Flavored Cigarettes Banned

For fuck's sake...

Quote :

The legislation would ban chocolate, strawberry and other candy flavorings that experts say appeal to youths but are not widely used. For now, it exempts menthol, which accounts for more than one-quarter of cigarette sales."

Because apparently we are all far too stupid to decide whether or not to smoke, and we need Uncle Sam with his hand up our collective asses to save us from evil chocolate-flavored cigars. Thank God I smoke menthols.

You see, at first they use the tactic of couching it in 'save the children' terms: that is, they rationalize the decision to ban flavors by claiming that those flavors are being used to KILL THE CHILDREN. But later on in the article they come out with this bullshit:

Quote :

"specifically to reduce the smoke harshness and enable the smoker to take in more dependence-causing and toxic substances,"

So basically what they're saying is, 'You do not possess sufficient intelligence and rationality to decide whether or not to smoke, and you are being duped by the evil tobacco companies using candy flavors. So, don't worry your pretty little head about it, we'll save you from the minty cigarettes.' Uhh, hello? I know what the risks are and frankly, something has to kill me. So kindly take your well-meaning interventionist nanny-state bullshit and fuck off with it.

...And to be honest, that's what really bothers me. Not that cigarettes are being banned but that the government is taking such extreme measures to 'protect us' from ourselves. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Heads will roll if menthol cigarettes get banned. Anything else is like smoking air, to me.

I can see the rationale behind this ban. Unfortunately, it makes little sense beyond "well, we need to look like we're doing something."

I don't smoke at all, since I can't stand the sensation of smoke in my lungs, but I'm still saying WTF!? Let people make their own decisions about whether or not they want to smoke, and if so, what they want to smoke.

Just wait. This is only one step in trying to ban tobacco completely. Then they'll hand out 25 year prison sentences for possession and the tobacco growers will have wars with each other to control the black market.

Hooray for the law of unintended consequences! :bang:

:lolinsane: Don't look at me, I voted for McCain :lolinsane:

Seriously, Big Brother, stop watching me take a piss.

Lady Anne wrote:

Just wait. This is only one step in trying to ban tobacco completely. Then they'll hand out 25 year prison sentences for possession and the tobacco growers will have wars with each other to control the black market.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! Yeah, I just can't wait. Next thing you know, tobacco is banned and people are smuggling it across the border and growing in secret grow-ops. Since it would then be a black market drug rather than a legal one, it would be tough to track and all the minors who are too young to drink would be using that instead of alcohol. Oh, wait, isn't there another substance like that already? JUST ONE MORE STEP IN OUR RIGHTEOUS CRUSADE AGAINST DRUGS!!

Quote :

Heads will roll if menthol cigarettes get banned. Anything else is like smoking air, to me.

Word. Luckily, there would presumably be no law against rolling your own cigarettes and putting some spearmint in with the tobacco yourself. Come to think of it, it'd be easy to circumvent this law by selling 'herbal smoke' materials consisting of flavors which can be used in home-rolled cigs. Look for a big increase in the sales of rolling papers, says I.

Oh gosh, they banned Count Chocula brand cigarettes? It'll stop people from selling a dangerous product aimed at kids, without banning anything that might allow consenting adults to just make the damn things themselves? How awful!

Yeah, we're just like Iran, here. Time to take to the streets.

Lady Anne wrote:

Just wait. This is only one step in trying to ban tobacco completely.

And if we let the gays marry, people will want to marry their goats. Slippery slope!

I'd have to disagree; the next step isn't banning tobacco. Tobacco won't be banned in the immediate future for the same reasons that Menthols weren't banned now: so the government can keep raking it in with all those lovely, lovely sin taxes. If cigarettes are banned, a big portion of revenue for the federal government and many states evaporates. If you think tobacco companies don't want people to stop smoking, how about Uncle Sam? He doesn't even have to put up the goddamn overhead.

Fucking Puritans, I swear to God.

"We're doing it for the sake of the children" is the go-to excuse of busybodies on both sides of the political aisle. "We're banning flavored cigarettes for the children" is basically the same as "We're banning porn for the children" or "We're banning violent video games for the sake of the children".

It's so easy to add "...and to keep children from getting it, we will have to make sure NOBODY can get it." Which is what the busybodies really want, whether they admit it or not.

