C-SPAN2 starting tobacco coverage now

[Surf Monkey]

Let's not get carried away here simply because the government is unable to figure out the difference between cigarettes and vaporizers. Yes, it sucks that e-cigs may get banned. Yes, it's a major contradiction for the FDA to be tasked with sanctioning proven killers and banning devices that may save lives. Yes, there's far too much money involved both in the form of taxes and lobbyist dollars. But it's also true that smoking is killing people and something needs to be done about it. Giving the FDA regulatory power over it may be a good idea. Major corporations are selling a product that kills virtually everyone who uses it. Not good.

Personally, I think the government should just make nicotine illegal outright. Yes, it would suck for those of us who are addicted to the drug, but it's the only truly consistent position they can take. Anything short of a full on prohibition is going to be rife with contradiction, graft and unfairness.

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Let's not get carried away here simply because the government is unable to figure out the difference between cigarettes and vaporizers. Yes, it sucks that e-cigs may get banned. Yes, it's a major contradiction for the FDA to be tasked with sanctioning proven killers and banning devices that may save lives. Yes, there's far too much money involved both in the form of taxes and lobbyist dollars. But it's also true that smoking is killing people and something needs to be done about it. Giving the FDA regulatory power over it may be a good idea. Major corporations are selling a product that kills virtually everyone who uses it. Not good.

Personally, I think the government should just make nicotine illegal outright. Yes, it would suck for those of us who are addicted to the drug, but it's the only truly consistent position they can take. Anything short of a full on prohibition is going to be rife with contradiction, graft and unfairness.

you have got to be kidding me... you've been institutionalized quite well...

 

[Surf Monkey]

Here is the Senate's discussion list for the upcoming months: get your popcorn ready...

People die from food-we should ban food
People die from water-we should ban water
People die from cars-we should ban cars
Planes crash-we should ban planes
Boats sink-we should ban boats
People die from fire-we should ban fire
People die from each other-we should ban people

Satire.

Bottom line is that the government is never consistent. For example, the US kills people for killing people in order to send the message that people shouldn't kill people. That kind of twisted logic is nothing new in Washington DC, London England, Paris France or any seat of government for that matter.

 

[Arthur]

Let's not get carried away here simply because the government is unable to figure out the difference between cigarettes and vaporizers. Yes, it sucks that e-cigs may get banned. Yes, it's a major contradiction for the FDA to be tasked with sanctioning proven killers and banning devices that may save lives. Yes, there's far too much money involved both in the form of taxes and lobbyist dollars. But it's also true that smoking is killing people and something needs to be done about it. Giving the FDA regulatory power over it may be a good idea. Major corporations are selling a product that kills virtually everyone who uses it. Not good.

Personally, I think the government should just make nicotine illegal outright. Yes, it would suck for those of us who are addicted to the drug, but it's the only truly consistent position they can take. Anything short of a full on prohibition is going to be rife with contradiction, graft and unfairness.

All that would accomplish is to add a criminal aspect to the tobacco market just like it did with alcohol in the 20s, not only that but imagine how many tobacco farmers would lose their main/only source of income, not to mention all of the people employed at the various manufacturers who make all the tobacco products out there... how many small business smoke shop owners would lose their livlihood.. no, prohibition is not the answer. I think that's already been proven.

 

[Ivisi]

So, I'm sorry I'm a little behind...

Will this complete passage in both houses on the same form of the bill?

A little late in replying to this in the thread, but here's the short version of how it works:

If only minor changes are made to a bill by the other chamber, it is common for the legislation to go back to the first chamber for concurrence. However, when the actions of the other chamber significantly alter the bill, a conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.

So, if no amendments and very minor changes, it is possible this will go straight to Obama's desk after passing.

Ivisi

 

[franklyspeaking]

I thought that it was proven that prohibition doesn't work. It didn't for alcohol and I don't think the 95 year war on drugs has not done anything to prove it either.

Harrison Narcotics Tax Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prohibition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Satire.

Bottom line is that the government is never consistent. For example, the US kills people for killing people in order to send the message that people shouldn't kill people. That kind of twisted logic is nothing new in Washington DC, London England, Paris France or any seat of government for that matter.

I agree... But I can't understand at all why you don't feel you should have the RIGHT to use tobacco (or nicotine for that matter).

 

[Ivisi]

Satire.

Bottom line is that the government is never consistent. For example, the US kills people for killing people in order to send the message that people shouldn't kill people. That kind of twisted logic is nothing new in Washington DC, London England, Paris France or any seat of government for that matter.

They should make it pay-per-view. Think of the revenue they'd generate. I'm sure they could get Mark Burnett to produce.

Ivisi

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

Personally, I think the government should just make nicotine illegal outright. Yes, it would suck for those of us who are addicted to the drug, but it's the only truly consistent position they can take. Anything short of a full on prohibition is going to be rife with contradiction, graft and unfairness.

Personally, in a way, I'd like to see that. It may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If you get my drift.

Great! C-Span is having technical difficulties! grrrr

 

[halopunker]

Technical Difficulties!!! ARGH!

oh wait...I accidentally unplugged my headset...

 

[TropicalBob]

Good grief. They get near the critical moments -- and lose their signal!

 

[boxhead]

think tank in santa monica cal...

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

I think some people on this forum lost there signal too...

 

[JennFL5366]

they are back

 

[Sun Vaporer]

What is up with that?

 

[Surf Monkey]

you have got to be kidding me... you've been institutionalized quite well...

I'm not kidding at all. Smoking kills virtually everyone who does it. Do you deny that fact?

I'm not spewing doctrine here. I'm just trying to be realistic. The bottom line is that huge corporations are in the business of selling a product that is proven to kill... and not just kill some people, but most people who use it. Cars kill a lot of people too, but they don't kill MOST of the people who drive them. Additionally, smoking related illnesses cause health care costs and insurance premiums to go up for everyone, not just smokers.

The issue is more about the inconsistency; the asinine tax policy surrounding cigarettes, the absurd contradiction of allowing cigarettes but disallowing nicotine delivery methods that appear to be vastly safer, the Machiavellian idiocy of relying on the taxation of deadly products to fund all sorts of pet projects.

All I'm saying is that if the government really intended to be consistent, they'd simply outlaw smoking altogether. I misspoke when I said they should ban nicotine, because there are methods for using nicotine that are considered to be extremely low risk (which is why we're all here.) The point is that these gothic and arcane tangles of regulatory legislation are dishonest, inconsistent and bad policy. On one hand there's an incremental push to stigmatize smokers and tax them out of the ability to afford the product. On the other hand there's a reliance on the billions of tax dollars generated from smoking. I think the government should ****e or get off the pot. All this .....footing around is counter productive.

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

So? They're done speaking about the tobacco bill?

Missed it all due to technical difficulties?

How convenient...

 

[JennFL5366]

they knew we were listening/watching

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

they knew we were listening/watching

no doubt....

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

I'm not kidding at all. Smoking kills virtually everyone who does it. Do you deny that fact?

I'm not spewing doctrine here. I'm just trying to be realistic. The bottom line is that huge corporations are in the business of selling a product that is proven to kill... and not just kill some people, but most people who use it. Cars kill a lot of people too, but they don't kill MOST of the people who drive them. Additionally, smoking related illnesses cause health care costs and insurance premiums to go up for everyone, not just smokers.

The issue is more about the inconsistency; the asinine tax policy surrounding cigarettes, the absurd contradiction of allowing cigarettes but disallowing nicotine delivery methods that appear to be vastly safer, the Machiavellian idiocy of relying on the taxation of deadly products to fund all sorts of pet projects.

All I'm saying is that if the government really intended to be consistent, they'd simply outlaw smoking altogether. I misspoke when I said they should ban nicotine, because there are methods for using nicotine that are considered to be extremely low risk (which is why we're all here.) The point is that these gothic and arcane tangles of regulatory legislation are dishonest, inconsistent and bad policy. On one hand there's an incremental push to stigmatize smokers and tax them out of the ability to afford the product. On the other hand there's a reliance on the billions of tax dollars generated from smoking. I think the government should ****e or get off the pot. All this .....footing around is counter productive.

I understand where you're coming from. I am just coming from a very idealistic standpoint. I believe the goverment already intereferes far too much in private affairs.

Does smoking kill? Yes. Should I have the right to do to my body what I like? Absolutely. To me its about personal rights. The thought of the goverment dictating to me every facet of my existence is revolting...