Obama puts tobacco under FDA control

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Obama puts tobacco under FDA control

2009-06-22 21:25:31

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6539|what

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA power to ban candy-flavored and fruit-flavored cigarettes, widely considered appealing to first-time smokers, including youths. It also prohibits tobacco companies from using terms such as "low tar," "light" or "mild," requires larger warning labels on packages, and restricts advertising of tobacco products.

It also requires tobacco companies to reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes.

Good news.

Those tobacco companies do anything to attract the first time smokers, terms like milk and light plus candy flavoured cigarettes is evidence enough.

2009-06-22 21:44:43

mcjagdflieger: Champion of Dueling Rectums; +26|6697|South Jersey

We need to put a giant poster on every federal building that reads: CAUTION WE WILL SPEND ALL YOUR MONEY ON STUPID SHIT NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY NANANANANANA

2009-06-22 21:47:29

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6088|College Park, MD

I wonder how many of you bitching about this bill don't like how the National Minimum Drinking Age Act... because that's a far more 'big government' piece of legislature than this.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-06-22 21:57:53

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6967|the dank(super) side of Oregon

it's an absurd, disgusting habit.

2009-06-22 22:28:58

NgoDamWei: Member; +7|6049|Western North Carolina

After near 50 years, I recently quit, COLD. I quit cigarettes many years ago and did cigars for about the last 10, really enjoy them. The thing is, I saw a $.58 cent tax increase 1 day and just got tired of being sin taxed to death and realized I can build a new better computer every year with what I save or pay for even more important things.

It's difficult sometimes to pass them by in the store but it can be done and I'm actually so much better off physically.

2009-06-23 04:05:59

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6886|so randum

mcjagdflieger wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
More "change has come"! Wait ... aren't warning labels already on the packages and adverts already restricted? Oh but clearly LARGER labels will make smokers think twice. And less adverts might make it possible for them to forget about smoking all together! Genius! Now those naughty naughty cig companies won't be able to stuff their product into everyone's mug and light them up. We're no longer victims! We've been rescued! Hurrah!
It seems to be working fine over here tbh.
working fine? That'd be great and all, but theres nothing to work. We know cigs are bad. This is pointless legislation. You know what, bananas need a bigger Chiquita sticker, one that says I AM HEALTHY, EAT ME. Cuz as of right now, I do not think that fruit is healthy. I would like to spend some more of my tax dollars to determine if fruits and veggies are actually good for me, i suspect foul play.

Good for you. It's about raising more awareness. When i started smoking, i didn't really think what would happen to me except i'd become useless at all the sports i do, and possibly get cancer and die. That all seemed very far away. Now they put shit like pics of mouth/throat cancer, lovely statistics about infertility and the like on the packs. It really really does make you think.

Apart from the smoking when pregnant ones, they obviously don't do any damage to me.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-06-23 04:17:13

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6886|so randum

Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-06-23 04:18:55

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6967|SE London

FatherTed wrote:
Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?

Seems really, really stupid anyone would be complaining about this.

They'd rather have self monitored narcotic companies......

2009-06-23 04:20:09

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6886|so randum

Bertster7 wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?
Seems really, really stupid anyone would be complaining about this.

They'd rather have self monitored narcotic companies......

As long as the messiah isn't in charge of it, itsk. Hell, satan himself could run them without a peep.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-06-23 07:27:36

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7122|Salt Lake City

Stingray24 wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
More "change has come"! Wait ... aren't warning labels already on the packages and adverts already restricted? Oh but clearly LARGER labels will make smokers think twice. And less adverts might make it possible for them to forget about smoking all together! Genius! Now those naughty naughty cig companies won't be able to stuff their product into everyone's mug and light them up. We're no longer victims! We've been rescued! Hurrah!
It seems to be working fine over here tbh.
Excellent. I'm happy to hear more useless government control is acceptable. Well, at least they haven't eyed our beer yet.

