A non-smoker rant about analog flavor ban

[PlanetScribbles]

I quite liked that lady-s. The guy sounds kinda clued up on what is happening right now. The fact that he is spot on is one good reason why people should hit the play button.
Thanks for sharing it. I'll pass it on.

 

[umop apisdn]

I would bet almost anything this dude is libertarian... which is fine by me.

Another day... another portion of our liberty dies.

He's definitely a true conservative. (If you think republican, please learn what conservative means.) Definitely a welcome viewpoint.

But I can't agree more with what he said. It's shameful that this is what's actually happening in America. We all know this wasn't the change we asked for.

 

[Lab]

The ban has to do with the advertising.. look at the boxes to the flavored cigs.. all bright neon colors put on the box to attract the attention of young ppl..

as far as the juices go.. if they get banned how do you fix that.. sell unmixed kits,

 

[beckah54]

The ban has to do with the advertising.. look at the boxes to the flavored cigs.. all bright neon colors put on the box to attract the attention of young ppl..

as far as the juices go.. if they get banned how do you fix that.. sell unmixed kits,

I think young people are going for the cheaper cigarettes.

The flavored cigarettes I saw were not flashy or neon colored. They were actually in a pretty elegant box.

I just don't see why the adult population has to do without just in case the underage kids "might" want to try them. Don't they have parents to prevent this kind of thing?

They are not banning flavored alcohol because the kids might be attracted to it.

 

[ladysolitary85]

Could you imagine what would of happened if they went as far as banning menthols or tobacco in general??? I think people would be running and armed lol

 

[Darmeen]

as far as the juices go.. if they get banned how do you fix that.. sell unmixed kits,

I think it is pretty difficult to get straight liquid nicotine (not cut with PG or VG) as in that level, it is straight up poison...

This isn't about flavored vs non-flavored liquid, it is about the control of nicotine.

On Topic: This is a great video and this guy is spot on...Again, enforce the current laws, don't need to make more laws that only strip more freedoms from the public...

Other than money, I don't see why they would want to stop a product that is blatently obvious (just by all the people here) to at the very least reduce and at best totally replace inhaled tobacco products. Why does it have to be so 'cake or death'...we hold in our hands an alternative that is certainly not worse than analogs, and most surely better than them, but it is either smoke or don't smoke...

 

[just-a-nobody]

Could you imagine what would of happened if they went as far as banning menthols or tobacco in general??? I think people would be running and armed lol

Maybe that's what Washington needs, to get their thinking straight, is a million gun march.

 

[Kent C]

He's definitely a true conservative.

I don't think so... or a libertarian either. Did a quick google search... he's an "artist" of types.

It's popular (and liberal) to bash Phillip Morris and in some regards for good reasons, but you have to know the whole chronology which includes the gov't assault on tobacco and the trial lawyers successful attempts to make the tobacco companies responsible for were clearly individual choices - to smoke - for people who then got cancer. When that happens, any company, has to either give in and play along with the gov't game or go out of business. Phillip Morris and the other companies decided not to go out of business.

Same thing happened to (whether you love or hate 'em) Micosoft. They had no need nor use for any 'govt' liason' in their company until Netscape and Sun Micro decided to push an anti-trust suit and the gov't grabbed the opportunity as a 'foot in the door' into the computer/software industry. So Microsoft had to lawyer up and start playing footsie with the gov't. Nothing good has come of it. And just as a side note - who had the 'monopoly' on web browsers before all of this - Netscape ;-)

Shane makes a very libertarian point here:

“As an adult, it is my responsibility to educate myself on the risks of the things that I do and my right to then proceed to doing those things as long as I don’t harm anyone else in the process."

That's the essence of libertarianism (and Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madsion et. al. for that matter).

And like many other people who have some very libertarian ideas when it suits them, he has other ideas that are not very libertarian or conservative. Above he says it is HIS responsiblity to educate himself on the risks, yet earlier he was in full agreement with the gov't forcing the transparency, disclosure, labeling and against the advertising near schools. So, in that case gov't is responsible for educating him on the risks. That's a contradiction. I'm guessing he's just a liberal with a cigar addiction. Kinda like the 'a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged... and a libertarian is a conservative that smokes.... ' ;-)

I know of very few libertarians that would 'demand' that from gov't - to force that on companies, and know of no liberals who wouldn't.


Libertarians would prefer a private agency - a more libertarian or objective 'consumer reports,' to investigate those things and if a company would refuse, they would be 'penalized' - not by the gov't - but as it should be - by an informed market not buying their stuff. Liberals would use the full force of the gov't to achieve the same end.

Libertarians appeal to volition and reason. Liberals appeal to volunteerism toward implementing their ideas at first, then force or threat of force when they get resistance or non compliance - like you should agree to buy health insurance but if you resist and refuse, then you go to jail and are fined $250,000. That's why they're the 'peace and love' faction.

