Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

  1. #1
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Times have changed now that even tobacco states have smoking bans. Today, after two weeks of wrangling and a decade of considering the change, the U.S. Senate endorsed increased regulation of tobacco.
    Senators voted 79-17 to regulate tobacco in the same way the government regulates everything else you put in your body...

    The House already passed its version of the bill in April, so it will go the president as soon as the chambers iron out the differences. Unlike former President Bush, who suggested he'd veto legislation to give the FDA authority over tobacco, President Obama has said he supports it.

    The bill would give the federal government the power to regulate cigarette ingredients, to ban the marketing of "light cigarettes" and to require graphic warning labels. It's a huge move that's been a long time coming.

    At Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, organization president Matthew L. Myers called the vote "a truly historic victory" and "the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use. Forty-five years after the first U.S. Surgeon General's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the most deadly product sold in America will no longer be the least-regulated product sold in America," Myers said in a statement.

    The bill would give the federal government the power to [for example] regulate cigarette ingredients, to ban the marketing of "light cigarettes" and to require graphic warning labels.

    "The legislation passed today is not perfect," Altria [owner of Philip Morris] said in a statement. "For example, we have expressed First Amendment reservations about certain provisions, including those that could restrict a manufacturer's ability to communicate truthful information to adult consumers about tobacco products. We also believe that the resolution of certain issues would best be handled by rulemaking processes that involve sound scientific data and public participation. On balance, however, the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."

    Despite the popularity of this bill, senators from tobacco states used every bit of time they could to delay a vote. Many floor speeches this week have concentrated on votes senators took 20 years and more ago. They barely passed -- by one vote -- the ban on smoking on airplane flights.

    this from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Healt...7801654&page=1
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  2. #2
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    With the recent per pack tax and the further regulation of internet sales and shipping, it's gonna get harder to "smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette."

    Bad habit is being forced down the toilet. It's just regulation of a poison product, part of the government's charge.
    Last edited by threlayer; 06-11-2009 at 07:10 PM.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  3. #3
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Somehow I think rat poison has less regulation than cigarettes. This is merely an opportunity for congress critters to puff up their chests (LOL), bureaucracies to expand, and the government to expand it's "war on drugs" (which has been so successful thus far.)

    When are we going to recognize being in a nanny state is bankrupting us?

    (I am not a smoker.)

  4. #4
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    States want it lessened because of the increased cost of dealing with smokers on Medicaid; feds for the Medicare issue. I want it lessened because I've lost friends and I don't like to be around others due to their smoking. I see a lot of people wheezing and carrying around their oxygen tanks and many others on medicines and respiratory therapy. Bad lungs is a big problem for many patients in hospitals, as many life-saving procedures have to be lessened or eliminated because they would affect breathing. Ever see that finger-tip oxygen sensor (measuring PO2) when you visited someone in a hospital? How is stopping smoking bankrupting us? I think it is the opposite.

    Anyhow 'rat poison' is regulated by the FDA because when it is in medicine form, coumadin, it is a blood thinner for such conditions as plebitis.

    Look at auto insurance. Lots of safety features were forced onto cars by insurance companies, but we car insurance owners still subsidize motorcyclists. Cars are safer (and more expensive) because of that, but to me it's worth the cost to perhaps save my life and yours.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  5. #5
    Featured Member Perry's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 105 Times in 54 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    I think it's drastic. And a bit scary, honestly. Medicaid should cover devices to stop smoking to begin with. Chantax, nicorett inhalers, gum, patches, ect, and they DON'T.

    The goverment can't make people quit smoking. I've watched them try by raising taxes, and how people respond for awhile now. First it was traveling to buy smokes out side the state. Then buying in bulk. Then they stopped buying cigarettes, and started rolling their own. Now that the loose rolling tobacco price has gone up (more than doubled in this state!), they've started using pipe tobacco which somehow escaped the tax. I'm interested to see how far this goes.

    It doesn't matter what they do, people will light up something or other.

  6. #6
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Addicts do get desperate all right.

    How do you stop an addict? How many want to quit but can't? It brings up the question again of who should be in charge when addicts can't help themselves.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  7. #7
    Featured Member Perry's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 105 Times in 54 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    No one. Just gotta let them go. It wouldn't be America if we didn't get to make our own choices, even when they are self-destructive ones. And no one can help an addict but the addict him/her self. The goverment is just making everything so much worse.

    My secound (on a long list) of problems with raising tobacco prices is that smoking is going to be associated with wealth, glamour and sophistication again. Expensive things are attractive things. If I caught my kid smoking my first response woulding be, "WTF are you doing to yourself??" but, "Where the fuck did you get that kind of money??"

  8. #8
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    We largely do get to make our choices in so far as it doesn't adversely affect any others. But I know that people are worried that more and more governments are regulating actions that may adversely affect ourselves. Some useful (food and dangerous product labeling) and some questionable, like smoking.

