New tobacco Regulation/Ban:

[Texsk8er56]

Ok i have 3 questions about the new Tobacco Regulation ban:

For one, Will this cause a "downfall", per say, in the tobacco industries? Such as the people who make Blacks, Phillies, Other flavored tobaccos. Will this cause a loss of jobs? Or cause these industries to do as bad as the car companies?

Also, Menthol's are flavored tobacco, correct? These are not included in the ban. Obama smokes menthol's. I sense hypocrisy In this situation.

And, any idea when this takes place?

[SolInvictus]

i don't understand this flavoured tobacco ban. tobacco is tobacco; why not ban flavoured alcohols and coolers with this "it appeals to children" logic?

[Cordyceps]

At 6/29/09 12:03 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i don't understand this flavoured tobacco ban. tobacco is tobacco; why not ban flavoured alcohols and coolers with this "it appeals to children" logic?

Heh, reminded me of this.

I don't think the ban will have much effect, either. Tobacco companies will always find different was to attract customers. They'll just move on from flavoured, and go to something new.

[Korriken]

i kinda see where they're coming from, especially with the fruit and chocolate flavors in colorful packaging, but stupid kids are gonna smoke whether or not its been flavored.

They'll just change strategy. they'll start putting out products so you can add the flavor yourself.

[kraor024]

At 6/28/09 11:35 PM, Texsk8er56 wrote: Ok i have 3 questions about the new Tobacco Regulation ban:

For one, Will this cause a "downfall", per say, in the tobacco industries? Such as the people who make Blacks, Phillies, Other flavored tobaccos. Will this cause a loss of jobs? Or cause these industries to do as bad as the car companies?

Certainly for some the market will be lost maybe some will develop new strategies, but it will hurt companies that make flavored cigars

Also, Menthol's are flavored tobacco, correct? These are not included in the ban. Obama smokes menthol's. I sense hypocrisy In this situation.

I sense idiocy, I don't think this will be all that effective at preventing youth from smoking, after all most minors I know stick to cigarettes while most flavored tobacco comes in the form of cigars.Putting a larger warning label won't do anything as everyone knows how dangerous smoking is . At this time point of sale advertising is pretty much just a sign indicating that they carry the product &the light/mild ban is ridiculous as no one I know actually think light & mild means healthier just not as strong. To be honest I see this as an attack on my freedom of personal choice.

And, any idea when this takes place?

I'd like to know so I can stock up on my beloved cherry Double Diamonds

Out of curiosity does anyone think this was a good use of our governments time? I mean of all the issues America faces the possibility of preventing a few (very few) people from smoking is a priority?

[zendahl]

I have yet to see an ad that markets flavored tobacco let alone one that markets it to kids. Flavored tobacco is something you see sitting behind the counter and decide to buy. on top of that most places like gas stations and grocery stores don't carry flavored tobacco product (except cigars) and what they do carry are in similar packaging to the regular stuff with only the words being diferent. How is this being marketed to children?

I have a better idea. If we want to keep our kids from smoking why don't we show them a little respect and stop acting like they are too retarded to be able to tell that flavored tobaco isn't candy? Treating them like idiots is going to hurt thier self esteem and low self esteem is one of the real reasons kids start smoking. Kids are smarter than todays society gives them credit for.

[Christopherr]

At 6/29/09 08:19 AM, zendahl wrote: I have yet to see an ad that markets flavored tobacco let alone one that markets it to kids. Flavored tobacco is something you see sitting behind the counter and decide to buy. on top of that most places like gas stations and grocery stores don't carry flavored tobacco product (except cigars) and what they do carry are in similar packaging to the regular stuff with only the words being diferent.

I really hope you're joking. Companies are making new types of flavored cigarettes with new boxes and even names (see link below), and they're advertised and sold in nearly every gas station in my town. Get with the program.

How is this being marketed to children?

This would be because it's not legal to advertise towards children, but only in the obvious manner. The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical). Take, for example, the new flavor ball cigarettes, which are just flavored cigarettes with a slightly different delivery mechanism: http://www.cscoutjapan.com/en/wp-content /uploads/2008/07/camel-crush-kool-boost.
jpg

Never mind that about half of all smokers start as minors and that tobacco advertisers have had a history of marketing towards young people (ex. the Marlboro Man), making kids a really enticing marketing base.

I have a better idea. If we want to keep our kids from smoking why don't we show them a little respect and stop acting like they are too retarded to be able to tell that flavored tobaco isn't candy? Treating them like idiots is going to hurt thier self esteem and low self esteem is one of the real reasons kids start smoking. Kids are smarter than todays society gives them credit for.

Who tells kids that flavored tobacco is candy?

[SolInvictus]

At 6/29/09 07:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical).

but so do adults.

[Tancrisism]

I think it's a good thing, mainly because now all the ingredients must be accounted for and the tobacco industry is under control of the FDA.

[SolInvictus]

At 6/29/09 08:50 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I think it's a good thing, mainly because now all the ingredients must be accounted for and the tobacco industry is under control of the FDA.

atleast that part sounds reasonable.

[KeithHybrid]

As much as I'd like to see tobacco banned, it would only be more trouble than it's worth, like with marijuana.

[Christopherr]

At 6/29/09 08:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/29/09 07:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical).

but so do adults.

I've always liked to think that kids are most susceptible to it, though. Check out #20 on this fact list: http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/c ommstud/freespeech/cont/cases/chitobacco two.html

[Texsk8er56]

At 6/29/09 09:12 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: As much as I'd like to see tobacco banned, it would only be more trouble than it's worth, like with marijuana.

Dont get me started on marijuana.

Also, I just stocked up on 15 boxes of black & milds, 10 boxes of vanilla black and milds, 5 grape phillies, and 5 cherry phillies. If these are banned, who says you cant still smoke them :D.

