"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco," he said." as he puffs on his joint.

Nancy again on the cutting edge of things. "the power to approve new products, tighten restrictions on advertising, impose penalties for marketing to children." Nancy, these has been in effect for 40 years.

HOW ABOUT THESE ASSHOLES VOTING FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THIS PRESIDENT?????????

Yet all the while, how many in Congress are getting soft money from tobacco companies? This is yet again more political posturing.

Ban lobbyists if you want some progress; then maybe we'll get rid of some of these malignant blobs in Congress.

great. just what we need. an expansion of the fascist war on drugs.

"an expansion of the fascist war on drugs"

Okay, I'll bite. Please explain how voting to treat cigarettes as drug drug and regulated by the FDA is somehow an expansion of the "fascist war on drugs."

If the purchase, possession, and use of cigarettes was made illegal, personally I would be quite pleased, ex-smoker that I am. Eliminate temptation to start smoking those damned things again. Apart from some nebulous cool factor, there is nothing to be gained from smoking, there are no benefits. And the list of negatives can go on for pages, not just harm to one's self, but damage to property from smoking.

Smoking is an extremely harmful drug addiction. Why it remains on the market as a legal substance is a source of continual amazement to me.

Much as I am counter government imposed nannyism, in this, I am willing to make the exception and have cigarettes .

stock up. it'll be the next hot bootleg item!

Zot, the premise is that this is a "free" country, and therefore, it's up to individual choice what we put into our bodies. 'Cept, it ain't really free, not when you consider the collusion between corporations and goverment. The idea that the government has our best interests in its hearts is a manufactured illusion.

Celery,

What laws has Bush broken?

While they're at it, could we get them to define war profiteering as a drug?

God knows we need that regulated. And God knows this administration is addicted to it.

And another personal decision / freedom goes by the way side as the Mother government continues to encroach on personal decisions. Funny...the same people that want tobacco treated as a drug...are the same ones that want Pot to NOT be treated as a drug.

Kills SUVs, Kill fast food in poor areas, kill smoking...and kill unborn babies...but save mass murders.

Huh?

"The premise is that this is a "free" country, and therefore, it's up to individual choice what we put into our bodies. "

Posted by evashogouki

No argument with you on this. Those damn cigarettes though... They're evil, EEEEVIIIIL I tell y'a!!

And the thrice damned cigarette manufacturers know it. They get the teens and lock them into a lifelong addiction that has zero benefits, and in most cases will cause major health problems as one ages. Some of it can be quite horrible.

You make the statement that "it's up to individual choice what we put into our bodies." Okay. But 90% plus of smokers started before they were 18 (as did I). The incidence of adults taking up smoking is incredibly small. Sure the laws are in place that disallow the sale of tobacco products to minors. Certainly has not stopped minors from getting hold of smokes and starting their lifelong drug addiction. More or less 25% of adults in the US today are smokers. That's a significant portion of the population with a potentially debilitating drug addiction, which incidentally costs taxpayers and health insurers billions each year in smoking related illnesses, mostly diseases of the lungs.

So to get back to your statement about individual choice. Teens are "making" the choice to take on a more-than-likely lifelong drug addiction that has a high probability of causing major health problems as they age.

And where is the logic in the decision of a society to continue to peddle a product that is proven to be highly addictive and dangerous? Bottom line: it's all making money. Period. Not logical. Not rational. But it sure is profitable.

Zot, that statement was somewhat sarcastic. I was comparing the notion that we are free to do as we will with our bodies, but really aren't, insofar that this highly addictive drug remains legal.

Stealing from our own beloved Jimmy Dean:

FACT!

Nicotine affects the same area of the brain as opiates. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs in the planet. It also induces crave much, much sooner than heroin, so the user needs a fix almost instantly after the previous one.

Yep, love those lobbyists.

I smoked with both hands, chewed Copenhagen, weighed 125# (male, 5'9"). Wife got me off that vicious shit 25 years ago when she told me that she thought I was croaking.

I'm pushing 75 real hard and waiting to see my GP about an x-ray that suggests lung cancer. (My urologist picked up on it from a routine chest x-ray). No argument or whining from me after abusing myself that way.

Override the little man's veto ! !

I am a 65 year old SMOKER... I ENJOY them Immensely !!

