Obama signs bill...

[-G3-E_x_T_a_C_y]

President Obama signed the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” into law which is aimed to give the FDA more control over what tobacco companies can put into their products and how the products can be marketed. One important part of the new law was aimed at restricting flavored tobacco that anti-smoking groups say target kids. These flavored tobacco products include blunts and wraps which are used by many marijuana smokers to roll marijuana filled cigars. The part of the bill that limits these flavors reads:

“A cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.”

Tobacco companies like Philly and Swisher have no doubt profited for years from the illegal marijuana industry. Marijuana users commonly purchase legal cigars to empty the tobacco and refill with marijuana. Many other tobacco companies produce “blunt wraps” which do not contain any tobacco making the rolling process easier. The “unflavored” types of these products are still legal under the new law, however the various flavors are usually preferred by most marijuana users.

It is unclear if marijuana smokers were specifically targeted under this bill or when these popular products will be pulled from stores. It is also unclear if the thousands or millions of marijuana users effected will be stocking up on these products because of the tendency for blunts to become stale after long periods of storage.


I'm pretty shocked, what do you guys think about it

[BombCanada07]

I think anybody relating this bill to Marijuana is an idiot. The point of getting rid of flavored wraps, tobacco, and paper is to 1.) make smoking "less enjoyable", and 2.) flavored tobacco targets younger people, get rid of the flavors, get rid of some teenagers who think it's cool to smoke.

I do believe this is an extreme insult to smokers everywhere, and a pathetic attempt by the government to control something we have a right to do.

EDIT: Why do they just worry about flavored tobacco? Why not remove ALL flavors from alcohol too? Flavored alcohol targets younger people the same way, if not more so, than tobacco, so why not remove that as well? Obama is a moron, I can't belive this bill was actually passed.

[PestControl02]

I wonder if skoal, kodiac,etc..will have to remove their "flavored" brands also?

[Psychokilla8888]

President Obama signed the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” into law which is aimed to give the FDA more control over what tobacco companies can put into their products and how the products can be marketed. One important part of the new law was aimed at restricting flavored tobacco that anti-smoking groups say target kids. These flavored tobacco products include blunts and wraps which are used by many marijuana smokers to roll marijuana filled cigars. The part of the bill that limits these flavors reads:

“A cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.”

Tobacco companies like Philly and Swisher have no doubt profited for years from the illegal marijuana industry. Marijuana users commonly purchase legal cigars to empty the tobacco and refill with marijuana. Many other tobacco companies produce “blunt wraps” which do not contain any tobacco making the rolling process easier. The “unflavored” types of these products are still legal under the new law, however the various flavors are usually preferred by most marijuana users.

It is unclear if marijuana smokers were specifically targeted under this bill or when these popular products will be pulled from stores. It is also unclear if the thousands or millions of marijuana users effected will be stocking up on these products because of the tendency for blunts to become stale after long periods of storage.


I'm pretty shocked, what do you guys think about it
Why would anybody be shocked about our government taking a person's rights away. Its only natural. The health care bill will be the next step, because the government isnt going to give you free healthcare unless you live healthy and it wont deny you healthcare so it will eventually pass laws to force you to live healthy. None of this is shocking to me.

[BombCanada07]

I wonder if skoal, kodiac,etc..will have to remove their "flavored" brands also?

I think it's just for smoking tobacco, not smokeless, but I was thinking the same thing. I dip myself.

What about shisha tobacco though? Am I not allowed to smoke out of my h00kahs anymore?

Wow ****** is censored on GB lololol.

[SWEETOOTH]

Why would anybody be shocked about our government taking a person's rights away. Its only natural. The health care bill will be the next step, because the government isnt going to give you free healthcare unless you live healthy and it wont deny you healthcare so it will eventually pass laws to force you to live healthy. None of this is shocking to me.

Reminds me of the movie Demolition man. No meat, no bad language, no smoking, no caffine, no having a sexual partner (must use a sperm lab).....wow....what a great world to live by :roll:

Well.....I'll be one of those people who will choose to live underground if that happens. **** not having the choices.

[sir.cc]

obama is truely unbieveable

[DeNaRi]

Personally, I think it is a good move. While most can agree that smoking from time to time is quite a bit of fun, tobacco use in general is dumb, especially when teens get hooked on it at an early age.

[ANTICIPATI0N]

I just dont understand people who cannot control themselves. The government should not be trying to control and baby people.

[Fbifriday]

I personally think it's a good idea. Smoking should be illegal IMO. It's one of the most lethal vices, it has been proven to have no true positive qualities, and is as much of a drug as anything that is outlawed right now.

[Fantasmo56]

I personally think it's a good idea. Smoking should be illegal IMO. It's one of the most lethal vices, it has been proven to have no true positive qualities, and is as much of a drug as anything that is outlawed right now.

Driving is quite lethal as well, and it kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. Eating fast food causes obesity and thousands of heart attacks. By your logic, those two practices should be outlawed by government.

If I want to smoke a cigarette, why am I not allowed? Smokers recognize the risks entailed in their actions, but they accept said risks in order to enjoy something that brings them a small amount of pleasure. Every time we eat a donut, every time we exceed the speed limit just a tad, every time we go skiing or snowboarding, we are taking a risk in order to achieve some amount of happiness. Tobacco, alcohol and narcotics are similar risks that everyone should have the right to take. My body is, definitively, my property, and I should have complete control over what I do to it.

[Fbifriday]

Driving is quite lethal as well, and it kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. Eating fast food causes obesity and thousands of heart attacks. By your logic, those two practices should be outlawed by government.

No, because Driving and Eating both had positive aspects to them. Driving gets us places faster, and eating provides us with the nourishment we need to live. As some don't have the time to get home all the time, or people are on the road, fast food places are necessary. Smoking has no true positive effects. The feeling you get after smoking is not a positive effect, it is actually a negative effect, the feeling of the nicotine on your system, which is by no means a positive thing.

If I want to smoke a cigarette, why am I not allowed? Smokers recognize the risks entailed in their actions, but they accept said risks in order to enjoy something that brings them a small amount of pleasure. Every time we eat a donut, every time we exceed the speed limit just a tad, every time we go skiing or snowboarding, we are taking a risk in order to achieve some amount of happiness. Tobacco, alcohol and narcotics are similar risks that everyone should have the right to take. My body is, definitively, my property, and I should have complete control over what I do to it.

Yes, but do those around you have control over breathing in your second hand smoke? Do they have a choice it, when eating at a restaurant with you, they are close enough for some of the smoke to get into their lungs?

You are allowed, but it is a deadly habbit. I know that smokers understand the risk they take when they smoke, but most don't care until something bad happens, like cancer. When they develop the complication, they regret smoking.

Either way, whether you develop a complication or not, it shortens your life span, shortens the life span of those around you, has no true positive aspects, and overall is something that people should not be allowed to do.

[PokerFace9]

No, because Driving and Eating both had positive aspects to them. Driving gets us places faster, and eating provides us with the nourishment we need to live. As some don't have the time to get home all the time, or people are on the road, fast food places are necessary. Smoking has no true positive effects. The feeling you get after smoking is not a positive effect, it is actually a negative effect, the feeling of the nicotine on your system, which is by no means a positive thing.



Yes, but do those around you have control over breathing in your second hand smoke? Do they have a choice it, when eating at a restaurant with you, they are close enough for some of the smoke to get into their lungs?

You are allowed, but it is a deadly habbit. I know that smokers understand the risk they take when they smoke, but most don't care until something bad happens, like cancer. When they develop the complication, they regret smoking.

Either way, whether you develop a complication or not, it shortens your life span, shortens the life span of those around you, has no true positive aspects, and overall is something that people should not be allowed to do.

