Obama signs anti-smoking bill, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 22-6-2009 @ 03:53 PM by stander

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright.

"It is a law that will save American lives," Obama said.

news.yahoo.com...

How will this go down, if not "outright?"

Is the USA entering some replica of the prohibition era? Would Obama later on appoint a tobacco czar and ask the Congress for additional $50 billion to fight the tobacco illegal trafficking?

Obama's worries about American lives apparently don't include the US troops abroad, coz it's an honor and a privilege for every US soldier to die for his oil and national debt addicted country. Nicotine-free USA may very well become the only freedom its citizens could enjoy.

I'm not sure about that, but if a smoker dies of lung cancer, doesn't it mean that the person died for his or her right to chose? Isn't that what freedom is all about?
The prez says that it's hard to get rid of nicotine addiction. That's mighty true, but Obama's solution to the problem has a dictatorial flavor.

Anyway . . . The decomposition of America proceeds in a slow but steady pace.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 03:55 PM by SpeakerofTruth

Funny that such a bill should be passed into law by a smoker.

Yes, Obama smokes.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:01 PM by jd140

So is Obama now the new Marlboro Man?

They might as well go ahead and ban nicotine. It is coming soon, might as well get it over with and not waste any more money taking these baby steps.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:05 PM by colloredbrothers

Same is being pushed here in Belgium.

This is beginning to look like 1984,... O no my bad Winston could smoke where he wanted.

This is total bullcrap, everything we do is being regulated. I will do crazy stuff if this gets further.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:35 PM by Iamonlyhuman

I smoke.

I hate it when people who have quit smoking try to tell others that they should too. I think it's self-righteousness.

When I decide to quit (yes, I said when cause I'm almost ready to), I'm not going to say a word about other people who smoke. It's their decision when and if to quit.

I'm really very tired of Obama telling me how to live my very own life.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:35 PM by RuledBySecrecy

how is this a bad thing? the government is trying to protect its people, and by the sounds of that article, children.

you want freedom?? to advertise cigarettes to children? why would someone agree with this. its like guns they are deadly why are they legal, cigarettes kill and you want to hook kids on them for life so they end up with lung cancer. how lovely.

it may be a bit controlling but don't you think the government has your best interests, health and saftey in mind?

the biggest problem could be enforcing it. but it can be done.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:37 PM by dragonsmusic

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

ha! that's what i was thinking too. funny indeed.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:38 PM by Solomons

reply to post by RuledBySecrecy

Im a big boy,i can make my own decisions and those for my children if i ever have any thankyou very much.Stay out of my life and i'll stay out of yours,fair deal i say.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:39 PM by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by RuledBySecrecy

it may be a bit controlling but don't you think the government has your best interests, health and saftey in mind?

Thanks for the belly laugh.

[edit on 22/6/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:40 PM by jd140

Originally posted by RuledBySecrecy
how is this a bad thing? the government is trying to protect its people, and by the sounds of that article, children.

you want freedom?? to advertise cigarettes to children? why would someone agree with this. its like guns they are deadly why are they legal, cigarettes kill and you want to hook kids on them for life so they end up with lung cancer. how lovely.

it may be a bit controlling but don't you think the government has your best interests, health and saftey in mind?

the biggest problem could be enforcing it. but it can be done.

Show me an ad that is geared toward children.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:42 PM by Seyana

Im sure he will get plenty of support on this one from all the people who don't smoke, and yet think it's their job to stop other people from doing so.

I used to smoke, but no longer do. It isn't a choice I make for myself any longer but I fully support anyone else who wants to do so. Is it really any of my buisness if they want to damage their own health? It's not like the risks of smoking aren't clear to those who make the decision to do it.

Doesn't Obama have anything better to waste his time and effort on besides taking freedoms away from the american people?

I simply don't understand people in this country anymore.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:44 PM by RuledBySecrecy

how do i multi quote? ah well.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Thanks for the belly laugh.

ah i just read that myself. how silly of me.

solomons - you would be fine with your children smoking? why may this be?

jd140 - i have no examples, the article simply made out that this was the case, especially the flavoured items, and the place of advertising is just as important as the content of the advertisement.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:56 PM by moocowman

[/yvid]reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Well, I was reading this thread the other daywww.abovetopsecret.com... and got some info on ecigs (thanks to the guys who posted there by the way)

I checked out this guy on youtube who was giving them a going over, and took delivery on friday morning.

