General Question

elchoopanebre's avatar

What do you think of the new tobacco laws?

Asked by elchoopanebre (3079points) June 22nd, 2009

I’m going to miss my cloves


Do you think I’ll be able to buy them online?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

27 Answers

Judi's avatar

I was wondering if it effected cloves. What about menthol?

knitfroggy's avatar

What I hate are these new Fire Safe Cigarettes. If you set it down for just a minute or two it goes out. Ticks me off!

essieness's avatar

I’m a smoker, and I think it’s good. Whatever that means. I know smoking is bad for me, so maybe I need some “laws” to help keep my habit under control. Obviously, I’m not doing a good job of it. Isn’t that what we elect these people for?

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

I just ordered a case of cloves offline just in case.

How long do you think 8 packs will last me?

I approve of all the laws except for the flavor ban. I don’t think it (or really any of the new laws) will have any effect on smoking. We know it’s bad, not a person in my generation or the younger ones (mid 20’s on down) doesn’t know smoking is bad for you. Some people just still choose to do it.

elchoopanebre's avatar

I’m such a libertarian on issues like this. I think people should be in charge of themselves enough to make their own decisions. If they want to smoke cigarettes, it’s on them. If people want to smoke weed, it’s on them. Hell, I believe if people want to shoot heroin, it’s on them.

I don’t see why the government bans things to look out for people. Victimless crimes should be legal… You can’t “save” people from themselves.

Dog's avatar

I agree with @westy81585 the flavor ban makes no sense.
It is like allowing whiskey but banning schnapps.

I just don’t get the logic.
Why not ban them all if you really want to stop people from smoking?

essieness's avatar

@elchoopanebre You make a good point there.

Judi's avatar

@essieness ; the escalating cost of health care effects us all.

Likeradar's avatar

@knitfroggy Is that why my cigarettes need to be re-lit all the time? I thought I was doing it wrong…

shilolo's avatar

@elchoopanebre Cigarette smoking isn’t exactly a victimless crime. When you tally the health care costs of asthma, emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and a multitude of other issues that then end up burdening the general, non-smoking population, you end up with billions of dollars of spending, ANNUALLY. YOU may think it is victimless, but when you are 55 with emphysema ± lung cancer, and large sums of tax dollars are spent on your health care, then you are a victim, AND we are victims too.

augustlan's avatar

I have such mixed feelings on all of this. I agree that the health care costs associated with smoking impact everyone, but so do the costs associated with obesity, lack of exercise, dangerous jobs, risky hobbies, etc. Where does one draw the line? I’m a smoker, FWIW.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@shilolo You could say the same of alcohol drinking, tanning, etc.

The only qualm I have here is the flavor thing. I don’t even consider myself a smoker, it takes me 2–3 months to get through a single pack (and I usually give half away). I only smoke them as a good luck thing before stuff, at parties, or after terribly hard/long days.

What effect will flavor banning have? Do you honestly think kids are out looking for strawberry cigarettes or candy cigarettes so they can enjoy the flavor? NO, they’re out finding ANY cigarettes so they can smoke.

elchoopanebre's avatar


So what’s next? Banning McDonalds? Making a cap on top speed/horsepower capabilities of cars so people don’t drive too fast? Banning mixed martial arts because “it’s too violent”?

I still think the government should stay the f%&* out of this (and most everything else it gets involved in).

shilolo's avatar

@elchoopanebre Cigarettes are not exactly a basic necessity or need. The cigarette companies have deliberately manipulated the nicotine content to make them more addictive AND marketed them to kids to encourage younger smokers. At least McDonald’s can be eaten intermittently and is FOOD. Cars too are regulated. Speed limits, laws on driving drunk, reckless driving etc. Why should the average taxpayer have to subsidize the cigarette companies and the smokers who require thousands of dollars in health care?

Let’s make a bargain then. You smoke all you want, but when you get emphysema or lung cancer, we don’t treat you (unless of course, you want to pay out of pocket). I mean, it was your libertarian choice to smoke, right? You should then experience the consequences of your decision… Sound fair? Or is it that you want to have your cake and eat it too? Smoke away, THEN have the government (who stayed out of your life all along) swoop in and treat you?

