"Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act"

Probably thanks the same assholes who don car adornments reading, "Baby On Board!"

Like these idiots are expecting you to rear-end them otherwise.

"Oh, a BABY? OK, I'll suspend my neanderthal driving habits....JUST FOR YOU!"

It pisses me off that some people who have babies seemingly expect that I'm to treat them like they just phased in from some higher plane of existence.

This is just the next logical step.

"IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!"

Oh, yeah?

gawd, bad juju! I was thinking of another Carlin skit (which I couldn't find), but Bill Hicks has an even better take on children:

They are just changing the names and pictures on the boxes to be more plain and boring.

Kids are soooo stupid the can be fooled so easily.
Dumb

Hahahah

Again discrediting the intelligence of the youth only makes things worse.

Seems to me any way to get people to smoke less is good.

That said, I'm wondering if any of the folks who will respond negatively to this decision are the same people who have asserted (on the Phillips thread) that pot is a gateway drug, etc.

What about stupid adults who want to smoke flavored cigarettes? Oh well, I guess the government will now be telling us what flavors we can have.

again.

flavored cigs aren't gone.

labeling them with fruit names are gone.

like djaram cherry's are now called djaram reds

This can't be right!!! I was told that the DEATH PANELS would be using cock flavored cigarettes to kill off the wingnuts.

"flavored cigs aren't gone.
labeling them with fruit names are gone."

The article calls it a "ban on manufacturing, importing, marketing and distribution includes candy-, fruit- and clove-flavored cigarettes." Is the article wrong?

man, i'm gonna miss the turd flavored ass smoke.

joe, i just think the article has it slightly wrong.

i know cause i have lots of friends who smoke "cloves"

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but this is just bullshit. It's in effect an expansion of the failed "war on drugs". If people want to smoke cigarettes, flavored or not, that is their own business.

Furthermore, I really don't believe that the availability of flavored cigarettes has anything to do with kids starting smoking, nor do I think this law will do anything to assuage them.

"The ban does not include menthol ..."

Does the Messiah smoke Kools or Salem?

Par for the course.

If they cared about actually stopping kids from smoking, they'd make the penalty for being caught selling or possessing to/by a minor so unbelievably high that it would actually deter people from that behavior, and they'd step up enforcement.

Instead, we get a worthless power grab that will do nothing to prevent youth smoking.

Just when I thought about starting smoking because I hear you get so many benefits from quitting smoking...

I was hoping for Whiskey-flavored.....

-----

It isn't like smoking kills you right away.

Corporate government = we know what is good for you.

"Furthermore, I really don't believe that the availability of flavored cigarettes has anything to do with kids starting smoking, nor do I think this law will do anything to assuage them."

Cool. Now you'll assert that smoking and drinking in advertising and media have no effect on kids' smoking. Genius.

Rumor has it they were comming out with marijuana flavored ciggys. The parents wouldn't be able to tell if it was the good stuff or the bad stuff on their kids breath.

Children are BULLSHIT (and so are their parents!)

#1 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-09-24 05:33 AM | Reply | Flag: STERILE

"Now you'll assert that smoking and drinking in advertising and media have no effect on kids' smoking."

Are you capable of posting without using strawmen?

Not according to you, Joe. But I'm not sure you know what a strawman is. Borderline here, but the other day, I wasn't doing strawman--you were missing the point I was making. You might have validly accused me of not being clear, but strawman? Oh, well.

So let me rephrase: Do you have logic behind your assertion that the flavoring of cigarettes has no effect on kids starting smoking? The article, I thought, reference studies, and if I'm remembering right, that means they at least were attempting to work with data. If you're just saying, "I don't believe," then where are you getting that belief?

Better? (The extension was not, in fact, trying to knock you down by assigning to you a position you don't hold. It was an assumption, poorly worded and perhaps poorly based. And it was based on how you wrote your post and the assertion/belief you offered.)

But hell, I don't care. I like watching the steam come out your ears.

Oh, but wait--it wasn't even Joe who said it! Make it even more fun.

So Upconversion, what do you think? Was I straw-manning you? Do you have thoughts on my rephrasing?

I don't smoke anymore, but BULLSHIT! I used to keep a cigarette in my Cinnamon Altoid tin before smoking it to have a Cinnamon flavored smoke. I love how once again the adult loses their rights because someone is afraid a kid MIGHT do something.

