• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Sign Anti-Smoking Bill

ReverendHellh0und

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Obama to Sign Anti-Smoking Bill


Obama to Sign Anti-Smoking Bill | NBC Miami


President Obama is set to sign into law an anti-smoking bill that will give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

.
Obama is scheduled to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act during an event Monday in the Rose Garden. The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Anti-smoking advocates looked forward to the bill after years of attempts to control an industry so fundamental to the U.S. that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the Capitol.
Click to expand...



We have to ask ourselves. "liberty or prohibition", with liberty comes responsibility. Who in this country does not know that smoking cigarettes will kill you?


Why is it, that a FEDERAL law is required to curb a legal product? Alchohol is far more deadly I believe, will flavored martinis ever be on the short list for this statist act?


My feeling are this "law" infringes on freedom just a bit more. It is a clear example of "incrementalism" and "statism" at work.
 
After the law is signed, will Obama quit?
 
If tobacco is so bad, why not just ban it outright?
Why suffer thru all this BS?
 
Goobieman said:
If tobacco is so bad, why not just ban it outright?
Why suffer thru all this BS?
Click to expand...

No doubt. I would be against that on principle, but looking at it from the government's side, why bother with all this crap? Ban them and be done with it.
 
stekim said:
No doubt. I would be against that on principle, but looking at it from the government's side, why bother with all this crap? Ban them and be done with it.
Click to expand...
The REAL answer is simple...
More regulation = larger government = more power in the hands of the government = less power in the hands of the individual.
 
I've been smoking for 55 years and my lunggs are clear. They can shove their
smoking law where the sun doesn't shine.
 
It's no surprise this happened. Disappointing, but no surprise.
 
Goobieman said:
The REAL answer is simple...
More regulation = larger government = more power in the hands of the government = less power in the hands of the individual.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
I will admit to being biased on this. Our views are shaped by our personal experience. My father died due to profound emphysema and pneumonia in 1997. He as was given cigarettes for free while serving in Japan at the end of WWII and was never able to kick the habit. Before you point out his personal responsibility, keep in mind the amount of tobacco sponsored propaganda that was around in the 90's--they were fighting the whistle blowers and congress tooth and nail.

Here's the difference, IMO, between cigarettes and alcohol. You can be arrested for being drunk in public or drunk driving, but not for a coughing fit or excessive wheezing.

Again, I am biased and my approval of taxing smokers is based on my own personal feelings about the tobacco industry. Besides, if a person is intent on an early demise, we better collect now, before they cash out.
 
Given the issues with social security, I think the government should encourage people to smoke. Let them pay in for 40 years, drop dead early and the rest of us will collect the dough. They should also encourage more trans fats and sugar.
 
Goobieman said:
If tobacco is so bad, why not just ban it outright?
Why suffer thru all this BS?
Click to expand...


You know why.

First they demonized it because the busy-body liberals had some orgasms at the thought that they're helping peole AND winning a battle for the proletariat in the class warfare againt the evilcorporations.

Once tobacco was properly demonized, the rulers that control the guilt-ridden idiots of the big government left, said, "wonderful, the majority now fears tobacco, hates the tobacco companies, and have been perfectly molded into the shape needed to accept our next step. We can start taxing the crap out of tobacco products, and those who complain will be viewed with contempt."

So the governments have a free hand to raise taxes on the poor. And by "governments", I mean state as well as feds.

Ya don't think any of those people are going to try to ban the golden goose, are you? Why, in California the legislature was going to spend McCain's "Tobacco Agreement" money on preschool, daycare, tobacco related health care, the environment, education, magic flutes, and elves, too, to a total that was probably ten times the expected revenue. All the states were doing that.
 
To be honest this is more of a step in the right direction compared to what we have been doing with tobacco products, in my opinion. This is far better than taxing the hell out of cigarettes, which to me means that the government cares more about making a buck than they do about getting people to quit smoking. Some of the poisons that they put in cigarettes are completely unnecessary and only serve to get people more addicted. It's nice to see that we are kind of following Canada's example.
 
hazlnut said:
I will admit to being biased on this. Our views are shaped by our personal experience. My father died due to profound emphysema and pneumonia in 1997. He as was given cigarettes for free while serving in Japan at the end of WWII and was never able to kick the habit. Before you point out his personal responsibility, keep in mind the amount of tobacco sponsored propaganda that was around in the 90's--they were fighting the whistle blowers and congress tooth and nail.

Here's the difference, IMO, between cigarettes and alcohol. You can be arrested for being drunk in public or drunk driving, but not for a coughing fit or excessive wheezing.

Again, I am biased and my approval of taxing smokers is based on my own personal feelings about the tobacco industry. Besides, if a person is intent on an early demise, we better collect now, before they cash out.
Click to expand...