Uhh, may want to think about that statement just a little. The manufacture, content, and to some degree, the sale of alcohol is regulated by the government.

2009-06-23 09:54:38

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6924|Long Island, New York

FatherTed wrote:
Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?

isn't it funny?

if Bush had done this, these same people would be parading him. But now that the darkie dun do it, it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

2009-06-23 10:02:38

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6088|College Park, MD

FatherTed wrote:
Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?

Seriously. There are plenty of other, much more valid things to criticize the government about than this.

2009-06-23 10:38:53

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7101|US

AussieReaper wrote:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA power to ban candy-flavored and fruit-flavored cigarettes, widely considered appealing to first-time smokers, including youths. It also prohibits tobacco companies from using terms such as "low tar," "light" or "mild," requires larger warning labels on packages, and restricts advertising of tobacco products.

It also requires tobacco companies to reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes.
Good news.

Those tobacco companies do anything to attract the first time smokers, terms like milk and light plus candy flavoured cigarettes is evidence enough.

Your point? I don't see many complaining that most hard alcohol is marketed to the 20-30something crowd.

FatherTed wrote:
Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?

Actually, you misunderstand the argument. I am annoyed that the government thinks it is its responsibility to determine what kind of flavors can be sold, where and how legal products can be marketed, etc. That is BS, IMO. If a tobacco company can make a profit by selling fruit-flavored cigs to adults, good for them. If they want to use cartoonish comics to do so, fine. As long as the consumers do so legally and with an understanding of the effects.

Posting ingredients and warnings is fine.

2009-06-23 10:48:42

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|7082|NJ

Hmmm Cancer or Obesity? that is the question.. There's no reason Cigs should be legal?

Fuck that this is America and we can smoke if we want to, it only cause harm to the user..

2009-06-23 11:12:38

13rin: Member; +977|6865

RAIMIUS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA power to ban candy-flavored and fruit-flavored cigarettes, widely considered appealing to first-time smokers, including youths. It also prohibits tobacco companies from using terms such as "low tar," "light" or "mild," requires larger warning labels on packages, and restricts advertising of tobacco products.

It also requires tobacco companies to reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes.
Good news.

Those tobacco companies do anything to attract the first time smokers, terms like milk and light plus candy flavoured cigarettes is evidence enough.
Your point? I don't see many complaining that most hard alcohol is marketed to the 20-30something crowd.

FatherTed wrote:
Hang on wait, ive just properly read the OP

People DON'T like the idea that what goes into your smokes is being monitered?

What. The. Shit.

Do you want your marlboros to still be stuffed with plastic for mass? Is this just a backlash 'nObama the muslim commie did it so i must be against it durrr' reaction?
Actually, you misunderstand the argument. I am annoyed that the government thinks it is its responsibility to determine what kind of flavors can be sold, where and how legal products can be marketed, etc. That is BS, IMO. If a tobacco company can make a profit by selling fruit-flavored cigs to adults, good for them. If they want to use cartoonish comics to do so, fine. As long as the consumers do so legally and with an understanding of the effects.

Posting ingredients and warnings is fine.

+1 as you understand the issue. Typical leftist responses to the just criticisms. At least this bill passed doesn't f with pipe tobacco, 'blue note' is the bomb.

I wonder how fast the Supreme Community Organizer would have signed that bill had 'his brand' of cigs been encompassed in it... Oh wait, I thought Michelle said he promised her to quit as so he could make a run for the Presidency... Oh he didn't quit? Hussie can't even keep a campaign promise to his own wife. Lame.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-06-23 11:55:07

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6886|so randum

I'm a 'typical leftist'?

k lol

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-06-23 12:00:39

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7007|London, England

Most of this shit is to prevent people from taking up the habit of smoking, don't worry smokers, I don't think the government could care less about you guys. Like I've said before, you're all a lost cause anyway. Infact the government enjoys all that tax money you provide, but they also have to eventually tackle the problem of smoking one day

2009-06-23 12:43:00

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7101|US

So, our health is now the government's responsibility? I'd rather people be free to chose, than have the government tell them which cigs are Ok.

