Stamping out Big Tobacco

[Tev]

So the FDA finally got its wish and is set to be granted powers to regulate tobacco products in ways that were before just a crazy man's pipe dream.

The news! (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEjFYiD2CoedIv_2zTjchS7Z41KAD98PCNEO0)

Historic anti-smoking legislation sped to final congressional passage on Friday — after a bitter fight lasting nearly a half-century — and lawmakers and the White House quickly declared it would save the lives of thousands of smokers of all ages. Even more important, they said, the measure could keep countless young people from starting in the first place.
......
Specifically, the measure for the first time will give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products, demand changes or elimination of toxic substances and block the introduction of new products.
......
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sponsor of the bill and chairman at a memorable 1994 hearing where tobacco industry executives denied that nicotine was addictive, relished the long-sought victory.
......
There was some opposition from Republicans who questioned the ability of the FDA to handle tobacco regulation and criticized what they said was another Democratic-led intrusion of the federal government in private business.

So yeah, by the time I get around to having kids and they are old enough to even care about cigarettes, there might not even be any around. I wonder what we're going to find to draw in revenue to pay for healthcare once Big Tobacco finally folds. I mean, sure there will be a lot less people in need of healthcare in the first place so it will be cheaper......but that's an awesome source of income.

[Fifthfiend]

I seriously don't know how this is supposed to work given that if tobacco was regulated the way any other drug was regulated it would be flat-out illegal.

Not even marijuana style "it's not all that bad for you but we're gonna pretend it is so we have an excuse to be dicks about something" illegal just like "this is hella fucking addictive* and completely fucks you up healthwise and there's really just like no good reason to sell this shit" illegal.



*And by addictive I mean I quit like four years ago and I am getting cigarette cravings right now as I am typing this.

[Tev]

Well the FDA now has the power to not only force tobacco companies to reveal their full list of ingredients in cigarettes, but also has the power to make them take out harmful substances from the menu as well as reduce the levels of nicotine. That in and of itself should cut down on addiction at least a little. Also, they have set up a flat out ban on new products. This way the companies can't try to make something new to weasel around whatever guidelines the FDA sets up.

[Jagos]

Here's a big question:

Does the US government still subsidize tabacco farming?

If so, then I see this as a moot point. If we were REALLY going to stop tobacco, give the farmers 5 years to change crops and stop subsidies.

[Tev]

I guess my question is this: How harmful is tobacco (the leaf) vs. tobacco (the chemical laced cig)?

Asking farmers to get rid of something that may not be that bad just because the industry spend billions to lace it with toxic death seems kinda unfair.

Also, going back to a more "smoke it as it's grown" culture may even herald in a more accepting look on other grown leaf-smoked plants.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Wouldn't that hurt the economy? I thought cigarettes were a big part of it.

And before the accusations fly, no I'm not pro-cancer.

[Mirai Gen]

I'm very very on the fence about this. I mean trying to force people to quit cigarettes sounds right up the US Government's alley (Which is to say it is completely fucking wrong), but on the other hand I can think of nothing more life-saving and cost-effective than trying to kill off cigarettes or at least reduce their addictive/chemical properties.

So I'm at passe.

[Eldezar]

I guess my question is this: How harmful is tobacco (the leaf) vs. tobacco (the chemical laced cig)?

How about this. I have been smoking cigars and pipe tobacco for years. I smoke occasionally, but when I do smoke, it is a lot in one sitting or in one week. Then I stop, and don't feel any problems. I could go months without any tobacco.

I tried the same with gas station cigarettes. Although I forced myself not to smoke after I had finished that one pack in a week and a half, I felt the cravings very much. It was probably a month or so before I had stopped noticing any cravings altogether. There are the occasional cigar companies that lace their products with extra chemicals, but brands such as Rocky Pattel and CAO are very good. Pipe tobacco is usually good, but I do not know any specific supplier that is genuinely additive free. Also, never get anything from the Cheap Tobacco franchise, because their name spells out the quality of their product.

Wouldn't that hurt the economy? I thought cigarettes were a big part of it.

Unlikely. If people don't spend money on cigarettes, then they can spend it somewhere else. Either on the next crazily addictive product that comes out or maybe actually use it to save for college or buy groceries/pay bills or go to the oncologist or whatever. As long as the money is in circulation, the economy won't be affected.