If you expect the village to raise your kids, do the world a favor and abort!

Yes Pragmatist, you were.

I did not intend to suggest that there were not certain things that could make smoking appealing to kids. Nor did I mean to suggest that tobacco companies have not at times attempted to make smoking appealing to kids, and I've usually been okay with the steps taken to try to prevent them from doing this.

I just think that flavor has virtually nothing to do with kids starting smoking. They mostly start because they want to fit in or be 'cool'.

I'm also generally not okay with the outright prohibition of recreational drugs.

I am sorry but it really is starting to seem like people are having kids just to force their way on everyone else. Guess what: I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR KIDS IN THE SLIGHTEST!

Regarding the numbers from the article:

"17-year-old smokers are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes as smokers over the age of 25."

This does not imply that the younger smokers started smoking because the cigarettes were flavored.

Even if it did, this new prohibition would still leave adults who like flavored cigarettes SOL.

This is not like banning an ad campaign. They are banning the product itself.

Drinking is viewed as a fun thing to do, which might make it attractive to young teenagers. Should we ban alcohol?

What about CLove smokers? Cloves are specified, but are legal and have been for decades. I used to smoke them once in a while.

Ooohrah,
Yes they do:

For OohRah

We can't just ban things because children MAY use something. Children without licenses MAY borrow their parent's car without permission and go for a joyride. Should we ban cars? What about children drinking alcohol or watching porn? OIf they are influenced by music lyrics should we ban music? The libtard mind continues to amaze me.

The libtard mind continues to amaze me.

Not just the "libtards" or it would never gain traction. What this issue does is combine the power of the Bleeding Heart "What about the children" Libs with the Fundamentalist Conservatives and that is a powerful and evil force.

I don't consider those who like controlling people liberals. They are more like neocons really.

Some Liberals do control people. They go about it differently, but do not fool yourself into thinking that they don't.

Dear Leader smokes Newport Lights, same as me, so thank God the menthols are still on-shelf. I'm expecting a home-rule deal will eventually be cut where only stores in Washington D.C. can sell menthols. Damn.... I can't envision having to smoke white folk cigarettes. May have to quit.

Nappyheadedho is one funny motherfucker.

And Upconversion, we agree on everything in 24 except the "virtually nothing" bit. But that's okay. We don't need to agree.

Sorry you felt I was straw-mannin' ya. It's not what I meant. I did try to rephrase and ask the question I intended with my weak bit that kicked off Joe's ire at me today. Oh, well, can't win 'em all.

I liked the idea of fining kids for smoking. But you know, someone here and lots of people out there would say that's putting a money cost on behavior and choice, it's up to the parents not the gov't, blah blah blah.

How about we just ban _cigarettes_? HA! I know--force all the Big Tobacco companies to become Big Pot companies. They'd fucking clean _up_. And the taxes--ohhhh, man. (Thought not original with this poster.)

Probably thanks the same assholes who don car adornments reading, "Baby On Board!"

It pisses me off that some people who have babies seemingly expect that I'm to treat them like they just phased in from some higher plane of existence.

That's for if you crash your car into a ditch or canal or something.Same type of sign is on big rigs if partners are driving, so emergency personnal will know to look for another victim if necessary.I'm sure you have nothing against truckers Zara.

"Probably thanks the same assholes who don car adornments reading, "Baby On Board!"

It pisses me off that some people who have babies seemingly expect that I'm to treat them like they just phased in from some higher plane of existence."

How do you feel about big ol' Packer emblems that take up the back window??

And I AM on a higher plane of existence with THAT on my van!!!

"I don't consider those who like controlling people liberals. They are more like neocons really."

"FDA Bans Flavored Cigarettes".....

But the FDA still has not "Banned" toxic Mercury Dental Fillings or the Neuro-Toxin Sweetner "EQUAL"!!!! Hmmm...I guess the Tobacco Industry just wasn't paying the FDA a Big Enough BRIBE???

It's terrible so many Sexy Female Smokers will not have flavoured cigarettes to smoke. Rotten FDA.

Larry

Hey, Anti, I"m with you on something! Equal and all sugar substitutes should go the way of the dodo, including high-fructose corn syrup. If ya like sugar, eat it. If ya can't hande it, walk away. : ) (Btw, sugar too is addictive. Maybe I should take that question over to the McK Phillips thread, which has become a marijuana/drugs thread.)