Comments | quetzal: some crap i heard about on the news

quetzal

some crap i heard about on the news

Jun 23, 2009 08:41

So this does not bode well.
another linkfor the teal deer crowd - that, my friends, is a link outlining the new bill the president has signed in ( Read more... )

random, politics, wtfery

Comments 22

frogmaster June 23 2009, 14:18:44 UTC

Well, what do you want to be done about cigarettes?

The FDA has been tip-toeing around them for 20 years now.

If a consumer food or drug had the cancer and other health risks that cigarettes have they would have been off the market in a split second!

Cigarettes are going to be illegal eventually, they are just trying to do it slowly. That way the whining is spread out over decades instead of just a year or two if they just flipped-the-switch.

The only actual loss to smokers I can see in the latest roll-out is cloves.

The "light" and "mild" thingy is just that they can't use those marketing terms anymore, so they will just invent new terms that the FDA is all cool with and sell the same tasting cigs under a different name.

Oh, isn't there something in bill that will push up the price even more too?

quetzal June 23 2009, 14:51:24 UTC

Yeah, there's yet another tax on them... 62 cents or 67 cents, or something ridiculous like that.

I figured all this will really do is force the companies to find new wording for the same old products. Then, someone will get a bug up their ass about that, and more words will have to be banned and invented, and so on. (Personally, I'm hoping that eventually, the bureaucracy will just choke itself on red tape, and die an awful, spasming death.)

Anyhow, why make smoking illegal? I mean, it's not likely to just stop there. Cigarettes are bad for you. So is alcohol, fried food, red meat, and watching too much tv. And too much computering. And stress. How much are they going to regulate before it becomes (even more) ridiculous?

frogmaster June 23 2009, 15:42:48 UTC

It's a interesting problem ( ... )

quetzal June 23 2009, 17:14:50 UTC

On difference between cigarettes and the other "bad for you" things that you list is that cigarettes are physically addictive. So, they are crappy for you, and make you continue you using them.Alcohol is physically addictive, and causes liver failure, as well as a host of other problems. If it weren't so hard to quit drinking, there would be no reason for groups like AA, and we wouldn't have phrases like "falling off the bandwagon". But I'm pretty sure there would be rioting in the streets if a serious attempt at Prohibition were made. The only real difference between cigarettes and alcohol right now is that alcohol is still socially acceptable. An anti-drinker is unlikely to walk past someone with a beer in their hand and make vomiting noises, or reference driving their car into a tree, unlike an anti-smoker walking past someone with a cigarette in hand, making coughing, choking noises, and loudly commenting about how secondhand-smoke is killing them ( ... )

Thread 8

reynai June 23 2009, 14:49:00 UTC

Speaking as someone who doesn't smoke, and doesn't like being around cigarette smoke that much:

This is fucking ridiculous. Sure, keep the advertising away from kids. Require warning labels on ads and on cartons/packages. Fair enough. Everything else in the world needs to show off that information too, so it's only fair. I don't mind requiring segregation, since the smell of cigarettes can put me off my appetite in restaurants.

But people who've decided to smoke, and who want to continue, who use it as a stress valve or just goddamn enjoy it, have the right to do whatever the fuck they want about it as long as it's not impacting others. Candy flavors are fine. 'Cute' cigarettes, knock yourself out. Because I strongly believe in the right to be unhealthy.

quetzal June 23 2009, 14:52:22 UTC

Thank you.

michelemybell55 June 23 2009, 14:55:38 UTC

Well put!

frogmaster June 23 2009, 16:05:22 UTC

I believe in a person's right to choose, but I also think that they have the right to know what they are choosing.

Without regulation, the cigarette companies have shown that they will not tell their customers about the choice they are making.

The same can be said about many other things that are subject to regulation, in fact that is why these things are regulated.

And make no mistake, we all pay the healthcare costs for the diseases that smoking causes. Much in the same way that everyone else pays for my increased heathcare costs for my hobby of motorcycle riding.

But I'm regulated in this pastime as well, I pay extra insurance and licensing fees. And I am conscientious about it, I wear my safety gear, my bike is not loud. On the societal plus side, I cause less traffic, use less parking and get 70mpg, so at least my hobby has some "good" consequences.

Is cigarette regulation "perfect" yet? No. I do applaud the fact that they are trying to make it better.

Thread 13

Several points. Why the hell am I still awake? offdutydane June 24 2009, 15:04:45 UTC

Okay. I tried twice to make this short. I failed twice.

1. This is stupid.
2. Not all regulation is bad. Health is good. Gov't promoting good health is good.
3. This is not good. This is like saying you want to end suicide, so you hide all the shoelaces and belts and bedsheets, but you don't give a damn about the actual state of the person.
4. I don't smoke, I hate smoke, but I am also a hypocrite. Strawberry shihshah ftw.
5. Wine is made of grapes. Grapes are fruit. Oh noes.