Next Question
RSS
I believe that it is morally wrong to pass any law intended to protect people from the consequences of their own choices. As an adult human being of sound mind, I should be free to buy a bubblegum and chocolate sprinkle flavored stimulant delivery system, take into the privacy of my home, set it on fire and inhale the fumes until I tire of the activity or until it kills me. There is no such thing as freedom in a society where people are not free to choose poorly for themselves.
We already have bans against letting teens purchase tobacco. We already have warning labels on cigarette packages. We already require people to show ID when purchasing tobacco products. We already compel the tobacco industry to spend a big chunk of their profits on creating advertisements to tell people not to buy their products. We already tax such products at levels greater than what led to the Boston Tea Party when the British taxed our tea. Short of authorizing the police to shoot anyone they catch smoking, I'm not sure what more they can possibly do.
I can understand a desire to protect children from harmful products, but this is the responsibility of parents and not government. If we claim it is morally correct for government to protect us from our own choices, it is only a matter of time before we are inundated with a ridiculous number of bans and people just start ignoring the laws and create thriving black markets. (This is already the case with Marijuana and is also what happened during Prohibition.)
I don't even smoke cigarettes, but a law like this makes me want to go out and buy one, roll it in Fruit Loop dust and smoke it in the middle of town square.
Your comments about fast food are very apt. We are already seeing bans on trans fat, proposals for taxing unhealthy soda, proposals to tax excessive calorie meals and other such intrusions of our free will. To think of targeting certain flavors is ludicrous but nevertheless it is happening. If this trend isn't stopped we might as well all switch to eating Soylent Green and surrender our decision making powers to the people who are supposedly our public 'servants'.
Source(s):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
http://www.bantransfats.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/09/news/economy/fastfood_tax/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
Tags: freedom, taxation, oppression, bans, liberty
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Do they lead teens to smoke?:
In my opinion, yes. I am not us person but I have some friends really good friends.
Some days ago one of them send me a packet of cigarettes! But in our country smoking under 18 is so bad in social look.
Then I asked him why this gift? He answered this is a unique and latest brand.So I think ads can well convince to do that! I also asked him why he smoke? He answered if he do not smoke there will be no personality!!
Good law? :
Of course. It will discourage smoking the teens like my friends. We should not tell that stop that ads which convince teens to smoke but We can say please give ads by another celebrities that's vision will be "Don't smoke." It will also convince us not to smoke.
Source(s):
My opinion
Permalink | Report
BTW - I would like like to throw in that a bag of tube-your-own tobacco just went from $21.99 to $44.99. The entire increase, which more than doubles the cost, is all tax! So, guess what? I bought myself some tobacco seeds. Pretty soon, I'll be doing things the old fashion way and the government can keep their silly rules and their high taxes and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. The government will never be able to completely eradicate tobacco like they want to. It will always be around as long as humans are. Same thing with another smokeable.
Permalink | Report
This law is written by the pansies who want smoking banned, but don't have the leverage of influence to get an outright ban, so they nitpick. This type of stuff makes me crazy.
Yes, I'm sure that flavored cigarettes entice more people - of ALL ages - to try them. It's clever product branding and development. Can't fault a cigarette company for trying to "improve" their product.
And I'm no fan of cigarettes or smokers! I think it's a loathsome, vile, stupid habit. If I was Queen of the World, smoking would be banned, fair or not.But if we're not going to ban smoking outright, we have no right to ban cigarette companies from making products of different flavors. That's just one step away from banning "Cherry Coke" because it encourages kids to drink pop. Or Cheesy Pringles because it encourages fat people to eat chips.
God, can't we all just take responsibility for our own choices? Parents, scare the hell out of your kids so they don't try smoking, even if it is chocolate flavored! Adults, remember how much you hate doctors visits and funerals before you take a puff!
Either ban them or leave it alone.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1.10
September 18, 2009 11:25 AM
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - Flavored Cigarettes...do they lead teens to smoke? Good law?
"Flavored tobacco was the first targeted because critics say artificial additives like cherry, grape, chocolate, and spiced cigarettes such as cloves, appeal to youths and lays the groundwork for a smoking addiction. The law only applies to rolled cigarettes, and menthols were spared in this particular prohibition." - http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_13348236
This isn't a bash smoking or smokers question....just curious about opinions on this type of political decision.
It seems that line of thinking would lead to closing down McDonald's or other fast food restaurants (which actually I kinda agree with). Doesn't a .99 cent hamburger full of fat just as much as a threat? Or the Burger King - leading those kids to eat fast food? What about the Little Cesar guy?
Obese Teens as Likely as Smokers to Die Early, Study Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/health/04obesity.html
Flavored cigarettes? Just not sure not selling them will make a difference. I went to a Jr. High Event and all the teens I saw were smoking "American Spirit" because (yes...I asked why) they are "healthier" (loved that one) and they (girls) liked the blue package. I think seeing Brittany Spears smoking is probably more leading than any of the ads.
This isn't a bash smoking or smokers question....just curious about opinions on this type of political decision.
It seems that line of thinking would lead to closing down McDonald's or other fast food restaurants (which actually I kinda agree with). Doesn't a .99 cent hamburger full of fat just as much as a threat? Or the Burger King - leading those kids to eat fast food? What about the Little Cesar guy?
Obese Teens as Likely as Smokers to Die Early, Study Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/health/04obesity.html
Flavored cigarettes? Just not sure not selling them will make a difference. I went to a Jr. High Event and all the teens I saw were smoking "American Spirit" because (yes...I asked why) they are "healthier" (loved that one) and they (girls) liked the blue package. I think seeing Brittany Spears smoking is probably more leading than any of the ads.
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| September 18, 2009 10:27 PM |
We already have bans against letting teens purchase tobacco. We already have warning labels on cigarette packages. We already require people to show ID when purchasing tobacco products. We already compel the tobacco industry to spend a big chunk of their profits on creating advertisements to tell people not to buy their products. We already tax such products at levels greater than what led to the Boston Tea Party when the British taxed our tea. Short of authorizing the police to shoot anyone they catch smoking, I'm not sure what more they can possibly do.
I can understand a desire to protect children from harmful products, but this is the responsibility of parents and not government. If we claim it is morally correct for government to protect us from our own choices, it is only a matter of time before we are inundated with a ridiculous number of bans and people just start ignoring the laws and create thriving black markets. (This is already the case with Marijuana and is also what happened during Prohibition.)
I don't even smoke cigarettes, but a law like this makes me want to go out and buy one, roll it in Fruit Loop dust and smoke it in the middle of town square.
Your comments about fast food are very apt. We are already seeing bans on trans fat, proposals for taxing unhealthy soda, proposals to tax excessive calorie meals and other such intrusions of our free will. To think of targeting certain flavors is ludicrous but nevertheless it is happening. If this trend isn't stopped we might as well all switch to eating Soylent Green and surrender our decision making powers to the people who are supposedly our public 'servants'.
Source(s):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
http://www.bantransfats.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/09/news/economy/fastfood_tax/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
Tags: freedom, taxation, oppression, bans, liberty
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Helpful: krazykatie, dimitrykaplun
Tip ewpldf for this answer
Reply
Other Answers (4)
September 18, 2009 12:32 PM
Here is not only one question. Do they lead teens to smoke?:
In my opinion, yes. I am not us person but I have some friends really good friends.
Some days ago one of them send me a packet of cigarettes! But in our country smoking under 18 is so bad in social look.
Then I asked him why this gift? He answered this is a unique and latest brand.So I think ads can well convince to do that! I also asked him why he smoke? He answered if he do not smoke there will be no personality!!
Good law? :
Of course. It will discourage smoking the teens like my friends. We should not tell that stop that ads which convince teens to smoke but We can say please give ads by another celebrities that's vision will be "Don't smoke." It will also convince us not to smoke.
Source(s):
My opinion
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: psionandy
Reply
September 18, 2009 01:01 PM
Hi, archetype..
If this is your pic, you looking nice. I hate smoking but girls who smoke I like them. If you smoke you it will be looking more nice. LOL
Don't mind please...I am always funny. You can saw that in my pic.