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

I don’t like this at all. Big Tobacco with it’s chemical soaked crap sticks will still have it’s products available while my simple clove cigar-ettes are banned? Smells like a move to squeeze money from those of us still smoking to the big companies to compensate for more and more people quitting/not smoking.

Yes, ban facking McDonalds since their shite for food poisons more people than my little black cancer sticks. And cars are already capped with governors to keep their speeds down, take it up to 130mph and see what happens on most American cars.

LC_Beta's avatar

I will be friggin’ irate if I can’t buy hookah tobacco anymore.

dynamicduo's avatar

@shilolo The problem with your bargain is that it should be fairly apply to other cases where people do risky behaviour, and it is impossible to draw the line as to what is risky and what is not thus what should be treated and what should be out of pocket. You would have to not treat the snowboarder who broke their leg, the fat person who eats at McDonald’s all day, the person who chooses not to wear a seatbelt, etc. And this is not the case in the social systems today, despite the fact that I would have no problems participating in such a system. It’s a shame no one is given this option at all, and the government takes our money no matter what we say or do. I don’t see what’s liberal at all about that.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

The links you posted were from 2007 and 2008. Has something changed within the last week? My daughter’s friends have no problem buying clove cigarettes, and new hookah bars seem to be opening up every day…

rooeytoo's avatar

Alcohol and its assorted related problems has to strain the health care system not to mention the judicial system every bit as much as smoking, if not more. Why isn’t it banned? Why isn’t there public outcry against the marketing of alcohol at every sporting event. They market towards young people as well.

I am all for self accountability and I don’t smoke or drink but I wonder why one is so socially unacceptable while the other is even more deadly but is socially acceptable?

knitfroggy's avatar

@Likeradar Look at the barcode on your pack and if it says FSC on it then you’ve got the fire safe ones

casheroo's avatar

Wait, I feel silly asking this, but is menthol considered flavored? Wouldn’t Newport be out completely then? That’s what I used to smoke.

I don’t know how I feel. I’m in the same boat as @augustlan but @shilolo is making some great points.
I don’t know, are cloves healthier than other cigarretes? Why would they ban them then? I didn’t know people consistently smoked them, I thought they were an occasionaly sort of thing. I found the taste of them to be overwhelming.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@casheroo and anyone else asking…. They are banning Cloves and virtually all other flavors, because they see it as a marketing ploy to get kids to smoke with “candy” flavors. For the record, most cloves are actually significantly stronger (worse for you) than the average cigarette.

shilolo's avatar

@dynamicduo I’m well aware of the flaw in the proposed “bargain”. I was using it to make a point that libertarianism only goes so far. If that “bargain” were truly in place, doctors would be out of business, since many diseases are directly related to poor choices (drinking, drugs, cigarettes, obesity, lack of exercise, etc.).

@rooeytoo I agree that alcohol is a problem too. Prohibition was tried in the US and failed. However, there are restrictions on alcohol content in beers. More importantly, alcohol is by no means more deadly than cigarettes. Whereas alcohol can lead to cirrhosis, stomach, esophagus and pancreatic problems, smoking leads to emphysema, lung cancer, many other cancers, exacerbates heart disease and leads to heart attacks and strokes, high blood pressure, vascular diseases and many other things. It is far and away the most deadly and deleterious vice.

From a public health standpoint, because that’s what we are talking about, tobacco has to be priority #1.

Judi's avatar

Alcohol is less adictive too.

bea2345's avatar

The real problem is that tobacco is LEGAL. You cannot reasonably expect an organism in the wild, like a human being, subspecies Western Hemisphere, not to do something that is both enjoyable and legal. You can’t even get him/her not to do something that is both enjoyable and illegal. The only option at the moment is an unremitting campaign of public education, keeping everyone informed of the only too real dangers of tobacco. What doesn’t work is prohibition. Vide the Colombian cocaine cartels, the Jamaican marijuana smugglers: need I go on? Tobacco is legal; it will remain so because of the legal, social and moral quagmire created by outright prohibition.

Cigarettewoman's avatar

I think many persons will miss their flavored cigarettes, but these laws were made to improve the situation. I agree that smoking is dangerous but it is a pleasure in the same for many people, so why take this pleasure away if they don’t want to.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther