It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candy Cigarettes Banned By FDA

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by KATSUO
 


We've all made mistakes.

The difference is, pointing your grubby, tar stained fingers at your kids whilst rasping through a mouthful of decaying tobacco stained teeth is no way to tell them not to smoke.


...then again I suppose it is!

As you were!



yea.. your a grown up..
I guess you just didnt have good parents.. and your gonna turn out to be just like them..

personal attacks are fun huh?




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I Bet that you guys would oppose kids beer being introduced in your country though, as it would encourage underage drinking, or implement an unhealthy obsession with wanting alcohol at a young age.

Japanese Kids Beer


[This is not actually alcohol, it is a soft drink, aimed at children]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeedBump

Candy Cigarettes Banned By FDA


www.thaindian.com

With both the Family Smoking Prevention Act as well as the Tobacco Control Act of the USA, supporting the move, the FDA finally managed to ban the candy cigarettes within the borders of the country. All kinds of flavored cigarettes be it fruit, clove or candy has been prohibited from June 23rd 2010.
(visit the link for the full news article)



They get you hooked and then they ban them !



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KATSUO
Im a smoker,
and I wanted to flip out on my sister in-law when she bought my kids
candy cigarettes..
and I told all 3 of them, if they ever start smoking for real, 18-20-30 years old.. I dont care..
I will break their fingers..


I know.. sounds harsh.. but I dont want them ever to take it up..


When I was a kid I got candy cigarettes every once in a while...I have never smoked a day in my life. It has to do with parenting and knowledge about the bad side effects...it has nothing to do with having a candy cigarette when you're 7 years old.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by KATSUO
 


It was a tongue in cheek generalization, due to the irony of your first statement.

If you can't see the irony of it all, then I apologise.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



I was a bit confused too, but apparently the ban involves both:

www.fda.gov...

www.fda.gov...


I'm really concerned about how (and why) this was done - and what's next. There are liqueurs out there that taste like ice cream and chocolate-covered cherries, and you can find vodka and brandy in every fruit flavor there is! In my experience, young kids are far more attracted to these products than they are plain 'old beer and whiskey.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeedBump
 

I'd like a demo-geographic visual of the zones where these are (were) available. I haven't seen these for so long that I figured they were long gone.

They were candy cigarettes, Mom!! Candy!!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by salchanra
WTH?

Banning a candy "cigarette" yet there is a thread going about schools passing out condoms?

Where does this insanity end? When we all be "safe"?

I'm safe enough thank you, now leave me the hell alone. Guess I'll be buying real cigars for my friends should that day come instead of the blue/pink gum cigars. That will help the health of people.

What the hell?

Schools SHOULD pass out condoms, instead of letting kids get teen pregnancies and STDS, I have no idea how you try to compare this to safe sex.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The "candy" cigarettes the article is discussing are not the actual cigarettes made out of candy. They are flavored tobaccos, like cherry, vanilla, and yes, cloves like Djarums.

Dont you guys read the actual article?


en.wikipedia.org...


The Family Smoking and Prevention Control Act was misquoted as banning candy cigarettes. The Act bans any form of added flavoring in tobacco cigarettes other than menthol. It does not regulate the candy industry.

Candy cigarettes continue to be manufactured and consumed in many parts of the world. However, many manufacturers now describe their products as candy sticks, bubble gum, or candy.[4]

Popeye Cigarettes marketed using the Popeye character were sold for a while and had red tips (to look like a lit cigarette) before being renamed candy sticks and being manufactured without the red tip.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Awesome, now the FDA is getting even deeper into morality. Maybe they should consult Iran's government on unhealthy haircuts too!...



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Awesome, now the FDA is getting even deeper into morality. Maybe they should consult Iran's government on unhealthy haircuts too!...



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeedBump
 


they were banned here donkeys years ago...
i havent seen the proper ones (edible paper on choccy flakes) since i was a nipper!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The "candy" cigarettes the article is discussing are not the actual cigarettes made out of candy. They are flavored tobaccos, like cherry, vanilla, and yes, cloves like Djarums.

Dont you guys read the actual article?


en.wikipedia.org...


The Family Smoking and Prevention Control Act was misquoted as banning candy cigarettes. The Act bans any form of added flavoring in tobacco cigarettes other than menthol. It does not regulate the candy industry.

Candy cigarettes continue to be manufactured and consumed in many parts of the world. However, many manufacturers now describe their products as candy sticks, bubble gum, or candy.[4]

Popeye Cigarettes marketed using the Popeye character were sold for a while and had red tips (to look like a lit cigarette) before being renamed candy sticks and being manufactured without the red tip.


oh you mean like sheesha

if that is the case we are talking pure islamophobia!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Now if they will ban Aspertame and fluoride we can accelerate by leaps and bounds.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


In all fairness, the original referenced article does separately state "candy cigarettes" and "flavored cigarettes." Even the FDA's own 9/22/2009 news release states "The FDA's ban on candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes." (To avoid confusion, it should have been written "candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes.") A number of other articles, including one from RTT News, also distinguish the two. The RTT News article states the flavored cigarette ban went through last year, and the candy cigarette ban became official last month:

www.rttnews.com...

