Ok, so Obama just signed the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act" into law.
This law includes:
• Immediately, tobacco makers can no longer make claims that their products pose fewer health risks.
This seems fair. None of the "lighter" cigarettes have been shown to be safer whatsoever. People still get cancer, just in a deeper part of thier lungs, becuase in order to get the nicotine they need, the inhale deeper and longer.
• Within three months, candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes are banned, and the FDA can extend that ban to cigars and moist snuff, where such flavorings are more common. Menthol is exempt.
Huh? Is there any actual evidence to suggest that only, or even primarily kids
smoke "sweet" cigarettes? What, adults don't like candy and fruit too?
Has anyone here started smoking as a kid becuase of fruit flavored cigarettes?
Are there any adult smokers here who prefer these flavors?
And, ban fruit flavored cigars??? But then how is one to disguise the taste of shitty weed?
• Within 15 months, tobacco companies must disclose the ingredients in their products.
This seems fair, considering that food products have been required to do this for a long time.
Also, they use some disturbing stuff as additives, and the public should know. I would think it
would be a serious problem if they had to start listing their flavorings used, as that seems like
a legitimate trade secret.
• Within two years, the FDA must issue rules on graphic warrnings for cigarettes that will cover half the pack. The labels will take effect 15 months later.
Ug. I'm not a smoker, but even I can appreciate the atheistic appeal of smoking in particular situations.
it's one of the only upsides TO smoking. How many iconic movie moments would be ruined by a character
pulling out a pack of cigarettes with a cancer-ridden rotten teeth picture on it? Those half-pack photo
warning labels are just scary ugly.
Yes, I know, that's the point. But in that case, why are beer bottles not required to show a car wrapped
around a tree, or a failed liver on THEIR labels? Do we seriously think that kids that start smoking don't
know the risk? If it was safe, it wouldn't be "cool"
Payne says the bill bans "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes, which are slightly more than half the market, but it does not specify acceptable words for differentiating them from other cigarettes
This seems the oddest part to me... Ya, I know companies imply that a light cigarette is safer, and that
is really sleazy. But nevertheless, safer or not, smoking a "light" cigarette is a different experience to
smoking, say, an normal or unfiltered one, right? What ELSE are you going to call a cigarette which
has less dense smoke due to a heavier filter and air holes?
Once again, I'm am torn between liberal and libertarian values. I feel the most akin to you wacky
libertarians whenever I find a particularly absurd bit of Political Correctness in all its obtuse
nanny-knows-best glory.
My problem being, I'm not sure how much of this bill falls into that category.
Help me out?
[inkling]