Ill be buying more and more. And im not smoking one, these will be rationed.

[POOPIES]

I'm about ready for them to make tobacco illegal. I'd like to watch the nicotine-addicted masses die in a withdrawal-initiated heap in the streets.

[Texsk8er56]

At 6/30/09 01:26 AM, POOPIES wrote: I'm about ready for them to make tobacco illegal. I'd like to watch the nicotine-addicted masses die in a withdrawal-initiated heap in the streets.

So want another whole industry to push us farther into recession and for over 500 thousand more hard working people to lose their jobs?

[zendahl]

At 6/29/09 07:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: Who tells kids that flavored tobacco is candy?

I think you misunderstood me. My point is not that we tell them that it is candy. It is that people assume they are too stupid to know it's not candy. Kids aren't dumb. If you continually treat them like idiots though it affects thier self esteem. One of the reasons people start smoking is low self esteem, so if you really want to keep them from smoking we should be showing a little respect to thier ineligence.

As for my point about them not being in regular stores, most gas stations (in this state at least) only stock the cigarettes that sell. Flavored cigarettes are a rarity in gas stations. That saaid if you do happen to get lucky and find some in a place young people can go, they are hidden behind the counter. I worked the gas station circuit for a good many years before I moved on to better paying jobs, and every place I worked kept the cigarettes out of reach so people wouldn't steal them. There are also huge fines for selling to minors, so most won't do it. so it's not accessable to kids without an adult to help them get a hold of them wich is a diferent problem all together. That would be that adults fault and not the tobacco companies.

And on the advertising point I fail to see how a grisled old gross looking cowboy (the marlboro man) could possibly apeal to kids. Also trying to make a product appear cool or exciting is something all companies do. Do you really thing that ford is marketing the mustaing to little kids who can't buy them? How about the running on the beach tampon comercials? Do kids like running on the beach? Or the "I'm the "now I'm cool and ride motorcycles" ciallis commercials. Are those marketed toward kids? It's not like they're putting clowns and puppy dogs on the ads.

[Tancrisism]

At 6/30/09 01:26 AM, POOPIES wrote: I'm about ready for them to make tobacco illegal. I'd like to watch the nicotine-addicted masses die in a withdrawal-initiated heap in the streets.

Your logic is entirely flawed. You imply that you believe that if tobacco was made illegal, it would simply disappear and everyone addicted to it would be fucked.

Alcohol was banned for the 1920's, did they stop drinking?

Marijuana is illegal, does it not exist? Or even harder drugs, like heroin, for that matter?

If tobacco was illegal, it would still be bought and sold. The only difference would be that instead of the economy benefiting, only criminals would profit.

[Texsk8er56]

At 7/1/09 12:21 PM, MercatorMap wrote: How can independent lobbyists even hope to get Congress to legalize marijuana when Congress feels that the tobacco industry/FDA cannot responsibly regulate flavored cigarettes?

They we are going now, there is no hope of us legalizing marijuana.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 7/2/09 02:26 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote:

At 7/1/09 11:57 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

If tobacco was illegal, it would still be bought and sold. The only difference would be that instead of the economy benefiting, only criminals would profit.

This^^
I could not add any more win to this statement.

Criminals are already profiting. With the insane taxes and regulations forcing a lower quality product many smokers,myself included, are turning to the black market to get, not just a cheaper price, but a higher quality cigarette as well.
I can go buy a carton of camels for $65 at the corner store. They're all going to have that disgusting fire safe chemical in them and I won't enjoy smoking a single one.
Or I could go online and order my cartons for $15 a piece from the island of man and I'm going to get a high quality smoke with a flavor I can enjoy.
It won't be long before the smoker tax gravy train is stopped. And it's not going to be because they've bullied enough people into quitting.

[POOPIES]

At 7/1/09 11:57 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Your logic is entirely flawed. You imply that you believe that if tobacco was made illegal, it would simply disappear and everyone addicted to it would be fucked.

No no no. You only heard half of my proposal. What I would suggest is that once tobacco is banned, the FDA should devote half of its resources to propagating all known tobacco crop diseases so as to wipe out the existence of tobacco from the face of the fucking earth.

That's the only goddamn way to do it. Jesus, I'm not stupid.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 7/4/09 03:36 AM, POOPIES wrote:

At 7/1/09 11:57 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Your logic is entirely flawed. You imply that you believe that if tobacco was made illegal, it would simply disappear and everyone addicted to it would be fucked.

No no no. You only heard half of my proposal. What I would suggest is that once tobacco is banned, the FDA should devote half of its resources to propagating all known tobacco crop diseases so as to wipe out the existence of tobacco from the face of the fucking earth.

That's the only goddamn way to do it. Jesus, I'm not stupid.

Actually you are.
It's unlikely to find a disease that only effects tobacco. More likely the disease will effect most vegetation that can grow under the same conditions effectively ruining acres of fertile land.
People will hold onto seeds and grow it in the US and it will still exist outside the US.
Tobacco has more uses than you realize. It's still used as an effective medicine in cattle. Are you willing to ruin the beef industry to eliminate a plant?
When marijuana was made illegal they cut and burned every field they could find. Later every plant. They arrested anybody with any plants growing or any amount on them, even little old ladies who threw their bird seed out the window(It was common to put marijuana seeds in bird feed to make them sing). And after all that effort how effective has that been in removing marijuana from the public? I'm willing to bet 90% of NG's forum members are able to make a phone call and get some first thing in the morning.
It's been tried and failed. What makes you think it would be any different with tobacco?

[camobch0]

Either way whoever wants to smoke will.

[zendahl]

did you really feel the need to agrily attack an idea that was obvious satire? So heated were you that you had to call him an idiot? wow