What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
80 Comments
- Minarchian, on 06/13/2009, -8/+36Wait a second here.
FTA:
"The legislation would allow the FDA to reduce tar and nicotine in cigarettes"
The FDA may be about to limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes? Isn't the market already doing this? Like "lights" and "Ultra-Lights"?
And if they do that, over and above what the cigarette makers are already doing, then people will actually INCREASE the total number of cigarettes they'll smoke in order to get the nicotine. It's plainly obvious to me.
This whole thing reeks of government intervention in the market place, yet again, in order to maximize the tobacco companies profits, not to decrease the harmful effects of smoking.
I don't think they have the constitutional authority to do this anyway. But if they ARE going to do this then by God be honest about what you're doing.
FTA:
"and prohibit the use of words such as "mild" or "light" to advertise a brand"
And exactly how is this supposed to decrease smoking?
These names, like "light" and "ultra-light" are descriptors, not marketing hype. They tell the buyer that there is less tars and/or nicotine in the brand. To take that away will make the buyer LESS informed about what they are ingesting.
There's never been a more blatant attempt at government screwing with reality than this POS legislation. - taylorhayward, on 06/13/2009, -5/+31We're in ur government controlling ur lifestyle.
- gbudavid, on 06/13/2009, -3/+27My question is where the money will come from after congress kills the goose??? Purely rhetorical question...
- Blinker1315, on 06/13/2009, -6/+29What's really outrageous in this Congressional nanny-state action is the exemption for regulation on menthol cigarettes, which just happen to be the preferred cigarette of millions of black Americans. Why? If, as legislators say, this action was necessary to help prevent more disease from tobacco use, it makes no sense not to put blanket regulation on ALL brands of cigarettes. Mind you, I'm not for regulation at all--people can make their own decisions on what they'll consume or what bad habits to engage in--but this smacks of racism to me. Not that anyone in the media will make a big stink out of it.
- RonPauls, on 06/13/2009, -4/+25"Which brings us to the real cynical beauty of this bill: It lets the politicians claim to be punishing Big Tobacco while further cementing their financial partnership. It's no coincidence that Philip Morris, the market leader, is squarely behind a bill that allows the FDA to curb advertisements. The Altria Group subsidiary is hoping to solidify its market share, and any regulation that impedes the ability of smaller rivals to advertise and lure away Philip Morris customers can only benefit the Marlboro Man and his shareholders."
This basically entrenches the big tobacco companies while allowing politicians to get an ego trip and control people's lives.
WAR on CIGARETTES is starting...
pretty soon well have no-knock raids and people throw in jail for not forking over an arm and a leg in taxes for buying cigarettes. - johnross1968, on 06/14/2009, -1/+16You also need to realise this is to protect the tobacco inustry for new tech coming out.
I have just started smoking E-cigs (about 2 months ago) and love them. They are soon to be banned by the FDA.
They contain NO CARCINOGENS at all.
They have liquid nicotine and flavoring and propylene glycol (which is FDA approved) You have probably come across Propylene glycol before its what makes the fog from fog machines. Its also used in everything from deodorants to an ingredient used to keep food moist.
Its also used in Inhalers for medicines.
When you inhale you get a hit of nicotine. It 'feels' very much like smoking a real cigarette. You even get the throat hit of a regular cigarette.
As for the cost. It costs me about 4.50 for 10 ml of the liquid. 10 ml usually lasts me about a week. so for less than $20 a month I can smoke a much safer alternative.
Most of the companies selling this new product are small companies. Big Tobacco does NOT like the competition.
So Lets Recap
No Carcinogens.
The only 'unsafe ingredient is nicotine (but the FDA isn't banning that)
Its not taxed like actual tobacco products.
Its much cheaper $20 a month (and I am a heavy smoker)
It allows small upstart companies to compete with Big Tobacco.
Plus it tastes way better.
THANK GOD THE FDA is GONNA SAVE US FROM OURSELVES AND BAN THIS - inactive, on 06/14/2009, -5/+17What this legislation will do is force the most addicted Americans to buy MORE cigarettes so they can get their fix... and maybe even those who aren't so addictive may do the same, and become more addicted in the process.
- hokie47, on 06/14/2009, -0/+10Just bypass the government. My great grandfather taught me how to grow tobacco and how to make liquor. Yes he was a crazy farmer from Arkansas but he understood freedom and never expected or wanted anything from the government besides to protect his own freedom. Just grow your own and ***** the government.
- inigomntoya, on 06/14/2009, -1/+11yup. Instead of reducing the stuff that gives people cancer (the smoke), they are regulating the stuff that people are addicted to.
Just like George Carlin said - Fascism with a smiley face. Sucks to be us... - algaeturd, on 06/14/2009, -16/+25People are pussies these days. If you don't want to smoke, don't ***** do it. It's illegal in just about every inside location in the world. Non-smokers are the biggest pussies. They ingest 2 Big Macs a day but they're afraid if they walk past someone on the sidewalk that they'll inhale second-hand smoke and get cancer? Seriously. You're not that fragile or precious.
When someone walks by me and feigns a cough when I'm smoking outside, I most definitely blow an extra puff in their direction.
Yes, I'll die sooner than a non-smoker but isn't that my right if that's the path I choose?
And don't give me the ***** about paying for my healthcare either. I've been paying for other peoples' health care for nigh on 30 years now since I entered the work force.
This country used to be strong, brave and a little more stoic.
These days, everyone is just so damn fragile and self-important. It's actually kind of sad.
You gonna live forever because you don't smoke? Avoid red meat? Exercise 3 times a week?
I've had relatives die at the age of 90+ who smoked unfiltered cigarettes for 60+ years who ate 3 eggs per day, lots of red meat and drank on a regular basis.
Why did they live so long? Because they weren't gigantic pussies. - ObamaYouth, on 06/14/2009, -0/+8The day I've been waiting for. Now that FDA is regulating cigarette, it is finally safe to smoke.
- mparker21311, on 06/14/2009, -0/+8Grow your own!
- GovernmentsGun, on 06/14/2009, -0/+8Another feel good move that government specializes in. When will people learn that government and corporations are tied together like two humping dogs? This is pretty similar to the Senators working on the health care reform movement being on boards and advisory committees of major health insurance companies.
These people are screwing you, and you're thanking them for it because it looks like they're doing something. - anarcurt, on 06/14/2009, -2/+9What is the point of banning flavored cigarettes? They are not more hazardous so it is just another example of big brother Washington deciding what is best for us. Honestly, I rarely smoke but I do like the occasional clove cigarette when drinking. Now, I will no longer be able to get them. They will be illegal.
The government is there to protect us from outside threats. What I ingest or inhale is my business. We are on our way to government issued nutrition pills akin to soylent green. Banning smoking in enclosed public places is fine, as that can effect others but it is another thing to ban something for private consumption.
Is this the kind of change people really want? - scoottie, on 06/14/2009, -2/+9Obama is a smoker he just wants to own the tobacco companies so he can get free product
- DirtPile, on 06/14/2009, -4/+11The government has no place in regulating fags.
- Barackalypse, on 06/14/2009, -1/+8No problem, the Federal Reserve can simply monetize debt! Its a far bigger source of funds than any tobacco taxes are anyway.
- Besundale, on 06/14/2009, -0/+6I just received my first e-cig only three days ago. And now I find out they want to ban them. The FDA is thoroughly disappointing me and crushing my dreams of ever quitting smoking :(
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -1/+7ATF, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. What kind of huge clusterfark is it going to be with the FDA also regulating tobacco.
What kind of morons do we have running the show? - ml4rocky, on 06/14/2009, -1/+6The FDA is going to regulate tobacco now. Should I laugh or cry? Great for weight loss---lost my appetite for both supper and breakfast already.
I need to study exactly who voted for or against this lunacy. - byrdboy, on 06/14/2009, -1/+6I'm not poor, but I do enjoy the occasional cigar.
I'm a bit upset that they're also going to be regulating those, now, too.
This bill is a direct attack on our individual freedoms. - deathfix, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5This article fails to mention anything about the tobacco industry having to include larger warning labels on their products, but I guess that's a small price to pay for most of the other things included in this bill.
Also, most of seem to agree that this bill is in favor of the tobacco industry. I'm still wondering why it's mainly the senators from tobacco producing states that voted against the bill. - getoffmybridge, on 06/14/2009, -1/+5As long as they don't try to get married, right?
- PeppermintPig, on 06/13/2009, -4/+8Hypocrisy and racism. Corporatism/fascism to give favors to the established corporations.
- shrbr, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4Cigarettes are AWESOME.
- Minarchian, on 06/14/2009, -1/+5"So since the mid-1970s tobacco companies have known that people who smoked "light" cigarettes inhaled the same amount of tar and nicotine as regular-cigarette smokers—if not more....It happens through a process that scientists and addiction experts call compensation. Smokers who use a reduced-tar product, such as light cigarettes, compensate by taking larger puffs, thus drawing more deeply into their lungs the smoke of those products."
That article is saying the same thing that I am saying. According to the article we are commenting on, the FDA will be forcing the companies to decrease the levels of tar and nicotine. Thereby INCREASING the use of cigarettes.
I am also saying....the use of the word "light" is a descriptor and has not been proven to be untruthful. And since the industry has never said that "light" cigs are safer there is no way for the control freaks to say otherwise without the use of fiat government power to twist reality.
What the control freaks are really wanting to do is to ban yet another product from the market.
Do I have to explain what happens when nannystaters ban something? Like creating crime out of thin air, black markets, organized crime, ad nauseam....
The issue is that this is about controlling what people ingest. It is NOT the purview of Government to do this.
Please explain what part of the Constitution allows this nonsense. - boulder555, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4Ron Paul spoke and voted against it.
Theres a u-tube video of his cogent remarks in Congress while everyone else jumps on the bandwagon pretending their bureaucratic approach is going to make us all healthier. - anarcurt, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4I'm with you. The country is soft. Back near the beginning of the country we had the Whiskey Rebellion. Any time the government would try to encroach on liberties they would take to the streets. In general we are all pussies. Forget dying for a belief, people won't even get off the couch for it.
- Minarchian, on 06/14/2009, -1/+4The Interstate Commerce Clause is not about regulating what people do with their bodies, nor is it about telling companies how to run their businesses. It's about ensuring free and open trade between the States.
That clause is the most abused and twisted Clause in the Constitution. One can use that clause to justify everything under the sun. It's a lame and ignorant excuse....try reading the history of it. - RonPauls, on 06/14/2009, -3/+6tough to feel sorry for them when they were just given a de-facto monopoly
- bennny, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3they need the tax revenue.
this was never about trying to limit the number of people smoking.
to many programs are run by the cigarette tax - sychodelix, on 06/14/2009, -1/+4Very true, this will only cause a smoking increase. Also, they are placing restrictions on bringing in any new types of smokeless tobacco. Guess what? Phillip Morris wrote this law and it's made to where they can shut out RJ Reynolds and their Camel SNUS, plus it makes people like me who import REAL swedish snus, out to be a smuggler.
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3You don't save any money by banning smoking-smokers don't live to collect as much in benefits as non-smokers.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3Proving my "universal health care turns nice people who used to want to leave me alone into busybodies who *don't* want to leave me alone" theory rather well, no? I mean, even if you support government medicine, you just admitted to it, and it's understandable. I bitch too when my taxes are wasted.
- bmcnally, on 06/14/2009, -1/+3FTA: Then there's the bill's exemption for menthol from the ban on flavored tobacco products. Menthol happens to be the most popular cigarette flavor, and the Journal reports that the Congressional Black Caucus pressed for the carve-out. Menthol brands account for less than 30% of the U.S. market but are favored by 75% of black smokers. Black public health officials understandably have opposed the exemptions.
Let's see if Obama lets them get away with it. - kemp34, on 06/14/2009, -2/+4The Interstate Commerce Clause used the word "regulate" in the classical definition of the word as in "to make regular". All the logical and rhetorical gymnastics that have gone on over the last century have twisted that tiny piece of the Constitution into an excuse to create a massive centralized government dictatorship of an ever growing body of industry is, on its face, nonsensical.
Even Alexander Hamilton, the most central government loving member of the founders of this country, would be amazed at the lack of respect for Constitutional boundaries in the current state of the Republic. - inactive, on 06/14/2009, -1/+3FOR SMOKERS:
You can buy 1 lb bags of tobacco and boxes of `tubes' for a lot less.
( 2 16 oz bags + 5 cartons of tubes = 50 packs for about $140 )
That`s about $ 2.80 a pack. ($5 to $7 bucks for a hand held push machine)
It takes me about the time to smoke a cigarette to make a pack.
