NationStates Jolt Archive

A Senate panel voted for a bill that would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco. Hopefully, this will lead to a decrease in tobacco usage and maybe even its eventual elimination.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_go_co/congress_tobacco)

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee Wednesday embraced legislation that would for the first time allow federal regulation of cigarettes.

The bill, approved 13-8 by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to restrict tobacco advertising, regulate warning labels and remove hazardous ingredients.

The agency also would be given the authority to set standards for products that tobacco companies advertise as "reduced risk" products.

"This is an enormous step forward," said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "This could end up being the signature public health action this Congress takes."

The bill has broad bipartisan support in the Senate, where more than 50 senators have signed on as co-sponsors. A similar bill passed the chamber in 2004 but was blocked in the House.

"The bipartisan legislation will save millions of lives and save others from a lifetime of addiction and certain death," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who sponsored the bill.

The tobacco legislation was crafted through several years of negotiations led by Kennedy and former Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, with input from health groups and tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, which broke from its competitors to endorse FDA regulation.

The bill would allow the FDA to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, but only Congress could permanently ban them.

The committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., that would ban clove cigarettes in the U.S., reversing a controversial decision by Kennedy to allow the FDA to decide.

Kennedy, the panel's chairman, said he was responding to several senators who contacted him with concerns that a ban on cloves would not be compliant with World Trade Organization rules. But Kennedy agreed to the ban after several senators objected.

Most cloves are marketed in Asia, and Philip Morris, a unit of New York-based Altria Group Inc., recently launched a Marlboro cigarette flavored with cloves in Indonesia.

Kennedy said at the meeting that Philip Morris had "nothing to do with our decision" and he supported the clove ban as long as it is WTO compliant.

Philip Morris's competitors are strongly opposed to the overall bill, saying it would lock in Philip Morris's dominant market share. The panel rejected several amendments by Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who represents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in his home state of North Carolina. Kennedy said that Burr's amendments would undermine the legislation.

After the hearing, Burr said he would not rule out trying to hold up the bill on the Senate floor.

Enzi, the top Republican on the panel, also opposes the legislation and has objected to Philip Morris's involvement.

"If this bill is good for big tobacco, how can it be good for public health?" Enzi asked after the hearing. "The fact is, it can't. This bill is nothing more than a 'Marlboro Protection Act,' written to keep Philip Morris at the top of the tobacco market."

Enzi has introduced his own bill that would aim to greatly shrink the size of the tobacco market over the next 20 years.

A company statement issued by Altria said the company will "continue to lend our full support to this process."

"We hope to work with all interested stakeholders to achieve the best legislation possible," the statement read.

You light cigarettes on fire and inhale the smoke.

If they remove the hazardous ingredients, you know what you're left with? a piece of gum. :D

Wait, the FDA doesn't already regulate tobacco? I thought the D stood for drugs, but apparently not.

Ugh. I wish people would get lives.

So it is quite acceptable for government to tell me how to live every facet of my life?

I have every right to smoke, it's my bloody body, and I daresay my taxation payments will surpass what little care the NHS provides for me in my life.

If the government is such a fan of underground crime and the mafia, or are being controlled by the mafia, they should just say so and not come up with such a lame excuse.

As far as I see it, this is, at the very least, a step away from hypocrisy.

If they outlaw or regulate one harmful substance, lets say cocaine (in this case outlawed), then, as I see it, they should outlaw all potentially harmful substances, i.e alchohol, tobacco...trans fats while we're at it.

Either that, or they legalize all the other harmful subtances.

...

I'd support the latter over the former but it doesn't really matter. I just like consistancy...

So it is quite acceptable for government to tell me how to live every facet of my life?

I have every right to smoke, it's my bloody body, and I daresay my taxation payments will surpass what little care the NHS provides for me in my life.

Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens.

As far as I see it, this is, at the very least, a step away from hypocrisy.