Your father was fully conversant with the fact that smoking was bad for him.

Not one single person ever took up the vile disgusting habit without first coughing his brains out. It's a requirement, since no one with a brain will smoke that second cigarette. And sure, my old man died of a heart attack most likely brought about because his tobacco induced emphysema strained his heart to the breaking point.

The governments tax tobacco because they can take the money, not out of any pious sentiment about the public health.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The governments tax tobacco because they can take the money, not out of any pious sentiment about the public health.
Click to expand...

True that. If they cared about public health they would be banned. Simple as that.
 
stekim said:
True that. If they cared about public health they would be banned. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

People should be free to make their own choices as to whether they want to smoke or not. However, they do also have a right not to be poisoned with toxic chemicals that are unnecessarily put into cigarettes by big tobacco companies. There are plenty of unhealthy things out there. Should we ban those too?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
People should be free to make their own choices as to whether they want to smoke or not.
Click to expand...

I agree.

However, they do also have a right not to be poisoned with toxic chemicals that are unnecessarily put into cigarettes by big tobacco companies. There are plenty of unhealthy things out there. Should we ban those too?
Click to expand...

Nope.

You misread my post! I was merely agreeing that if the government really cared about public health, like they claim, they would ban cigarettes. That would be consistent with their claim. I was not giving my personal opinion on cigarettes and their legality. I'm a Libertarian. I don't give a **** what you do.
 
stekim said:
You misread my post! I was merely agreeing that if the government really cared about public health, like they claim, they would ban cigarettes. That would be consistent with their claim. I was not giving my personal opinion on cigarettes and their legality.
Click to expand...

There's only so much that the government can do without violating personal liberty. I actually quite like what Canada does with tobacco products. I'm not sure if it's changed lately, but about 10 years ago they would regulate the chemicals that went into cigarettes and put stickers with horrifying images of what smoking does to the human body (rotten teeth, burnt lungs, etc.). I remember walking down Queen St. in Toronto and so many people tried to bum cigarettes off of me because they were the US ones with all of the chemicals.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
There's only so much that the government can do without violating personal liberty.
Click to expand...

Since when does our government care about personal liberty? But that's off topic I guess. But I never knew them to care much about silly things like that.

I actually quite like what Canada does with tobacco products. I'm not sure if it's changed lately, but about 10 years ago they would regulate the chemicals that went into cigarettes and put stickers with horrifying images of what smoking does to the human body (rotten teeth, burnt lungs, etc.). I remember walking down Queen St. in Toronto and so many people tried to bum cigarettes off of me because they were the US ones with all of the chemicals.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with that. Educate people and let them decide.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You know why.

First they demonized it because the busy-body liberals had some orgasms at the thought that they're helping peole AND winning a battle for the proletariat in the class warfare againt the evilcorporations.

Once tobacco was properly demonized, the rulers that control the guilt-ridden idiots of the big government left, said, "wonderful, the majority now fears tobacco, hates the tobacco companies, and have been perfectly molded into the shape needed to accept our next step. We can start taxing the crap out of tobacco products, and those who complain will be viewed with contempt."

So the governments have a free hand to raise taxes on the poor. And by "governments", I mean state as well as feds.

Ya don't think any of those people are going to try to ban the golden goose, are you? Why, in California the legislature was going to spend McCain's "Tobacco Agreement" money on preschool, daycare, tobacco related health care, the environment, education, magic flutes, and elves, too, to a total that was probably ten times the expected revenue. All the states were doing that.
Click to expand...

Expecting any intelligent discussion from you is just not going to happen, is it? *puts him on ignore and smiles knowing he's so upset about this legislation*
 
Goobieman said:
If tobacco is so bad, why not just ban it outright?
Why suffer thru all this BS?
Click to expand...

Won't ever happen.

For all the outrage over "Big Tobacco" there is, people seem to always ignore the fact that "Big Government" is one of the prime benifactors of "Big Tobacco". Government, especially those that like BIG government, take just as much advantage of the addictions to Cigerettes as the companies do. They realize the product is addictive and that no amount of warnings or legislation they do will change the fact that a large amount of people will continue to buy it. This means two things:

1. They can continue to do bull**** laws like the one above to convince people they're trying to "help" the problem when in reality it will do little to nothing and just gives the politicians cover
2. They keep their cash cow

Any person that decries the evils and horrors of "Big Tobacco" but sits by and watches their politician raise taxes on cigerettes and make these "CYA" laws are nothing but blind hypocrites, manipulated by "Big Politician" to believe in this fairy tale that the tobacco companies are great and evil villians with "Big Government" being the savior.

The only difference between them is Big Government doesn't have to waste money manufacturing the cigerettes to reap the rewards of its addiction.
 
Another day, another civil right down the drain. When will they stop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom