Hey Vrai (and anyone else who smokes)...

[Beaver-Cleaver]

... All your base are belong to us

No smoking: Vote could bring new limits - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Thursday's legislation gives the FDA power to evaluate the contents of tobacco products and to order changes or bans on those that are a danger to public health. The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes.

Regulators could prohibit tobacco companies from using candy or other flavors in cigarettes that tend to attract young smokers, and restrict advertising in publications often read by teenagers. Rules on sales to minors would be toughened, as would warning labels. Tobacco companies would have to get FDA approval for new products, and would be barred from using terms such as "light" or "mild" that imply a smaller health risk.

Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.

•Creates a tobacco control center within the FDA and gives the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products to protect public health.

•Requires tobacco companies and importers to reveal all product ingredients and seek FDA approval for any new tobacco products.

•Allows the FDA to change tobacco product content to protect the public health.

•Bans the use of flavors, including candies and fruit flavors, in tobacco products.

•Calls for new rules that would prevent sales to minors except through direct, face-to-face exchanges between a retailer and a consumer. Limits advertising that could attract young smokers.

•Strengthens warning labels.

•Bars the use of expressions such as "light, "mild" or "low" that give the impression that a tobacco product poses less of a health risk.

 

[aps45819]

Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.

Which will be passed on to consumers.
Just consider it another lie from Obama about no new taxes for people making less than $250K a year

 

[cashncarry]

Which will be passed on to consumers.
Just consider it another lie from Obama about no new taxes for people making less than $250K a year

Of course they will which is why I decided on April 1 to quit smoking after many, many years of happily puffing away. The government already gets enough of my money amd they're not getting any more from me. Next they'll be telling us how many squares of toilet paper we can use per 'visit' before we're taxed for using extra paper!!

 

[steeler_chick]

Of course they will which is why I decided on April 1 to quit smoking after many, many years of happily puffing away. The government already gets enough of my money amd they're not getting any more from me. Next they'll be telling us how many squares of toilet paper we can use per 'visit' before we're taxed for using extra paper!!

four

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

And the Messiah will have to placate MADD, thus regulating prohibition.


Now Andy, you may or may not agree with those that smoke but do you see the consequences of enforced social behavior by rules drawn up by mere mortals? Of course, the current Prez is the Messiah, come to save us from ourselves.....

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm looking forward to the day free will is declared a drug and the government decides to regulate that, too.

 

[Jigglepuff]

... All your base are belong to us

No smoking: Vote could bring new limits - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

•Creates a tobacco control center within the FDA and gives the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products to protect public health.
Tobacco is dangerous and so are some of the other ingredients; changing one or the other does not make it "safe".
•Requires tobacco companies and importers to reveal all product ingredients and seek FDA approval for any new tobacco products.
I'm fine with this one.
•Allows the FDA to change tobacco product content to protect the public health.
Ban it. Or leave it alone. People will still buy it no matter how much you tax it... Again, changing "some" ingredients will not make it "safe".
•Bans the use of flavors, including candies and fruit flavors, in tobacco products.
This is just stupid.
•Calls for new rules that would prevent sales to minors except through direct, face-to-face exchanges between a retailer and a consumer. Limits advertising that could attract young smokers.
I believe this in reference to buying smokes online. This is how allot of smokers get around the state tax. Putting a ban on online smoking gives more tax revenue to the states. This aint about kids.
•Strengthens warning labels.
No problem with that.
•Bars the use of expressions such as "light, "mild" or "low" that give the impression that a tobacco product poses less of a health risk.
I don't think this will help. Those labels are are used to describe the flavor

If the Government was truly trying to save us from smoking related illnesses; they would ban smokes all together. They would rather you be addicted so they can get more tax revenue.

Leave it alone, or ban it.

 

[Jigglepuff]

I'm looking forward to the day free will is declared a drug and the government decides to regulate that, too.

 

[Larry Gude]

If the Government was truly trying to save us from smoking related illnesses; they would ban smokes all together. They would rather you be addicted so they can get more tax revenue.

In a free society, what role should our government play in a voluntary activity? Smoking is no different than a poor diet, poor exercise habits and, frankly, poor habits in terms of dealing with any and all of life's stresses.

 

[Jigglepuff]

In a free society, what role should our government play in a voluntary activity? Smoking is no different than a poor diet, poor exercise habits and, frankly, poor habits in terms of dealing with any and all of life's stresses.

Let me clarify "Ban it, or leave it alone"; because I do agree with you on this and I don't want to be misunderstood
.
I feel the Government has the authority to protect us from things that are extremely dangerous. If Tobacco was deemed extremely dangerous.....than ban it. (Lumped in with lets say Heroin)

Taxing it higher is a perverted way to make society think that they are protecting us when in reality it is an infringement on our rights and liberties. And so many people believe they are doing us a justice with taxing it higher (and that is a REAL shame).

 

[aps45819]

Of course they will which is why I decided on April 1 to quit smoking after many, many years of happily puffing away. The government already gets enough of my money amd they're not getting any more from me. Next they'll be telling us how many squares of toilet paper we can use per 'visit' before we're taxed for using extra paper!!

A year ago last January O'mally raised the price another dollar a pack and I finally decided I didn't want to fund any new social programs.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let me clarify "Ban it, or leave it alone"; because I do agree with you on this and I don't want to be misunderstood
.
I feel the Government has the authority to protect us from things that are extremely dangerous. If Tobacco was deemed extremely dangerous.....than ban it. (Lumped in with lets say Heroin)

Taxing it higher is a perverted way to make society think that they are protecting us when in reality it is an infringement on our rights and liberties. And so many people believe they are doing us a justice with taxing it higher (and that is a REAL shame).

No, I hear you and I agree in principle. However, the question then becomes one of 'what is extremely dangerous?' An A bomb in my basement is extremely dangerous and you have a right to be protected from that, in my view. However, if I am torched up on heroin or paint thinner or drain cleaner, however, it is not only not a threat to you but none of your affair nor, in my view, the governments. So, when we choose the wrong things to throw around the weight of government, such as drugs, cigarettes, cheeseburgers, etc, then the greater danger becomes, in my view, not only government making a mockery of constitutional limits on it but the equal and opposite damage of an addled, dependent society incapable of making good judgements and good choices for itself because it has been trained to expect government will tell us what to do and not do.

 

[vraiblonde]

None of those regulations make a difference to me, or any other adult smoker. Typically we don't care about fruit or candy in our cancer stick of choice, and we've been smoking the same brand for years, so labels like "light" or "mild" don't register with us.

Also, we already know what's in our cigarettes and the hazards of smoking, and obviously don't care.

So I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except to act like they "care" and are "doing something".

 

[luckystar]

None of those regulations make a difference to me, or any other adult smoker. Typically we don't care about fruit or candy in our cancer stick of choice, and we've been smoking the same brand for years, so labels like "light" or "mild" don't register with us.

Also, we already know what's in our cigarettes and the hazards of smoking, and obviously don't care.

So I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except to act like they "care" and are "doing something".

Part of it bothers me. The part where the funding for this new program will be a fee imposed onto the tobacco companies. Which someone stated earlier: will then become part of what we pay for our cigarettes, so they get their money back for it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Part of it bothers me. The part where the funding for this new program will be a fee imposed onto the tobacco companies. Which someone stated earlier: will then become part of what we pay for our cigarettes, so they get their money back for it.

Of course. Certainly nobody thinks the tobacco companies will just pay the fees and not try and recoup some way. No company does that.

But at some point smokers, like Aps, will get tired of funding liberal social programs and will quit. Then they'll have to come up with some other way to steal money from the citizenry for their little projects.

 

[luckystar]

Of course. Certainly nobody thinks the tobacco companies will just pay the fees and not try and recoup some way. No company does that.

But at some point smokers, like Aps, will get tired of funding liberal social programs and will quit. Then they'll have to come up with some other way to steal money from the citizenry for their little projects.

Yeah, well, it's hard and I'd rather not.

Let's start a mini tobacco garden.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Smokers,

Thanks for funding my health care.

,
Beaver

 

[Larry Gude]

Smokers,

Thanks for funding my health care.

,
Beaver

You may well be the only person who thinks, even for a second, that the money set aside from cigarette taxes makes its way to the planned programs the taxes were promoted to serve in anything more than token amounts.

 

[vraiblonde]

You may well be the only person who thinks, even for a second, that the money set aside from cigarette taxes makes its way to the planned programs the taxes were promoted to serve in anything more than token amounts.

Nah, there has to be at least one other person.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Bill just passed the House. President Obama has an announcement at 12:10 EST... Scratch that, he's on now. CNN is live.