If they outlaw or regulate one harmful substance, lets say cocaine (in this case outlawed), then, as I see it, they should outlaw all potentially harmful substances, i.e alchohol, tobacco...trans fats while we're at it.

Either that, or they legalize all the other harmful subtances.

...

I'd support the latter over the former but it doesn't really matter. I just like consistancy...

NYC just banned trans fats. It does take time to ban everything. And cocaine is MUCH more harmful than tobacco.


Anyone who says they have a right to suicide or to poison themselves needs to have their brain examined...

The FDA should regulate tobacco just like any food or drug product. However, it shouldn't ban products; all that does is give a big fat check to organized crime to supply them to the consumers that want the,

Here's a simple truth that I've learned: You can't truly stop anything. No matter how hard you try, if someone wants something, they will find a way to get it and people will do the research, invest the money, build the facilities and sell it to them. It will get where the market wants it to go. It could be anything from cigarettes to steroids to, I don't know, kidneys...if people want them, they will get them.

By legalizing and regulating it, you channel those desires in to the open economy rather than the underground economy, with numerous positive effects.

So it is quite acceptable for government to tell me how to live every facet of my life?

I have every right to smoke, it's my bloody body, and I daresay my taxation payments will surpass what little care the NHS provides for me in my life.

I suggest you chew tobacco then because smoking has a blatantly obvious part that affects anyone and anything in the area - smoke.

Anyone who says they have a right to suicide or to poison themselves needs to have their brain examined...


Who does my life belong to if not to myself? Why shouldn't I be able to end my life if I wished? Please make your point clear.

Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens.





Can you read? Not only will I have private health care in adulthood, but my taxes will, in all likelihood, far exceed anything I could recieve in return from the NHS.

Equally, if you seek to apply such an argument to smoking, why not those damn foolhardy extreme sports enthusiasts? Or anybody who consumes alcohol?

It is not the role of the state to create a wholly risk free society; any such society would be tedious in the extreme.

Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens.


Smokers are revenue positive for the government. What with them dying earlier and saving all that medicare/social security money from being paid out.

So by your logic, the government should force everyone to smoke. Because it would save money.

Also, fatties.

I suggest you chew tobacco then because smoking has a blatantly obvious part that affects anyone and anything in the area - smoke.

I socialise with smokers, and frankly, I couldn't give a flying fuck about most people anyway. In any case, chewing tobacco doesn't look anywhere near as good.

Smokers are revenue positive for the government. What with them dying earlier and saving all that medicare/social security money from being paid out.

Revenue positive for the government, massive economic loss for the private sector...

...which is why the free market is the only way to balance the benefits and drawbacks of smoking. Government regulation doesn't really help all that much and probably hurts from a law and order standpoint.

I suggest you chew tobacco then because smoking has a blatantly obvious part that affects anyone and anything in the area - smoke.

I socialise with smokers, and frankly, I couldn't give a flying fuck about most people anyway. In any case, chewing tobacco doesn't look anywhere near as good.

Forgive me comrade, but that very attitude could be used as an argument for tighter tobacco regulation.

Revenue positive for the government, massive economic loss for the private sector...


Is it that massive though. The only thing I can think of is health care. (Life insurance rates are already adjusted for smokers). And since smokers typically don't start to get really sick and die until around retirement age, how great can the impact really be?

And where does this argument end? Are we going to tax people for being overweight? Mandate 30 mins of cardio a day? Ban sugar?

I suggest you chew tobacco then because smoking has a blatantly obvious part that affects anyone and anything in the area - smoke.I suggest you support the banning of parked cars idling, then, because their exhaust has more carcinogens than cigarette smoke and, depending on the car, might have many times as many.

Is it that massive though. The only thing I can think of is health care. (Life insurance rates are already adjusted for smokers). And since smokers typically don't start to get really sick and die until around retirement age, how great can the impact really be?