Now, looking at Wikipedia article's history page, there was a statement added on June 23, 2010 "They were finally banned in the United States on the 23rd of June 2010, and it referenced a page on The Consumerist that is no longer available.

This was edited and changed to: "The < www.fda.gov... Family Smoking and Prevention Control Act > was misquoted as banning candy cigarettes. The Act bans any form of added flavoring in tobacco cigarettes other than menthol. It does not regulate the candy industry." The link goes to the September 22, 2009 news release referenced above.

I'm guessing all the discussion started again with the FDA's 6/24/10 announcement it was considering banning menthol and other flavored tobacco products. Still, some firm clarification would be nice.

But I'm most concerned about the can of worms this could open. I'm willing to bet that far less teens smoke today than when I was a kid (shoot! we had our own smoking area in high school!), but still, wouldn't tighter sales regulations and penalties be a little wiser than a ban on a product that is perfectly legal for adults?

If you use the FDA's logic to justify the ban, then by extension, you have to apply it to alcohol (which is also legal for adults, but not for children). Alcohol (and alcohol-related accidents) is the LEADING cause of death in U.S. teens (Marin Institute). How is it that fruit-flavored cigarettes encourage teen smoking, but fruit-flavored alcohol does not? Using the same logic, the FDA would be able to ban these products just as easily.

But, hey! What about McDonald's? Obesity is the number one health issue in children and adults in the U.S. Since parents can't control what their kids eat when they are away from home, maybe Big Macs should be banned too?

These are real issues that need reasonable, balanced solutions. Banning whatever we don't want our kids messing with shouldn't be the first course of action - and I don't believe the FDA should have that power - which kind of throws me for a loop too - since when have they controlled the sale of tobacco?



[edit on 7/29/10 by sjrily]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArchAngel_X
 





I think kids smoke for the same reason adults smoke: it relieves stress. I'm a life-long non-smoker - I tried it when I was young, but my lungs just couldn't take it - but when I was younger I used to ask my smoking friends (practically all of my friends) why they smoked, and that's what they told me: cuts stress, feels good, helps them relax. And I believe them, mostly because my circle of friends didn't seem like the sort to take up habits because it would make them 'look cool'.


If you ask people that know me they will tell you they like me more as a smoker. I am less stressed, I am less grouchy, I take longer to anger, and I seem to think more clearly when I'm smoking.

I know it was killing me. They made me a more enjoyable person though. Even my wife sometimes tells me that I was better as a smoker. (She would kill me if I started back.) A lot of it had to do with the fact that taking time to go smoke and the motions of it gave me time to decompress and move on to other things.

My first cig wasn't because of Joe Camel.I did think he was cool. It was much the same way I thought Baloo from Tale Spin was cool. Neither one made me take up smoking or piloting.

These laws go way to far.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I read somewhere else that the FDA was going to ban using terms like "Light" and "Medium." That was the reason Camel switched to names like "silver" and "blue." Marlboro took the names off of their standard brands and now they are identified by their color.

I wonder if Marlboro will have to stop selling the "Smooth" line since it had a chocolate taste to it. They didn't advertise th taste they just put it in there. Camel did the same thing with their Turkish Royal cigs. They had a cream or vanilla flavor if I remember. They never advertised the flavor though.

I think the companies were allready punished enough. They were allready punished in court. They have taken drastic steps to curb their advertising and promotion. They even had to sponsor a nonprofit for anti smoking education. Those Truth commercials you see on tv were paid for in large part by the tobacco industry. Plus the number of smokers and rate of new smokers has fallen since the late seventies.

There are a million other things that the FDA could take action on that would save lives or improve the quality of life. This type of thing on top of everything else makes me want to smoke a cigarette and go searching for a deserted island for my family to call home.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Since I believe the FDA in general is a corporate-run organization, I figured there was something behind this too - though I could not think of what (still can't, really, but there is most definitely a web here...).

Couple of articles that raise some questions. First one discusses the historic passing of the Tobacco Bill (including $600-700 million received from the "industry," which will help enforce new rules):
online.wsj.com...

Second one outlines some of the new rules/restrictions (no more venting machines, hats or NASCAR sponsorships):
www.usatoday.com...

This one explores why the largest of Big Tobacco, Philip Morris, supports, partners with, and celebrates the Tobacco Act, while the third largest, Lorillard, calls the legislation the Marlboro Monopoly Act:
www.time.com...

This last one doesn't has anything to do with the Act, it just shows how ridiculous we are:
www.usatoday.com...

[edit on 7/29/10 by sjrily]

[edit on 7/29/10 by sjrily]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
boooooo FDA! i kinda like picking up a prime time or one of the other flavored cigarettes every now and then for a change... when i first started smoking, i smoked what my dad smoked, cuz i would steal them out of his pack, lol.. never had a candy cigarette, but, i should be able to if i want...what about flavored cigars? i kinda like rolling with the grape swishers...but, of course, this issue runs deeper than the cigarettes, we all know, this is just another way to control our freedom and free enterprise...



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sjrily
 


Your Time Article





When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company's pocket — and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro — restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris' very lucrative business.


Now I bet if we just found the conspiracy right there. Who knows where to find the number of campaign contributions a company and its executives have made? We might just find that Philip Morris bought it self as secure of a future as it could.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join