FOR NON-SMOKING LITTLE WHINNY BITCHES:
Hey ***** you...I support poor kids with my tax dollar.
FOR ALL THE CAREER POLITICIANS STICKING IT TO ME:
Hey ...DOUBLE ***** YOU!
I`m going to start growing to *****...
You ***** ***** anyway. - MicrosoftBob, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Is the brand Black Death still around?
- tylerdurden09, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2I really doubt this could help us get out of debt as a country. It's just as laughable as the idea of marijuana legalization getting us out of debt. Even though legalizing marijuana would be nice...
In case you guys weren't aware, NOTHING will get us out of debt.
We're like....$14 trillion in debt.
...you guys didn't know? - consonance, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Yes, the tobacco companies have never claimed that light cigarettes are safer, but at the same time that's ignoring the marketing subtext. The cigarettes are advertised as "light," "mild," "ultra-light," or something similar. Although the cigarette companies haven't said, "Yeah, these ciggies are a whole lot safer than the regulars!" it's not like the advertising on the packs themselves aren't misleading! Marlboro Lights, for instance, say, "lowered tar and nicotine." If I was a layperson this would likely lead me to believe that these cigarettes are safer. Several studies in the 1970s even showed this was happening. The cigarette companies are NOT innocent in this. Besides, the tobacco companies' internal communications showed that at one point they were trying to get light cigarettes accepted by the medical community.
On another note, you do realize that the government isn't banning cigarettes? Only regulating them. There's not going to be a black market for them, since they're not being banned. A black market is illegal trade, as I'm sure you know. I doubt the drug smugglers from Mexico are going to jump into cigarette trading.
By the way, the article doesn't say that the FDA will force lower tar and nicotine. The FDA will be able to do that, yes. The FDA is regulating those substances, so it could actually allow companies to raise the amount by that same token.
To answer your last question, the interstate commerce clause allows the regulation of cigarettes. - anarcurt, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Look for the letter D next to their name
- StonerThomas, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2@algaeturd:You are my godamn hero right now. Where has the pride gone?
@tylerdurden: No. How do you think people smoke 5+years (or 30+ years) without getting cancer? It's not that easy. - oldhick, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2It's NOT bad for the cigarette industry. First, it makes it more difficult to market smokeless alternatives. Second, it will most likely induce smokers to smoke more. As nicotine and tar levels are reduced, smokers will have to smoke more cigarettes to get the same fix.
- ProfessorRiffs, on 06/14/2009, -1/+3Don't.
- consonance, on 06/14/2009, -1/+2Minarchian, you're right that the interstate commerce clause doesn't regulate how people use their bodies. The commerce clause is used to regulate commerce between states. Since cigarettes are sold between every state and can be rationally expected to be transmitted through states, Congress has to ability to regulate cigarettes.
I have read the history of the interstate commerce clause. So, for your information, I am not making up an excuse to defend Congress. Using the modern standards of the SCOTUS since the Great Depression, the cigarette/FDA bill passes the rational basis test. - Minarchian, on 06/14/2009, -2/+3You have to 1st realize what the Constitution is. One thing it is NOT is a means by which the federal government maintains unchecked power. Article one, section 8 and the 9th & 10th Amendments tells us that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government to only those powers delegated and enumerated and certain powers unenumerated in order to administer the powers that are, which is not the same thing as giving more power to Congress than what is enumerated.
By the courts granting such large leeway to the Commerce Clause flies in the face of not only the wording of the Constitution but its intent and purpose, its principle so to speak. And are a slap to the face to anyone who cares about our liberties.
Perhaps you should follow the current trend among several States to re-declare their authority under the 10th Amendment. You may be enlightened. - bobbi21, on 06/28/2009, -0/+1it's not how long u live, it's how much it costs while you're alive. Treating lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc is much more expensive than treating a healthy 80 year old.
- boulder555, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1I've been looking for it for years now and have not been able to find it. If anyone knows where it is being marketed, let me know.
- bobbi21, on 06/28/2009, -0/+1I'm pretty sure there's rules about not peeing in private property and not being naked in private property...
and I believe you're imposing your preferences on others by smoking around ppl who don't want to be smoked on. Just like peeing on ppl who dont want to be peed on. Tell me how that's different? You're putting out something from your body that other ppl find offensive. Therefore it is banned. -
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is