[Tev]

How about this. I have been smoking cigars and pipe tobacco for years. I smoke occasionally, but when I do smoke, it is a lot in one sitting or in one week. Then I stop, and don't feel any problems. I could go months without any tobacco.

I tried the same with gas station cigarettes. Although I forced myself not to smoke after I had finished that one pack in a week and a half, I felt the cravings very much. It was probably a month or so before I had stopped noticing any cravings altogether. There are the occasional cigar companies that lace their products with extra chemicals, but brands such as Rocky Pattel and CAO are very good. Pipe tobacco is usually good, but I do not know any specific supplier that is genuinely additive free. Also, never get anything from the Cheap Tobacco franchise, because their name spells out the quality of their product.Right, so there is nothing for the honest tobacco farmer to worry about. Their product is fine if used as a recreational tool and is not terribly addictive.

I think this will help reform the industry to a more.....green(?) perspective.

[Magus]

I'm pretty sure any sort of prohibition on cigarettes would go about as well as the prohibition on alcohol, probably even less well because a lot more people are addicted to cigarettes as opposed to addicted to alcohol. I mean, people just wanted to drink alcohol and you'd see them willing to risk jail time to drink it in a speak easy and organized crime shooting other gangs to death over selling it to the people. I think an addictive substance would be much harder to eradicate.

Unless they simply made cigarettes illegal and people still had access to other tobacco products, or went the route of changing the ingredients in the cigarettes as opposed to banning them. Or some other less harsh measure.

[Aerozord]

I dont know, I still think my idea would be better at solving smoking. Just make it legal to bunch someone while they are smoking. After getting hit a few times it should be rather discouraging.

But for something that might actual happen its, ok. People start smoking for the same reason they start drinking, its viewed as a sociable activity. Its just one is a heck of alot more addictive. This will not keep kids from smoking I garentee you that, all it will do is make it easier to quit.

But only if they started with these less addictive ones. For those currently addicted they will be smoking more then ever since the current levels in them is far lower, thus they will need more to satisfy the craving. I hope the goverment is smart enough to gradually reduce them rather then do a sudden cut-off

I guess my question is this: How harmful is tobacco (the leaf) vs. tobacco (the chemical laced cig)?

To my knowledge, the added chemicals make it more addictive, but compared to the heath hazard of tobacco those added chemicals are a drop in the bucked. So they are about as deadly just not as addictive
Well the FDA now has the power to not only force tobacco companies to reveal their full list of ingredients in cigarettes, but also has the power to make them take out harmful substances from the menu as well as reduce the levels of nicotine. That in and of itself should cut down on addiction at least a little. Also, they have set up a flat out ban on new products. This way the companies can't try to make something new to weasel around whatever guidelines the FDA sets up.

So they can remove all the harmful substances in them? Wouldn't that just be paper around a filter?

Wouldn't that hurt the economy? I thought cigarettes were a big part of it.


So is oil that doesn't mean we shouldn't look into cutting down its influence.

[Eldezar]

To my knowledge, the added chemicals make it more addictive, but compared to the heath hazard of tobacco those added chemicals are a drop in the bucked. So they are about as deadly just not as addictive.

Highly debatable. Go to a genuine cigar and pipe tobacco store. A good retailer won't be selling anything with additives. Then look around at all of the 60-70+ year old men sitting around with hardly any health problems, if any. In the very least, none of them have lung cancer. (I am sure there is an exception somewhere, but that is just that, an exception.)

[Aerozord]

I've also seen people like that who smoke ciggeretes, the reason is simple. Because if they were ill or dead they wouldn't be there. Often actual death from smoking is rather sudden, you typically go from seemingly healthy, to ill, to dead, in a few months. I've seen it happen more then once.

[shiney]

I sometimes wonder; a lot of the pro-smoking crowd argue that they enjoy the taste/smell and that's why they smoke. I have always wondered how they would feel if the addictive additives were removed. With nothing fueling a constant return to the pack, would they really want to smoke as much? It's tough to tell really.

[Seil]

How about this. I have been smoking cigars and pipe tobacco for years. I smoke occasionally, but when I do smoke, it is a lot in one sitting or in one week. Then I stop, and don't feel any problems. I could go months without any tobacco.

I tried the same with gas station cigarettes. Although I forced myself not to smoke after I had finished that one pack in a week and a half, I felt the cravings very much. It was probably a month or so before I had stopped noticing any cravings altogether. There are the occasional cigar companies that lace their products with extra chemicals, but brands such as Rocky Pattel and CAO are very good. Pipe tobacco is usually good, but I do not know any specific supplier that is genuinely additive free. Also, never get anything from the Cheap Tobacco franchise, because their name spells out the quality of their product.