Ima always ha.a.a...aaa..
Again request don't mind please..
Report
If this is your pic, you looking nice. I hate smoking but girls who smoke I like them. If you smoke you it will be looking more nice. LOL
Don't mind please...I am always funny. You can saw that in my pic.
Ima always ha.a.a...aaa..
Again request don't mind please..
September 18, 2009 03:51 PM
Yeah that is another way to discourage smoking...If we add high tax our country's earning will be more on the other hand smoking will be discouraged. But we need most awareness. In the political view we can take any that harms our economical environment.
Report
September 18, 2009 03:40 PM
Clove cigarettes have been around for many, many years. I tried one in my 20's and hated them. Guess what? Regardless of that fact, I am a smoker. No, flavored cigarettes don't drive teens to smoke. This is simply another right snatched up by the government. BTW - I would like like to throw in that a bag of tube-your-own tobacco just went from $21.99 to $44.99. The entire increase, which more than doubles the cost, is all tax! So, guess what? I bought myself some tobacco seeds. Pretty soon, I'll be doing things the old fashion way and the government can keep their silly rules and their high taxes and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. The government will never be able to completely eradicate tobacco like they want to. It will always be around as long as humans are. Same thing with another smokeable.
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: kareul
Reply
September 18, 2009 03:45 PM
This law is just a wolf in sheep's clothing...or should I say chicken's clothing? This law is written by the pansies who want smoking banned, but don't have the leverage of influence to get an outright ban, so they nitpick. This type of stuff makes me crazy.
Yes, I'm sure that flavored cigarettes entice more people - of ALL ages - to try them. It's clever product branding and development. Can't fault a cigarette company for trying to "improve" their product.
And I'm no fan of cigarettes or smokers! I think it's a loathsome, vile, stupid habit. If I was Queen of the World, smoking would be banned, fair or not.But if we're not going to ban smoking outright, we have no right to ban cigarette companies from making products of different flavors. That's just one step away from banning "Cherry Coke" because it encourages kids to drink pop. Or Cheesy Pringles because it encourages fat people to eat chips.
God, can't we all just take responsibility for our own choices? Parents, scare the hell out of your kids so they don't try smoking, even if it is chocolate flavored! Adults, remember how much you hate doctors visits and funerals before you take a puff!
Either ban them or leave it alone.
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 18, 2009 03:57 PM
I will agree with you. But I will not band Cigarettes company for my economical problem but I want that we should make a high amount tax on Cigarettes. I also will include high tax for shipping. They will give ads for their product and I will request all celebrities who agree with me that don't take any fee for ads these ads will focus no smoking! If I were a king of world I would do that.
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- jessicadaubert, November 27, 2009 06:32 PM
- sbgarden, November 27, 2009 06:20 PM
- conundrum_josho..., November 27, 2009 06:04 PM
- puluthitam, November 27, 2009 06:02 PM
- swaywitme59, November 27, 2009 05:52 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
According to studies, teen smoking has dramatically declined since the early 1990's, by over 50% according to some studies.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.39871/
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6226
This downward trend has occurred even during increased availability of flavored cigarettes, bidis, flavored hookah tobaccos and more.
If this article is accurate, only 2-3 percent of teens use flavored tobacco products:
http://www.teensmoking.us/content/teen-smoking-statistics.html
According to this article:
- - - quote - - -
Relatively low prevalence rates were observed for both types of specialty cigarettes in the initial years of measurement, and since then use has declined substantially and fairly steadily in all grades. By 2007 the annual prevalence of bidis use was down by three quarters among 12th graders, from 9 percent in 2000 to under 2 percent in 2007, including some further decline this year. Annual prevalence of kretek {clove cigarettes} use among 12th graders is down by one third since 2001
- - - end quote - - -
Source:
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6226
Thus, even if you assume that the tobacco companies are deliberately trying to lure teens with flavored tobaccos, it's clearly not working. This evidence further supports that there is no need for a ban of flavored tobacco products.
As a final note: Even if flavored tobacco did attract some teens to smoking, I still wouldn't ban it as that would deprive adults of their free choice while creating a redundant law aimed at preventing teen smoking.