A non-smoker rant about analog flavor ban
- Thread starter ladysolitary85
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Ben Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Last edited:
Check and mate! Your wisdom never ceases to amaze me. Keep up the good fight. I'll be there with you.
The flavored tobacco cigarette ban was far and away one of the most clear indications that a great many people are far more interested in posturing than sound policy.
Here's the deal: A few years ago, Camel started making a splash with flavored smokes in metal tins...they used to give them away at clubs and had a small hit on their hands with college-aged smokers and folks that didn't mind paying a little more for some unique flavors.
Some of them were quite good.
Well...folks like tobacco-Free Kids and other groups stared with the BS "these are targeting 'children'!!!" arguments (as they gulped down flavored liqueurs, of course) because you know, adults don't like citrus or chocolate or coffee or mint or...
So, they basically pulled them off the market. No law was passed...they were a "premium" product anyway and weren't worth the hassle. No US tobacco company has sold flavored cigarettes for at least two years.
Well...except Nat Sherman. They sell (sold) Mint cigarettes...now labeled "menthol" but still mint.
Anyway, the Tobacco companies played these fools...by making this "concession" to not sell something they haven't sold in years...flavored cigarettes.
Except min-er, menthol. They will fight this with everything they have next spring. Because losing THAT flavor would be losing something they actually sell.
Of course, the silly, silly activists and politicians claimed a "win" for "protecting our children" from something that isn't even 1% of the market.
Idiots.
-K
Here's the deal: A few years ago, Camel started making a splash with flavored smokes in metal tins...they used to give them away at clubs and had a small hit on their hands with college-aged smokers and folks that didn't mind paying a little more for some unique flavors.
Some of them were quite good.
Well...folks like tobacco-Free Kids and other groups stared with the BS "these are targeting 'children'!!!" arguments (as they gulped down flavored liqueurs, of course) because you know, adults don't like citrus or chocolate or coffee or mint or...
So, they basically pulled them off the market. No law was passed...they were a "premium" product anyway and weren't worth the hassle. No US tobacco company has sold flavored cigarettes for at least two years.
Well...except Nat Sherman. They sell (sold) Mint cigarettes...now labeled "menthol" but still mint.
Anyway, the Tobacco companies played these fools...by making this "concession" to not sell something they haven't sold in years...flavored cigarettes.
Except min-er, menthol. They will fight this with everything they have next spring. Because losing THAT flavor would be losing something they actually sell.
Of course, the silly, silly activists and politicians claimed a "win" for "protecting our children" from something that isn't even 1% of the market.
Idiots.
-K
MrKai says: The flavored tobacco cigarette ban was far and away one of the most clear indications that a great many people are far more interested in posturing than sound policy.
Here's the deal: A few years ago, Camel started making a splash with flavored smokes in metal tins...they used to give them away at clubs and had a small hit on their hands with college-aged smokers and folks that didn't mind paying a little more for some unique flavors.
Some of them were quite good.
Well...folks like Tobacco-Free Kids and other groups stared with the BS "these are targeting 'children'!!!" arguments (as they gulped down flavored liqueurs, of course) because you know, adults don't like citrus or chocolate or coffee or mint or...
So, they basically pulled them off the market. No law was passed...they were a "premium" product anyway and weren't worth the hassle.
Just so I'm clear here. You think that the RJR pulled the flavored cigs off the market because "they were a premium product anyway" (not exactly sure why that would be... but) and that they "weren't worth the hassle" - so not worth going up against the Tobacco Free Kids and other groups that may have sway within the Congress, right?
No US Tobacco company has sold flavored cigarettes for at least two years.
Well...except Nat Sherman. They sell (sold) Mint cigarettes...now labeled "menthol" but still mint.
Anyway, the Tobacco companies played these fools...by making this "concession" to not sell something they haven't sold in years...flavored cigarettes.
Ok, this looks like you're attributing another 'motive' to the tobacco companies here. As if the whole premium/flavored offering was just a ruse - a distraction, a sleight of hand for the purpose of appearing to give a "concession" when it is something they've never sold anyway so no big deal. Even though Coke had never really made and marketed Cherry and Vanilla Coke but offer them now and I think they're pretty good sellers - not like the original coke or diet coke (probably another attempt at a distraction from their original recipe??).
So now I'm confused. If they originally introduced the flavored cigs for the purpose of then withdrawing them in order to give the illusion of a 'concession', then where does the "pulled off the market so as to avoid the hassle' part figure in here??
Except min-er, menthol. They will fight this with everything they have next spring. Because losing THAT flavor would be losing something they actually sell.
Of course, the silly, silly activists and politicians claimed a "win" for "protecting our children" from something that isn't even 1% of the market.
Idiots.
And so rather than gov't being the bad guy, they and the silly activist groups were just the dupes of 'big tobacco' - the real villain, right?
Here's the deal: A few years ago, Camel started making a splash with flavored smokes in metal tins...they used to give them away at clubs and had a small hit on their hands with college-aged smokers and folks that didn't mind paying a little more for some unique flavors.
Some of them were quite good.
Well...folks like Tobacco-Free Kids and other groups stared with the BS "these are targeting 'children'!!!" arguments (as they gulped down flavored liqueurs, of course) because you know, adults don't like citrus or chocolate or coffee or mint or...
So, they basically pulled them off the market. No law was passed...they were a "premium" product anyway and weren't worth the hassle.
Just so I'm clear here. You think that the RJR pulled the flavored cigs off the market because "they were a premium product anyway" (not exactly sure why that would be... but) and that they "weren't worth the hassle" - so not worth going up against the Tobacco Free Kids and other groups that may have sway within the Congress, right?
No US Tobacco company has sold flavored cigarettes for at least two years.
Well...except Nat Sherman. They sell (sold) Mint cigarettes...now labeled "menthol" but still mint.
Anyway, the Tobacco companies played these fools...by making this "concession" to not sell something they haven't sold in years...flavored cigarettes.
Ok, this looks like you're attributing another 'motive' to the tobacco companies here. As if the whole premium/flavored offering was just a ruse - a distraction, a sleight of hand for the purpose of appearing to give a "concession" when it is something they've never sold anyway so no big deal. Even though Coke had never really made and marketed Cherry and Vanilla Coke but offer them now and I think they're pretty good sellers - not like the original coke or diet coke (probably another attempt at a distraction from their original recipe??).
So now I'm confused. If they originally introduced the flavored cigs for the purpose of then withdrawing them in order to give the illusion of a 'concession', then where does the "pulled off the market so as to avoid the hassle' part figure in here??
Except min-er, menthol. They will fight this with everything they have next spring. Because losing THAT flavor would be losing something they actually sell.
Of course, the silly, silly activists and politicians claimed a "win" for "protecting our children" from something that isn't even 1% of the market.
Idiots.
And so rather than gov't being the bad guy, they and the silly activist groups were just the dupes of 'big tobacco' - the real villain, right?
The flavored cig is a small deal however at the same time the ecigs fate is being decided by the the FDA and a bill is before the senate to disallow ordering any tob products on the internet. Santa Rosa Ca just passed a rule saying all applicants for City jobs must be tested for nic and anybody testing positive will not be considered for a job. It sure seems to me that more and more choices are being made for us by the govt and I don't see an end to it comming soon. I can hardly wait to see what is imposed on people if health care becomes controled by govt. It seems to me that these people can't even balance a budget why would people want them making their decisions for them?
If you liked that one read the one under "To Vape or Not to Vape" under the legal section. K....maybe I get a little worked Up!
Want to see an end to it? Vote Libertarian and flush those Republiturds and Democraps out.
I, like the guy in the video don't see the flavored cig thing as a small deal...it isn't about flavored cigs, it is about our ineffective government creating more laws to remove the liberties of the populace, instead of actually enforcing the current laws that would 'protect the children' just fine. The stripping of our freedoms is wrong, and even though I am not a smoker anymore, I will still defend their right to choose that activity.
Now, I totally understand not smoking within so many feet of storefront etc, because the smoker should not be interefering with someone that doesn't want to partake in that activity.
As for the City not wanting those that test pos for nic...that has always been their perogative, it is just now they have made it public knowledge. Using Nic does not fall into any of the protected categories...it is unfortunate that they are so narrow minded, but in this case, they are just an employer...but that doesn't mean you can't speak with the City Counsil about the positive aspects of vaping and see what you can do in your community to put a positive spin on our new addiction.
As for the City not wanting those that test pos for nic...that has always been their perogative, it is just now they have made it public knowledge. Using Nic does not fall into any of the protected categories...it is unfortunate that they are so narrow minded, but in this case, they are just an employer...but that doesn't mean you can't speak with the City Counsil about the positive aspects of vaping and see what you can do in your community to put a positive spin on our new addiction.
In the UK, i'm sure this would be deemed illegal under the Human Rights Act, as well as being a case of blatent discrimination. Bang out of order.
I, like the guy in the video don't see the flavored cig thing as a small deal...it isn't about flavored cigs, it is about our ineffective government creating more laws to remove the liberties of the populace, instead of actually enforcing the current laws that would 'protect the children' just fine. The stripping of our freedoms is wrong, and even though I am not a smoker anymore, I will still defend their right to choose that activity.
As for the City not wanting those that test pos for nic...that has always been their perogative, it is just now they have made it public knowledge. Using Nic does not fall into any of the protected categories...it is unfortunate that they are so narrow minded, but in this case, they are just an employer...but that doesn't mean you can't speak with the City Counsil about the positive aspects of vaping and see what you can do in your community to put a positive spin on our new addiction.
I agree with you on the stripping of liberties but I think employers being able to disqualify potential employees on the basis of a legal activity done on their own time is extremely wrong. It would be totally different to say no smoking on the job.
Darmeensays: I, like the guy in the video don't see the flavored cig thing as a small deal...it isn't about flavored cigs... The stripping of our freedoms is wrong, and even though I am not a smoker anymore, I will still defend their right to choose that activity.
You're absolutely right. That's the thing. People have to realize that in order for their favorite habit to be upheld on the basis or rights that they're going to have to back others' habits/actions even though they might not partake or even would highly advice anyone not to do that. And contrary to some other poster's comments on another thread who was unwilling to buy the 'slippery slope' argument, these are slippery slope issues.
How many recall the 'news report' about the 'value of a human life' about a year and a half ago? And who other than what the gov't contolled media would call "right wing radicals," thought it had anything to do with national healthcare? ;-) and how devaluing life makes it easier to ration healthcare? How many 40 year old women are happy that the gov't now doesn't recommend mammograms? Or men that age can forego the prostate exam?
In July when a lady asked Obama about how he'd handle her grandmother's case, he said:
"End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make." Who's 'we'? - you? the doctor? the patient? a gov't official? A........ panel??? And he said that the grandmother should be told:
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."
And people say there's nothing to the 'slippery slope' arguments!
Alan Dershowitz, with whose personal politics I would 80% disagree, once proposed a 'civil libertarian test' - if you can join a protest of a cause that you completely despise, then you can claim yourself to be a true civil libertarian. He did it by defending the Nazi's right to march in Skokie Ill. a community largely made up of Jewish people. Could you pass that test? If not, you're already on that slippery slope.
Now, I totally understand not smoking within so many feet of storefront etc, because the smoker should not be interefering with someone that doesn't want to partake in that activity.
And what if those people were (pick a sense that you might not want to 'partake') - listening to Rush or loud rap music, or (gasp) Coltrane or muzak? Or wearing a leisure suit or a midriff shirt and beer belly? ;-) And just for curiosity's sake, would you support a law that prevented people wearing colonge or perfume from being within 25 feet of a storefront? Is there any credence to the argument that 'in life' we are liable to run into some things that are not pleasant to our senses and yet will not harm us and that junk science shouldn't be used to invent "illnesses" that don't exist just because something may be 'uncomfortable' or disagreeable?
You're absolutely right. That's the thing. People have to realize that in order for their favorite habit to be upheld on the basis or rights that they're going to have to back others' habits/actions even though they might not partake or even would highly advice anyone not to do that. And contrary to some other poster's comments on another thread who was unwilling to buy the 'slippery slope' argument, these are slippery slope issues.
How many recall the 'news report' about the 'value of a human life' about a year and a half ago? And who other than what the gov't contolled media would call "right wing radicals," thought it had anything to do with national healthcare? ;-) and how devaluing life makes it easier to ration healthcare? How many 40 year old women are happy that the gov't now doesn't recommend mammograms? Or men that age can forego the prostate exam?
In July when a lady asked Obama about how he'd handle her grandmother's case, he said:
"End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make." Who's 'we'? - you? the doctor? the patient? a gov't official? A........ panel??? And he said that the grandmother should be told:
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."
And people say there's nothing to the 'slippery slope' arguments!
Alan Dershowitz, with whose personal politics I would 80% disagree, once proposed a 'civil libertarian test' - if you can join a protest of a cause that you completely despise, then you can claim yourself to be a true civil libertarian. He did it by defending the Nazi's right to march in Skokie Ill. a community largely made up of Jewish people. Could you pass that test? If not, you're already on that slippery slope.
Now, I totally understand not smoking within so many feet of storefront etc, because the smoker should not be interefering with someone that doesn't want to partake in that activity.
And what if those people were (pick a sense that you might not want to 'partake') - listening to Rush or loud rap music, or (gasp) Coltrane or muzak? Or wearing a leisure suit or a midriff shirt and beer belly? ;-) And just for curiosity's sake, would you support a law that prevented people wearing colonge or perfume from being within 25 feet of a storefront? Is there any credence to the argument that 'in life' we are liable to run into some things that are not pleasant to our senses and yet will not harm us and that junk science shouldn't be used to invent "illnesses" that don't exist just because something may be 'uncomfortable' or disagreeable?
Hmmm.... question.
Something just crossed my mind.... if we can't purchase e-cig supplies on the internet.... would that be the same as over the phone?
Something just crossed my mind.... if we can't purchase e-cig supplies on the internet.... would that be the same as over the phone?
if the PACT Act passes (it's already cleared the House so call your senators) it will be illegal for any and all common carriers to deliver tobacco products of any kind.
whether or not PV's are lumped in that category is anyone's call, but never underestimate the power of ignorance and culture war. the PACT Act is totalitarian trash anyway, so fight it for all you're worth. they'll come for us soon enough if it passes i'm sure.
That's why the wording in the law is important. Right now, from what I've read many have 'tobacco products' as the wording. And then if they were going after ecigs vs. say just the booming MYO industry, then that would be defined as anything derived from tobacco. However, that horns in on the nic inhalers, patches and gum too so they'd have to start differentiating quite a bit.
What happened in the MYO industry is the paypal went, then credit cards and the only way you could buy is with a money order or a bank wire and it wouldn't now be that out of line - since the gov't owns or virtually owns by control - that they would shut down bank wires as well.
Then came the SCHIPs taxes and soon - since there's already a 'workaround' that - pipe cut - that will no doubt be shut down as well or like you say - no common carriers can transport it across state lines or some other obliteration of the Commerse Clause of the Constitution. Hell, they don't really need to bother with justifying that anymore after taking over the banks and car companies and holding trials for terrorists in NYC. Banning ecig commerse would be just a footnote in history now. "Oh and btw, comrade, there once was a device that purported to enable smokers to avoid the harmful effects of smoking tobacco while still maintaining nicotine consumption."
(as they hurtle toward Oblivion in a gleaming Red Barchetta from a better, vanished time, Motor Laws be dashed!)
Actually, RJR pulled the original line of flavored cigarettes. The ones with such tantalizing names as "Mandarin Mint", and I remember they had a citrus one and a chocolate one. They then came back with another flavored line. I don't remember their names/flavors, I think "Frost" and "Mellow" were in there. They just stopped selling "Candy Cigarettes", the new ones had vague names, and vague flavors. Maybe a year and a half ago when I was working at a convenience store they still sold them. After I quit that job I never noticed if they still sold them or not, as I used to buy big cans of loose tobacco. I would imagine they did, while the flavors only took up half a shelf, they still sold regularly. Sweet Dreams was another brand of flavored cigarettes, my girlfriend was a big fan of their Vanillas. Part of the reason this ban is a big load of bull is that it doesn't affect PM, who only sell one flavor.
Nice turning of a phrase there. Don't recognize it... is it yours perhaps?
- Status
Similar threads
