Should flavored cigarettes (excluding menthol) be banned?

[LoZoccolo]

[BlooInBloo]

1. Why not just take each case as it comes, and decide if it is, or is not...

aimed at kids?

Why the need for a general rule (which you already found an obvious exception to)?

[damntexdem]

4. Hear, hear!

Why not menthol?

Is it the target?

Why not all cigarettes? (Because prohibition doesn't work.)

[tk2kewl]

2. yeah... along with wine coolers and Mike's hard lemonade

:sarcasm:

[The Straight Story]

3. Hell yes, we can't expect people to have choices we don't like - fundies unite to control

Don't like people sinning and doing things you don't like? Ban or tax it to control their behavior.

Kind of like how the fundies like to control your personal choices - they do it for Jeebus, the left does it for money (health care) and to save you from your sinful self. Cause there is only one way, and diversity sucks.

:)

[mamaleah]

8. Issues like smoking bring all different types of fundies,

And at the end of the day, they are still fundies but somehow believe that their reasons are the correct reasons for their insanity.

The concept that people have no self control is frightening. However did we make it this far without the help of these brave souls who wish to save us from ourselves and insure us of a long life that is boring (fat, sugar, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and sex free). I guess they think we should thank them.

[GodlyDemocrat]

37. Actually, it was Obama and the Democrats that pursued this ban

[rfranklin]

5. We should only allow cigarettes coated with dog shit...

That would discourage at least a few nicotine addicts.

[AndyA]

7. +1

Only a few, though. ;)

[The Straight Story]

11. Yeah cause we can't have people doing things we don't approve of, that would be like freedom

Which is a scary thing - leads to diversity and having people not like us around.

[sarge43]

6. Well, why screw around

Take all children away from their parents and put them in gov't run facilities because cops and social workers can do a much better job of raising them.

And banning things always works well.

Yeah, it's :sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

9. We're talking about products for adults, right?

Government needs to stop micro-managing what consenting adults do with their bodies. Enough.

[lysosome]

17. At the same time, we need the government to make sure that we are not poisoned.

Lead toys from china and red food dye with mercury being the two examples that come to mind. The difference here, of course, is that you KNOW it's poison. After all, cigarettes lead to low birth weight and may complicate pregnancy - and what red blooded american male wouldn't be scaired off by those warnings?
What we have here is the FDA, which has done a pretty good job over the last 100 years of protecting the american consumer from caveat emptor capitalism, is running head on into the fact that some americans really DO want a product that kills them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Why the special exception for menthol?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the ethnicity of many menthol cigarette smokers, would it?

Reminds me of the line from The Godfather about only selling narcotics to blacks:

"They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls."

[BlooInBloo]

13. I assumed the OP was concerned about marketing smokes to kids....

with things like "cherry flavored" cigs or something. Menthol wouldn't fall into the category of "obviously gears towards kids".

That's all just assumption, though.

[TexasObserver]

12. If flavored cigarettes are outlawed ... only ... outlaws ... will have ...

... you can't get fooled again!

[Fuzz]

14. Let's just make the world out of Nerf. (tm)

[thelordofhell]

15. What would Hello Kitty smoke?

Seriously, we're not in the dark ages with cigarettes. Fred, Barney and Bugs Bunny aren't selling cigs to kids anymore. Technically, you can't sell cigs to kids anyway.

[BlooInBloo]

19. ...

[thelordofhell]

20. I think smoking is the LEAST of that girl's problems

:rofl:

[Autumn]

16. Let's just ban everything

that anyone could possibly enjoy or be hooked on.

[TxRider]

18. Adults all detest tasty flavors...

Didn't you get the memo?

[Taverner]

21. Tantamount to trying to take down a Banyan tree by plucking the leaves one by one

[dionysus]

22. i think we should ban Oasis instead.

[TheKentuckian]

23. If I want a cigarette that tastes like pumpkin pie then what of it?

Fascists always suck no matter what ideology brings them there.

[lysosome]

39. That's nice. Go for it.

No one is stopping you. The law only stops people from selling and marketing these things. You can make your own.

[Zorra]

24. No. But smokers should be excluded from receiving health care under any

publicly funded health insurance plan, including emergency rooms. Smokers should either have to carry private health insurance or pay for their own medical treatment out of pocket.

If smokers want to make themselves sick and kill themselves, that's their right. But they should not expect the rest of us to pay for their ridiculous and totally unnecessary choices.

It would be extremely selfish and inconsiderate of smokers to expect non-smokers to have to pay the exorbitant costs for treatments of diseases caused by smoking.

Sorry, smokers, but that's only fair.

[Roon]

25. Does that go for people who are eating themselves to death?

eom

[Zorra]

28. No. n/t

[Statistical]

35. Why? Because you are in that category? or might be someday? or know someone who is?

[armyowalgreens]

26. What may be fair may not be realistic.

What you are proposing will never fly.

[Zorra]

30. Dunno. I think the idea would have widespread support. It would

make public health care way more affordable, and would provide a huge incentive for people to quit smoking.

The high cost of smoking
snip---
An additional $96.7 billion is spent on public and private health care combined, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and each American household spends $630 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/HighCostOfSmoking.aspx

[Statistical]

34. Obseity and diabetes cost far far more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?pagewanted=all

We’re spending $147 billion to treat obesity, $116 billion to treat diabetes, and hundreds of billions more to treat cardiovascular disease and the many types of cancer that have been linked to the so-called Western diet. One recent study estimated that 30 percent of the increase in health care spending over the past 20 years could be attributed to the soaring rate of obesity, a condition that now accounts for nearly a tenth of all spending on health care.

Nope it is all the smokers. Of course when you look at that $96.7 billion you fail to account for the offset in additional taxes smokers pay so their net impact is much less than $96.7 billion.

Last year I can find is 2006 and annual tobacco tax revenue was $16.7 billion. So the net impact smokers contribute to healthcare costs is more like $80 billion. Of course 2009 raised tobacco taxes substantially so I would expect the tax offset to be even more today.

Adjusted by the tax offset the effect of smoking is half that of obesity and there is no calls for banning obese persons (other than those with a diagnosed medical reason) from health care system.

Of course not, that wouldn't be progressive.

[Statistical]

29. Does that also include...

People who are Obese?
People with excessive cholesterol from diet?
People who develop diabetes from diet?
People who own sports cars, motorboats, jet skis, motorcycles?
People who engage in any dangerous sport (as defined by the nanny state) such as but not limited to target practice, sky diving, SCUBA, archery, fencing, ATV, snowmobiles, hunting, boxing, football, or other contact sports?
People who endanger their health by not getting vaccines such as every single flue shot?
People who endanger their health by not getting routine medical screening like mammograms, pap smear, prostate exam, and cholesterol screening?
People who don't get routine checkup at least once every year?
People who don't utilize birth control when they are not planning on having a family?

Sorry fascist it is only fair.

Then again I think your "fairness" is likely limited to just the category you don't belong too.

BTW I don't smoke but I also don't like hypocrisy.

[Zorra]

31. Fascist? That's what teabaggers call progressives when they can't come up with

logical arguments.

BTW, your analogies are, statistically speaking, very poor comparisons, as well as being unreasonable.

The high cost of smoking

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/HighCostOfSmoking.aspx

[Statistical]

33. There is NOTHING progressive about your "proposal".

The idea that ONLY smoking contributes to healthcare costs is sad. Easier to blame a minority group then look into the mirror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?pagewanted=all

My guess is you saw yourself somewhere in one or a few of those categories "How dare someone compare me to those evil smokers".

[TheKentuckian]

36. Using the powers of the state to control and dictate individual behavior is fascist

There were fascists LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before there were any teabaggers. If you believe smokers bring X amount of extra cost to the system then you charge us X more but the idea of excluding anyone in an effort at social engineering is a complete bullshit stance to take and is only worse when you STEAL OR GODDAMNED MONEY TO PAY FOR GUESS WHAT??? HEALTH CARE THAT WE DON'T FUCKING USE.

I was totally laid back on the SCHIP 2,600% tax despite nearly doubling the cost of a legal product in one hit or even with paying significantly extra (if the number bear it out) in statistical proportion to cost but this sentiment to use a club to beat people into second class citizens is insufferable and blatantly UNAMERICAN.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Are you fucking shitting me? Who made you God?

Taxes from our vice ARE BEING USED TO FUND HEALTH CARE THAT WE DON'T EVEN FUCKING USE AS IS and we pay higher premiums that aren't reflective of any additional costs we MAY OR MAY NOT put on the system. Similarly, there are any fucking number of things people do that increase the cost of their health care through out life, including living a long time.

This is exactly why there is too much distrust to ever allow a single payer system because of nanny state little dictators just like you. Getting help to tackle an issue that is bigger than individuals with some folks always comes with strings. This is not a goddamned social engineering tool for those that want to use the state to determine personal behavior.

How fucking dare you arrogant fascists DEMAND our resources but think it is A-Okay to use them as a noose to behave as you would dictate.

[hughee99]

38. So if government doesn't have to pay for them anymore

do they get their cigarette tax money back? After all, that money is no longer going to balance out the burden they place on the health care system.

I agree though, the government should, early on, get involved in what type of legal behavior people are involved in and exclude them from government health insurance based on this. I for one would feel much better about the whole thing if the government used health care as a means to control peoples habits. Of course, if they were to do this, the only "good" that would come of it would be that my brother would be right for the first time in his life. His prediction was that if government takes over health care, they'll use it as a means to tell people what they can and can't do and to invade their privacy under the auspices of saving money on heath care.

[rd_kent]

27. Banning shit is bad!

We have got to stop trying to save people from themselves. I am for taxing unhealthy choices, but not banning anything.