so as part of the new "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009" washington is putting a ban on cigarettes that have "candy, fruit, and spice flavors as their characterizing flavors."

i dont even smoke and this does not sit well with me.

link>>>

white house fact sheet.

Even cloves- :/

sounds like they might be included. hope not though.

I wasn't aware there was even flavored cigarettes.

Certain anti-smoking ads I've seen these days are pretty much over the top. I'm pretty sure if you smoke, you aren't going out of your way to kill children.

Well this is what happens when people want Government to become involved/take over everything.

Well that is honestly silly, even coming from one who dislikes cigarettes

I'm not sure if Medicare covers smoking-related illnesses, but if it does, then yes the government should do what it can curb pay-outs to sick people who smoke while still wanting to receive coverage.

Ahh! Is this going to affect cigars too??

I'm all for preventing smoking around people who don't want it, but jesus... this is just a guised form of prohibition in my eyes.

also:
"Tobacco manufacturers may no longer sell or give away clothing or other items which bear the brand name or logo of a tobacco product."
So stock up on Marlboro hats and t-shirts and duffel bags now. Then profit later.

And:
"By July 2011, warning labels for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products will be revised and strengthened. Warnings will comprise the top 50 percent of the front and rear panels of the package. FDA will issue regulations requiring graphics on labels depicting the health risks of smoking."
As if everyone doesn't already know the health risks to smoking.

I head it gives bad breath! Can you believe that?!

i remember when i was in london there were awesome warning labels on cigarette packs.

they will be gone all together soon

Actually, you will notice after a little digging that none other than Phillip Morris, perhaps the biggest tobacco company in the world, was in full support of this ban. Also remember that Phillip Morris has an EXTREME amount of pull in congress with all the lobby's and such.

This was a very clever ploy on Phillip Morris' part because...

1. Phillip Morris does not make any flavored cigarettes. They basically just eliminated their entire competition in that small niche market when cloves and sich got banned. Most of the people who smoke cloves are younger adults / teens, because a lot of people dont' like the taste of tobacco on first puff. I remember smoking Cloves a **** ton just because of how good they tasted. They are trying to stop teen smoking from starting. Instead, I think more realistically this will just push them towards actual cigarettes (which now have the higher tax on them as well). To me, if a kid is gonna try a cigarette, he's gonna try a cigarette.

2. I believe that with the smoking ban, nicotine levels will start to get regulated. Now everyone who smokes just once in a while, not a big deal. But on the margin, look at all the extreme nicofiends. They need a certain amount of nicotine, and to do this, they will end up buying more cigarettes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty damn sure they said somewhere nicotine levels start getting regulated. So you end up raising taxes making packs more expensive, and getting more of your addicts to buy more of them to satisfy their appetite. Good way to raise tax revenue.

On a semi-related note, this is basically a tax that has a definite target of lower-income people. There is a pretty strong correlation between low-income workers and smoking (I think like 33% of low-income people smoke, as compared to some 14% or 9% or something of people who make 90k or over). That is quite a large chunk of low-income people. It will be interested to see how this plays out with the higher taxes. Will people smoke the same amount and will this tax essentially end up a tax on the poor, or will it actually curb smoking in low-income individuals.

Was it the ones with just a warning label on them, the ones with pictures of diseased lungs or the ones with things like flaccid cigarettes and pointing out that smoking can cause impotence in the long term?

it was one of the ones that said in huge bold letters *WARNING* smoking will kill you" or something to that affect, and i think i saw the one with the diseased lung too.

I take it this won't affect cigars and mini-cigars?

Does a mini-cigar differ from a Cigarillo?

Since the President smokes, I doubt it.

This is ridiculous. If we can ban cigarettes with vague explanations, I'm going to start arguing it's perfectly constitutional to make all theists pay extra taxes for indoctrination fees, or some other equally absurd moral-based legislation.

Can we ban cell phones everywhere legally now too? Slightly loud cars, afternoon parties, yellow houses, and sugary sodas should all be next.

i am with you 100% on this one kirbs. this is literally government telling us what we can and cannot purchase based on what flavor it is. its absurd!

Cigarettes should be illegal anyway. Every time things like this pass, I cheer.

I am a smoker.

So should loud cars. ****ing *******s.

Why do you have to bring religion into this.

because he doesn't have anything else to say

He was illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

or how many miles per gallon our cars must get

or how many calories our fast food may contain

or what kind of health insurance you must have

or what type of firearm we can purchase

or what type of lightbulb we can use

or what time you can water your lawn

The precedent has been set and as long as people act indifferent because something doesn't affect them the worse it is going to get.

This doesn't make any sense. I thought liberals liked drugs.

Yep... small cigars, or mini-cigars as I tend to call them, are pretty much cigarettes made with the wrappings and such of a cigar... or whatever. They're pretty much cigarettes that count as cigars, thus get taxed lower. They also have a better taste, in my opinion. Such an example would by my favorite small cigar brand, Prime Times.

Goddamn straight. Why should the government care if the entire country would shut down if a hostile foreign power decided to stop oil exports? That's right, they shouldn't. Private industry will protect us just like they always have.

Hear hear! If I want to buy insurance from a company that will discontinue my coverage should I develop a long-term ailment I goddamn should be allowed to. I demand the freedom to have to sue my insurance provider in order to get my claim covered. The government shouldn't be telling these companies how to do business, they're doing a great job as it is.

Oh god, uuunnngh, escalation gets me so hot. Who the **** does the government think they are to stand in my way if I want to keep the burglars and home invaders at bay with a thermonuclear standoff?