I am a Widow of FOUR years... What else have I got to do ??

I'll Quit smoking WHEN "DC" gives up their 4 Martini Lunches !!!!

Kathy, you probably enjoy them 'cause, they are a drug and you are getting your fix.

Sorry about your hubby.

65 isn't that old, quit smoking and go for a friggin' walk and add some years to your life.

"are the same ones that want Pot to NOT be treated as a drug."

The reason for that is the one I posted way back on that thread that went "Pot cures cancer!" when all the studies the article was based on proved was that pot itself isn't a carcinogen (unless inhaled!), and out of a study of 50 patients given THC, two improved. Two. That's as much a realistic claim of pot helping them as my counterclaim that it accelerated the tumor growth of 6 other people. Not realistic at all; but not a single pothead in the entire thread could get that through their skulls. They are willing to scrutinize and pick apart anything else.... except when it comes to their vices. That's an intellectual malaise bordering on mental illness, frankly. Think of the old scientist in Ender's Shadow: he knew cigarettes would kill him, and was intimately familiar with how it will happen, but doesn;t care. That I can respect. That's full intellectual honesty.

...because cigarettes aren't THEIR vice, it must be EVIL. Shortsighted people ignore anything negative about their own personal vice, and blow anything positive about it way out of proportion. I've seriously had people tell me "You drive better when you're high!" and showed me an article in High Times "proving" that. That's like a Christian showing me a Bible as proof of Jesus.

Inherently shortsighted and arrogant people see their vices as perfectly okay, but the vices of others as the work of Satan Himself, Republicans, or whatever their personal demon is. Just like they can't understand a study proving nothing MEANS nothing, they can't understand that if they should be allowed their vice, then others should be allowed their vices.

I need the gov'ment to come along and tell me how to run my life because it's scary out there and I might get a boo-boo.

And just look at how well they have run everything they have tried. I am ready to turn my life over to the new religion of fake democracy.

Nanny state, may I shit now? Thank You.

Soheifox, the problem with cigarettes is that they aren't just "your" vice; the financial impact of smoking on the nation is staggering. Healthcare and insurance costs are substantially impacted by smoking, and thus we all pay for it.

So Barney Frank co sponsors this bill...then turns around to legalize having a joint or two?

"326 to 102 vote, as 96 Republicans "
I have never smoked a cig or a joint . These nanny state bums need to be turned out.
When they get done telling you what to smoke they will start telling you what to eat and drink.
Get gov out of our private lives.

Soheifox, the problem with cigarettes is that they aren't just "your" vice; the financial impact of smoking on the nation is staggering. Healthcare and insurance costs are substantially impacted by smoking, and thus we all pay for it.

Posted by evashogouki at 2008-07-31 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pfft. I'm an equal opportunity jerk. I don't like smokes either. They're a drug and a burden on society also. Hell, I personally like alcohol, but I freely admit what it is. An intoxicating substance that has to be carefully used; and it's use should also be more regulated then it is. I fail to understand why bars have parking lots.

Well, you have to drive to a bar..Lol. Some southern states have drive-through liquor stores!

I just hate smoking, I guess, 'cause my parents did it until about 20 years ago, and my grandparents died pretty young and they were chain smokers.

I always joke that I could have been 6' 3" had my parents not smoked. Lol.

Eva...doesn't that line of thinking grow exponentially?
Do you advocate telling people what to eat? How about alcohol?
Jogging should be controlled. After all...we are footing the bill for replacing all those knees and hips.
Watching tv and being on comp is dangerous also...inactivity. Maybe the state and feds should MAKE people exercise so many minutes a day....after all...we all pay for it.
I hear soda isn't good either...sugar and artificial colors abound.
We need to outlaw cars.

I do not smoke but am tired of the fucking government telling everyone what to do, we all need to stand up to this shit or what we enjoy will be next.

Soheifox

Marijuana is not addictive.

Kerrin, that's somewhat of a strawman there.

First, re-read what I wrote about the wickedly addictive nature of Nicotine, then get back to me.

And if people ran ("jog" is so 80s) more, and ate better, we wouldn't be in this massive health/obesity crisis we are now mired in. Running correctly is not at all damaging, studies actually show the opposite (whole 'nother thread).

I for one am very grateful that there are laws that protect me from second-hand smoke in public places. You have the right to do self-harm, but not the right to harm me or anyone else.

Tobacco is no different than any other drug (except that nicotine is actually more addictive than most), but it has a powerful lobby that heroin doesn't. Funny, isn't it?

Keeping marijuana illegal wastes billions in enforcement and ruined lives. There is no reason for it to be illegal. None.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-31 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everything burned and inhaled causes cancer. Everything. Period. From car exhaust to firecrackers to to a burnt steak to marijuana. You just get it slower because you smoke less volume. You light something on fire and inhale it, you're giving yourself cancer. Unless you burn something in such a way that all hydrocarbons can be reduced to carbon dioxide and water, you are inhaling carcinogens.

And pot is actually psychologically addictive, no more or less then any other activity such as gambling. Not to mention it has the same inebriating effects as alcohol when working with machinery or driving. Nobody should be on the road after doing either.

Now, marijuana isn't as addictive as say.. smokes.. but it's as addictive as anything else that produces pleasure. You can control it easier then, say, cocaine or alcohol, but to say it's completely nonaddictive is to deny all of reality.

You're engaging in an intoxicating substance; you can be addicted.

You're burning an organic substance and then inhaling it; you are causing yourself cancer.

Plus, keeping pot illegal is actually the smartest thing this society has EVER done. There will always be teenagers and immature adults who feel the need to rebel against society. They aren't smoking pot because of pot itself; they are doing it because it pisses off the squares. If pot were legal, the same people would be doing something worse instead. In Kalispell, where possession of small amounts of pot is decriminalized.... meth started to become the drug of choice amongst teenagers, and pot isn't the big thing anymore.. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Oh wait, I didn't notice who I was talking to. If I had, I wouldn't have wasted time typing a thoughtful post and looking up facts to bolster my statements. (I forgot what a perfectly burned substance would render down into, and had to look it up)

Bob doesn't let facts that go against his personal theology ever impact his brain in any way. If the Establishment(tm) believes in it, they must be completely WRONG in EVERY WAY and be HOLDING SOCIETY BACK FROM ENLIGHTENMENT!

And the hilarity is, when I said the tihng about immature adults who don;t smoke pot for what it is, but what it represents, I was even thinking OF Bob. Silly me, should pay attention to who I respond to. Bob, if pot were legal you'd be a methhead, and swearing up and down about how it puts you in touch with your true self, and removes the annoyances of the body's needs.

Everything burned and inhaled causes cancer.

Posted by soheifox at 2008-07-31 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag

Link?

Bob doesn't let facts that go against his personal theology ever impact his brain in any way.

Posted by soheifox at 2008-07-31 01:15 PM

I posted links to my facts. Where are your links? It seems you are the one making your own "facts".

;-)

I posted links to my facts. Where are your links? It seems you are the one making your own "facts".

;-)

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-31 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bob, we've already extensively proven over and over in past threads that links to facts don't penetrate your skull anyway.

Why bother? You're too insane to digest them properly anyway. I'd be just as insane as you are, to try the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Plus.. if you need links to tell you that psychological addiction exists with ALL vices... you're even crazier then I've been giving you credit for. Bravo.

Soheifox

No links? Then STFU. Simple isn't it. Your lies aren't facts no matter how much you wish they were.

;-)

No links? Then STFU. Simple isn't it. Your lies aren't facts no matter how much you wish they were.

;-)

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-31 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Bob, first I want a link to you ever, even once, on this site, reading a link someone sent you and it penetrating your skull, displacing some crazy idea with reality. Until you do that, stop asking for proof. Because I can offer proof in seconds that you never let facts get in the way of your theology.

All one has to do is click on your name. Doesn't it occur to you that the reason almost everyone here is calling you a crazy might have something to do with the fact that.... you are? You know, despite what the aliens tell you, sometimes the herd is walking in the right direction.

"They aren't smoking pot because of pot itself; they are doing it because it pisses off the squares"

Uh, they are smoking pot because it is fun and relaxing. Have you ever done drugs?

Soheifox

Your personal attacks don't mitigate the fact that you have no links. You lie, and just got your little punk ass handed to you. Take it home and take care of it.

;-)

Your personal attacks don't mitigate the fact that you have no links. You lie, and just got your little punk ass handed to you. Take it home and take care of it.

