Flavored Cigarettes Banned

Sloth wrote:

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.

Which then leads to the secondary issue, which is the balancing act that has to be struck.

We know underage smoking continues to be a problem. Study after study have demonstrated that. Past measures have not been effective in curbing this trend - either they are too easily circumvented or poorly planned.

It's not an easy problem - the toughest problems usually are. It's not a "good" bill in the respect that it does over-reach. There were likely less-restrictive measures that would meet the goal of the legislation, but absent much more stringent barriers to prevent teens from obtaining tobacco I don't know what they would be.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

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!

Actually, from what I can read, Phillip-Morris actually benefits from this bill much more than they are penalized.

- The added restrictions on advertising will reduce their outlay in advertising and marketing (just as prior advertising bans have done so). In addition, it will keep Phillip-Morris on top because their brands are still more recognized.

- Additional overhead in costs will be more easily absorbed by them than by smaller companies.

I think Australia already did this back in '05. I don't remember much of a fuss about it though. =/

Chocolate flavored cigarettes... A contradiction in terms to this humble nonsmoker. But you learn something new everyday!

And I believe I read the same article Spotts quoted. IIRC, Philips Morris joined the bill in part because it allowed it to crush the competition more efficiently. So don't feel too sad for them.

Spotts1701 wrote:

We know underage smoking continues to be a problem. Study after study have demonstrated that. Past measures have not been effective in curbing this trend - either they are too easily circumvented or poorly planned.

It's not an easy problem - the toughest problems usually are. It's not a "good" bill in the respect that it does over-reach. There were likely less-restrictive measures that would meet the goal of the legislation, but absent much more stringent barriers to prevent teens from obtaining tobacco I don't know what they would be.

I dunno, I think that you can throw as many anti-teen-smoking ads and such at people as you want, but at the end of the day, some people, young and old, are still going to be smoking, and as much as it can be called their choice... they want to smoke, they enjoy it, and they're not going to quit. There's always going to be some people you can't reach because they don't want to stop smoking, or whatever. I support teens not being sold cigarettes, but if they want to smoke they're going to get the smokes from somewhere.

So, adults never eat candy or anything with flavoring. Such things only appeal to children and are only ever marketed to children. Good to know.

Not only are there flavored liquors, but what about chocolate liqueurs filled with brandy and stuff?

I don't smoke, and smoking around me is a good way to get me to get me to start wheezing and getting the hell away from you. But I support its legality.

Is this the same group of people who were ranting and raving about how public smoking bans were awesome THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHY DON'T YOU-style back on Lolita's Fail-Boards?

Miss Prince wrote:

Is this the same group of people who were ranting and raving about how public smoking bans were awesome THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHY DON'T YOU-style back on Lolita's Fail-Boards?

The difference is, if someone is blowing smoke in my face in a public place, I'm directly affected by that. And I haven't chosen to smoke. The actual cigarettes people choose to buy for their own consumption doesn't generally affect me or anyone else at all.

OK, I'm sober today, so I have to ask: is there actually a shred of evidence that children are more likely to smoke flavoured cigarettes? Nobody seems to have actually proffered any, anywhere, despite all the THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Products should be regulated for safety, effectiveness, and truth in advertising (i.e., if the packet of seeds says zucchini, they should not grow cucumbers).

After that, it's the consumer's business whether they want to use it or not, not the government's.

Also, I think marijuana should be legalized.

Spotts1701 wrote:

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

Spotts1701 wrote:

Actually, from what I can read, Phillip-Morris actually benefits from this bill much more than they are penalized.

-
The added restrictions on advertising will reduce their outlay in
advertising and marketing (just as prior advertising bans have done
so). In addition, it will keep Phillip-Morris on top because their
brands are still more recognized.

- Additional overhead in costs will be more easily absorbed by them than by smaller companies.

Be fair, here: by "tobacco companies," you mean "one major tobacco company." And aside from the fact that tobacco companies "agreeing" with the government is pretty close to heretics "agreeing" with the Spanish Inquisition, they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. As you said yourself, they're onboard because they're a big supplier of regular and metholated cigarettes (which the government won't ban for revenue reasons) and this bill gives them a chance to stifle smaller rivals. Is this really the kind of behavior we should be promoting in our big businesses?

Also, that part about advertising is wrong. Companies pay for this stuff specifically because they get something out of it- just because it goes on the "intangibles" portion of the balance sheet doesn't mean it's not there. (See: Peter Hand Brewery.) By that logic, all advertising should be banned. That way, everyone will save LOADS of money!

I don't think they'll ever outlaw cigarrates, porn or other vices, mostly because the cure is worse than the illness. If you ban something outright, all you'll create is black market for that stuff. I'm for legalizing marijuana; frankly, the stuff is just not worth the effort, considering the drug trade problems worldwide.

Somewhat relevant to the subject: the History Channel played a documentary not three weeks ago about how banning drugs came to be.

IIRC, it started in the 19th century after the civil war, somewhere in the south. Lots of blacks did cocaine or similar stuff like present day people use alcohol. White people did also, but as normal medicines.

Eventually, people in the early 20th century decided that medicines should be regulated. Which was a good idea, because God only knows what went into that eras' cough syrup.

However, the government didn't do anything until busibodies decided to play the trump card ---those drugs were inducing rage into black people! Gotta save the white women! So Congress decided to regulate medicines, not out of the kindness of their hearts, but mostly to punish black people. (This push included banning alcohol, and we all know how that worked out.)

