FDA weighs ban on Newports, other menthol cigarettes

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

FDA weighs ban on Newports, other menthol cigarettes


yourlife.usatoday.com

Drafts of a few chapters posted online recently provide a preview of the panel's report: While there is insufficient evidence to conclude that menthol smokers are more likely to be diagnosed with tobacco-caused diseases than non-menthol smokers, "the evidence is sufficient to conclude that it is biological(ly) plausible that menthol makes cigarette smoking more addictive."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
It has been determined cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. Now the FDA is considering banning Menthol cigarettes. They have made no determination that menthol cigarettes are any more dangerous than regular cigarettes but that it "biological plausible that menthol makes cigarette smoking more addictive." Isn't that the point? No proof but it is plausible. Uh.. OK. But that Afro-Americans are more likely to smoke menthols, Newports in fact, then they just might let them stay.

Ban menthols then ban the rest. I'm a smoker. I smoke menthols.

yourlife.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 15-3-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


To me, this is a simple case of an unelected body choosing, arbitrarily, to suppress the rights of Americans. Plain and simple. Do any of you even know the names of someone at the FDA? Nope...because they are above our review, employed in non elected (appointed) positions. This, my friends, is tyranny.

Talking to my BIL (who is a black man), he thinks this is another instance of covert racism. Like banning pot to affect the hispanics.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Government needs to stay out of our business. Stay out of our homes.
Stay out of our personal health decisions.
It's none of their business if people want to smoke cigarettes or grind up tires and make suppositories out of them.
They don't own the people. (though they act like they do)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
yourlife.usatoday.com... _medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Meanwhile, John Payton, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, has been vocal in his support of a ban. Lorillard's argument that smokers should have the right to choose menthol "is so hypocritical it's unbelievable," Payton says. "Addiction is the absolute opposite of choice."


Just got to love that logic. Let's give them more choice and ban the product. Nevermind cigarette smoking itself is highly addictive. Let's get them hooked then take away their choice. That's the road to freedom?? Give me a break.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This is ridiculous! Dont these people have more important things to worry about than Menthol cigarettes? Basically what they are saying that since menthol's are flavored they are more addictive? What about chocolate milk? Its flavored are they going to ban that too some time in the future since its not as healthy as white milk???



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Post response respectfully retracted.

edit on 15-3-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
They already banned other flavored cigarettes, I wonder how menthol made it through that.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I understand that I've had family member pass away from lung cancer. I understand they smoked almost every day other lives, considering they were about 80 years old. I understand I can't breath when my mother lights up one of her cigarettes.

It should be illegal to smoke a cigarette around anyone who doesn't want to smell that crap. Why? You're harming me. Other than that, if you want to kill yourself slowly, go ahead. Though, once you start, it really isn't your choice. That's what addiction is. Who cares about rights when it comes to this crap filled with rat poison and thousands of other additives?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


I agree, it should be banned anywhere that is public. Anything you want to do in private that doesn't harm others is fine by me. But the evidence shows exposure to smoking is harmful so people have a right to be protected.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


You're sad because your family member only got to live to be 80?

Second hand smoke from cigarettes is less harmful than sitting in traffic. If you're that worried about it you better get an oxygen mask.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StigShen
reply to post by Gnarly
 


You're sad because your family member only got to live to be 80?

Second hand smoke from cigarettes is less harmful than sitting in traffic. If you're that worried about it you better get an oxygen mask.


I'm not sad. Quote me on that, please.

Also, having to go through lung cancer isn't fun for anyone. Unless you want multiple surgeries and have to always have an oxygen tank next to you and to have to talk through a hole in your neck and whatnot. If that's your thing, go for it.

If you say second hand smoke is less harmful than sitting in traffic, let's see some sources. To me, it's pretty ****ing harmful. I can't breath around the crap. I literally can not inhale or exhale. My body naturally refuses it. When I'm in a car, I tell anyone who smokes a cigarette to not to, for that reason. I would rather sit in traffic than second-hand smoke.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


If you want to really know what this is about research how Phillip~Morris help the FDA write this law regarding something like non essential flavor additives...?? Anyways, here is the gist PM tried to get into the black demographic...they mostly like Newports. Lorillard owns Newports. Its something like 90% of the market. YOUR Marlboro Menthols arent doing the trick? So broad stroke, get rid of menthols, (Lorilard) and you gain all those addicts. So what if menthols aren't around the gotta smoke something. I am surprised it took this long.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I am a white female menthol smoker and wasn't aware that menthol cigarettes are a racial issue! What a shame. I will be absolutely devastated if they do away with menthol because I have tried to go non-menthol but I just can't handle the taste. I don't think quitting is an option for me--I have tried many times--but after smoking for over 40 years I am not sure it would do any good at this point anyway!
I have to agree that if they are going to ban menthol then they should ban them all. I'm really kinda surprised they haven't already--after all they could solve 2 problems at once. First, all the non smokers would quit whining about second-hand smoke and could go anywhere they wanted, and secondly they could reduce a big portion of the population all at once as all us smokers go into withdrawal and start wiping out everyone who pisses us off. And as all you smokers who have tried to quit know it doesn't take much to push your buttons!

Nana



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If you want to let the market determine the outcome, give smoking a value. Right now, my health insurance premiums pay for everyone, regardless of how they behave. I don't smoke and never have. If people smoke, they should pay an extra premium for smoker's insurance. If they don't pay, and can be shown to have smoked for some period of time, then when they contract smoking related illnesses, they are not covered by insurance. Freedom of choice and a simple contract solve the problems of disease from bad habits draining the healthcare system.
Of course, this tactic leads us down the rabbit hole and we can see what's next. Alcohol premiums, obesity premiums, sedentary lifestyle premiums, drug addiction premiums, etc.
What's easiest? Sin Taxes that put the price out of reach [don't work too well], legislation [tobacco lobby], or insurance adjustments [invitation to abuse of policyholders]?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I'm a smoker.

Ban then all I say!!

Seriously.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NANAinINDIANA
I am a white female menthol smoker and wasn't aware that menthol cigarettes are a racial issue! What a shame. I will be absolutely devastated if they do away with menthol because I have tried to go non-menthol but I just can't handle the taste. I don't think quitting is an option for me--I have tried many times--but after smoking for over 40 years I am not sure it would do any good at this point anyway!
I have to agree that if they are going to ban menthol then they should ban them all. I'm really kinda surprised they haven't already--after all they could solve 2 problems at once. First, all the non smokers would quit whining about second-hand smoke and could go anywhere they wanted, and secondly they could reduce a big portion of the population all at once as all us smokers go into withdrawal and start wiping out everyone who pisses us off. And as all you smokers who have tried to quit know it doesn't take much to push your buttons!

Nana

If you can find them over there try Garam or Sampoerna A .. They have natural tobacco and kretek giving them a good flavour - better than regular cigarretes. (Cheaper too I get the Garams for about u.s .40 cents a pack here)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


Thanks for the info--I will see if I can find where to get them. And as I am now spending $6.14 a pack that would be a GREAT deal!
Nana



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Ex-smoker here. I agree with the gentleman who said Philip Morris had a hand in this law because their Marlboro menthols couldn't break into the black demographic Lorillard's Newports have a hold on.

However, if they're going to start doing some serious legislating on cigarettes, they should start with their regulation and allow only 100% natural, chemical-additive and pesticide free, organic tobacco with paper made of only rice or flax and use a sugar based glue. At least it would give smokers a healthier option and help fund agriculture. Banning tobacco is not a job for government (that should be a personal decision for each person), but regulating the safety of it is.





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join