St. Paul MN: ECigs Excluded from Latest Ban

[Savantster]

These are not Big tobacco products being banned. These are the "pretend" products most of us probably played with once upon a time. Jimmy Cagney as the mob boss with a bubble gum cigar, etc. You are wanting to demonize the tobacco industry through these products.

Great, I'll blow Smarties through a straw. Ban the straw, why don't you.

This is unneeded micro-meddling of the first rank. Hard to believe taxpayer dollars paid lawyers to study this dire social need, then draft an ordinance and use more money in a meeting to consider it. I guess all the problems with victims have been resolved.

Save The Children! Gimme a break.

The problem is failing to understand what acclimation, desensitization, imprinting, cognitive dissonance, et. al. mean in a growing mind. Branding (and associative marketing) has been shown to reduce the potential negative effects taught later in life to "average people". That is, children are _very_ susceptible to these things, and it makes no sense to minimize what is already a difficult process in raising kids. Once they "learn" that "chewing from a foil pouch" is "fun", that seed is planted for their entire life. Might the "real thing" disgust them? sure.. but they are much more open to the _idea_ if it's something they "feel good about" from their childhood.

it's akin to the same reason they can't flash images and words in 1 out of 10 frames on TV during commercials, we learned that "subliminal programming" actually works, and is dangerous and subverts someone's ability to make conscience desicions about things. It isn't all that far from brainwashing.

Kids can still chew gum, kids can and will still pick up a stick to "mimick" smoking of cigars and pipes, but it will _not_ be reinforced in chemistry by sugar and eating and other "natural" biological processes.

Seriously, we have important things to worry about, picking fights because people who study these things understand better the games being played against our children, the unwitting part we're playing in the profit taking by corporations. Life is too short and too precious to have it abused so some faceless ..... can buy a bigger yacht.

 

[Steampunk]

Save The Children! Gimme a break.

Here in Ohio, Tobacco Free Kids has an annoying radio add playing recently...have a listen to this crap.
It's more about the money than it is about the kids.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/campaign/ohio/otp.mp3

 

[OutWest]

While it's nice to see e-cigs mentioned and excluded, the whole ordinance seems kinda silly to me. Now kids will be able to buy weed outside of the convenience store but not buy candy cigs inside the store. And, apparently the city of St. Paul hasnt heard of "smoking smarties". (if you havent heard of it, search youtube for it). I'd rather see a kid eating candy cigarettes or chewing Big League gum than smoking smarties.

 

[bishop]

The problem is failing to understand what acclimation, desensitization, imprinting, cognitive dissonance, et. al. mean in a growing mind. Branding (and associative marketing) has been shown to reduce the potential negative effects taught later in life to "average people". That is, children are _very_ susceptible to these things, and it makes no sense to minimize what is already a difficult process in raising kids. Once they "learn" that "chewing from a foil pouch" is "fun", that seed is planted for their entire life. Might the "real thing" disgust them? sure.. but they are much more open to the _idea_ if it's something they "feel good about" from their childhood.

it's akin to the same reason they can't flash images and words in 1 out of 10 frames on TV during commercials, we learned that "subliminal programming" actually works, and is dangerous and subverts someone's ability to make conscience desicions about things. It isn't all that far from brainwashing.

Kids can still chew gum, kids can and will still pick up a stick to "mimick" smoking of cigars and pipes, but it will _not_ be reinforced in chemistry by sugar and eating and other "natural" biological processes.

Seriously, we have important things to worry about, picking fights because people who study these things understand better the games being played against our children, the unwitting part we're playing in the profit taking by corporations. Life is too short and too precious to have it abused so some faceless ..... can buy a bigger yacht.

This entire post just screams " Pleas big old government ! please raise my children because Im too stupid or lazy to do it myself"


Its getting really old that people don't take responsibility for their children and take a part in their lives, there are way too many lazy people that think they just need to drop their kids off at school everyday and the government will take care of everything.

By letting BS like this come into play you are only getting one step closer to the government knocking on your door and telling you you need to get fixed to control a population problem......

but hey that wont matter, they're only doing it with your best interests in mind and watching out for your safety.


Grow a spine and learn to make your own decisions again.

 

[jamie]

since e-cigs are not "marketed towards children in an attempt to desensitize them to tobacco products in their later years", it makes sense to _not_ include them.