Holy **** yes, I love me some brownouts *slurp slurp*


Heh. Republican talking points.

Lmao... highly entertaining images come to mind

It's about freedom of choice. Your people are all about freedom of choice, aren't they? Yes, I'm so sure the logic to demean private citizens challenging their elected representatives over healthcare reform they don't want as simply an orchestrated plot came to you all by yourself. Rupert Murdoch's tax situation, not that it even matters, came to you all by yourself.

The American people do believe in the free market system. The American people do believe in the freedom to make decisions such as what type of light bulb to purchase or vehicle to drive. The American people do believe in their constitutionally protected rights. And a majority of Americans describe themself as conservatives.

Your purposely idiotic replies to basic free choices that the government has little if any business being involved in demonstrates your intolerance and indifference to a growing ever more intrusive government. You probably won't care until the things that you care the most to freely choose come under regulation. If we ever get to that point, it will be far too late. The optimist in me hopes that Americans will wake up and put a stop to this madness. Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. The realist in me sees an ever degrading society. Almost "Rome-esqe". We have those in power essentially buying the votes of the plebes.

Wookie, while a complete moron, at least has the right idea.

**** off, government, and leave me the hell alone.

I actually wasn't aware just how liberal to the point of absurdity Jon'C is. Jesus christ do you really think Congress members (basically now politicians for their job) understand all the subtle nuances of gun control, the environment, the economy? You know centralized planning has been proven to fail, and it's because 400 people who sit in Congress don't know EVERYTHING. Most "things" we have today originated from a somewhat private market, and the ability to be able to produce and create when please. That computer you are using right now originated with some EVIL FAT CAT CAPITALIST wanting a ****-ton of money. Same with that desk you probably own, the pens you write with, and the car you drive. I don't see what your deal is criticizing the private market when most of the things you enjoy today are a result of it. Just because there are certain market failures (which arguably you can also attribute to not a TRULY free market) doesn't mean we should just have government step in and start running everything.

Clearly you sitting here on the internet telling us about the evils of the free market is an example of the free market actually working.

**** OFF GOVERNMENT AND LEAVE ME THE **** ALONE.

I always just thought Jon'C was kind of like Rob except with intelligent arguments. I mean generally rude to those he disagrees with but would then go on to explain his opinions of things in very technical manner. He seems to have changed a bit to me. I wonder how old he is and what his occupation is. I doubt he would give me a straight answer.

Anyways, it doesn't matter what he thinks of Congress. He is Jon'C and he is infallible.

Joncy is a bot that searches for keywords and copypasta's arguments off wikipedia. As such, his political leanings always reflect the attitudes of the wikipedia moderators.

I can see both sides of the argument. I personally feel that cigarettes should be illegal. Tobacco companies succeed by getting people addicted. Hook em while their young, and you get their money for life, regardless of what effect it has on the country's health or healthcare system.

There is only a controversy here because they are cigs. If Coke made a new soda that turned out to have a strong link to causing cancer, it would be banned toot suite. Hopefully. But we can't ban an entire industry can we? That would be horrible! And so the tobacco industry gets to keep on going on and on. I think it's destructive and dishonest.

for me its not about weather or not the government "cares" its that i am tired of the government acting like an overbearing nanny that thinks it knows best when in reality everything it touches turns to mediocrity!

Or because I personally think religion is one of the most poisonous things you can give to a kid. Despite that opinion, its America and it's your kid, so you get to indoctrinate him into whatever cult you yourself believe in. You all know my clear opinions on religion, and thus I used this point to show exactly how absurd it is to legislate personal morals. I don't want Christians telling me who I can and cannot ****, and thus Christians don't have to teach their kids how derivative their faith is. Even though I believe strongly that they should, I have no right to demand that my personal opinion about religion gets dictated in the lives and homes of other people.

Likewise, if I want to smoke a cigarette that tastes like baby food, I should be able to. Most of the other issues Wookie mentioned actually effect other people and thus have laws that govern them. However, cigarettes do NOT effect other people (unless we talk about second hand smoke and all that boring jazz, but that's the behavior of smokers, not the fault of a cigarette itself.) and thus any attempt to legislate cigarettes based on _flavor_ is simply ridiculous and self serving.

If they specifically found a company that was intentionally advertising a sweet tasting kid-flavored cigarette to kids, then they can fine and shut that company down. If that basically means shutting down all of the cigarette companies, okay. Banning flavored cigarettes all together is much much different.

Exactly, this is what I like to call the "safe-side" argument that it seems that people who support banning smoking in bars / restaraunts seem to follow. They acknowledge that different people's bodies react differently to different substances (marijuana, harder drugs, tobacco, alcohol), but just to be "on the safe side" and to "do it for the good of the people", we should just ban it all together. It pisses me off, because they are basically picking and choosing things to ban, although everything around us can be considered a killing machine. I had a large debate with my Aunt about this the other night, and it was her belief that the government should ban smoking everywhere because it shouldn't let people smoke knowing that smoking is bad for you. Basically, she thinks we don't own our bodies.

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure studies showed that long-term exposure to secondhand smoke in a closed environment (think spouse chain smokes in your apartment) is bad. no ****. I'm pretty sure studies also showed that limited exposure, like 45 minutes to an hour, of secondhand smoke is reversible, and has pretty much no effects on your health. Not to mention no one is pointing a gun at them and telling them to go into a smoke-filled restaraunt. I guess though, according to my Aunt, if a bar has smoking, it somehow is RESTRICTING HER CHOICE TO EAT WHEREVER SHE PLEASES GRAHRAHAR! Now I'd like to see where that is a right given to us...