Stitch on 22/6/2009 at 21:40
Quote:
Obama praised the historic legislation, which gives the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products, to make public the ingredients and to prohibit marketing campaigns geared toward children.
Love the latter two, but the first is nanny state bullshit.
Aerothorn on 23/6/2009 at 02:42
Incidentally, despite Obama's promise to quit, it sounds like he's still smoking himself.
And in all fairness, it doesn't take a lot of "balls" to stand up to the tobacco companies at this point; it's free political wampum.
TBE on 23/6/2009 at 04:47
Great, so now they're probably going to get rid of the flavored cigars that I tend to like. Not that I'm a mad smoker, but I don't see kids buying the flavored tobacco products. They are getting them from adults. This is the problem.
Turtle on 23/6/2009 at 04:59
It only discriminates against smaller, foreign tobacco companies. No flavors, no cloves, but menthol is okay.
But Philip-Morris doesn't make flavored or clove cigarettes, just regular and menthol. No surprise that they support the bill.
It pisses me off because I smoke maybe 2 or 3 packs per year, but I smoke cloves when I do.
Now they will be unavailable from my local tobacco shops, which means I'll have to order them online, getting far more than I actually smoke in a year.
(No this bill won't push me to quit. I quit 8 years ago, but smoking when things get rough at work is better than drinking, or going abusing prescription drugs.)
Koki on 23/6/2009 at 06:36
I like how 1/10 of that article is about the ban and rest is about Obama, Smoking, Life, and Everything.
Rogue Keeper on 23/6/2009 at 06:52
And the Universe. You forgot the Universe!
SubJeff on 23/6/2009 at 07:09
Quote Posted by Koki
I like how 1/10 of that article is about the ban and rest is about Obama, Smoking, Life, and Everything.
Yup. This just in - wife proud of man's efforts to quit smoking.
Back OT: are these flavoured cigs really getting a ban? If so, why? Bit bizarre.
scumble on 23/6/2009 at 10:02
Quote Posted by Stitch
Love the latter two, but the first is nanny state bullshit.
I'd be interested to see what else gets slipped into the bill - whenever "unprecedented authority" is mentioned it helps to watch the details. If I had time I'd have a look at the published bill, as they are usually freely available - ah, (
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1256) here it is. I have to say that trying to read legislation makes my eyes hurt.
Queue on 23/6/2009 at 12:46
I'm all for keeping tobacco out of kids' hands by any means.
I got hooked on tobacco when I was fifteen, and lamented the fact by the time I turned twenty when I started trying to kick the habit--an activity which would last another fifteen years alone. The patch, inhalers, nicotine gum, etc, are all a bunch of bullshit that truly keep you hooked on nicotine (which, it turns out, is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and, essentially, rewiring your noodle to need it in order to live); utterly usless, as are the all various voodoo exercises and remedies, as well. Fifteen years of trying to quit, while continuously pumping money into all of these "self-help" products, and still smoking and taking a dip of tobacco. Some dink in the industry has a really nice Saab thanks to me.
Finally, I just said fuck it and quit cold-turkey: I saw things - horrible, vile, alarming things - for about ten days as the nicotine worked its way out of my system; was angry; was resisting the urge to eat everything in sight; and was not happy with the life-sustaining phenomenon known as light. I also played a shit load of Thief, which I think was the only thing that kept my mind off wanting to shoot myself (new ad campaign: Thief 4 will help you quit smoking without the need for violence!).
Ten days later, the urge was gone. Now, years later, I can't stand the smell of smoke and am repulsed by the idea. There's nothing worse than going to a restaurant and having to endure someone else's smoke while trying to eat a meal.
And don't give me the: "It's my right to smoke! What about my rights? Am a tax-payer, dammit." Bullshit. When you smoke, I am at your whim. I have no control over the matter. The smoke is going to go where it goes, and you're the cause of it--not me. So what about my rights? I am powerless when it comes to not being subjected to the toxins you are spilling into the air?
The utter rudeness and inconsideration is beyond me. Even when I did smoke I recognized the fact that I would be inflicting upon others something they'd have no control over if I smoked in public--so I never did.
With that thought in mind, should smoking be banned in all public places? No. There are establishments where you know that you're going to be stepping into a smoked filled room (i.e. a bar that allows smoking), but the non-smoker is making a choice to go ahead and patronize willingly. And, well, face it, most of the people that go to bars don't really care too much about "healthy living" in the first place, so smoking probably isn't a huge issue. So the choice is there: to not enter such a place, or to go Bob's Non-Smoking Beer Swill Emporium instead.
But for general public areas, especially where kids are around, smokers should show some constraint by not lighting up, if not out of consideration for other's well-being then just simply out of common courtesy. Enough people are sick and tired of being subjected to your smoke. So much so that, if unchecked rudeness continues, then an across the board smoking ban in all public places will be coming.