If you read other news reports you'll see the same & partnered anti groups making exactly that argument as part of their opposition to ecigs. If it's white it's designed to "re-normalize" smoking tobacco cigarettes in the minds of children. If it's not white it's "colored to appeal to children," as are the LEDs. The non-tobacco flavors are to "make children think it's candy".

Again, I suspect there was a Ruyan intervention for the moment, likely accepted so the recruited kids would have an easy time of it, i.e. no opposition at hearings and a unanimous vote. It ensured their special OMG KIDS! PHOTO OP meetings with the Mayor and all the other yay-rah-rah civics lesson celebration was free of glitches.

Also at present - these same groups are also pushing/packing hearings for a smoking-in-cars-with-under18s ban. And are actively on the prowl for a full smokeless ban asserting the same - protecting the children.

And finally - as history and several articles have noted, the driver behind this easy-to-win local ban is so they can go to the state and complain that kids can still go RIGHT ACROSS CITY LINES and see these horrific products, so THEREFORE the only right thing to do is have a statewide ban. The same people have used this same city council in this same way on prior anti laws. It's how they pull in businesses to then complain about unfair competition down the street across the border. Smokeless will be next.

 

[VaporDave]

I want to see them ban the sale of chewing tobacco, because it too much resembles that nasty bubble gum that ruins your teeth.

 

[VapnPuff]

well, on last night's world news they said that the US government is now seriously considering a tax per ounce on all soda drinks. They stated it would amount to 10 cents per ounce, which makes one's Biggie 32 oz drink rather expensive. But, they're now preparing to target the obesity problem and that seems to be their first step.

I was rather glad to hear it, because if the soda companies can get out of this particular situation, then can't the tobacco companies claim they've been wrongfully discriminated against? Listening to the news story, it seemed to me like the government may have just stuck both feet in its mouth.

Also, having read here someone stated that they'd heard Epuffer was closing it's offices, I emailed Epuffer and was told not only do they have no intentions of closing the Canadian offices, but have plans in the work to open a second warehouse as well as plans for direct retail sales in the US and Canada by the end of this year.

Johnson Creek told me they don't anticipate any issues with the FDA with their products.

So, perhaps, this is all more of an effort on the FDA's part, or Big Brother itself, to control or even eliminate, the smaller businesses so that the larger companies can control the entire pie.

 

[incineradma]

I agree with Lacey, for sure. I am not a child and I would love bubble gum that imitates chewing tobacco. And I loved the beef jerkey. The problem isn't that OTHER people or OTHER companies are giving children these crazy ideas, it's that the parents have not prepared their children to handle encounters of VERY COMMON products and situations. There's nothing wrong with a child chewing on a candy cigarette because the child should be able to understand that it is a CANDY cigarette, and that's why it's okay -- they are not smoking, which is the harmful action.

Laws like this are enabling lazy or uncaring parents.

 

[Savantster]

This entire post just screams " Pleas big old government ! please raise my children because Im too stupid or lazy to do it myself"


Its getting really old that people don't take responsibility for their children and take a part in their lives, there are way too many lazy people that think they just need to drop their kids off at school everyday and the government will take care of everything.

By letting BS like this come into play you are only getting one step closer to the government knocking on your door and telling you you need to get fixed to control a population problem......

but hey that wont matter, they're only doing it with your best interests in mind and watching out for your safety.


Grow a spine and learn to make your own decisions again.

You're clearly missing the point, and you clearly have no understanding of human nature or the influences on children in modern society. Even the best of parents has to send their kids to school in many situations. Do you realize that some school districts are raising money by having corporations run commercials to kids while they are a captive audience on busses going to school?

You're argument doesn't take into account reality, or the _fact_ that WE are the Government. You want to make it simply "parents just suck", and ignore the mountain of pressures parents have to fight against to raise their kids in the first place.

But that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I just hope that chaos doesn't become the rule of the day because most people living in a civilized country simply don't understand what living in a State of Nature is like (even though they keep being proponents of it).

 

[Savantster]

Laws like this are enabling lazy or uncaring parents.

Like I said, parents have a mountain of influences to fight against on a regular basis, why are we allowing for profit people to increase the burden?

Why the hell are so many people content to believe that "living" means being relegated to life long struggle to "raise kids" and "always be on the watch for those trying to screw you over"? The alternatives are that people live calm, happy, relatively stress free lives.. but that requires that we, as a society, demand that humans, not profits, drive policies.

