Marlboros or Camels.
    Yeah, basically this. If you want to look cool/scene, you smoke cloves. Otherwise you're going right for the same brands as adults.

    This is really dumb.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Wikipedia says that the black people in congress inserted a provision so that menthol was not included in the ban. I don't know if that's a joke or what.

    But why isn't menthol included? It's far and away the most popular flavor added to cigarettes. It just makes this entire ban more arbitrary and stupid.

    deadonthestreet on
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Flavored cigarettes and cloves are gross so I don't really care, but will this affect flavored blunt-wraps? This is important.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Wikipedia says that the black people in congress inserted a provision so that menthol was not included in the ban. I don't know if that's a joke or what.

    But why isn't menthol included? It's far and away the most popular flavor added to cigarettes. It just makes this entire ban more arbitrary and stupid.

    Arbitrary and stupid and calculated to make politicians shine. "Look, foolish voters, I am saving your children from BIG TOBACCO!"

    emnmnme on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Flavored cigarettes and cloves are gross so I don't really care, but will this affect flavored blunt-wraps? This is important.

    No it won't. Cigars aren't covered, and who even knows if those Royal Blunt things are even tobacco-based at all.

    TL DR on
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Flavored cigarettes and cloves are gross so I don't really care, but will this affect flavored blunt-wraps? This is important.

    No it won't. Cigars aren't covered, and who even knows if those Royal Blunt things are even tobacco-based at all.

    *phew* It's bad enough that weed is still illegal, but if I can't stroll down to the bodega and buy a grape dutch for 75 cents I'm going to be seriously angry.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • deowolfdeowolf is allowed to do that. Traffic.Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    As a smoker, I'm oddly okay with this as I believe what I smoke to be inherently superior to silly orange-flavored shit.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I dislike candy type cigarettes and alcoholic beverages given the draw teens will have to them, but I don't think this legislation is the right way to go about it.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Aside from menthols (which I guess this doesn't cover?) I don't know anyone who smoked flavored cigarettes.

    Out of all the smokers I knew in highschool no one smoked flavored cigarettes. I knew of two people who smoked the cherry mini cigars but it was a once every couple of weeks thing and they both smoked plain old cigarettes the rest of the time. I did meet someone who smoked cloves. A friends girlfriend made my room reek of cloves for about a month. Of course she was 19 so I'm not sure if it counts. :P

    I know, olol antecdotal evidence, but if flavored cigarettes are such a hook for teen smokers you'd think out of a sample size of a couple of hundred people there'd have been at least one person who actually, you know, smoked them.

    HappylilElf on
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    What I really hate is that being against this would let everyone point and scream "SO YOU WANT KIDS TO SMOKE1?!?!?!1?1"

    You know, theoretically. It's not like anyone in the House or Senate screams horrible and accusatory things at other professionals.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • FubearFubear Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    First off, I wonder about the constitutionality of banning something just because people like it.


    Check the 18th Amendment.

    Fubear on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Yeah this doesn't seem like it would be a particularly effective ban. At this point I think the best measures against youth smoking have largely been efforts to reduce the public nature of it.

    electricitylikesme on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    From the last thread on the matter:
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, the lack of flavored cigarettes kind of sucks, but whatever. I'm not going to cry about it.

    If I really want a flavored cigarette, I can roll my own.
    Proto wrote: »
    HyphyKezzy wrote: »
    I'm still trying to figure out if flavorings include menthol. I've checked a few articles, but their examples are all stuff like vanilla, and strawberry. It wouldn't surprise me, as apparently there is no longer lights, ultralights, etc., but I have yet to see menthol mentioned specifically. I'm also curious about flavored chewing tobacco, as everything I've seen so far only mentions cigarettes. Oh, and cigars. Is there no more grape blunts? Also isn't flavored pipe tobacco fairly common? I'm very curious to see how all the details work out.

    Flavored tobacco is proof positive that satan exists and works for the tobacco industry. That shit is designed to appeal directly to kids. Sickening.

    I don't think products like Black & Mild or Djarum are deliberately marketed towards kids.

    One of the things I found during the last thread was that the youth cigarette market is nearly three times as elastic as the adult cigarette market. In other words, when the price of cigarettes goes up, youths are more likely to stop smoking than adults - likely due to less disposable income.

