Doing the unthinkable, yes the US has banned it...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Tuttle

 

Tuttle

I live in Canada - the only additives allowed in Tobacco for about 15 years now is flavoring like menthol or Ammonia

Ammonia is used to raise the pH of smoke in order to allow the smoker to inhale the smoke into the lungs. Ammonia is used in cigarettes for this purpose. The use of ammonia to raise the pH allows the nicotene to be absorbed by lung tissue and makes the smoke less harsh.

Ammonia is not used in pipe tobacco. Pipe smokers do not typically inhale smoke because the smoke is too harsh. The nicotene in pipe tobacco is absorbed by the oral tissues of the mouth.

The hundreds or thousands of chemicals referred to by anti-smokers is, in fact, the by-product of the combustion of an organic. All smoke is comprised of more or less the same chemicals when organics are burned. This includes wood, charcoal, food and petro-chemicals.

For millenia, man burned organics for the purpose of heating their homes and cooking their food. Man has lived in the presence of heavy smoke for millenia.

96 % of tobacco smoke is WATER. The chemicals you are referring to are contained in the other 4 % and have concentrations in the parts per trillion or parts per quadrillion. In fact, most of the "chemicals" in smoke are present in concentrations so minor that their presence is generally inferred to be present because they cannot be measured by current scientific methods.

Don't think you know everything or have been told everything.

Tired of Controls Freaks

With all due respect to you,I live in NC slap-dab in the middle of where the tobacco industry resides.I am also a former assistant manager of a very popular discount tobacco outlet and a former nurse.I have two friends whose families livelihoods are growing tobacco,I have several friends that have worked in Winston-Salem at tobacco processing factories and I am a former smoker and quit just over two years ago.I have been party to and had a seat on the sidelines for years as R.J. Reynolds and the Liggett Meyers tobacco companies have duked it out over tobacco laws not only regarding prices and regulation,but also bans and extensive studies that have lasted years regarding chemical additives and carcinogens.It is scientific fact that tobacco products contain hundreds of damaging and poisonous chemicals that are harmful in general and do even more damage depending on how long one has smoked and it is also fact that modern tobacco products contain far more additives today than in the past,including those that enhance and increase addiction.

Here is a reputable source:Pharmocological and Chemical Affects of Cigarette Additives

Now--On topic: While I understand OP's point in a very general sense,I do not think it's a viable comparison because the "ban" on sliced bread was done during a time of war and was afterwards lifted and we can all enjoy as much tasty sliced bread as we please here in the USA.

Originally posted by amrith777

Now--On topic: While I understand OP's point in a very general sense,I do not think it's a viable comparison because the "ban" on sliced bread was done during a time of war and was afterwards lifted and we can all enjoy as much tasty sliced bread as we please here in the USA.

Actually it was lifted in March of 1943, about two months it was implemented and well within the duration of the war.

The comparison is the absurdity of the sliced bread ban itself, perpetrated not by a grandstanding politician way ahead of their proposal and fed by a media that a) enjoys the ratings such an argument makes and b) pushes propaganda and political talking points to the extreme ends of yellow journalism. The ban on sliced bread was done by a person that had the power to do so for whatever rational they used.

I actually went with the guns and bread comparison rather than guns and butter (A short history of Margarine - The Butter vs. Margarine Wars) as that was not a national ban. ALthough some of the propaganda follows the same lines in that both guns and gun owners are portrayed as evil as those that used margarine.

The sliced bread ban ultimately failed on the ridiculousness of it. But let's keep in mind that the Washington DC gun ban known as the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 lasted from 1976-2008.

One must wonder if this new push is somehow related to the overturning of that ban. But a ban on anything is always one person telling another that they are not responsible enough to have that item. And much like Feinstein herself, there are many supporting this ban that own guns themselves...I won't name names, but I know of a few.

Originally posted by muse7

Cigarettes should be banned. 2nd hand smoke hurts everyone.

Horse manure! My husband and I both smoke in our living room and we have a 23 year old bird and a 60 year old bird who are still going strong. Birds have air sacks, not lungs and are more susceptible to inhalants (can we say miner's canaries?) than most other breathing creatures. If second hand smoke were an issue they'd have been dead 20 years ago!

