It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by MikeNice81

At one time I had a site bookmarked that provided some of that information. I'm way past needing bookmarks for my bookmarks though *lol*

Yes, I found the Time article most interesting, and fairly insightful. I'm sure there's more out there, and I'm sure I'm gonna look for it (and post back).

*sigh* So many rabbit little time....

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:13 AM

Well, the FDA is doing everything it can to get people to stop smoking. Look at what they are doing to the cigarette papers. They have added a substance to the paper, that makes it go out if you let it set and smolder. And believe me, it makes them taste pretty bad. I smoked one, and it gave me a sore throat, and almost made me toss my cookies. If you ever smelled smoldering cardboard, imagine what that would taste like. If you look at the bar code on the pack, you will see the letters FSC above them. That means Fire Safety Cigarette. They say tobbaco is bad for you, but now, they add this crap, and to me, it makes them even worse.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:14 AM
Raises hand, here's a question?

Ritalin, Fentanyl patches, toxic medications, chlorine in the water supply, more Psychiatric drugs than you can shake a stick at, and more, all toxic, and all given the stamp of approval by the FDA.

But, the FDA is chasing candy cigarettes and the tobacco companies? Tobacco is hardly anywhere near as dangerous as some of the things I just mentioned, especially the tobacco that is grown naturally without chemicals added. I'm not saying tobacco companies are squeaky clean, but a little smoke of some good clean tobacco now and then is hardly a problem.

Our hero, the FDA, cracking down on tobacco, while Psychopaths tear up the civilization with drugs, and rake in cash like there is no tomorrow, and it's as legal as selling a bag of golden delicious apples. Nice


[edit on 30-7-2010 by cybertroy]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:20 AM
You know, sometimes one has to wonder why they go after cigarettes in such a hardcore manner. Considering everything else they leave behind, like alcohol, or the most absolutely mega-toxic chemicals put in all our food, or water supplies.

Basically, what I'm saying is, the FDA has a solid near unflinching track-record of getting behind the products that harm us, and sledgehammering things that make us more independent, like small-farming.

Are cigarettes just their diversion, so the idiots of society can claim the FDA is good because they're against cigarettes, or is there something more at play? I'm not about to say smoking has some sort of magical benefits, but for whatever reason, the FDA has it's poison-dipped claws in this one.

Seems redundant and misaligned for the FDA.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:37 AM
reply to post by SyphonX

Heaven forbid they go after alcohol. That would be like asking them to take their own life. To many lawyers drink, the same with the politicians.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by SyphonX

You know, sometimes one has to wonder why they go after cigarettes in such a hardcore manner.

Probably because it's one of the only candy/gums left on the market without aspartame.

Added Note:

This subject was featured in Breaking News about 3 months ago.

I only add this to note because I can't find the thread anywhere (using the search) - and I remember because I commented on it... Anyone know where that thread went? There was some great information in it I wanted to share in this thread? Thanks.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by silo13]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:07 PM
Oddly enough, it appears the FDA was initially opposed to regulating tobacco, stating that it was “ill-equipped” to regulate such products (naturalnews). The position held was that the FDA’s role was/is to regulate products “beneficial to public health” (yeah, like taking natural supplements off the markets…sorry, wrong thread…). This act, however, forces the FDA to regulate products which are damaging to public health, and in a sense “approve” them.

Now, let’s back up just a bit…

From what I’ve researched thus far, it appears the FDA bill was the brainstorm of Phillip Morris Company (and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids') and actually began in the mid-1990s. Anne Landman writes: “PM's efforts to both weaken the tobacco control community and pass FDA legislation slanted in its favor started in the mid-1990s. A 1995 PM report titled simply "Mission," states that "Because some form of [legislated] restriction is inevitable, it's better to shape the agenda than to stand pat and fight" (prwatch 6351).

In 1998, however, PM spent $100 million stopping McCain sponsored legislation. Now, PM is mandated to increase profits for shareholder, and of course, will oppose – or support – legislation relative to that end. It’s probably safe to say that McCain’s legislation was likely not to same as what PM was in the process of drafting; especially considering that within months PM flipped its position....

Samuel Loewenberg writes: “Philip Morris actually began its campaign to get an FDA stamp of approval right after the Bush administration took office (1999)…. Philip Morris tried to get the administration to sponsor an FDA bill, but Bush advisers decided the president should …avoid a messy tobacco fight” (slate). This 2002 also article discusses some business reasons why PM was pushing for regulation (one being the market advantage of a FDA “stamp of approval” for an industry with questionable future profits).

In 2001 PM approached the National Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK) for input in formulating its “preferred FDA regulations” (prwatch 6351). Soon CTFK began “stumping” with PM to get the bill passed. Landman notes that “no other public health entities with exceptional experience in tobacco control were asked to participate in formulating the proposed regulations.” This includes current or former Surgeons General, the American Association of Public Health Physicians, prominent public health advocates, the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, the state Groups to Alleviate Smoking Pollution (GASPs), tobacco control experts....

Interestingly, the Altria Group (PM’s parent company) lobbyists “circulated summaries of the bill to Congressmembers prior to the bill's actual introduction, indicating the company had knowledge of the actual text of the bill before it was publicly introduced” (sourcewatch). This site includes a link to the full text of the bill, relative PM documents (including information on PM’s 1997 “Regulatory Strategy Project”), and a short summary of the “180-degree change” on PM’s opposition to regulation.

It’s also interesting to note that, according to Siegel (tobaccoanalysis), this recent flavored cigarette ban doesn’t not affect a “single product produced by Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, or Lorillard” (the three largest tobacco companies). Siegel also asserts the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' and other anti-smoking groups mislead constituents with propaganda.

So, it appears that once again, true to form, congress and the FDA have acted in the best interest of those who pay them best, corporate CEOs.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by silo13
Thanks for starting the thread - I read about this the other day and just about cried.

I soooo remember how much fun it was to 'puff' (blow out) the powdery sugar like it was real 'smoke' and how yummy the gum was (actually pretty gross)...

It's a real shame these things are going by the wayside.[]

Stop allowing the government to parent your kids at every turn.



This is not a ban on the children's chalky "looks like a cigarette" piece of candy with powdery sugar.



Djarum Clove Cigarettes

They are looking to increase the ban to cover MENTHOL Cigarettes.

Pay attention people! Read the article.

Sri Oracle

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Sri Oracle]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:59 PM
Yeah, it's pretty clear after re-reading, we aren't talking about the box of candy that looks like cigarettes. But, it doesn't change things that much because we still have the anomaly of the FDA attacking the heck out of tobacco, while Pfizer and other Big Pharma companies get to shed blood all over the place, and get paid handsomely for doing so.


posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by cybertroy

With all due respect, don't be so quick to think the FDA is attacking the tobacco industry. You might want to read my post and some of the links above - the FDA did not initially want to be stuck regulating that industry, and after some digging around, it's pretty clear that this bill is courtesy of Phillip Morris Co. (THE largest tobacco company), and the "regulations" that work best in their favor are just the ones that got passed.

Rest assured, cybertroy, the good old FDA is still in the business of making sure their board members' corporations stay healthy!!

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by TheComte
You can still get the Popeye brand candy cigs up here in Canada.

Yeah, but they took they little dot of red dye on the end off them years ago, and stopped calling them cigarettes. Now they're "candy sticks".

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:56 AM
what about joke cigarettes? i saw some in a novelty a few days ago

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in