(I do support warnings and ingredient lists. If you are going to be buying/using something dangerous to your health, you should be able to find info on it.)

2009-06-23 13:17:08

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6967|SE London

RAIMIUS wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA power to ban candy-flavored and fruit-flavored cigarettes, widely considered appealing to first-time smokers, including youths. It also prohibits tobacco companies from using terms such as "low tar," "light" or "mild," requires larger warning labels on packages, and restricts advertising of tobacco products.

It also requires tobacco companies to reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes.
Good news.

Those tobacco companies do anything to attract the first time smokers, terms like milk and light plus candy flavoured cigarettes is evidence enough.
Your point? I don't see many complaining that most hard alcohol is marketed to the 20-30something crowd.

Are you joking?

Alcopops targeting children ring any bells?

First off, you make a stupid comparison since the 20-30 something crowd are legally allowed to drink. It's not about them targeting a legitimate market, it's about them targeting an illegitimate market. Big difference.

In any case, the main focus of this is to put a narcotic under some form of government regulation. The fact that it hasn't been properly regulated up until now is horrifying. There is nothing to say that any of these things will be banned, just that the FDA now has the power to do so if they see fit.

2009-06-23 13:17:29

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7051|NT, like Mick Dundee

cpt.fass1 wrote:
it only cause harm to the user..

So called 'passive' smoking.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-23 13:18:33

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6964|Columbus, OH

This day and age, any one should have a better understanding about nicotine and other carcinogens. Even if the govt. gets more involved, people will continue to smoke even if they know it will kill them. My question is why protect someone when they choose to start smoking?

Is Fast Food next!?! oh noez!!!

2009-06-23 13:55:19

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6886|so randum

Good point on the alcopops one berster.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-06-23 13:59:03

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7051|NT, like Mick Dundee

To all those who don't want tobacco regulated...

Do you support the push to decriminalise other drugs such as ganja? Should we decriminalise GHB, LSD, magic mushrooms, speed, heroin and cocaine too?

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-06-23 15:28:30

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6791|North Carolina

Flecco wrote:
To all those who don't want tobacco regulated...

Do you support the push to decriminalise other drugs such as ganja? Should we decriminalise GHB, LSD, magic mushrooms, speed, heroin and cocaine too?

We should, but consistency is something that is rarely produced by the general public.

In a logical world, we'd legalize and regulate nearly all drugs. Taxes would be aimed at covering the healthcare costs of these substances, and a certain amount of this money would be spent on advertizing aimed at discouraging the use of these drugs.

Education would also be needed to discourage the use of these things.

Bans don't work, but ads and education do... to a degree. So do labels.

People don't want to admit that these labels have an effect, because that would actually require giving some credit to government.

2009-06-23 17:24:42

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7101|US

Turquoise wrote:
Flecco wrote:
To all those who don't want tobacco regulated...

Do you support the push to decriminalise other drugs such as ganja? Should we decriminalise GHB, LSD, magic mushrooms, speed, heroin and cocaine too?
We should, but consistency is something that is rarely produced by the general public.

In a logical world, we'd legalize and regulate nearly all drugs. Taxes would be aimed at covering the healthcare costs of these substances, and a certain amount of this money would be spent on advertizing aimed at discouraging the use of these drugs.

Education would also be needed to discourage the use of these things.

Bans don't work, but ads and education do... to a degree. So do labels.

People don't want to admit that these labels have an effect, because that would actually require giving some credit to government.

Agreed.

I support some regulation. Warning labels and public disclosure of ingredients are valid regulations; while banning advertising and flavors is not a valid exercise of government power, in my opinion.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Obama puts tobacco under FDA control

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Obama puts tobacco under FDA control

mcjagdflieger wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Board footer