The point being is if someone wants to harm their body, let them do it. It's their personal choice to smoke or not. I smoke myself and I'm aware of the negative effects it will have on me. I only smoke around other smokers and do not smoke around people who don't like it. But if a non-smoker drives in my car with me, I will smoke since it's my car.

[Fantasmo56]

No, because Driving and Eating both had positive aspects to them. Driving gets us places faster, and eating provides us with the nourishment we need to live. As some don't have the time to get home all the time, or people are on the road, fast food places are necessary. Smoking has no true positive effects. The feeling you get after smoking is not a positive effect, it is actually a negative effect, the feeling of the nicotine on your system, which is by no means a positive thing.



Yes, but do those around you have control over breathing in your second hand smoke? Do they have a choice it, when eating at a restaurant with you, they are close enough for some of the smoke to get into their lungs?

You are allowed, but it is a deadly habbit. I know that smokers understand the risk they take when they smoke, but most don't care until something bad happens, like cancer. When they develop the complication, they regret smoking.

Either way, whether you develop a complication or not, it shortens your life span, shortens the life span of those around you, has no true positive aspects, and overall is something that people should not be allowed to do.

If I derive pleasure from smoking, that is by all means a positive effect.

The people around me most certainly have a right to not breathe in my smoke, which is why I have no problem with public smoking legislation. Ideally, things would be done on a contractual basis. You are not allowed to smoke in front of me unless I consent to the practice, either for free or for a sum of money. If the sum of money is too large for the smoker, than obviously I value not breathing in smoke more than he values smoking. If he chooses to smoke anyways, he is violating my property rights, and I may enter into litigation or arbitration.

[Psychokilla8888]

Personally, I think it is a good move. While most can agree that smoking from time to time is quite a bit of fun, tobacco use in general is dumb, especially when teens get hooked on it at an early age.

Well thats good for you. And thats how you can live your life. But everyone else should have the same choice that you have. Not forced into doing what you choose. Thats how america used to work. If you wanted to pray anywhere you prayed. And if you didnt want to listen you covered your ears. If you wanted to protest you protested something. If you wanted to smoke you smoked. If you wanted to ride around with out a seat belt you did so. If you wanted to shoot guns at 12 years old you went out in your back yard with your 22 and shot stuff. People didnt drop dead all over the place, kids were shooting up schools, people werent offended by every little thing, and ****ing life went on, freely I might add (the way god (or if your not religious nature) intended it to be) .

If teens are smoking its the parents fault and no one else it to blame. We should just blame Canada for swearing (oh wait).

[Psychokilla8888]

Either way, whether you develop a complication or not, it shortens your life span, shortens the life span of those around you, has no true positive aspects, and overall is something that people should not be allowed to do.

That is 100% bull****. No real study has ever proved that. 2nd hand smoke has no definitive negative effect on people. Its another pseudo scientific result.

People are allowed to do what ever they want in a privet business or private property.... And if a negative result occurs on others with in the confines of the private business or private property 1. must have consent by all involved (for a private business) or at least make them aware. 2. On a private property under the constitution the owner of the property has complete sovereignty over his effects, land, and their being and others wishing to enter/ take part or use must have consent from the owner this includes the government. So this means the owner allows you to enter use their property and thus subject to their rules.



Lets make the argument as provocative as possible. *** sex has no true benefit. No procreation occurs the species is not furthered. Plus there could be direct correlation to life ending sexual diseases. So by your basis of thought *** sex/ relationships should be banned completely.
I however find that practice unhealthy and immoral, but on private property they can do what ever they want. I hope that they would change their ways. But thats between them and God in my opinion, not the government.

You can choose not to smoke like I have through a perfectly reasonable deduction of the health risks but thats your choice. You are in charge of your own life. Not the government. You have complete sovereignty, you lend part of that sovereignty to the state government with the expressed consent of having a civil relationship with others, and that state government lends part of its sovereignty to the federal government to the expressed consent of the civil relationship with the other states and with the world.