Negative effects of smoking begin right from the beginning, really; it's not serious, but all those sick days, reduced energy, greater susceptibility to environmental pollution and other effects add up to a lot. It might not be cancer, but it's a lot.

And, of course, a healthy person might be able to work a good deal longer if they are not forced in to retirement due to health reasons; if a person is able to work healthily to age, say, 75-80 as opposed to a smoker forced to retire for health reasons at age 65, that could be a good 10-15 years of additional work lost. For a single worker, that could be $1-2 million of wages and several billion to the company for the lost work, especially at a time of labor shortages in skilled occupations.

Now, obviously, if a person can afford to retire at 65, that's another matter and would have no economic effect because their investments have more than made up for lost work. However, I'm specifically addressing forced early retirement due to health reasons.

And where does this argument end? Are we going to tax people for being overweight? Mandate 30 mins of cardio a day? Ban sugar?

I don't think we should do any of those things. Personally, I'm of the opinion that advances in medical science will be able to rectify most or even all of these problems before the first Boomer turns 80*, and that will mean a huge, continual boost to health and longevity without needing government coercion to make it so.

The kind of trends coming together are going to be a huge offset of these behaviors and will save trillions of dollars and workers that can be used for other purposes.

(*in case you're wondering, that would be 2025)

So it is quite acceptable for government to tell me how to live every facet of my life?

I have every right to smoke, it's my bloody body, and I daresay my taxation payments will surpass what little care the NHS provides for me in my life.
I'm afraid I must agree with Chris on this one, though I don't smoke and never will.

A Senate panel voted for a bill that would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco. Hopefully, this will lead to a decrease in tobacco usage and maybe even its eventual elimination.

Oh ho, and yet I am told by the anti-tobacco diehards that they have no wish to ban it. Yet here you are, baldly stating your desire for it to be eliminated, so why not a full ban, eh?

FDA regulations can fuck themselves, no smoker I know is going to decrease their usage simply because of some legislature.

This legislation is illegal. The Constitution makes no allowance for federal regulation of drugs. All remaining powers are left to the states. Thus, state regulation, while legal, is moronic. But federal regulation is both moronic and illegal.

Just another example of the American government's illegal oppression of its people.

The bill would allow the FDA to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, but only Congress could permanently ban them.

Oh great...so smokers will have to buy MORE packs of cigarrettes to sustain their habit.

Nevermind that fact that state govermnents everywhere are upping cigarette taxes because it's the ONLY tax they can safely raise and still get reelected.

(I'll be laughing my ass off when those higher prices actually make some smokers quit, and all the revenue those elected officials were counting on to "fund health care" suddenly starts to dry up. Who are you going to pin the shit on then, fuckers?)

Now they're going to up the price AND lower the dose...if we were talking about any other drug, that'd get you shot in some neighborhoods.

Lower income smokers get fucked again...but hell, it's not like anyone cares. :rolleyes:

Oh great...so smokers will have to buy MORE packs of cigarrettes to sustain their habit.

Nevermind that fact that state govermnents everywhere are upping cigarette taxes because it's the ONLY tax they can safely raise and still get reelected.

(I'll be laughing my ass off when those higher prices actually make some smokers quit, and all the revenue those elected officials were counting on to "fund health care" suddenly starts to dry up. Who are you going to pin the shit on then, fuckers?)

Now they're going to up the price AND lower the dose...if we were talking about any other drug, that'd get you shot in some neighborhoods.

Lower income smokers get fucked again...but hell, it's not like anyone cares. :rolleyes:

I sure don't. I don't smoke. :)

Boiled down to it's simplest, do the FDA have as much responsibility to regulate the quality and safety of cigarettes as any other food or legal drug? Yes.

In the process of regulating cigarettes, do they have a responsibility to recognize that cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year? Absolutely.

And It's very interesting that people are willing to chalk that up to 'personal risk', but go batshit insane if a few hundred pets die of shoddy pet food. Personally, I think cigarettes deserve at least the same level of consumer safety concern as fluffy's cat chow. But then again, I'm the crazy one. :p

And since smokers typically don't start to get really sick and die until around retirement age, how great can the impact really be?

Really great, actually. These smokers don't just suddenly die and disappear one day. They get cancer, or persistant lung infections, or emphysema, or diabetes, or heart disease. Things that they'll be getting treated for at least a decade at high cost before they finally kick the bucket because of it. You don't smoke for 40 years and then suddenly disappear one day with no ill-effects up to that point.

It's why it amuses me when people say "lols, when people quit smoking all the tax money will disappear!!!111" because as it is, it isn't even a total offset for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that'll be needed to treat them in later life.

Really great, actually. These smokers don't just suddenly die and disappear one day. They get cancer, or persistant lung infections, or emphysema, or diabetes, or heart disease. Things that they'll be getting treated for at least a decade at high cost before they finally kick the bucket because of it. You don't smoke for 40 years and then suddenly disappear one day with no ill-effects up to that point.

Well if you had an NHS and used tobacco duty to help fund it...

It's why it amuses me when people say "lols, when people quit smoking all the tax money will disappear!!!111" because as it is, it isn't even a total offset for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that'll be needed to treat them in later life.

Out of interest, do you know how much money is raise from taxing tobacco and the amount spent on smoking related diseases in the US?

Oh well, good luck with that.

I'm pretty confident in the power of the tobacco lobbyists.

And It's very interesting that people are willing to chalk that up to 'personal risk', but go batshit insane if a few hundred pets die of shoddy pet food. Personally, I think cigarettes deserve at least the same level of consumer safety concern as fluffy's cat chow. But then again, I'm the crazy one. :p
There's a big difference: Smokers know about the risk, and choose to smoke anyway. Fluffy and his caregiver didn't even expect there to BE a risk in the pet food, let alone choose to accept it.

Boiled down to it's simplest, do the FDA have as much responsibility to regulate the quality and safety of cigarettes as any other food or legal drug? Yes.

In the process of regulating cigarettes, do they have a responsibility to recognize that cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year? Absolutely.

And so they'll do the one thing that is virtually guaranteed to make a large portion of smokers smoke MORE...

How does that make any sense?

If they want to regulate cigarettes, then they ought to mandate that tobacco companies use fewer additives and less tar. Reducing nicotine is simply going to make the problem worse.

Oh well, good luck with that.

I'm pretty confident in the power of the tobacco lobbyists.

If tobacco lobbyists were as powerful as everyone says they are, there would not only not be any smoking bans anywhere in the country, but school systems would issue cigarettes with school lunches and non-smokers would be treated like social lepers.

If tobacco lobbyists were as powerful as everyone says they are, there would not only not be any smoking bans anywhere in the country, but school systems would issue cigarettes with school lunches and non-smokers would be treated like social lepers.

If tobacco lobbyists weren't as powerful as they are, cigarettes would have died 25 years ago. If they weren't as powerful as they are(with a big assist from the lumber industry), cannabis would never have been made illegal.

Fergi America;12929837']There's a big difference: Smokers know about the risk, and choose to smoke anyway. Fluffy and his caregiver didn't even expect there to BE a risk in the pet food, let alone choose to accept it.

So we can stop inspecting meat then? Everybody knows abou E. coli. Don't they?

So we can stop inspecting meat then? Everybody knows abou E. coli. Don't they?But meat-eaters don't accept that risk--and, said risk can be avoided without either banning or ruining the effects of the main product.

And it is still legal to buy meat raw, and even eat it that way, despite the fact that thorough cooking will kill most pathogens. The risks posed by "undercooked" meat ARE routinely accepted by many if not most meat-eaters (although not too many prefer truly *raw* meat, "rare" is quite popular).

On the other hand, FDA "regulation" of cigarettes is just a BS roundabout way to slide a ban (or what amounts to a ban) through.

Out of interest, do you know how much money is raise from taxing tobacco and the amount spent on smoking related diseases in the US?

I know the figures from the UK, but not the US - and you're quite right in that we do have a publically funded NHS on this side of the atlantic

But that said, I'm aware that it's commonly said that the US government spends double per capita on healthcare than the UK NHS does, despite the technical lack of free healthcare there. So I'm sure it's still a significant sum, if not higher, than for the UK.

A google search quickly finds some US cost estimates, but looking down them I wouldn't call any of these authoritative.

Fergi America;12930061']But meat-eaters don't accept that risk--and, said risk can be avoided without either banning or ruining the effects of the main product.

And it is still legal to buy meat raw, and even eat it that way, despite the fact that thorough cooking will kill most pathogens. The risks posed by "undercooked" meat ARE routinely accepted by many if not most meat-eaters (although not too many prefer truly *raw* meat, "rare" is quite popular).

On the other hand, FDA "regulation" of cigarettes is just a BS roundabout way to slide a ban (or what amounts to a ban) through.

Well, let's break this down a little bit: The FDA inspects and regulates foods and drugs when people aren't willing to accept the hazards of consumption. But you say that cigarettes shouldn't be inspected or regulated because smokers accept the risks of consumption? Do they really? Seems like a blanket statement to me. I'm willing to wager that there are at least a decent percentage of smokers who wouldn't mind safer cigarettes; if for no other reason than to smoke them in more places. On the other hand, unlike meat, the person who purchases and consumes cigarettes aren't the only person consuming them. So does everybody else nearby. I'll bet some of them would like a safer product. When I was a blackjack dealer at the casino and had six patrons sitting in a semi-circle around me and puffing like chimneys, I certainly was a consumer.

Next is your assumption that this is a way to slide in a ban. Why would they ban it? Because it kills more people annually than any other legal product on the consumer market, including handguns and automobiles? Don't be so paranoid. ;)

When I was a blackjack dealer at the casino and had six patrons sitting in a semi-circle around me and puffing like chimneys, I certainly was a consumer.Erm...considering it's a private establishment, you were neither forced to work there or to even be present there. So, even if you were countable as a consumer of the product, it was by choice. The option to work at a non-smoking establishment was there (in theory, if there were no places that banned smoking, then I guess not, but that seems fairly unlikely).

Actually, in terms of a smoking ban, what I wouldn't really be opposed to is if it took extra paperwork and time (not a ton, but enough to make it something *extra* to do) to establish your business as a place that allows smoking. This doesn't actually infringe upon the rights of business owners and makes it likely that, no matter where you go, you will have a number of smokerless establishments to frequent.

I know the figures from the UK, but not the US - and you're quite right in that we do have a publically funded NHS on this side of the atlantic

But that said, I'm aware that it's commonly said that the US government spends double per capita on healthcare than the UK NHS does, despite the technical lack of free healthcare there. So I'm sure it's still a significant sum, if not higher, than for the UK.

A google search quickly finds some US cost estimates, but looking down them I wouldn't call any of these authoritative.

Ahh, my mistake.

I didn't realise you were a fellow limey (you use of the term 'dollars' threw me :))

I tried doing a google search but got nowhere fast.

Anyway, even ASH admits that the financial arguement is a none starter so doesn't use it. (And I have to say I agree, there are many good arguements against smoking, the "burden on the health service and welfare" isn't one of them)

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion.

Slightly out of date, I know, but I cannot see any reason why the situation may have changed.

Erm...considering it's a private establishment, you were neither forced to work there or to even be present there. So, even if you were countable as a consumer of the product, it was by choice. The option to work at a non-smoking establishment was there (in theory, if there were no places that banned smoking, then I guess not, but that seems fairly unlikely).