    The logical conclusion is that if you really want to target youth smoking, raise tobacco taxes.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    this law sucks cock

    Dsmart on
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Bans have probably had an effect on college kids but I don't see them affecting highschool and younger people at all. Largely the bans have been for resturants/bars and underage smokers just do what legal smokers do: go outside (or possibly their car because omg they're doing something naughty and what if they get caught!?)

    I'd say the widespread education on all the info about how bad for you smoking is has been by far the most effective measure.

    HappylilElf on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Fubear wrote: »
    First off, I wonder about the constitutionality of banning something just because people like it.

    Check the 18th Amendment.

    Bolded for extreme relevance.

    Obviously if they amended the Constitution, it was Constitutional. That in no way suggests that a legislative version of that ban would have been.

    Though I'm not about to tackle the Constitutionality of this ban...though I'm finding the idea that the actual harmful substance (tobacco) remains unbanned fairly absurd. At least with marijuana they've actually banned weed, not...I dunno, bongs or something.

    Also, the fact that this doesn't apply to menthol makes it even more absurd. I guess we're cool with underage black kids smoking, m i rite?

    mcdermott on
  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    A friend once got cherry flavored tobacco that we smoked out of a hookah. Let me tell you from experience that the flavor is only extremely minor, and it still tasted like tobacco. So the reason they're giving for this ban is a load of horseshit.

    Dalboz on
  • CleonicusCleonicus Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Fubear wrote: »
    First off, I wonder about the constitutionality of banning something just because people like it.


    Check the 18th Amendment.

    May as well check the 21st while you're looking at the Constitution.

    Cleonicus on
    Debate 'n' DeHockey team: Astronauts
  • the megsterthe megster Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Except that this isn't a Constitutional Amendment. It's a government agency (the FDA) arbitrarily banning flavored cigarettes because they view it as a health risk. The two folks who mentioned the 18th and 21st Amendments are right to point them out, but apparently we don't even need the legislature anymore to ban a substance; a government agency under the executive can now do the same thing. From everything I've read, this was done behind closed doors at the FDA - it never came to a vote in the legislature, because they voted before to give the FDA the ability to regulate cigarettes.

    The New York times article that I mentioned earlier said this:

    "Under the new law, the agency has broad authority to regulate the marketing and manufacture of tobacco products but cannot ban regular cigarettes, cigars or chewing tobacco. By January, manufacturers must submit information to the agency about ingredients and additives, and by July the industry will be barred from using terms like “light,” “low” and “mild” on products."

    The legislature never took a direct vote on any regulation, they just decided that it should be someone else's job (in the executive branch). That makes me question the constitutionality of this.

    the megster on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Except that this isn't a Constitutional Amendment. It's a government agency (the FDA) arbitrarily banning flavored cigarettes because they view it as a health risk. The two folks who mentioned the 18th and 21st Amendments are right to point them out, but apparently we don't even need the legislature anymore to ban a substance; a government agency under the executive can now do the same thing. From everything I've read, this was done behind closed doors at the FDA - it never came to a vote in the legislature, because they voted before to give the FDA the ability to regulate cigarettes.

    The New York times article that I mentioned earlier said this:

    "Under the new law, the agency has broad authority to regulate the marketing and manufacture of tobacco products but cannot ban regular cigarettes, cigars or chewing tobacco. By January, manufacturers must submit information to the agency about ingredients and additives, and by July the industry will be barred from using terms like “light,” “low” and “mild” on products."

    The legislature never took a direct vote on any regulation, they just decided that it should be someone else's job (in the executive branch). That makes me question the constitutionality of this.

    It's just as legal as when the FDA bans anything else they see as a health risk, for instance, formaldehyde as a preservative. If Congress doesn't like it, they can override it with legislation.

    Daedalus on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I'm opposed to bans like this on principle.

    But even in practice, as has been mentioned, the fact that menthol is excluded is proof positive that this is political posturing bullshit and not meant to "solve" anything.

    enc0re on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Let me explain how I feel on this- Someone said it earlier in the thread.

    I am not a "smoker" in the same way that I am not an "alcoholic".