Marketing to kids is WRONG, on many many many MANY levels. But so many of you are so acclimated to being bombarded with advertisements all day long that you don't see how they are a huge blemish on civilization, and influencing you and your children in very negative ways.

That I find sad.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Laws like this are enabling lazy or uncaring parents.

And stripping the idea of personal responsibility from our culture. It's no wonder this country is the sue-happiest place on earth.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Did you know that Big Food once conducted a study about marketing to kids? The study spoke eloquently about how to make their brands so appealing to children that they would pester their parents continually for the products - they called it "the nag factor."

All you big companies do this, a concerted effort to market to children, to make "life long brand loyal consumers."

Parents have to deal with this continually - and I know, because my 9 year old LOVES McDonalds (yuck!). I was thrilled when our local one burned down..... Too bad they're rebuilding..

 

[SnarkyClark]

Did you know that Big Food once conducted a study about marketing to kids? The study spoke eloquently about how to make their brands so appealing to children that they would pester their parents continually for the products - they called it "the nag factor."

All you big companies do this, a concerted effort to market to children, to make "life long brand loyal consumers."

Parents have to deal with this continually - and I know, because my 9 year old LOVES McDonalds (yuck!). I was thrilled when our local one burned down..... Too bad they're rebuilding..

This calls to the heart of the argument.

Yes, marketing directly to children is unsavory at best, and likely harmful to our society. But the real question is should we use LAW to effect social change?

If you agree that yes we should, then we better make fast food illegal. It is proven to be unhealthy if taken as a sole source of nutrition. McDonald's markets directly to children - Ronald McDonald the clown for cripes sake! This heavy-handed marketing lures kids into a false sense of security in regards to nutrition and their health. Turning children into long-time heavy users of their food can contribute to all sorts of permanent health problems.

Also, we better make all toys illegal. They are marketed to children and no one else. Toy companies bombard our kids with massive levels of 'please gimme gimme must have the newest best thing' mindless consumerism. Many toys also can carry/teach dubious social & moral values in and of themselves.

See, we cannot draw a line no matter how hard we try without outright lying to ourselves.

This is like the basic foundation of free speech. You can't say "most speech is ok most of the time" - you have to say "ALL speech is ok ALL of the time", or "only approved speech is ok when we say it is". No matter how much we wish it so, anything in between is untenable in a human society.

So once again, the issue is not that this or that is bad for children... it is:

Should we use LAW and the governmental control & restriction of certain people, under penalty of jail time, to effect social & market change?

- or -

Should we use market & social pressures to effect change in those parts of our society?

The founding fathers started this country to get away from the former. They wanted to try the latter. Has it failed? Or have we just not given their chosen path enough effort?

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Should we use LAW and the governmental control & restriction of certain people, under penalty of jail time, to effect social & market change?

- or -

Should we use market & social pressures to effect change in those parts of our society?

The founding fathers started this country to get away from the former. They wanted to try the latter. Has it failed? Or have we just not given their chosen path enough effort?

Yes - Preach on brother!

Using the law to effect change is contributing to the nanny state, and will end with all constituents either incapable of an original thought or angered beyond belief...
If big Corporate wants to market this way, we have the right to not patronize them.... As a parent, I'm used to fighting the marketing - it's a simple word: NO.
I tell my son its my FAVORITE word!

 

[Demiurge]

This is what you get America... Turn to government for all your problems and reap what you sow.

QF'effin'T!

 

[Savantster]

This calls to the heart of the argument.

Yes, marketing directly to children is unsavory at best, and likely harmful to our society. But the real question is should we use LAW to effect social change?

If you agree that yes we should, then we better make fast food illegal. It is proven to be unhealthy if taken as a sole source of nutrition. McDonald's markets directly to children - Ronald McDonald the clown for cripes sake! This heavy-handed marketing lures kids into a false sense of security in regards to nutrition and their health. Turning children into long-time heavy users of their food can contribute to all sorts of permanent health problems.

Perhaps you missed it when, in the early 90s McDonalds was forced by LAW to offer and post their nutritional information. That law has mostly been since thwarted, but it was an attempt to educate the masses so they could make an _informed_ decision, one that up to that point they couldn't make because they didn't know that food was bad.

Take that to the next step.. You, today, know that food is bad, but only because your GOVERNMENT stepped in and FORCED that information to be made available to you. period.