I love this arguement. It suggests that jobs fall from sky and are easy to get. God knows how these low-paid, unsafe positions were ever filled in the first place.

Sorry if I am coming across as a bit rude, but it isn't uncommon for the "choice" to work somewhere unhealthy to be a loaded choice. Foisted upon people due to economic necessity.

That's why I qualified the statement as being "in theory." I realize that it is not uncommon to have no choice but to take a job in which the environment is not to your liking. Which is why I would be in favor of it taking a certain amount of paperwork to register an establishment as a smoking establishment. Though, really, most places I've been to, rural and urban, there are more places to work where smoking is banned than not. Again, I am talking only about smoking here, not any other work conditions.

That's why I qualified the statement as being "in theory." I realize that it is not uncommon to have no choice but to take a job in which the environment is not to your liking. Which is why I would be in favor of it taking a certain amount of paperwork to register an establishment as a smoking establishment. Though, really, most places I've been to, rural and urban, there are more places to work where smoking is banned than not. Again, I am talking only about smoking here, not any other work conditions.

True.

But all that means is that the more vulnerable in society fill those positions.

I have to say though that the smoking ban did put me in a dilemma. Not that I am fond of smoking indoors, but I wanted the rights of business to decide what went on in their premises respected. But on the other hand I also thought it was unfair for workers to be forced to work in hazardous environments.

I'm just really frustrated by smoking bans because of the stupid way they've been applied at my university, I guess. First, you have to be 30 feet away from buildings to smoke, but then they ban smoking from all bars on this side of the river. The other side, being in a different township, doesn't enact this same ban. So, right off the bat, there is going to be more drunk driving most likely, since a good number of people like to smoke in bars. However, when you consider the people who will want to smoke but have to stand ridiculously far away from bars to do so, you get a bunch of drunks getting arrested for public intoxication (another simply absurd law) because they had to leave the bar to smoke a cigarette in the most conspicuous places possible. It also ends up hurting business at establishments that make a portion off their money from being specifically non-smoking establishments. There are a good many people that go to (well, used to, I guess) bars that are non-smoking because they simply dislike cigarette smoke. The whole situation just boggles my mind.

Erm...considering it's a private establishment, you were neither forced to work there or to even be present there. So, even if you were countable as a consumer of the product, it was by choice. The option to work at a non-smoking establishment was there (in theory, if there were no places that banned smoking, then I guess not, but that seems fairly unlikely).

Actually, in terms of a smoking ban, what I wouldn't really be opposed to is if it took extra paperwork and time (not a ton, but enough to make it something *extra* to do) to establish your business as a place that allows smoking. This doesn't actually infringe upon the rights of business owners and makes it likely that, no matter where you go, you will have a number of smokerless establishments to frequent.

Do you think it's an acceptable occupational hazard? Companies are supposed to keep paperwork on all hazardous chemicals that an employee could be expected to run across in the course of his or her job. Try as I might, paperwork on cigarette smoke was nowhere to be found. :p

Anti-tobacco pinko-lite meddling busybody pissant scum :rolleyes:

Mind your own fucking business.

:sniper:

If tobacco lobbyists were as powerful as everyone says they are, there would not only not be any smoking bans anywhere in the country, but school systems would issue cigarettes with school lunches and non-smokers would be treated like social lepers.

You win some, you lose some?

Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens
The NHS makes money from smokers, actually.

Bah humbug.

*lights a cig*

Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens.



NYC just banned trans fats. It does take time to ban everything. And cocaine is MUCH more harmful than tobacco.


Anyone who says they have a right to suicide or to poison themselves needs to have their brain examined...

Hey, if you're a whack-job who litterally want's to drop dead, it's hardly the governments place to tell you what to do. banning smoking is an invasion of civil liberties, next they'll tell me what I can say or who marries who based on Dr. Phils evaluation or who counts as an 'enemy combatant'........... Oh.. right... well, Michael Moore made Europe sound nice...