Nearly the same with me. I started smoking Cigars, and usually have one, two or at most three once a month, or socially,and I'm fine.

I grabbed a pack of actual cigs at a Save On Gas in town and they were disgusting.

I sometimes wonder; a lot of the pro-smoking crowd argue that they enjoy the taste/smell

I like the taste of cigars and the smell is all right - though pretty much all second hand smoke gives me a headache - they're not bad in either department.

My mum, however, enjoys regular ciggies, and I don't. Which is to say that regular smokes don't smell good, and they sure as heck don't taste good.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well the additves in cigarettes are ridiculously harmful. Cigarettes have one of the major components of rocket fuel in them, alongside antifreeze and poisons like arsenic and cadmium. And of course when you burn these products they make even far worse things. I could make a list much much longer.
I mean, I don't know how bad tobacco is by itself but the additives are certainly killing you.

[bluestarultor]

Well the additves in cigarettes are ridiculously harmful. Cigarettes have one of the major components of rocket fuel in them, alongside antifreeze and poisons like arsenic and cadmium. And of course when you burn these products they make even far worse things. I could make a list much much longer.
I mean, I don't know how bad tobacco is by itself but the additives are certainly killing you.

Don't forget ammonia and Thorium 224? 242? At any rate, the radioactive kind, which I think is used in smoke detectors. Irony much?


Cigarettes having to list their ingredients, though. Either they're going to have to have illegible print, a box the size of a car, or have it flip out a million times like in cartoons where an old guy wants to show you pictures of his grandkids. XD

[Marc v4.0]

So, I always wondered...

Why all the weird additives that do nothing but hurt the user? Was the guy who thought that was a really good idea some sort of Sadist or something?

[Fifthfiend]

So, I always wondered...

Why all the weird additives that do nothing but hurt the user? Was the guy who thought that was a really good idea some sort of Sadist or something?


Cause the additives are addictive as fuck and addicts = repeat business.

[Marc v4.0]

How addictive are Thorium and Ammonia?

[01d55]

How addictive are Thorium and Ammonia?

Man you wouldn't believe how many hits of thorium (http://www.wowhead.com/?item=10620) I took back in the day. That shit will mess you up, especially if you go for the ooze-covered nodes.

So many bugs...


But seriously do you think the cigarette guys are poisoning their customers out of the malice of their hearts?

[Tev]

Cigarettes having to list their ingredients, though. Either they're going to have to have illegible print, a box the size of a car, or have it flip out a million times like in cartoons where an old guy wants to show you pictures of his grandkids. XDWell the way I'm seeing it, the list won't be too very long anymore. The FDA has the power now to look at that list and go "You are trying to put what in people!? Hell no. You take half that shit out right this instant. And while you're at it, tone down your levels of all this other crap too."

[Fifthfiend]

But seriously do you think the cigarette guys are poisoning their customers out of the malice of their hearts?

Yes, absolutely.

They're also doing it because it makes them more money but that doesn't mean they can't be plain-ass sadists too.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Yes, absolutely.

They're also doing it because it makes them more money but that doesn't mean they can't be plain-ass sadists too.

Why would they want to intentionally do something that would no doubt draw countless lawsuits (however failed) and put cigarrettes in danger of what's happening now, namely their ingredients being government regulated?

I understand that added ingredients with addictiveness = profit. But, you actually think another ulterior motive was to inflict people with cancer just to get their rocks off?

[Marc v4.0]

Why would they want to intentionally do something that would no doubt draw countless lawsuits (however failed) and put cigarrettes in danger of what's happening now, namely their ingredients being government regulated?

I understand that added ingredients with addictiveness = profit. But, you actually think another ulterior motive was to inflict people with cancer just to get their rocks off?

Explain the non-addictive chemical additives, like the Ammonia. If not just a deep and burning hatred for the customer, what else?

[Aerozord]

Why would they want to intentionally do something that would no doubt draw countless lawsuits (however failed) and put cigarrettes in danger of what's happening now, namely their ingredients being government regulated?

I understand that added ingredients with addictiveness = profit. But, you actually think another ulterior motive was to inflict people with cancer just to get their rocks off?
its like illegal dumping, yes you pay a fine, but in the long its still more profitable, and teaches all those uppity dolphins their place in the food chain
Explain the non-addictive chemical additives, like the Ammonia. If not just a deep and burning hatred for the customer, what else?

you know maybe they are really just trying to improve natural selection.

I admit I can be rough but objectively, its a deadly substance, people are told its deadly, it has zero positive features, increases aging, makes you smell horrible, discolored teeth, and costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year, yet they still buy it.

Do we really want these people reproducing?

[Bob The Mercenary]

Explain the non-addictive chemical additives, like the Ammonia. If not just a deep and burning hatred for the customer, what else?

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/g/ammonia.htm

Ammonia is also used to boost the impact of nicotine in manufactured cigarettes.

More "addictiveness = profit".

[bluestarultor]

How addictive are Thorium and Ammonia?

Thorium, heck if I know, but ammonia is supposed to increase the effects of nicotine, itself.

[Marc v4.0]

I still wager that Ammonia causes more harm then it does to boost the effects of nicotine

[bluestarultor]

I still wager that Ammonia causes more harm then it does to boost the effects of nicotine

Oh, I'm sure. The problem is that smokers are a renewable resource, so more start as soon as others die off, and then some.

[Fifthfiend]

Why would they want to intentionally do something that would no doubt draw countless lawsuits (however failed) and put cigarrettes in danger of what's happening now, namely their ingredients being government regulated?

I understand that added ingredients with addictiveness = profit. But, you actually think another ulterior motive was to inflict people with cancer just to get their rocks off?

I don't think you can knowingly inflict that much harm on people without getting off on it. I don't think cognitive dissonance is enough, I think at some point you have to believe that the people you're doing it to deserve it and get off on your ability to do it to them.

[BitVyper]

I don't think you can knowingly inflict that much harm on people without getting off on it. I don't think cognitive dissonance is enough, I think at some point you have to believe that the people you're doing it to deserve it and get off on your ability to do it to them.

See yeah; I would have less of a problem with the tobacco industry if it didn't seem like it was being run by Snidely Whiplash.

Edit: Or Skeletor.

Edit: In fact, I'm gonna go with Skeletor. He has that laugh.

[Aerozord]

I don't think you can knowingly inflict that much harm on people without getting off on it. I don't think cognitive dissonance is enough, I think at some point you have to believe that the people you're doing it to deserve it and get off on your ability to do it to them.

I think its apathy driven. They dont enjoy it, they just dont care, you are a statistic not a human being. They dont think "this guy died a horrible painful death" they think, "ok we lost 10,000 customers so to meet our projections we will need 30,000 new ones". They dont even distinguise between someone that dies and someone that quits. You are a money tree to be harvested and they dont care if your life span is cut in half if they sell you four times as many ciggerettes.

[Eldezar]

But, you actually think another ulterior motive was to inflict people with cancer just to get their rocks off?

Yes, I do. (http://www.infowars.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression/)

[Bob The Mercenary]

Yes, I do. (http://www.infowars.com/leaked-agenda-bilderberg-group-plans-economic-depression/)

Even if I did believe the Bilderbergers were throwing everyone into a depression to bring about a new world order, the reasons behind it aren't simply to cause people distress and pain. Money is the end objective once again.

They have shown us their global finance system with the economic meltdown. They have shown us their global health system with the pandemic scare. They are getting ready to show us their global military system with a tactical (false flag) nuke strategically place within our country and several other country’s. After this, all systems will be in place to begin their final solution. Extermination of all useless eaters.

People who think like this scare me more than the people he's talking about.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think the real reason for all the crap in cigarettes is because of how such products are designed.
Industrial research into things like cigarettes find it far cheaper to just throw things togethe r and see if they work than to fully research it and work out optimum product ratios. There is some method behind it- such as the rocket fuel components being put in to ensure good burning- but we still don't know how everything interacts together. But if you come across a product that is useful and works you generally just sell it without tinkering too much with the formula as to deconvolute all the effects of each cigarette ingredient when all mixed together would be barely possible- it would cost obscene sums of money and take decades.

[Frostatine]

I just want to say that when menthols finally kill myself and all my menthol-smoking friends, our crystalized lungs will be made into Christmas Ornaments and auctioned to anti-smoking companies. All proceeds will go towards making marijuana legal.

Oh, and trivia: Marlboro has the patent on weed cigarettes, and has had it for a loooonng time.