If cigarettes are banned who is going to take up the slack and pay the high amount of taxes that are put on every pack of cigarettes? They won't just go away....they will be taken from the non-smokers.

Banning anything is a fool's errand. Prohibition of alcohol brought about bootleggers and mob violence, and people didn't quit drinking. The war on drugs wastes how many tax dollars and clogs the legal system with harmless potheads mostly, people who generally are non-violent.

reply to post by amrith777


Amrith

If you are so closely connected to the tobacco industry, then you must know how badly Anti-tobacco forces are lying about the health effects of smoking.

Tired of Control Freaks

Cigarettes should be banned. 2nd hand smoke hurts everyone.

As an ex-smoker, I would rather breathe second hand cigarette smoke than all the crap our cars, trucks, and factories are spewing out. I, too, am tired of control freaks. Controls and bans are simply the removal of freedoms.

reply to post by Tuttle


Who was it that put a gun to your head, or a knife to your neck and said "smoke or die"?
You made a choice, no one forced you.
Just because you can't make a good choice, you want the government to make the choice for you?

I had my first cigarette when I was 8, I was smoking 2 packs a day, until 3 years ago at the age of 32 when I made another choice to quit.
I am a Free American living in a republic, I will make my own damn choices!

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by wondermost

 

Just remember, you don't HAVE to buy the cigarettes you smoke from the evil tobacco industry. Its your right, or freedom to choose to do so.

Well no thats just not true is it, my freedoms have been somewhat impaired by the insidiously addictive chemical compounds found in cigarettes. Sure its more than certainly up to me to try and stop, the funny thing with addiction is, it aint easy, there is enough junkies in the planet to testify to that, and even more American Idol Factor X Talent watchers who would whole heartedly agree[maybe not]

And remember when smoking was healthy for you?, remember those days?, wonder how much they spent on ad revenue over the years, millions, hundreds of millions?, billions?, hundreds of billions??

Yeah, freedom of choice. I like what your smoking good buddy.

edit on 24-1-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)

Addiction is a personal choice, a decision you made. Many people are addicted to many things (ie; sugar, caffeine, chocolate, pain medication, etc.) should they all be banned as well? Do we really need the Gov't to make our choices for us? Nothing is easy but because it's difficult for you, or you want something banned because you have no control over your own devices or lack the will to quit-you want the Gov't to make you quit...

Personal responsibility has left the building.

here's the one i like....my wife uses make-up, almost every day, as do most women. all make-up is assured to be safe by cosmetic companies on a VOLUNTARY basis:

below is from the FDA site

There are legal differences between cosmetics and drugs. The VCRP applies to products that are cosmetics as defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), section 201(i)6. Drugs are subject to different requirements, including those for registering establishments and listing products with FDA (FD&C Act, sec. 5107; 21 CFR 2078). Some cosmetic products may also be drugs. Additional information on these types of products is available elsewhere on FDA's website9. For example, you may wish to refer to “Is It a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? (Or Is It Soap?)10.” If your products are drugs, or both cosmetics and drugs, see “Drug Registration and Listing System (DRLS & eDRLS11)” and “Electronic Drug Registration and Listing Instructions12.”

The VCRP is not a cosmetic approval program or a promotional tool. Cosmetics are not subject to FDA premarket approval. It is the firm's responsibility to ensure that its cosmetic products and ingredients are safe and properly labeled, in full compliance with the law. Registration of a cosmetic establishment, assignment of an establishment registration number, filing a cosmetic product, or assignment of a CPIS number does not mean that FDA has approved the firm or its products (21 CFR 710.813 and 720.914) or that a product is a cosmetic as defined in the FD&C Act. Any representation in labeling or advertising that creates an impression of official approval because of registration or possession of a registration number is considered misleading (21 CFR 710.815 and 720.916). Misleading labeling makes a cosmetic misbranded (FD&C Act, 602(a)17), and marketing a misbranded cosmetic is against the law (FD&C Act, 301(a)18).