;-)

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-07-31 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, Bob, the argument was that there's no point in posting links to you, you're incapable of digesting them anyway. You have demonstrated amply in the past that facts cannot penetrate your head. You have demonstrated that you are, factually, insane. I'm not making a personal attack by pointing out what that facts don't sway you from your course, which is one of the definitions of insanity. That's not making a personal attack anymore then saying it's pointless to try to teach calculus to someone with the legal IQ of a moron. Sending you links is like sending a retard to calculus. It never seems to work out anyway, so why bother?

Stay on focus here, Bob. I've refused to give you links to real facts anymore. It's as futile as sending Goatman to calculus *rimshot*. The argument here is still whether or not you have the intellectual capacity to ACCEPT facts. You still have yet to send me a link that proves THAT. Once you've shown you are an adult capable of intelligently processing facts, I will both providing you with them.

...and I shouldn't be surprised that you need a link stating that pleasurable activities tend to be addictive... you really are crazier then I have been giving you credit for. I'll be sure to stop underestimating you in the future.

Hey Goat, can you teach me the way you spell his name? Cause I wanna start using that. The staggered caps hint at his insanity, and the word "boob" really describes his intellectual capacity.

"They aren't smoking pot because of pot itself; they are doing it because it pisses off the squares"

Uh, they are smoking pot because it is fun and relaxing. Have you ever done drugs?

Posted by dibblda at 2008-07-31 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

You didn't read my whole statement. I said there will always be a portion of people who don't smoke pot for pot itself. They really DON'T smoke it because it's relaxing and fun. Those personality types only smoke it because it is rebellion. When mommy and daddy approve of pot, those people will go "Fuck you Dad, you idiot stoner!" and go snag some meth or coke.

The substance involved is actually immaterial. For good sheltered Mormon kids that substance is... I dunno, caffeine? It's what it MEANS that gives their reasons; not what the substance DOES.

Basically, I'm referring to this sort of thing:

Actually, Bob, the argument was that there's no point in posting links to you, you're incapable of digesting them anyway.

Posted by soheifox at 2008-07-31 02:35 PM | Reply

That was never the point--it was only your way of avoiding facts--facts like you have no links and are lying, when not making things up in your delusional little world. Reality has a way of shaking out the flakes like you.

;-)

Soheifox

You link to a Bald Eagle and think you have made some sort of point? What are YOU smoking?

Hey Bob. My posts have a history of rudeness and Obama-bashing.

Yours have a history of pyramids as beam weapons, space aliens, and man not landing on the moon (but the same man who lied about that is telling the truth about aliens). You can call me many things, but YOU, of all people, can't call me delusional. That would be like if I called you an asshole who hates Barack Obama. It's just silly to call you something _I_ clearly am.

If you want to insult me... at least use something that applies.

Meh. time to go fix a computer. Gotta earn the paycheck.

So I did.

Too many windows open at once. But of course, Bob sees it as a conspiracy that I am saying Bald Eagles prove some people suck. Cause after all, the answer obvious to the establishment, that I clearly put the wrong link, can't possibly be correct. There has to be a deeper, more complicated reason.

Here's the correct link, sorry Dibb.

If you want to insult me... at least use something that applies.

Posted by soheifox at 2008-07-31 03:02 PM | Reply

I'm trying to get you to back up your bullshit. Its a tough job. As to the other things I talk about--I have links to back up my bullshit--where's your links Binky?

;-)

"I posted links to my facts

LOL

da bOoB"

(LOL = Lying On Line)

So now the next great president is officially a drug addict?

"So now the next great president is officially a drug addict?"
=================

He FRED, Ya got THAT right BUB!

FACTORAMALAMADINGDONG!

I think alcohol is more a drug to be worried about than tobacco.

I've never known anyone to smoke a cigarette (or 20) and want to start a fight or beat their wife.

I've also never known someone to be so fucked up after a pack of smokes that they drive off and end up killing an entire family after crossing the highway.

We took cigarettes out of Nascar and now Alcohol is the major sponsor. Drinking and driving.....very fast....now there's a great message.

"I've never known anyone to smoke a cigarette (or 20) and want to start a fight or beat their wife."

Well, you obviously don't watch "Cops."

Why is it that every domestic call features at least one shirtless white guy clutching his Marlboros?