That said, it still is a good video. His main libertarian points come across strongly if not a bit uptight -a restrained frenzy - or a sarcastic Michael Moore type tone. It still works. applause....

 

[umop apisdn]

... that's what Washington needs, to get their thinking straight, is a million gun march.

Ahhh, that's what your post needed, had to get rid of the "Maybe".

 

[just-a-nobody]

Ahhh, that's what your post needed, had to get rid of the "Maybe".

I like it.

My signature Cheerup!! It'll get worse, really means: Hope and Change.

 

[umop apisdn]

I don't think so... or a libertarian either. Did a quick google search... he's an "artist" of types.

It's popular (and liberal) to bash Phillip Morris and in some regards for good reasons, but you have to know the whole chronology which includes the gov't assault on tobacco and the trial lawyers successful attempts to make the tobacco companies responsible for were clearly individual choices - to smoke - for people who then got cancer. When that happens, any company, has to either give in and play along with the gov't game or go out of business. Phillip Morris and the other companies decided not to go out of business.

Same thing happened to (whether you love or hate 'em) Micosoft. They had no need nor use for any 'govt' liason' in their company until Netscape and Sun Micro decided to push an anti-trust suit and the gov't grabbed the opportunity as a 'foot in the door' into the computer/software industry. So Microsoft had to lawyer up and start playing footsie with the gov't. Nothing good has come of it. And just as a side note - who had the 'monopoly' on web browsers before all of this - Netscape ;-)

Shane makes a very libertarian point here:

“As an adult, it is my responsibility to educate myself on the risks of the things that I do and my right to then proceed to doing those things as long as I don’t harm anyone else in the process."

That's the essence of libertarianism (and Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madsion et. al. for that matter).

And like many other people who have some very libertarian ideas when it suits them, he has other ideas that are not very libertarian or conservative. Above he says it is HIS responsiblity to educate himself on the risks, yet earlier he was in full agreement with the gov't forcing the transparency, disclosure, labeling and against the advertising near schools. So, in that case gov't is responsible for educating him on the risks. That's a contradiction. I'm guessing he's just a liberal with a cigar addiction. Kinda like the 'a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged... and a libertarian is a conservative that smokes.... ' ;-)

I know of very few libertarians that would 'demand' that from gov't - to force that on companies, and know of no liberals who wouldn't.


Libertarians would prefer a private agency - a more libertarian or objective 'consumer reports,' to investigate those things and if a company would refuse, they would be 'penalized' - not by the gov't - but as it should be - by an informed market not buying their stuff. Liberals would use the full force of the gov't to achieve the same end.

Libertarians appeal to volition and reason. Liberals appeal to volunteerism toward implementing their ideas at first, then force or threat of force when they get resistance or non compliance - like you should agree to buy health insurance but if you resist and refuse, then you go to jail and are fined $250,000. That's why they're the 'peace and love' faction.

That said, it still is a good video. His main libertarian points come across strongly if not a bit uptight -a restrained frenzy - or a sarcastic Michael Moore type tone. It still works. applause....

I was merely referring to his ideas as "true conservative" (I am being a little subjective in that statement, forgive me.) in the fact that he's pro rights and smaller government. You're right when you say his ideas aren't perfectly libertarian, but they do flirt with conservative libertarian ideals.

As for him bashing PM, it's true, it is very popular, and I'm sure he knows that, it helps bridge many gaps between political disagreements. It's shocking at how quickly people befriend each other once they know they have a common enemy. But your other point about Microsoft does say a lot. Competition in the market does end up with very ugly and underhand movements.

A government that keeps their hands out of everyday life would be ideal, but it gets too much pressure when it's viewed as doing nothing useful. The US in turn ends up doing anything they can imagine so that people stop complaining about how useless they are. Of course, this just adds onto the complaints and lets shady business practices have permanent consequences.

The video was a great statement. I couldn't compare it to Michael Moore's work though; he's not spitting out facts and atrocities of the government to gain popularity. The point of his video is to send out a message, and he does so without blatantly exaggerating things or taking things out of context to make a point.

 

[umop apisdn]

I like it.

My signature Cheerup!! It'll get worse, really means: Hope and Change.

I was unaware of any other way to read that.

 

[Valkerie]

That seems pretty useless to me. Doesn't apply to cigars, right? Doesn't apply to menthol. So what analogs does it apply to other than clove?

It's a foot in the door to ban e-cigs.

New York City has passed a ban on all flavored tobacco products, including cigars. (Excluding menthol.)

The law that banned flavors, which I believe was part of the settlement from tobacco companies 10 years ago, in lieu of federal lawsuits, agrees to revisit banning menthol next year. So menthol smokers are not out of the woods yet.

A lot of agreements were made that would come into effect right about now, to allow the tobacco industry an easier transition. If you want to know why Big Tobacco funds ASH, it's all part of the settlement.

So, this is not over yet and your local government can add to the bans.

 

[susan28]

This guy is my hero, and also when I was in high school I smoked cloves. I got made fun of for smoking cloves. Teens are NOT interested in smoking flavors, this is such a true point he brought up.

On the bright side, if it wasn't for the ban I wouldn't have looked into buying an e-cigarette (and give up the nasty habit once and for all)

ditto. i used to smoke the occasional clove (still do, ordered 60 cartons and got a humidor and am now in possession of approx 10x more cloves than i've smoked since 1984), but while searching for online clove sources i came across e-cigs and thought, "how delightful!!".. now i enjoy the not-so-occasional vape - and unabashedly, unapologetically so.

so now i have TWO delicious, fulfilling, imagination-stoking habits in my life.. ok three

funny thing is i ordered clove first, then got hooked on Shawn's (Litecig) cappucino , happy ending!!

but yeah, that guy's great, imma send this to Lew Rockwell, he'll be feelin' it i'm sure.

 

[Brewster 59]

So heres the big question how long are we the people going to sit back and do nothing while these clowns that are in office take away more and more of our choices. The reason they keep doing this is because they can and because we the people do nothing about it. Im not suggesting a revolution but maybe start voting all incumbants out of office until these clowns relaize we not gonna take it. Maybe its time to start voting independant. I personally think both the demo's and rep are rotten to the core, problem is no viable other choices. One thing is for sure if we the people keep letting these clowns making our choices for us. Its never going to stop

 

[susan28]

btw KentC made a good point about the left hating "Big Tobacco", and my theory is they hate smoking because of the conservative / twm (traditional white male) connotations of it, and because it's "big" and the companies are typically run by conservatives, and are in conservative districts. they just reek of "Old Guard", just as i think the right hates weed and other drugs - but especially weed, hence their greater "war" on it - due to their hippie/minority associations.

so, while there are definitely health arguments to be made on both sides (that is if you think it's the gov's job to keep you healthy), i'm convinced that both sides' obsessions with their respective substances are just more fronts of the cgreater culture war. lefites see smokers and think Ward Cleaver in a smoking jacket getting served by a submissive wife; righties see a joint and think hippies and antiwar protests, and possibly even... Labour Unions!!

how else do you explain one group trying to ban cigs and legalise weed, and the other screaming "more personal freedom!" while trying to criminalise every personal freedom except thioe they deem "traditional"?

so much cultural drama with freedom caught in the crossfire...

(i too hate PM, not cuz they're Big but because they bought controlling interest in Sampoerna Indonesia and promptly and unceremoniously ceased production of Sampoerna X-tras, those philistines!).

 

[Kent C]

umop apisdna says: I was merely referring to his ideas as "true conservative" (I am being a little subjective in that statement, forgive me.) in the fact that he's pro rights and smaller government.

I'm not so sure... on this issue maybe but I need more data. Most people who think that corporations are too big and powerful want a goverment that is even bigger and more powerful - that's the only solution that they can think of.

You're right when you say his ideas aren't perfectly libertarian, but they do flirt with conservative libertarian ideals.

Agreed, but so do _some_ of the stuff out of the ACLU - not all though. ;-)

As for him bashing PM, it's true, it is very popular, and I'm sure he knows that, it helps bridge many gaps between political disagreements. It's shocking at how quickly people befriend each other once they know they have a common enemy. But your other point about Microsoft does say a lot. Competition in the market does end up with very ugly and underhand movements.

But as long as they keep to Shane's one statement - as long as no rights are harmed, then it should be left up to the consumers to decide - not gov't. If all the claims of fraud were taken to court rather than to the nearest regulator, most would be thrown out as 'hearsay'. lol.

A government that keeps their hands out of everyday life would be ideal, but it gets too much pressure when it's viewed as doing nothing useful.

Yeah, where do you think that comes from? People who complain that there are only 'negative rights' in the Constitution?

The video was a great statement. I couldn't compare it to Michael Moore's work though; he's not spitting out facts and atrocities of the government to gain popularity.

No but the covertness is there as well as the sarcasm. I was talking style there - check my post.... "sarcastic Michael Moore type tone"

 

[just-a-nobody]

I totally agree Kent C.

 

[optsmk]

I would bet almost anything this dude is libertarian... which is fine by me.

Another day... another portion of our liberty dies.

Nothing wrong with being a Libertarian www.lp.org

 

[VapingRulz]

so, while there are definitely health arguments to be made on both sides (that is if you think it's the gov's job to keep you healthy)...

Is that the official government stance? I thought they were approaching it from a different angle altogether; that it's their job to protect the majority of the public from being assaulted by dangerous cigarette smoke at every turn.

Smokers = evil
Non-smokers = virtuous

I think that about sums up the current thinking of John and Jane Q. Public and our elected officials.