I'm really sick of these Goddamn secular pietists trying to regulate every little minutia of people's lives, such as through tobacco regulation. It's basically the same thing as the hysteria over "demon rum", except God is substituted by "society." Is smoking hazardous to your health? Yes. Is it, therefore, a dumb thing to do? Yes. Is it any of your business? No, it's their body and they have every right to do with it what they please. And if your counter-argument is that it costs money to treat it at the ER, then you should fix the ER instead of trying to 'fix' people.

I'm really sick of these Goddamn secular pietists trying to regulate every little minutia of people's lives, such as through tobacco regulation. It's basically the same thing as the hysteria over "demon rum", except God is substituted by "society." Is smoking hazardous to your health? Yes. Is it, therefore, a dumb thing to do? Yes. Is it any of your business? No, it's their body and they have every right to do with it what they please. And if your counter-argument is that it costs money to treat it at the ER, then you should fix the ER instead of trying to 'fix' people.

while i agree its an individual's right to do what they want with their own body, i would say that for many smokers its not so much a concious decision to start. they smoke a few out with friends, a couple to relax at work, and soon find themselves needing that nicotine to feel non-shitty again. the costs of smoking - both pecuniary and health-related - are not percieved by most people when they start. this is, of course, why smoking is a prime example of a demerit good. and why it should either be discouraged (through fiscal policy or otherwise) or the health problems and financial considerations should be very well publicised.

the health issues are of course more widely known these days, but it still doesn't stop some from going down the "it won't happen to me" route...

that doesn't get around the fact that it's unconstitutional to deny a man his fag. In every sense of the word:eek:

that doesn't get around the fact that it's unconstitutional to deny a man his fag. In every sense of the word:eek:

Unconstitutional? Cigarettes aren't weapons or a protected form of speech, are they? The sooner smoking disappears, the better.

Smoking makes people feel better because it makes the brain release endorphines. Endorphines are usually released when you are hugged or you did something you are proud of.

while i agree its an individual's right to do what they want with their own body, i would say that for many smokers its not so much a concious decision to start. they smoke a few out with friends, a couple to relax at work, and soon find themselves needing that nicotine to feel non-shitty again. the costs of smoking - both pecuniary and health-related - are not percieved by most people when they start. this is, of course, why smoking is a prime example of a demerit good. and why it should either be discouraged (through fiscal policy or otherwise) or the health problems and financial considerations should be very well publicised.

the health issues are of course more widely known these days, but it still doesn't stop some from going down the "it won't happen to me" route...

I do not think that smoking should be discouraged by fiscal policy or any sort of policy that would attack the free will (such as taxation.) This would be just the same as regulating it. It is the individual's choice alone. If you wish to rail against it on your own money, then more power to you. But you should not be able to stop smoking by trampling other people's will.

[QUOTE=Sel Appa;12928706]Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens./QUOTE]

Who said the gov't needs to spend money on paying for my ER visit?

And the govt's job is to create enough stability so that citizens can go about thier lives with as little interference as possible. That often takes the form of "protecting", when we're talking about law enforcement or military.

I've got the right to do whatever the hell I want to do. Except, of course, using force or fraud against another person. Even if it means ruining my own health.

[QUOTE=Sel Appa;12928706]Yes it is. You do not have the right to ruin your health and thereby cost the government money when you have a heart attack and go to the ER. The government's job is to protect its citizens./QUOTE]

Who said the gov't needs to spend money on paying for my ER visit?

And the govt's job is to create enough stability so that citizens can go about thier lives with as little interference as possible. That often takes the form of "protecting", when we're talking about law enforcement or military.

I've got the right to do whatever the hell I want to do. Except, of course, using force or fraud against another person. Even if it means ruining my own health.

Exactly!!

Hopefully, this will lead to a decrease in tobacco usage and maybe even its eventual elimination.

Lol fuck you man.

How you people can still support prohibition even after its proven failures is beyond me.