That you can't understand the role of government, that you feel it's some external evil force that wants to control you, shows that you don't feel you have proper control over what your government does. That's a problem YOU have, and the core of Democracy depends on "mob rule", in a general context. Hence, if the "mob" decides that they want to be informed, and want to have an easier time raising their kids, then that's what happens. That is what the Founding Fathers built, Democracy....

Are there times when Government goes too far? you bet...that's when we vote, protest, make change.. But when the government is trying to make life _easier_ for citizens, it makes no friggin sense to ..... about a "nanny state".

Also, we better make all toys illegal. They are marketed to children and no one else.

Really? cause toys don't kill kids (thanks to your government). Is that where you want to take this? to some disjointed, illogical, fallicy based location? Because teaching kids that poison is good is a little different than telling kids that playing with this toy is "fun".

Though, on a certain level, you are correct! ... Parents should be picking out toys for kids, kids should not be telling their parents what to buy. One side is just kind of ****ty, one sets up society for perpetual failure.

See, we cannot draw a line no matter how hard we try without outright lying to ourselves.

This is like the basic foundation of free speech. You can't say "most speech is ok most of the time" - you have to say "ALL speech is ok ALL of the time", or "only approved speech is ok when we say it is". No matter how much we wish it so, anything in between is untenable in a human society.

NO NO NO! .. COMPANIES do NOT enjoy FREE SPEACH!!!!!!

WTF is wrong with you people? HUMANS have rights, NOT companies.

this is why this country is totally ****ed. People can't seem to understand that _companies_ are _vehicles_ of moving wealth, NOT people, not citizens, not something worthy of rights.

stop confusing humans with companies.

So once again, the issue is not that this or that is bad for children... it is:

Should we use LAW and the governmental control & restriction of certain people, under penalty of jail time, to effect social & market change?

- or -

Should we use market & social pressures to effect change in those parts of our society?

The founding fathers started this country to get away from the former. They wanted to try the latter. Has it failed? Or have we just not given their chosen path enough effort?

The founding fathers never meant for the precious few to abuse the masses behind the guise of "companies". ever. period.

wake up. you NEVER have to be subjected to _anything_ some "company" choses to do, or tries to do, nor are they afforded rights acknowledged to living beings.

Marketing, packaging, it's all games played by ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES and used as a blunt instrument to rob you of your wealth. your life.

 

[Savantster]

And the founding fathers wanted equal representation for taxation... they never wanted "no taxes", nor did they not want laws to govern society. There is nothing in our Constitution about "market" or anything related to "economics" other than mandating a protection of "a human's right" to protect their ideas in the form of patents and copyright.

The Founding Fathers _never_ intended for us to be slaves to the precious few that own the vast majority of corporations.

 

[OutWest]

That you can't understand the role of government, that you feel it's some external evil force that wants to control you, shows that you don't feel you have proper control over what your government does. That's a problem YOU have, and the core of Democracy depends on "mob rule", in a general context. Hence, if the "mob" decides that they want to be informed, and want to have an easier time raising their kids, then that's what happens. That is what the Founding Fathers built, Democracy....

Um... Actually the Founding Fathers warned against Democracy and founded a Republic. Basically speaking, the difference being that in a republic you have certain liberties and a responsibility to not infringe upon the liberties of others. In a democracy the majority can trod on the rights and liberties of the minority.

edit to add - here's a very good read on the subject http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/659-qa-republic-if-you-can-keep-itq

 

[jamie]

the difference being that in a republic you have certain liberties and a responsibility to not infringe upon the liberties of others. In a democracy the majority can trod on the rights and liberties of the minority.

Okay I'll go for complete derailment of the thread.

Some pretty spurious looking quotes in that article (aka "thin air" quotes). Anyway, I know that's not the definition of republic and never has been, not even close. More a bit of wishful thinking?

REPUBLIC: A political unit governed by a charter which limits the responsibilities and powers of the state.

REPUBLIC: A state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.

REPUBLIC: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.


(Yes indeed I expect there are even more refined definitions. None of which include liberty.)

 

[OutWest]

I did say "Basically speaking" And, the Founding Fathers did recognize that people are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that the govt should be a protector of those rights, and that in a democracy the majority can easily trod upon those rights. It was, admittedly, an oversimplification and only focusing on one aspect, but...

The quotes in the article - most are pretty easily found in other sources. For example, John Adams quote of "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." can also be found at Quote Details: John Adams: Democracy never lasts long.... - The Quotations Page

edit to add - my apologies to admins, mods, and the OP for the derailment.