There already is a big increase, at least around here, in rolling your own. You can get different flavored tobacco and everything. I haven't tried any yet, but I wanted to, just to see what it was like.

The "nons" (as those at The Smoker's Club call them) are really pushing towards a whole tobacco ban. Just in my state of South Dakota--Republican, and thus freedom*, heavy--they tried to pass a statewide ban in all bars, restaurants, and casinos. Thankfully, it was petitioned and now postponed as it's going to the polls for the voters to decide, but the thought of losing any more freedoms... and people are vicious in the editorial letters about it. Congress is making noise now about going after foods with processed sugar--specifically soda--and an uproar was heard here to the tune of "You can tax the smokers all you want, but keep your hands off my soda".

... sorry, this subject makes me a little ranty. I am very tired of the nanny-state politics nowadays.

*good lord, I really am turning into a Republican, but god dammit, Republicans are for less government regulations and more personal and business freedoms which is really hard to ignore. If they weren't so staunchly anti-abortion, I probably would claim to be a Republican. *sigh*

Lysander wrote:

Oh gosh, they banned Count Chocula brand cigarettes? It'll stop people from selling a dangerous product aimed at kids, without banning anything that might allow consenting adults to just make the damn things themselves? How awful!

I don't think that's it, though. When you see a flavored cigarette, it's not advertised with a fruity, cartoony, 'fun' packaging: point of fact, the article says that menthol is the only additive that is advertised at all. For reference, this is what a brand of cherry cigars looks like:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Chocolate ones might look like this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Does that look like 'kid-friendly' packaging to you? I'm not belittling your point; I would support, say, the banning of those little cigarette candies that kids eat and pretend to smoke with. That is definitely a way for kids to get hooked on tobacco. But the fact that I can't find any suspiciously kid-oriented advertising for REAL flavored cigs suggests that the 'save the children' argument isn't a good one.

Sloth wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Oh gosh, they banned Count Chocula brand cigarettes? It'll stop people from selling a dangerous product aimed at kids, without banning anything that might allow consenting adults to just make the damn things themselves? How awful!

I don't think that's it, though. When you see a flavored cigarette, it's not advertised with a fruity, cartoony, 'fun' packaging: point of fact, the article says that menthol is the only additive that is advertised at all.

Does that look like 'kid-friendly' packaging to you? I'm not belittling your point; I would support, say, the banning of those little cigarette candies that kids eat and pretend to smoke with. That is definitely a way for kids to get hooked on tobacco. But the fact that I can't find any suspiciously kid-oriented advertising for REAL flavored cigs suggests that the 'save the children' argument isn't a good one.

You're wasting your time, Sloth. Our Chocolate Messiah has spoken, and to be good and patriotic you must obey. Remember: it's not infringing on your freedoms if Democrats do it!

(I like the part where they don't want the government in our bedrooms, but in our lungs is perfectly A-OK.)

Sloth wrote:

I'm not belittling your point; I would support, say, the banning of those little cigarette candies that kids eat and pretend to smoke with. That is definitely a way for kids to get hooked on tobacco.

They're candy flavored cigarettes. They are cigarettes that taste like candy. What, do they need to have a pacifier on the end? Also the reason why they are packaged like that is because they already made it illegal to put, say, a cartoon character on the packages. Why did they do that? Because they kept putting goddamn cartoon characters on the packaging, and I don't doubt that this law is the sole reason why those things don't have the Trix Rabbit on them.

The fact that these things are fairly new and don't sell well, the fact that they don't ban additives that you can add yourself, and the fact that they left off the biggest and most successful flavoring shows that this is not a blanket ban. It's not like banning porn, it's like banning flavored condoms from being randomly mixed in with the stuff in the candy isle at the supermarket. Some things that are conceptually similar should be sold separate.

Lysander wrote:

Oh gosh, they banned Count Chocula brand cigarettes? It'll stop people from selling a dangerous product aimed at kids, without banning anything that might allow consenting adults to just make the damn things themselves? How awful!

Right on! Wile we're at it, let's get rid of ALL flavored alcohol! You know it's only a gateway for children to be ensnared into the dark and horrible world of hard liquor and alcoholism. And it's not like actual adults like that shit anyway right?

...Right?

Lysander wrote:

Sloth wrote:

I'm not belittling your point; I would
support, say, the banning of those little cigarette candies that kids
eat and pretend to smoke with. That is definitely a way for kids to get hooked on tobacco.