Sorry to digress a little from the OP but I just have to share, you know, like being saved lol.

"I have not smoked a cigarette since friday !"

I been smoking over 30 a day for over 30 years ! !!

The governments can go shove their tobaco tax where the sun don't shine .

I'm staggered how easy it has been for me to knock tobacco on the head. I've tried to quit svereal time over the years and failed.

YouTube Link

[edit on 22-6-2009 by moocowman]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:56 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by RuledBySecrecy

Your whole original post was ridiculous. When have you ever seen or heard of a gun loading itself and killng somebody or a cigarette jumping into someones mouth and forcing them to smoke it?

Some people use guns to kill others, others use them for recreation or hunting.

That is just prime Liberal thinking to be all for the government protecting us from ourselves. If someone wants to die from lung cancer after smoking for years and years then so be it. I dont smoke but I dont think I have a right to tell others not to.

As far as saying the one guy wants to let his kids smoke, there a few points I would like to make.
1. If he wants to that is fine. They are his kids and they have a good chance of living through a life of smoking.
2. I am sure he is more than capable of teaching them the consequences of smoking if he prefers they dont.
3. Do you really want to see his kids be the victim of a drive by shooting by cigarrette dealers?

2.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:57 PM by LeTan

reply to post by RuledBySecrecy

I have to agree with people who laugh at your post. When has this government done ANYTHING for the public's best interest? Obama is doing this for his own best interest and for people like you, who will praise him if this gets pushed through.

Would I want my children to smoke? Not particularly but it's my children and my choice as a parent, you know, the same people who brought them into the world? When the government spawns people out of labs (which i wouldnt be surprised if they do soon), then they can tell them what they can and cant do.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:57 PM by Cito

Ok, one second let me put on my tin foil hat....

/\ ok

My theory is this bill is using reverse psychology on us. Tobacco industry will make tons more money off this new bill which is why they are primarily for it.

From
www.foxnews.com... day/

The bill would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco. The law allows the regulatory Food and Drug Administration to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

Ok so they want to reduce the nicotine levels in cigarettes?

uhm ok so the smokers smoke TWICE as many cigarettes as before.

They want to place large OMGWARNING labels on cartons?

ok, lets remember when we were teens and were told don't do it or came across some taboo item/event/idea. Everyone knows teens like to rebel and to experiment.

So just in those 2 items alone in my "tin foil" theory I bet this does nothing but increase the amount of cigarettes sold to smokers due to wanting to get the SAME nicotine levels that they did originally.

AND

It will only entice more teens to smoke out of rebellion and experimentation with the new warning labels and large signs warning against it.

so I dub my theory on this new bill the "Reverse psychology pro smoking bill" another reason is the economy is so poor at the moment and people are hurting for money. So what better way to squeeze even MORE money out of smokers by reducing nicotine levels their addiction will force them to BUY MORE.

Genius really....

Ok let me take off this tinfoil hat \/

[edit on 6/22/2009 by Cito]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:07 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by Cito

A star for you. Brilliant post and I see your point. I could see how reducing nicotine levels drives peoplet to buy more of the highly taxed cigarettes.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:13 PM by Solomons

reply to post by grapesofraft

Nowhere did i say i would let my kids smoke(i dont have any btw) The point im making is it is none of your or the states damn business.What gives you the right to tell me how to live my life and vice versa?

edit: i wasn't replying to you grapes,it was the other person.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Solomons]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:16 PM by resist2012

I feel that the government will not completely ban smoking, for the simple reason that they make too much money from it. The government makes more money from the taxes on tobacco, than Phillip Morris, and R.J Reynolds combined. And that money is already spent, so if they were to do away with it, it would destroy their income from it, and they would have to match that income with another tax, which wouldn't surprise me either.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:17 PM by Faiol

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by RuledBySecrecy

Im a big boy,i can make my own decisions and those for my children if i ever have any thankyou very much.Stay out of my life and i'll stay out of yours,fair deal i say.

lol

here we go ... here we go ...

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^