    You'd use the word 'fuck' with your kid?
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  9. #9
    God/dess Gia2608's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Miami/ Ft. Lauderdale
    Posts
    3,337
    Thanks
    4,235
    Thanked 3,664 Times in 1,451 Posts
    My Mood
    Cheerful

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Very true, Perry

    Obviously politics tend to differ quite a bit on this side of the Mason-Dix. line, esp. with regards to tobacco, but taxes have gone up recently ( effect noticed in the last 30 days) so much that a pack of cigarettes now cost about 15% more and the State of Fla. funds anti-smoking campaings and will help you with the purchase of anti-smoking aids if you are low income. Suprising to see these things in the South. I was in LA two years ago and they still had a smking section in the rest. in Baton Rouge!
    XoXo Gia
    Danielle Fishell (the Dish): "If the Super-Star thing doesn't work out, Gia makes a great stripper name"

  10. #10
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    With the luggage NJ
    Posts
    2,995
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 115 Times in 98 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Some tobacco companies approved of the act. Nicotine is a poison and could be banned; of course that would be organized crimes dream come true.

  11. #11
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Altria [owner of Philip Morris] said they are not going to fight it; they see the handwriting on the wall.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    With the luggage NJ
    Posts
    2,995
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 115 Times in 98 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    Altria [owner of Philip Morris] said they are not going to fight it; they see the handwriting on the wall.
    Tobacco should just be quiet; they can legally sell a drug as addictive as heroin and is more deadly.

  13. #13
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Good point. If it were illegal (as a for instance), tobacco would probably have been treated to the same fate as heroin and its users, even though its psycho-active effects are very different. But by the time the govt separated out "harmful" substances in the 1920s, tobacco was already a big business. That always makes a huge difference in a capitalistic society.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  14. #14
    Featured Member Perry's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 105 Times in 54 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    We largely do get to make our choices in so far as it doesn't adversely affect any others. But I know that people are worried that more and more governments are regulating actions that may adversely affect ourselves. Some useful (food and dangerous product labeling) and some questionable, like smoking.

    You'd use the word 'fuck' with your kid?
    Well, my kid won't be here until August 29th. But when I imagine him expeirmenting with cigarettes I kind of picture him to be high school age-d.

  15. #15
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    I think it's drastic. And a bit scary, honestly. Medicaid should cover devices to stop smoking to begin with. Chantax, nicorett inhalers, gum, patches, ect, and they DON'T.
    I agree with this. In a sense it is a preventative measure for subsequent health affects or part of the solution for current ones.

    NYs Dept of Health has a strong media compaign against smoking. I should find out what specific helps they really have.

    (not for me ive never smoked)
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    I agree with this. In a sense it is a preventative measure for subsequent health affects or part of the solution for current ones.

    NYs Dept of Health has a strong media compaign against smoking.
    all true ... but keep in mind that after the 'nanny state' has finished taxing / regulating / de-insuring smokers, they will quickly try to do the same for drinkers, overweight persons etc. I can just imagine the political repurcussions when the gov't announces a doubling of the taxes on beer, and the imposition of an extra $2 tax on every Big Mac !

  17. #17
    Featured Member Perry's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 105 Times in 54 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    ^^ That's a good point! Fun fact, a few jobs will drug test for nicotene now.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Blackstone's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    142
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    Altria [owner of Philip Morris] said they are not going to fight it; they see the handwriting on the wall.
    Altria loves this bill. It effectively ends cigarette advertising, which will protect their large market share against potentially cheaper foreign competitors and domestic startups. Big tobacco doesnt want you to hear about anything other than camel and marlboro.

  19. #19
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    all true ... but keep in mind that after the 'nanny state' has finished taxing / regulating / de-insuring smokers, they will quickly try to do the same for drinkers, overweight persons etc. I can just imagine the political repurcussions when the gov't announces a doubling of the taxes on beer, and the imposition of an extra $2 tax on every Big Mac !
    It may happen to drinkers via a sin tax (which is not a nanny tax), and in fact already does occur. I highly doubt if my Big Mac will have tax% on it any more than my MacDonald's chicken salad will. There already is a sales tax since it is a restaurant. They can't enact a 'fat tax' on specific foods (eg Big Macs, soft drinks) as it would be really hard to administer; also probably groups like ACLU would get involved etc.

    Though it would be pretty hard to administer, that doesn't saeem to stop the morons that dminister taxes. Example on sales tax which it likely would fall into if enacted: I go to a grocery store and but a pint of pre-made (a the store) ham salad, no sales tax; but if I have them have them slice a bun an spread it onto the bread it is prepared 'restaurant' food which is taxable. This in spite of the greater work preparing the ham salad rather than the simple job to prepare a sandwich from it. If I buy water it is not taxes, but if I buy ice it is. It is not the principle of the tax itself; instead it is the stupid interpretations made of it by guaranteed-employed bureaucrats.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    It may happen to drinkers via a sin tax (which is not a nanny tax)
    I was thinking more along the lines of increasing the cost of private health insurance premiums, which is already the case for smokers but which has not yet been put into effect for drinkers or overweight people even though their elevated health risk is just as well documented as is the case for smokers.