    That is not to say I do not enjoy both cigarettes (and other inhaled tobacco products) and alcoholic beverages (especially good beer. Like...beer that costs as much as a bottle of wine good beer.)

    I do not smoke regularly, but that is more due to not wanting to be addicted to nicotine.

    However, if I am partying or hanging out with some people, drinking expensive beer, I want to smoke a cigarette that smells really good, and not like a bar (unless I am IN a bar). The tobacco I go for? Clove Cigarettes. Why? Because I like the smell of cloves, and if I am going to have smelly cigarette fingers, I would prefer them to smell better than stale cigarettes make them.

    The counter to this is my brothers. One is 19, the other is 15. Both smoke like chimneys (one buys for the other, I do not like this). How did they get started? NOT on clove cigarettes. Will this ban affect my brother, who is an underaged smoker? No. Will it affect me, a 22-year old, legal smoker who is ALSO NOT addicted to tobacco products, and uses them as a luxury item on occasion? Yes.

    So I guess mission accomplished if you want to curb smoking as I probably won't smoke as often if I can't buy Djarums, but way to miss your target demographic.

    Arch on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm opposed to bans like this on principle.

    But even in practice, as has been mentioned, the fact that menthol is excluded is proof positive that this is political posturing bullshit and not meant to "solve" anything.

    This is the issue. The bias is so transparent.

    There's the larger issue of attempting to control an addictive substance. I, for one, usually laud steps taken to fight against smoking. I'm a smoker, and I have been since I was 16. The core issue remains that smoking is a dangerous activity that is legal, and you either allow it or you don't. None of this pick-and-choose bullshit. If they want to keep cigarettes out of the hands of kids, make them illegal. Otherwise address the issue with the kids and not by making arbitrary pronouncements on what kind of tasty smoky death we can purchase.

    I mean, I smoked for three years while I was underage, and through having older friends and clerks who don't check ID I was fine. If kids wants to smoke, you're not going to stop them. Hell, I once gave my ID to a cashier when I was 17. He looked at it for awhile and then sold me a pack of smokes.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I find it very hard to be offended by this legislation. Actually, that's not true; I'm somewhat annoyed that menthol was purposely excluded. Then again, I'm not a smoker, and I've generally been in favor of laws that curb tobacco use.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I find it very hard to be offended by this legislation. Actually, that's not true; I'm somewhat annoyed that menthol was purposely excluded. Then again, I'm not a smoker, and I've generally been in favor of laws that curb tobacco use.

    See here is the thing- Tobacco use, as a luxury good is one thing. Rampant nicotine addiction (especially among minors) is another thing entirely.

    This law only really affects the first of those two things.

    So unless you are opposed to tobacco usage by ANYONE EVER than you should be offended by this, as it is extremely misguided.

    And if you are opposed to luxury tobacco use, I have to ask, why?

    Arch on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I find it very hard to be offended by this legislation. Actually, that's not true; I'm somewhat annoyed that menthol was purposely excluded. Then again, I'm not a smoker, and I've generally been in favor of laws that curb tobacco use.

    I have to ask: What about marijuana? Are you in favor of the laws that curb its use too?

    enc0re on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    It is backhanded protectionism passed with the help of Big Tobacco in the US with the approval of Congress because they can spin it as being tough on tobacco. Flavored cigarette use has been increasing, but I haven't seen any evidence that it is acting to increase teen smoking as a whole, but rather it is supplanting normal cigarette use. And the majority of flavored cigarettes are made abroad. So of course Phillip Morris can't have that.

    Saammiel on
  • BolthornBolthorn Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    As a former regular smoker and a former occasional smoker of cloves. This is a bunch of BS. I started smoking when I was under the legal limit to purchase tobacco products. I didn't start on flavored products either. I didn't discover those until I was of legal age to purchase them, or darn close to it. I can't fully recall.
    I definitely agree that if they're going to ban flavored cigarettes they need to ban menthol and other forms of flavored tobacco like snuff. Also, yeah go after the sugary alcoholic drinks as well. If we're you know, actully doing this to protect the children and not to protect the U.S. tobacco industry. It's not the fault of the consumer that PM doesn't make cloves. So why is the consumer being punished?

    Bolthorn on
Sign In or Register to comment.