Of course, there usually has been beer involved at some point...

Common, to think about it, tobacco kills much more slowly, but IIRC it kills a helluva lot more folks than does alcohol.

I think alcohol is more a drug to be worried about than tobacco.

I've never known anyone to smoke a cigarette (or 20) and want to start a fight or beat their wife.

I've also never known someone to be so fucked up after a pack of smokes that they drive off and end up killing an entire family after crossing the highway.

We took cigarettes out of Nascar and now Alcohol is the major sponsor. Drinking and driving.....very fast....now there's a great message.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2008-07-31 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

You must admit it's a good first step. Alcohol and tobacco both have lobbyists that are WAYYYY too powerful. I mean, it seems the FDA regulates everything we put in our bodies except that one thing; ciggs? Sorta ridiculous. If something edible, but as dangerous as ciggs were produced by Nestle, they'd be sued into oblivion before the third shipment hit stores. And lots of people involved in greenlighting it would be seeing some pretty heavy community service. (Rich people never go to jail)... soo... yeah, ciggs should be able to be regulated more then they presently are. It's WAAAYYY too easy for minours to get them.

....I stop short of making them flatout illegal, however.

As for alcohol, I liked the law they were putting out in Illinois (that got shot down, incidentally) that charges someone with a .08 to a .10 driving with a DUI. If it's above that? You get tried for attempted manslaughter. I like that idea. You don't wanna get tried for attempted manslaughter? Real simple, don't drink and drive. Incidentally, "Attempted Manslaughter" is what you get charged with if a cop takes a gun out of your hand during a road rage incident where you were shooting the guy, but hadn't YET killed him. Sounds like a pretty good definition of what being pulled over driving drunk is. About to unintentionally kill somebody, just hasn't actually completed doing it yet.

No reason to take that away from a man drinking in the privacy of his home or a party with friends, but it is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed. If it weren't so deeply entrenched in our culture, I would advocate making it illegal in the same way I think keeping pot illegal is wise. Heck, you don't see a lot of potheads getting on the road and driving, do ya? Cause the substance is illegal, and they tend to keep it on the down low. The mature user gets to have their fun, and the immature rebellious types seek their thrills, feel like a rebel, and nobody gets hurt. Problem is even the frackin' BIBLE implies alcohol in moderation is acceptable, so that's not likely to change in American civilization anytime soon.

Frankly if a cop pulled someone out of a car and they blew a .15, I'd advocate shooting them in the head on the spot. I'm a bit oversensitive to drunk drivers, I guess, and am willing to admit that I have more of an emotional response then logical.

Soheifox,

Excellent post! I have been going through the cop tests for the past few months, and they looked at me funny when I told them I drank three or four beers a week, and sometimes had a glass of wine with dinner. There is a distinct difference between a couple of beers on the weekends and having a 12-pak every night (and there are a lot of folks who do just that).

Soheifox

Fair enough, do we allow children to drink or smoke? Making it illegal for minors like alcohol probably would keep that small portion of rebellious kids smoking pot rather than hard drugs. Similar to alcohol, it's probably a good idea to keep it away from developing brains anyway.

Fair enough, do we allow children to drink or smoke? Making it illegal for minors like alcohol probably would keep that small portion of rebellious kids smoking pot rather than hard drugs. Similar to alcohol, it's probably a good idea to keep it away from developing brains anyway.

Posted by dibblda at 2008-07-31 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah but that doesn't catch the adults who never advanced past that stage in their emotional development. They need to have a "safe" illegal thing to do as well.

As for that part about pot being best kept away from young, developing brains.. lol, here's a flameshield, pal. The "Legalize it now!" group oughtta be along any second now to tell you what an idiot they think you are, and how pot helps kids concentrate, or cures ADHD, or something ridiculous. They'll even link to aritcles that say so.. based on studies that say nothing of the sort.

At some point I think we are dealing with a tiny minority who will always find something to self destruct on, and making something illegal produces a higher cost on society than handling these few people with intervention or more likely neglect.

tobacco kills much more slowly, but IIRC it kills a helluva lot more folks than does alcohol.

Posted by evashogouk

This is probably true but it's not the main issue, is it?

The main issue is, does the gov't have the right to tell me I can or cannot kill myself this way.

as a free individual i propose that they do not.