As anyone who has been in the rant thread lately can attest to, I'm a little ball of rage this week. Therefore, when I went off on the flavored cigarette ban in today's post, I questioned whether or not I was thinking clearly. So I put it to the Halforums crowd: Is the new ban on flavored cigarettes truly a useful tool to stop the kiddies from picking up a dangerous habit, or is it meaningless political posturing?
Flavored Cigarette Ban - Useful or No?
- Thread starter Fun Size
- Start date
- Status
Last time I checked, 12-year-olds that start smoking do so because it's cool/tough/etc. That means they don't smoke candy flavoured cigarettes. Those seem more marketed to women who, for some reaosn or another, want to smoke, but don't like the smell/taste of cigarettes.
In other words, I agree with you fully.
In other words, I agree with you fully.
There is NOTHING that can stop kids from smoking. If you make them expensive, they'll steal them. If you ban them, they'll smuggle them in or start buying home-made stuff. It's not a pointless fight, but it is an unwinnable one.
That just seems dumb.
We have new legislation coming into effect in the next few months here too. Apparently we're the last province in Canada to have power-walls or something. (A power wall is basically an entire wall of shelves dedicated to cigarettes behind the counter of a gas station or convenience store) Supposedly it's a huge temptation for people just buying their lotto tickets. They see that power wall, and they just HAVE to buy cigarettes.
As far as banning flavored cigarettes goes ... I can sort of understand where the lobbyists are coming from, but I think they're out of their mind if they imagine this is going to stop anybody from smoking.
Considering I've smoked like ... 4 times in the last half year, I'm not really one to talk, but I'm getting fed up with the anti-smoking lobby. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Sure, others should have access to clean air, but you're coming down pretty hard on smokers for people who just want to keep air breathable.
Example: it is not allowed to smoke anywhere inside a public building where I live. Not even if someone wanted to build a bar with a smoking lounge in it, completely ventilated and closed off from the rest of the establishment. Instead, you have to go outdoors and stand in the frigid winter.
Perhaps I should start a pneumonia lobby.
We have new legislation coming into effect in the next few months here too. Apparently we're the last province in Canada to have power-walls or something. (A power wall is basically an entire wall of shelves dedicated to cigarettes behind the counter of a gas station or convenience store) Supposedly it's a huge temptation for people just buying their lotto tickets. They see that power wall, and they just HAVE to buy cigarettes.
As far as banning flavored cigarettes goes ... I can sort of understand where the lobbyists are coming from, but I think they're out of their mind if they imagine this is going to stop anybody from smoking.
Considering I've smoked like ... 4 times in the last half year, I'm not really one to talk, but I'm getting fed up with the anti-smoking lobby. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Sure, others should have access to clean air, but you're coming down pretty hard on smokers for people who just want to keep air breathable.
Example: it is not allowed to smoke anywhere inside a public building where I live. Not even if someone wanted to build a bar with a smoking lounge in it, completely ventilated and closed off from the rest of the establishment. Instead, you have to go outdoors and stand in the frigid winter.
Perhaps I should start a pneumonia lobby.
So your argument is that it will only help women stop, and that makes it meaningless political posturing?
Kinda silly, but i guess if one person doesn't smoke cause of it it's something... and that something is overpopulation... :aaahhh:
S
SeraRelm
Let 'em smoke. If people want to smoke, let them. I fail to see how it's the government's business if people are smoking cigarettes or not.
But that's the funny thing... the Government is influenced by the people who support it and right now they are saying that they are tired of people smoking in public places. It's only becoming a governmental issue because everyone is pushing for to be one.
S
SeraRelm
Two different topics. We're talking about the outright ban of certain cigarettes and the ridiculous taxation on related products, not their use in public areas.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Somebody needs to invent a cigarette that's not so fucking unhealthy.
Putting smoke in your lungs will never be a good idea...
Putting smoke in your lungs will never be a good idea...[/QUOTE]
How about flavored water vapor?[/QUOTE]
That's much better, but still something you shouldn't do all the time. It also doesn't deal with the second hand problem.
Putting smoke in your lungs will never be a good idea...[/QUOTE]
How about flavored water vapor?[/QUOTE]
That's much better, but still something you shouldn't do all the time. It also doesn't deal with the second hand problem.[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly certain it does though, actually. You can 'smoke' places where otherwise you couldn't. That's a big part of the draw. (no pun intended)
Putting smoke in your lungs will never be a good idea...[/QUOTE]
How about flavored water vapor?[/QUOTE]
That's much better, but still something you shouldn't do all the time. It also doesn't deal with the second hand problem.[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly certain it does though, actually. You can 'smoke' places where otherwise you couldn't. That's a big part of the draw. (no pun intended)[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that it still put out water vapor that contained nicotine. Is the Nicotine not in this vapor?
Water vapor doesn't behave like secondhand smoke. It should disperse/diffuse pretty rapidly.
Plus, it's not nicotine which is the cancer problem, but rather, the other things in the smoke.
Plus, it's not nicotine which is the cancer problem, but rather, the other things in the smoke.
... and yet Nicotine is still something I'd rather not be exposed to involuntarily, hence why I asked.
W
Wasabi Poptart
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dqTrUpmwPg[/ame]
IMHO, all you're going to do with a flavored cigarette ban is push people toward the remaining legal "alternative" tobacco products such as menthols, cloves, flavored snus, snuff, pipe tobacco, etc. Hell, I've been smoking for 12 years. 99% of the time I go for plain old Camel Lights, nothing special. Occasionally though, it was nice to have the option to smoke something that tasted a little different, at which point I would go with one of the Camel Exotic Blends, usually Camel Dark Mint which amusingly enough pretty much tasted like you were smoking a mint chocolate chip ice-cream cone.
Now, back 12 years ago when I was too young legally to smoke but started smoking anyway, it definitely wasn't so I could inhale something that tasted good, and I sure as hell didn't start off smoking candy flavored cigarettes. I started off smoking what any normal American teenager starts with - Marlboro Reds, the cigarettes that "cool" older people smoked; or, whatever the other people that I was smoking with were smoking.
Now, back 12 years ago when I was too young legally to smoke but started smoking anyway, it definitely wasn't so I could inhale something that tasted good, and I sure as hell didn't start off smoking candy flavored cigarettes. I started off smoking what any normal American teenager starts with - Marlboro Reds, the cigarettes that "cool" older people smoked; or, whatever the other people that I was smoking with were smoking.
The water vapor is inhaled, but I don't think it really gets exhaled. Something about either the volume, or (as Tin mentioned) how it behaves. Water being heavier than air and all that. I mean, on a bad day you MIGHT project a little spittle while speaking. MAYBE. On a bad day. I imagine the 'electric' cigarettes would have a similar effect.
Besides, you can also get the e-cigarettes sans-nicotine. No guarantee that the guy across the table did, but at least it's not a given.
- Status