    They can't enact a 'fat tax' on specific foods (eg Big Macs, soft drinks) as it would be really hard to administer; also probably groups like ACLU would get involved etc.
    If national health care has a chance of passage, and if deeply debt burdened states have the potential of collecting a share of new tax revenues, potential administration problems will not be an obstacle. The passage of this new tobacco regulation law has basically set a precedent that the gov't now has the authority to regulate the ingredient content as well as the authority to impose 'user fees' on the tobacco industry. From my link ...

    ""It could also move to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in cigarettes.""

    ""Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked Hamburg at her confirmation hearing. "If the tobacco legislation becomes law, how does the FDA intend to obtain the necessary resources in order to carry out this responsibility, especially when it lacks the resource to conduct its current responsibilities?"

    Hamburg said the FDA should take on the responsibility and would rely on user fees from the tobacco industry, called for in the bill, to fund the effort.""

    This same precedent could easily be used to establish similar 'user fees' on the alcohol industry and the fast food industry ... which are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices !!!


    Altria loves this bill. It effectively ends cigarette advertising, which will protect their large market share against potentially cheaper foreign competitors and domestic startups
    Absolutely smart business on Altria's part ! The de-facto tobacco advertising ban will indeed prevent future competitors from making inroads into Altria brands' current market share, and Altria will save millions in advertising budget. Not such great news for magazines and other (formerly) legal outlets for tobacco advertising though. Another wonderful unintended consequence ... tobacco regulation bill helps bankrupt Playboy Magazine ( which has traditionally carried a large amount of cigarette ads) !!!

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-15-2009 at 02:38 PM.

  21. #21
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of increasing the cost of private health insurance premiums, which is already the case for smokers but which has not yet been put into effect for drinkers or overweight people even though their elevated health risk is just as well documented as is the case for smokers.
    I like this idea much better. Except for the uninsured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ...From my link ... ""It could also move to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in cigarettes.""...Hamburg said the FDA should take on the responsibility and would rely on user fees from the tobacco industry, called for in the bill, to fund the effort.""
    I actually like this idea too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    This same precedent could easily be used to establish similar 'user fees' on the alcohol industry and the fast food industry ... which are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices !!!
    Alcohol is already controlled, so extending that would be extremely easy. As far as fatty foods, how about the mom and pop Italian restaurance selling Fettuchini Alfredo that must have 5000 calories, 4500 of which is FAR MORE than is in a Big Mac. Or a 24 ounce prime rib dinner with 4500 mg of sodium. Or the soft drink distributors hawking sugar water in our schools? Lots of sources of fatty foods, so they could NEVER blame this all in fast food chains, if one could even decide which are fast food chains. Much more reasonable is insurers placing additional premiums on the grossly or morbidly obese, except for those who insist they have 'hormone' diseases that in fact make them FAT.

    The fatty (or fast) food thing is just speculation.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    an interesting opinion from representative / medical doctor Ron Paul ...

    (snip)"The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

    My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated - as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

    Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs. A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana. Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path. Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco. Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders. How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?

    Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new. It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then. Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all. Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it. In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry. One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill."(snip)

    from

  23. #23
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Makes me wonder what he would have said when opium, cocaine, heroin, snake oil and the rest were banned in the 1920s(?). I'm guessing he wouldn't have liked that either. If the govt banned the sale of tobacco outright, which we've apparently given it the right to do, would violate 1st Amendment rights too in his mind.

    I think there is still a pro-weed magazine and likely several pro-dope websites too. Excepting CA I'd guess no one advertises marijuana anyplace else or the other 'drugs' anyplace else.

    I've heard that most smokers start when they are kids; so keeping away the influences as much as practical would be useful, regardless of 1st Amendment rights, because the family is not a democracy.

    In any case his phrase "The way to combat poor choices is through education and information" hasn't worked too well for harder drugs and alcohol, if anyone has noticed. The man is too theoretical and not enough practical.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  24. #24
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Smoking to be More Heavily Regulated

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    Makes me wonder what he would have said when opium, cocaine, heroin, snake oil and the rest were banned in the 1920s(?). I'm guessing he wouldn't have liked that either. If the govt banned the sale of tobacco outright, which we've apparently given it the right to do, would violate 1st Amendment rights too in his mind.

    I think there is still a pro-weed magazine and likely several pro-dope websites too. Excepting CA I'd guess no one advertises marijuana anyplace else or the other 'drugs' anyplace else.

    I've heard that most smokers start when they are kids; so keeping away the influences as much as practical would be useful, regardless of 1st Amendment rights, because the family is not a democracy.

    In any case his phrase "The way to combat poor choices is through education and information" hasn't worked too well for harder drugs and alcohol, if anyone has noticed. The man is too theoretical and not enough practical.

    Education about it's ill effects kept me from smoking. I bet it has for many many others also.

Similar Threads

  1. My Mom is drinking heavily, again.
    By Laurisa in forum Life Support
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 06:15 PM
  2. Heavily tattooed
    By krystal.s in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-29-2011, 06:04 PM
  3. Heavily tattooed escorts?
    By Harleigh HellKat in forum Other Work
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 11:12 PM
  4. Heavily Tattooed.....what should i do?
    By vegasawaits in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-16-2004, 11:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •