C-SPAN2 starting tobacco coverage now

[Surf Monkey]

Thank you for your answer.

No problem. I watch a lot of CSPAN. Young guys in suits are generally Senate Pages or paid staff from the offices of the various Senators. Sometimes they're interns too. But usually they're Pages. Interns and staffers are typically too busy to go hang around on the Senate floor.

 

[JennFL5366]

surf with what you had to say about it being my body and i can put in it what i want. well i can i can find whatever i want to put into my body anyone can. it should be up to us as americans and humans with free will to put into our bodies what we want. im not slamming people who drink.. with your logic you should be saying liquor should be outlawed too. so many people try to do that law as well. tobacco has been out there for a long time; i will find my ways to put nic in my body either smoking or vaping should be my choice is all i am saying. as im seeing others are saying as well. you just dont seem like you are really supportive of what our side would like to see done..it can't be out of sight out of mind. you talked about drugs well people find ways to get those and waste tons of taxpayer money when the government go out and bust them daily. so do i think it should be outlawed no. should it be regulated if it is done right then sure. but i think they should all study up on what they are saying yesto and read the letters the poeple in this forum have sent out to our governments. we have choices and we have the right to be heard.

 

[playerags]

But it IS ok for "society as a whole" to pay for careless gambling done by wall street and large corporations? Right? That one lady said smoking costs 96 million a year... if that is indeed an accurate number it PALES in comparison to to the TRILLIONS of dollars taxpayers will be shelling out in an attempt to fix an economy ruined by the greed and recklessness of certain people in the upper class. Isn't this classified as a "wide social cost?" But you feel that you're right to use tobacco is what the real problem is here? C'mon....

And the 96 million it costs is more than made up in tobacco taxes. Fact is, they tax tobacco to balance budgets.

 

[StudioKraft]

Surf Monkey, you seem to be the resident expert having watched a lot of CSPAN. The Senate hasn't voted on the actual bill that would give jurisdiction over tobacco to the FDA, they only voted to end the debate process for that piece of legislation, correct? There is still an amendment process prior to the actual vote, right?

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

But it IS ok for "society as a whole" to pay for careless gambling done by wall street and large corporations? Right? That one lady said smoking costs 96 million a year... if that is indeed an accurate number it PALES in comparison to to the TRILLIONS of dollars taxpayers will be shelling out in an attempt to fix an economy ruined by the greed and recklessness of certain people in the upper class. Isn't this classified as a "wide social cost?" But you feel that you're right to use tobacco is what the real problem is here? C'mon....

Thank you for bringing that very valid observation forward.

Much appreciated.

 

[greyeyes]

If the President is still having a hard time quitting analogs, maybe somebody should send him an e-cig. We all pretty much know if he did try it, he'd be able to kick the habit. Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Surf Monkey]

But it IS ok for "society as a whole" to pay for careless gambling done by wall street and large corporations? Right? That one lady said smoking costs 96 million a year... if that is indeed an accurate number it PALES in comparison to to the TRILLIONS of dollars taxpayers will be shelling out in an attempt to fix an economy ruined by the greed and recklessness of certain people in the upper class. Isn't this classified as a "wide social cost?" But you feel that you're right to use tobacco is what the real problem is here? C'mon....

You're not getting what I'm saying... and you're trying to put words in my mouth. Not to mention the red herring of bringing up the banking crisis.

Going over it again, it's about consistency. The government says it wants to stop smoking... and then makes a ****eload of tax revenue from the sale of tobacco. The government puts up a bill that claims to protect the public health... but that also potentially bans devices that promote public health. Are you getting it yet? My problem with this legislation is that it's inconsistent and internally contradictory. If the goal is to end smoking, then there should be an outright ban on smoking, not a bunch of tangled regulations that marginalize smokers, use the vice as a revenue stream and forbid the sale of alternate products that may save lives.

And yes, I do think that the banking crisis makes a huge impact on society as a whole. The whole financial industry needs to be re-regulated so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. But if the regulations do inconsistent things, like let brokerage firms off the hook while holding banks and credit unions' feet to the fire, I'd oppose it.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Surf Monkey, you seem to be the resident expert having watched a lot of CSPAN. The Senate hasn't voted on the actual bill that would give jurisdiction over tobacco to the FDA, they only voted to end the debate process for that piece of legislation, correct? There is still an amendment process prior to the actual vote, right?

Yes, that's correct. The vote was to end floor debate on the main bill. They were going to go to cloture and vote on the bill itself, but Reid intervened so that the Burr amendment could be debated and voted upon separately.

 

[q258]

I read every word.

Wow again then, in that case, nevermind...

Clearly STD's have an impact on health care too, how do we fix that. Any idea how much tax is on a pack of smokes? I'd say smokers are paying their share, question is; does that tax make it back to health care. I'd rather pay the difference in a smokers health care cost any day then ever hear of another AIG-like incident in my life. If I were a gambler, I'd take the bet that if the entire country quit smoking you'd personally never see or feel the finanacial impact of that. Unless of course you worked in the tobacco industry, in which case you'd be unemployed. 8-o

 

[playerags]

You're not getting what I'm saying... and you're trying to put words in my mouth. Not to mention the red herring of bringing up the banking crisis.

Going over it again, it's about consistency. The government says it wants to stop smoking... and then makes a ****eload of tax revenue from the sale of tobacco. The government puts up a bill that claims to protect the public health... but that also potentially bans devices that promote public health. Are you getting it yet? My problem with this legislation is that it's inconsistent and internally contradictory. If the goal is to end smoking, then there should be an outright ban on smoking, not a bunch of tangled regulations that marginalize smokers, use the vice as a revenue stream and forbid the sale of alternate products that may save lives.

And yes, I do think that the banking crisis makes a huge impact on society as a whole. The whole financial industry needs to be re-regulated so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. But if the regulations do inconsistent things, like let brokerage firms off the hook while holding banks and credit unions' feet to the fire, I'd oppose it.

Everyone on this whole entire forum has been saying what you just said.
Sooo, what's the argument?

 

[Surf Monkey]

surf with what you had to say about it being my body and i can put in it what i want. well i can i can find whatever i want to put into my body anyone can. it should be up to us as americans and humans with free will to put into our bodies what we want. im not slamming people who drink.. with your logic you should be saying liquor should be outlawed too. so many people try to do that law as well. tobacco has been out there for a long time; i will find my ways to put nic in my body either smoking or vaping should be my choice is all i am saying. as im seeing others are saying as well. you just dont seem like you are really supportive of what our side would like to see done..it can't be out of sight out of mind. you talked about drugs well people find ways to get those and waste tons of taxpayer money when the government go out and bust them daily. so do i think it should be outlawed no. should it be regulated if it is done right then sure. but i think they should all study up on what they are saying yesto and read the letters the poeple in this forum have sent out to our governments. we have choices and we have the right to be heard.

I really don't think you're understanding my position. You're trying to say that I want all nicotine products banned. That's not my position. I said "nicotine" when I meant "smoking" in one of my posts, but I went on to clarify that and correct my initial statement.

And no, you can't legally do anything you want with your body. If you want to go outside the law, that's another matter, but we're not really debating that right now. What we're talking about is levels of risk... about how much and in what areas we as a society want to sanction risk. We're also talking about consistent policy. It is NOT consistent to classify low risk devices like e-cigarettes with high risk devices like cigarettes. That's the core of my objection to the legislation. I also oppose it based on the fact that on the one hand the authors want to promote public health by regulating tobacco, but on the other want to continue spending the vast revenue that tobacco taxes generate. I personally think that the cost to society represented by smoking warrants regulation, but that regulation shouldn't also include low risk nicotine delivery methods like e-cigarettes.

Are we clear now?

 

[JennFL5366]

and as i stated before my body my decision..period...

 

[playerags]

I don't know if you guys are still watching but Durbin is talking about closing Gitmo. If he wants the terrorists in the U.S., which is what he is saying, I think we should put them in his home state of Illinois.

Sorry about being wayyy off topic.

 

[StudioKraft]

Yes, that's correct. The vote was to end floor debate on the main bill. They were going to go to cloture and vote on the bill itself, but Reid intervened so that the Burr amendment could be debated and voted upon separately.

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[Safira]

I don't know if you guys are still watching but Durbin is talking about closing Gitmo. If he wants the terrorists in the U.S., which is what he is saying, I think we should put them in his home state of Illinois.

Sorry about being wayyy off topic.

Hey now wait a minute, I didn't vote for ****, don't punish me. I have enough to deal with in my neighborhood, I don't need more headaches.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Wow again then, in that case, nevermind...

Clearly STD's have an impact on health care too, how do we fix that. Any idea how much tax is on a pack of smokes? I'd say smokers are paying their share, question is; does that tax make it back to health care. I'd rather pay the difference in a smokers health care cost any day then ever hear of another AIG-like incident in my life.

You don't see the contradiction inherent in vice taxes?

If I were a gambler, I'd take the bet that if the entire country quit smoking you'd personally never see or feel the finanacial impact of that. Unless of course you worked in the tobacco industry, in which case you'd be unemployed. 8-o

I'd take that bet in a hot minute. The amount of money saved in cancer wards alone would be enough to win it for me. Be glad you're not a gambler.

 

[Surf Monkey]

and as i stated before my body my decision..period...

The law doesn't agree with you.

If we want to just throw around ideological catch phrases, that's fine, but I was assuming that we were having an actual discussion here. My mistake.

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Are you getting it yet? My problem with this legislation is that it's inconsistent and internally contradictory. If the goal is to end smoking, then there should be an outright ban on smoking, not a bunch of tangled regulations that marginalize smokers, use the vice as a revenue stream and forbid the sale of alternate products that may save lives.

YES I GET IT. I REALLY, REALLY GET YOUR POINT. It's all very ... backwards. I get it. I get it. No need to be condescending. But you were also the one who thought that the government should have the right to make cigarettes (not nicotine-I get that too) ILLEGAL. THIS IS WHERE WE DIFFER. Government should protect our rights and freedoms...not dictate them to us.

If you believe the government should have the right to tell you, as an individual, whether you can or can not smoke--- than you clearly don't understand the fundamental principles that this country was founded on. PERIOD.

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

The law doesn't agree with you.

If we want to just throw around ideological catch phrases, that's fine, but I was assuming that we were having an actual discussion here. My mistake.

It seems like your nose is a little high up in the air there.... might want to come back down with all the peasants....

 

[Surf Monkey]

If you believe the government should have the right to tell you, as an individual, whether you can or can not smoke--- than you clearly don't understand the fundamental principles that this country was founded on. PERIOD.

If that's really what you think then I submit that you need to take a civics lesson. News flash: the government legislates ALL SORTS OF BEHAVIOR. They tell you want you can and can't do every day. If they didn't, this wouldn't be a democratic republic, it would be anarchy.