In short, that's how today's drug market was created. While the goverment reversed position where alcohol was concerned (mafia too big to ignore, I guess), they stuck around with the same failed policies regarding other stuff.

Anyway, everyone should see that domunetary. It has an obvious title ---'History of the Drug Wars' or something along those lines. The History Channel tends to overplay shows to death, so it should be easy to catch it on TV someday.

Mother Jones has a good article on the drug wars:

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

ZoZo wrote:

OK, I'm sober today, so I have to ask: is there actually a shred of evidence that children are more likely to smoke flavoured cigarettes? Nobody seems to have actually proffered any, anywhere, despite all the THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

And that's where the "over-reach" comes in. There is plenty of evidence to justify regulating the ingredients of tobacco products, and of restricting the advertising of said products in terms of deceptive terms (studies have shown that consumers think cigarettes labeled "low tar" are safer than those that aren't).

But if there is any evidence with respect to flavored cigarettes, it must've been written in invisible ink.

Spotts1701 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

OK, I'm sober today, so I have to ask: is there actually a shred of evidence that children are more likely to smoke flavoured cigarettes? Nobody seems to have actually proffered any, anywhere, despite all the THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

And that's where the "over-reach" comes in. There is plenty of evidence to justify regulating the ingredients of tobacco products, and of restricting the advertising of said products in terms of deceptive terms (studies have shown that consumers think cigarettes labeled "low tar" are safer than those that aren't).

But if there is any evidence with respect to flavored cigarettes, it must've been written in invisible ink.

Damn that invisible ink!

ZoZo wrote:

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'm with that. If you want to smoke, not being able to smoke candy-flavoured cigarettes isn't going to stop you. Such people will probably just move on to menthols.

theweirdkind wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

OK, I'm sober today, so I have to ask: is there actually a shred of evidence that children are more likely to smoke flavoured cigarettes? Nobody seems to have actually proffered any, anywhere, despite all the THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

And that's where the "over-reach" comes in. There is plenty of evidence to justify regulating the ingredients of tobacco products, and of restricting the advertising of said products in terms of deceptive terms (studies have shown that consumers think cigarettes labeled "low tar" are safer than those that aren't).

But if there is any evidence with respect to flavored cigarettes, it must've been written in invisible ink.

Damn that invisible ink!

Alas, so much evidence seems to have been written in invisible ink these days.

Seriously, though, it really pisses me off when people bring in policy that isn't based on any kind of evidence other than "we think it's bad". As a smoker, I know it's bad for me, and I can get on board with any evidence based measures (though I might grumble a bit). But "OH NOES, CHILDREN MIGHT SMOKE IF IT'S CHOCOLATE FLAVOURED" is patently bollocks.

Funny tangential side story: a few years ago, we had these anti-smoking ads on TV where a mum would be smoking and then the child saw this and copied the mother, smoking a pen. General message: if you smoke, your kids will smoke. My friend has a kid who was three at the time. After watching that advert, the little one was perpetually pretending to smoke. Oopsie. [wanders off muttering something about how nobody ever listens to the health psychologists]

Yeah, why would children SMOKE chocolate FLAVOURED cigarettes, when you can buy REAL chocolate for a fraction of the price, and get a fraction of the flack for doing so.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Yeah, why would children SMOKE chocolate FLAVOURED cigarettes, when you can buy REAL chocolate for a fraction of the price, and get a fraction of the flack for doing so.

Hate to tell you this but there are some kids out there whose parents simply don't care if their kids smoke and/or drink.

I am of the opinion that they should either illegalize cigarettes or legalize marijuana. For consistency, if nothing else.

If a kid's going to smoke, they're going to smoke. Neither of my parents smoked. None of their kids smoked. My ex and I didn't smoke. Despite all this, my son Andrew started smoking at age 15 and continues to this day, despite Having had one of his lungs collapse twice and problems with asthma. I long ago gave up trying to reason with him because he's just as addicted to cigarettes as if he were snorting crack cocaine. I'd hoped, when his Uncle Larry was diagnosed with COPD it might make him stop, because he always idolized Larry, but of course he's 28, and only old people die from problems related to smoking (despite the fact one of his best friend from high school's brother died of mouth cancer from dipping snuff at age 30, leaving behind a wife and three young kids, and Larry's only 66)

Am I happy about it? Hell no. He's not allowed to smoke in my house. He knows I disapprove, but he's an adult, and as an adult, he makes his own decisions.

I would like to hunt down the people who bought the cigarettes for him when he was 15 and smack them real hard, though. Because there's no way he could've gotten hold of them legally.

I took a couple of breaths from a cigarett a long time ago. But I've never smoked since. Not because of any particular desire to stay healthy, but because it's a goddamn waste of money to get hooked on something that's going to kill you.

I have more interesting things to spend my money on.

...I'm not dealing with unhappy cigarette smokers Government. My job sucks some days already what with bitchy entitled people. And now you take away their fancy cigarettes? WHY DO YOU HATE ME GOVERNMENT?!

No, seriously. There are going to be some bitchy flavored-cigarette smokers who are trying to get used to rolling their own, smoking regulars, or even using this as an excuse to quit. (Buries head under covers) Wake me up when their withdrawel is over.

I gave up a long time ago on trying to get my sister to quit. It's just not worth the hassle. She smokes outside when she visits. Just common courtesy.

Nihilist wrote:

Fuck this crap, Nyquil tastes way better.

Regulate that, government!

Lol, they already do. Try buying it if you're underage.