They're candy flavored cigarettes. They are cigarettes that taste like candy.

No, it's flavored tobacco. Not unlike most drugs, tobacco tastes like ass. Also not unlike most drugs, people add flavors that make it less of a purely masochistic exercise to get your fix.
No one here is arguing against the tobacco industry's history of blatantly marketing to children, we're saying that banning products solely because they're flavored to taste good because OH GOD THE CHYLDRUN MIGHT BE ENTICED is fucking stupid.

Lysander wrote:

The fact that these things
are fairly new and don't sell well, the fact that they don't ban
additives that you can add yourself, and the fact that they left off
the biggest and most successful flavoring shows that this is not a
blanket ban. It's not like banning porn, it's like banning flavored
condoms from being randomly mixed in with the stuff in the candy isle
at the supermarket. Some things that are conceptually similar should be
sold separate.

Yeah, and the fact that people are withdrawing support from the bill specifically because it has a loophole for menthol points towards it being a stepping stone towards a full tobacco ban. Hell, the article linked even says so:

Quote :

Not including menthol in the
ban, some anti-smoking advocates say, is based on sound public health
policy. But the menthol exception has other prominent health officials
tempering and even withdrawing their support for the bills.

Quote :

The African American Tobacco
Prevention Network will this week announce it is officially withdrawing
support for the legislation because of the menthol loophole, said
William Robinson, the group's executive director.

Bamshalam wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Oh gosh, they banned Count Chocula brand cigarettes? It'll stop people from selling a dangerous product aimed at kids, without banning anything that might allow consenting adults to just make the damn things themselves? How awful!

Right on! Wile we're at it, let's get rid of ALL flavored alcohol! You know it's only a gateway for children to be ensnared into the dark and horrible world of hard liquor and alcoholism. And it's not like actual adults like that shit anyway right?

...Right?

Oh, absolutely. Arbor Mist? It's all a ploy to entice children! That's the only reason the blackberry merlot is so incredibly tasty.

Bamshalam wrote:

Right on! Wile we're at it, let's get rid of ALL flavored alcohol! You know it's only a gateway for children to be ensnared into the dark and horrible world of hard liquor and alcoholism. And it's not like actual adults like that shit anyway right?

Oh my god, why are you assaulting that poor strawman?!

Yes, alcohol and liquor are the exact same thing, and even though only one of them has a long history of marketing to kids, and even though cigarettes are just about the farthest thing from the taste of candy imaginable with no imaginable reason to mix them, and even though these things aren't very popular to begin with, and even though I agreed that the stuff should still be available as a separate additive for anyone who is of age to buy, I believe that people should have to drink paint thinner. That's exactly what I was saying. Bravo. You get a gold star for today.

gaijinguy wrote:

Remember: it's not infringing on your freedoms if Democrats do it!

Yeah, and Republicans would never get in the way free speech with any PC nonsense. By the way, did you ever hear the one about Sarah Palin's . . .

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

DID YOU MAKE FUNNA MAH POOR DOWN'S BABY! NO? SHUT UP ANYWAY!

Lysander wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Right on! Wile we're at it, let's get rid of ALL flavored alcohol! You know it's only a gateway for children to be ensnared into the dark and horrible world of hard liquor and alcoholism. And it's not like actual adults like that shit anyway right?

Oh my god, why are you assaulting that poor strawman?!

He was asking for it by wearing those tight pants. DON'T JUDGE ME.

Lysander wrote:

Yes, alcohol and liquor are the exact same thing,

I know this'll sound crazy at first but...there are such things as flavored liquors. It's crazy, I know, but I swear you'll be able to find it at your local liquor store provided that there isn't a crowed of mesmerized children blocking your way to the door.

Lysander wrote:

even though cigarettes are just about the farthest thing from the taste of candy imaginable with no imaginable reason to mix them

A really good and obvious one would be to keep the tobacco from tasting like pure ass, kind of like (gasp) vodka!

Lysander wrote:

and even though these things aren't very popular to begin with

Sauce? You've said this twice and I'd like to see a link, at least. The ridiculous success of hookah bars in recent years speaks differently.

I want to know what flavoured cigarettes Lysander has been having. Most of them taste like ass and chocolate/strawberry/insert flavour here, and far from candy.

DOUBLE POAST YALL.

