The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Ban on Flavored Cigarettes??!!
the megster
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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?
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
0
Posts
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.
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?
There were like two hipsters that smoked cloves, but chocolate cigarettes or whatever? Nah, just Marlboros or Camels.
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.
This is really dumb.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
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!"
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.
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.
You know, theoretically. It's not like anyone in the House or Senate screams horrible and accusatory things at other professionals.
Check the 18th Amendment.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
May as well check the 21st while you're looking at the Constitution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I have to ask: What about marijuana? Are you in favor of the laws that curb its use too?
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?
PSN : Bolthorn