The banning of tobacco would be an unwarranted and unacceptable imposition upon the individual. It is not within the United States very detailed authority to ban substances in the first place.

Also, an echo of those who claimed this would bring back yet another golden age of organized crime. Also, just like marijuana has proved, its really hard to ban something that grows so easily.

I've never been a smoker, but neither have I ever been *bothered* by a smoker. It's getting a bit silly, I think, this rush to ban.

Smoking makes people feel better because it makes the brain release endorphines. Endorphines are usually released when you are hugged or you did something you are proud of.

Sure, but drugs are much more efficient at it, I would think. :p

Sure, but drugs are much more efficient at it, I would think. :p

Many credible sources would disagree. It's almost midnight here and I'm leaving town in the morning. I'll post the sources as soon as I can reach an available computer. Many of the sources were nonprofit cancer institutions. Don't think they'd be very biased.

Many credible sources would disagree. It's almost midnight here and I'm leaving town in the morning. I'll post the sources as soon as I can reach an available computer. Many of the sources were nonprofit cancer institutions. Don't think they'd be very biased.

Alright then. I haven't met too many hug addicts, but you could be right. ;)

Alright then. I haven't met too many hug addicts, but you could be right. ;)

Hugs? I thought you were talking about cigarettes, as people tend to not group cigarettes with ritalin and crack.

Hugs? I thought you were talking about cigarettes, as people tend to not group cigarettes with ritalin and crack.

Heh. Not quite. :p

You were saying:

"Smoking makes people feel better because it makes the brain release endorphines. Endorphines are usually released when you are hugged or you did something you are proud of."

And I was saying that you were probably right, but that drugs were more effective in releasing those endorphines than hugs, e.g. ;)

Who said the gov't needs to spend money on paying for my ER visit?

And the govt's job is to create enough stability so that citizens can go about thier lives with as little interference as possible. That often takes the form of "protecting", when we're talking about law enforcement or military.

I've got the right to do whatever the hell I want to do. Except, of course, using force or fraud against another person. Even if it means ruining my own health.

Damn straight! The only reason that the health of an individual is the problem of society is because society makes it society's problem by forcing everyone to pay for each individual's health. This alone is a huge violation of everyone's freedoms, but it then leads to more violations, like tobacco bans, trans fat regulations, etc.

I can smoke what I want and eat what I want, and the government ain't gonna stop me with any legislation.

Wait, the FDA doesn't already regulate tobacco? I thought the D stood for drugs, but apparently not.

Tobacco is regulated by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. I'm not sure if it will be renamed cigarettes are under the auspice of the FDA. Maybe they could start being true to the demo and become the bureau of alcohol, firearms, and mullets.

I know! Since we've essentially banned cigarettes now, let's focus on the next thing that's 1) dangerous to personal health, 2) creates dangerous situations in public, 3) causes an excessively large amount of deaths each year, and 4) has huge repercussions on the health-care system.... Alcohol!

Oh, right, we fucking tried that already. Stop regulating my cigarettes, and I won't regulate your idiocy.

I know! Since we've essentially banned cigarettes now, let's focus on the next thing that's 1) dangerous to personal health, 2) creates dangerous situations in public, 3) causes an excessively large amount of deaths each year, and 4) has huge repercussions on the health-care system.... Alcohol!

Oh, right, we fucking tried that already. Stop regulating my cigarettes, and I won't regulate your idiocy.

Prohibition's different. Cigarettes would be regulated, but still legal. What Prohibition did was flat-out ban all alcohol outside of religious, medical, and industrial purposes. I hope people eventually stop smoking. All it does is add MORE pollution (like we need more greenhouse gases with all the cars, jets, and cows in the world) and ages people. I tried cigarettes once. It was either the horrid taste or the fact that all the smokers I know have yellowed teeth (with the exception of my grandmother and her dentures), look years older than they are, and smell funny.