FDA & Federal Government Out Of Control On Tobacco Regulation

[Pooky 3,782]

I can just imagine how much Formula 1 racing would lose if Marlboro wasn't allowed to sponsor teams.

Um, you might want to check this one. F1 tobacco advertising is already a thing of the past.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Or the third option - support children's health care and make smokers like you pay for it.

so you'll support it in name only, but not by contributing your own money.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what we're saying here is that Toyota was perfectly within their rights to sell cars that accelerate as they wish and happen to have failing steering and breaking systems. Ain't the governments god damn problem what Toyota sells as perfectly safe vehicles, is it?

Edited March 19, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

There is no limit to where Big Gov will go to save you, from yourself.... and the closer we become to a collective, the more ground they stand on to do so.

[Danno 1,228]

So, what we're saying here is that Toyota was perfectly within their rights to sell cars that accelerate as they wish and happen to have failing steering and breaking systems. Ain't the governments god damn problem what Toyota sells as perfectly safe vehicles, is it?

You do realize we have a court system in place to remedy cases where others commit negligent or willful wrongs which cause people damage?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You do realize we have a court system in place to remedy cases where others commit negligent or willful wrongs which cause people damage?

Yep, that doesn't seem to stop the tobacco industry, though. They've been dragged through said system a time or two and they continue to do what they've been sued over. Where the court system fails, perhaps you gotta draw a line for them.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yep, that doesn't seem to stop the tobacco industry, though. They've been dragged through said system a time or two and they continue to do what they've been sued over. Where the court system fails, perhaps you gotta draw a line for them.

The problem with tobacco is over-exaggerated big time. ESPECIALLY on the lines of second-hand smoke.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I sure don't want to kiss an ashtray. The stench of a 1 pack/day smoker mixing in with human sweat is just disgusting! I don't know who would want to marry someone like that.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

The problem with tobacco is over-exaggerated big time. ESPECIALLY on the lines of second-hand smoke.

Si, man. It's sadly hilarious to see security guards admonish people for smoking within 25 feet of a building entrance, while belching tailpipes produce far more (and far more dangerous) fumes during valet parking or at drive-up windows, si man.

Furthermore, I recall having read somewhere, years ago, that the government's report on secondhand smoke didn't produce the desired outcomes with the use of reliable science, so they reran the figures after lowering the 95% confidence interval to 90%. This produced the same reliability as firing your gun up into the air in hopes that a duck would be flying overhead right about then, si man. Perhaps others who remember this report can dig it up and provide details.

Furthermore, the government should be ENCOURAGING smoking -- all those taxes, and people dying before collecting years of "extra" Social Security and other benefits, si man! Make money & then save money, si man.

[Fandango 1,439]

Meh, I dunno...I don't necc see a problem with this. As an ex-smoker (and I LOVED smoking), I don't think it's cool to direct advertising towards younger people.

If peeps wanna smoke, that is their right....but at the same time, think about the fact that smoking is highly addictive, most smokers wish they never started (such as myself), and it's really the only industry, when the product is used correctly, can cause death. Their consumers die off each year, so simple numbers mandate that they replenish those consumers. Who is more prone to start smoking....some middle aged person who understands the risks, or some kid who thinks it's 'cool'?

I'm all for personal choice, but not if you aim your product towards kids who don't know any better.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Peikko 1,575]

Individuals have the right not be to caused greater damage by the freedom of other individuals. Society is negatively impacted by the choices of smokers - it's impacted by all kinds of choices people make and collectively we have the right to decide if the negative impact is too big a price to pay for people to have the right to make that choice. The individual right is constitutionally bound by any significant and identifiable negative impact making that choice has on others.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Individuals have the right not be to caused greater damage by the freedom of other individuals. Society is negatively impacted by the choices of smokers - it's impacted by all kinds of choices people make and collectively we have the right to decide if the negative impact is too big a price to pay for people to have the right to make that choice. The individual right is constitutionally bound by any significant and identifiable negative impact making that choice has on others.

I'm more likely to be injured by a drunk driver than I am to be harmed by second-hand smoke....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm more likely to be injured by a drunk driver than I am to be harmed by second-hand smoke....

You're putting a value on harm, which is like an abomination of Libertarian principles.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm more likely to be injured by a drunk driver than I am to be harmed by second-hand smoke....

These are big picture questions. No one individual making these choices is going to be solely responsible, but when millions of people make these choices that have millions of dollars worth of impact, then you are impacted already. Just seeing this as a 'second hand smoke isn't that dangerous' is silly.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're putting a value on harm, which is like an abomination of Libertarian principles.

Not really putting a value on it.

I make a choice to be in a private establishment that allows smoking, just as I make a choice to smoke.

The problem here is the same entitlement mentality that's been sweeping this nation for the past 60+ years. People think they are entitled to go into a private restaurant and have a meal smoke free. When in reality they have no such entitlement whatsoever. if the smoke bothers you, simply don't eat there. It's that simple. If you don't ilke the idea of smoking in bars/restaurants, you have the choice and the ability to open your own establishment that is 'smoke free.' That's the beauty of how things are supposed to work.

Instead, we have meddling jerk offs who come in and are offended/bothered by smokers. Come up with BS studies that are inconclusive, yet treat them as facts and then proceed to act as if you have the right to be a patron of an establishment in the first place by banning smoking/forcing tight rules with in regards to such.

This is ALOT different than a drunk driver on a "public" street.

It's the line between 'public' and 'private' that has gotten skewed and where government and people looking for more of a nanny-state have gotten their idiotic ideas thrown into the lime light.

A good libertarian policy will always protect the private establishment and the private industry, so long as people have a freedom of choices along the way.