Bamshalam wrote:

I know this'll sound crazy at first but...there are such things as flavored liquors. It's crazy, I know, but I swear you'll be able to find it at your local liquor store.

If you ban one thing for trying to taste like candy,
and another thing tastes like candy,
then, you must ban the other thing as well.

Oh wait, that's a complete logical fallacy, because the context surrounding one product doesn't apply to another one. Also, I'm not in favor of banning it, just selling it separately. You seem to be missing that point.

Quote :

You've said this twice and I'd like to see a link, at least.

The very first quote at the very top of this very page says that they aren't even widely used. In fact, the story is about how cigarettes with the most widely used additive are not banned. On top of that, do you smoke these things? Because I'm sure we all drink from time to time, but nobody's copped to being coo-coo for Coco-Smokes.

Lysander wrote:

If you ban one thing for trying to taste like candy,
and another thing tastes like candy,
then, you must ban the other thing as well.

Oh wait, that's a complete logical fallacy, because the context surrounding one product doesn't apply to another one.

Bamshalam wrote:

No one here is arguing against the tobacco
industry's history of blatantly marketing to children, we're saying
that banning products solely because they're flavored to taste good
because OH GOD THE CHYLDRUN MIGHT BE ENTICED is fucking stupid.

Also, I'm loving you pointing out people's logical fallacies with other locigal fallacies. Lol is not enough.

Lysander wrote:

Also, I'm not in favor of banning it, just selling it separately. You seem to be missing that point.

That's probably because your point got lost in all the unnecessary snarky bullshit.
Also, it's a pretty stupid point. Let parents parent their children, and let adult markets be unfettered by their pathetic inability to do so.

Quote :

You've said this twice and I'd like to see a link, at least.

Lysander wrote:

The very first quote at the very top of this very page says that they aren't even widely used. In fact, the story is about how cigarettes with the most widely used additive are not banned. On top of that, do you smoke these things? Because I'm sure we all drink from time to time, but nobody's copped to being coo-coo for Coco-Smokes.

I've had a Black & Mild, and it didn't taste like candy. I've had hookah, and it didn't taste like candy. I have really no idea where you're getting the chocolate flavoring=KIDS KIDS KIDS idea from, seriously.

Did anyone miss the part about how the tobacco companies themselves agreed to this?

The government has been trying since the late 70's to regulate tobacco through the Food and Drug Administration - the crux of the entire legislation was not over tobacco flavoring, but rather the deceptive labeling of tobacco products (such as labeling certain brands as "low tar") and to regulate nicotine content (which, considering it is a drug, should be part of the FDA's mandate).

It doesn't give the FDA the power to ban tobacco outright, nor should it. But it does bring it in line with other regulated substances (most importantly, by requiring for the first time in history requiring cigarette manufacturers to publish a list of ingredients).

Well, Spotts, I won't argue that ingredients shouldn't be listed or 'low tar' should be used as an advertising gimmick. But that's not what bothers me.

What bothers me is this, from my first post:

Quote :

"specifically to reduce the smoke harshness and enable the smoker to take in more dependence-causing and toxic substances,"

What is the point of that statement, exactly? It boils down to a sentiment throughout the entire article (and the entire move toward this bill), which is essentially that flavoring makes smoking too pleasant, without any distinction between adult and underage smokers. That makes it one more point of nanny-state intrusiveness. And that creeps me the fuck out.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Did anyone miss the part about how the tobacco companies themselves agreed to this?

The government has been trying since the late 70's to regulate tobacco through the Food and Drug Administration - the crux of the entire legislation was not over tobacco flavoring, but rather the deceptive labeling of tobacco products (such as labeling certain brands as "low tar") and to regulate nicotine content (which, considering it is a drug, should be part of the FDA's mandate).

It doesn't give the FDA the power to ban tobacco outright, nor should it. But it does bring it in line with other regulated substances (most importantly, by requiring for the first time in history requiring cigarette manufacturers to publish a list of ingredients).

Tobacco Companies: I wonder what will happen if we don't sign this retarded bill?

Govt Man: We'll take over your business and possibly murder your children. Maybe.

Tobacco Companies: WELL I SO AGREE WITH THIS BILL I WILL SIGN IT AAAAALLL DAAAAY.

Kool Aid Man: OOOOH YEAH!

Fuck this crap, Nyquil tastes way better.

Regulate that, government!