The VCRP is not part of an import notification system. Firms importing products considered to be solely cosmetics in the United States are not required to register with FDA, and a registration number is not required for importing cosmetics into the United States.

Certain information from the VCRP database is available through the Freedom of Information Act19 20 (FOIA). For example, FDA sometimes receives such requests from consumers or healthcare providers who wish to identify products that do or do not contain certain ingredients. Proprietary business information, however, is not releasable under FOIA. Firms may submit written requests for confidentiality of a cosmetic ingredient in accordance with 21 CFR 720.821, which also states how FDA handles such requests.

The regulations authorizing this program are found in 21 CFR, parts 71022 and 72023.

i especially like the last paragraph, where, even with a FOIA, cosmetic companies LEGALLY DO NOT have to give out proprietary information on a product.....women therefore cannot find out what they are smearing on their faces, BY LAW.


and yet, i have to stand 20 feet away from a door, outside, to smoke a cigarette, so no one will get a whiff of cigarette smoke.

Originally posted by Trueman
I hope they dont ban "passing gas", otherwise I'll be forced to go on "silent mode".

Nope, That's a concealed weapon. And anyway isn't it time we banned flatulence after all. Second hand flatulence, is a well known evening dinner disrupter, shouldn't Mexican restaurants and bars be paying a bigger tax for contributing to this outrage.

I'm thinking under Obamacare perhaps we could fit each citizen with a strategically placed VeriProbe, that could monitor methane and other environmentally disruptive gasses, those who produce more would have to of course pay a larger share, and a producer tax for those who love dangerous foods like burritos and beer and even perhaps have them fitted with a catalytic converter. I mean really we have the right to be safe and have clean air, it's in the best interest of The Collective.

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by wondermost

Originally posted by Tuttle
To be perfectly honest cigarettes should be banned shouldnt they?, I mean its not like even a matter of personal freedoms, cigarettes have been purposefuly pushed onto an unwitting society for decades, despite the fact they are a lethal health hazard.

Im a smoker by the way.

But lets be honest, Big Tobacco, good guys are they?, personal freedoms and liberty of the people at heart have they?, lol, they are as bad as arms dealers.

Just remember, you don't HAVE to buy the cigarettes you smoke from the evil tobacco industry. Its your right, or freedom to choose to do so.

I have the right to go out and buy a gun, or sliced bread, or hell even massive amounts of rat poison if i so choose to, thats what makes America great. Love it or hate it. Once i lose my rights endowed upon me by my creator, it stops being America, and becomes a real problem.....

Cigarettes should be banned. 2nd hand smoke hurts everyone.

People who want to use the strong arm of government to ban cigarettes are prime candidates for retroactive abortion, and actually should volunteer to be retroactively aborted for the good of the earth since they are causing global warming and using up perfectly good oxygen.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by Tuttle

 

Who was it that put a gun to your head, or a knife to your neck and said "smoke or die"?
You made a choice, no one forced you.
Just because you can't make a good choice, you want the government to make the choice for you?

Some people are born slaves, and cannot live without their government masters controlling their entire lives.

Originally posted by Tuttle
To be perfectly honest cigarettes should be banned shouldnt they?, I mean its not like even a matter of personal freedoms, cigarettes have been purposefuly pushed onto an unwitting society for decades, despite the fact they are a lethal health hazard.

Im a smoker by the way.

But lets be honest, Big Tobacco, good guys are they?, personal freedoms and liberty of the people at heart have they?, lol, they are as bad as arms dealers.

Yes.. but...

I think tobacco is medicinal. It's the chemicals in the pesticides and filters and the paper that's killing you.

Roll your own.

Originally posted by Tuttle
To be perfectly honest cigarettes should be banned shouldnt they?, I mean its not like even a matter of personal freedoms, cigarettes have been purposefuly pushed onto an unwitting society for decades, despite the fact they are a lethal health hazard.

Im a smoker by the way.

But lets be honest, Big Tobacco, good guys are they?, personal freedoms and liberty of the people at heart have they?, lol, they are as bad as arms dealers.

I'm a smoker and I wish they had been banned a long time ago. If they're banned I know I'll most likely quit faster than if I tried to right now.
However, I don't see the motive for the government to do this. It brings them a LOT of cash.

reply to post by Ghostx


Ghostx

Could there be anything more pathetic in this world then an individual who needs the government to interfere and control his personal behavior????

Cold Turkey is a method of quitting smoking that is about 57 % effective. Almost 50 million North Americans have succeeded quite nicely in quitting smoking by this method with absolutely no government interference from the government.

Do you realize that you are shouting to world "Oh great white father, I am so weak and pathetic as an adult human being that I need you to pass laws on my behalf to "help" me. Even if those laws destroy an entire industry, even if those laws cause people to be killed and promote violence. Help me, help me as I am too pathetic to run my own life?

What is wrong with you?

So you are going to want laws banning certain foods because you need to lose wieght as well? How about laws regulating how much time you can spend on the internet?

You are truly a pathetic adult. Ask the government to pass laws that affect only you and leave me out of it. Like, hear ye hear ye, Ghostx is no longer allowed to buy cigarettes and his entry into every retail outlet that sells cigarettes is banned.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


so, ummm in what county and state will you be running for office next election cycle? i have decided to start using my voting rights again! lol.

but seriously, i couldn't have said it any better. believe me i try all the time, yet i am no poet.

reply to post by wondermost


LOL

Have you noticed how everytime they pass a new ban - first in workplace, then the hospitality sector, then private homes, then multi-unit apartment buildings, now parks, sporting facilities, beaches, state parks and universities and colleges....every time, the media trots out this pathetic smoker who says "maybe now I will have the incentive to quit smoking"

Hey - if the health warnings didn't do it, and having to smoke a cigarette in the back alley with the dumpster didn't do it for you, and not being able to go hiking in a state park didn't do it....maybe you don't want to quit!

I am sure that the "smoker" in these media stories is really an anti-smoker that they trot out for special occasions.

No reasonable adult could possibly be that pathetic!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


you're absolutely right! its ridiculous how some people just drone around waiting on someone else to point them in the "right" direction.

as far as quitting an addictive substance, you will NEVER and i mean never quit until you are ready and have decided that you are going to quit. you have have have to want it. repeated failure means you're not ready.

some people smoke all their lives, and live to be ninety. not all smokers are doomed to a lung cancer death. it is not some fat cat in a suits job to tell me i cant smoke cigarettes or own firearms. the latter is a right, not a privelage. they would be better off fixing their spending habits in washington if they know whats good for them.

The other thing about putting your decisions in the hands of your "betters"

Smoking has health benefits, whether anti-smokers want to admit it or not. People who smoke tend to be people who suffer from depression.

So what is the chain here? Quit smoking using Big Pharma patches (which, the same as a cigarette, is simply an alternate delivery system for nicotene), get depressed, buy anti-depressents from Big Pharma and suffer from the side effects?

People who quit smoking gain weight, obesity is worse for your health than smoking, use Big Pharma wieght loss products and suffer the side effects?

To smokers, smoking is a please. Live a life without pleasure and wish you could die?

Scientists and doctors can tell you how to elongate your life but they are in no position to tell you what makes that life worth living. Period, full stop! That's it. That is the limit of their abilities!

Does everyone remember being told by scientists, doctors and the government to switch from margarine to butter. Then, without batting an eye, the buggers quietly announced that the margarine fats contributed to heart attacks and to go back to butter?

Did anyone apologise? Where are the statistitions announcing how many people died from heart attacks because of this bad advice?

Who is there on this planet, who knows exactly how you feel and what makes life worth living to you? Who decided that living to a 100 in misery was still better than living to 70 in joy?

Why would anybody allow some else to make their personal decisions for them. Inform, Educate, Advise, if you wish, but my life is still my life to live as I please!!!!

And to all the anti-smoking hypocrites in the military who think nothing of imposing smoking bans on soldiers....please, if you really cared about the health and safety of our soldiers...DON'T SEND THEM INTO BATTLE.

Tired of Control Freaks