Dear Adults, you are not longer allowed to light up a clove cigarette. Oh sure, you'll still be able to light up a nicotine laced cancer stick and puff till your heart's content, but clove cigarettes? No. It's all for the children, you see.
The FDA says those products attract and appeal to teenagers. The U.S. market for clove cigarettes is about $140 million -- a big hit since the United States imported them in the 1960s. And data shows cloves are mostly smoked by people under the age of 30.
And? I bet most people who drink wine coolers are under the age of 21, but you don't see the government banning those abominations. I'm a nonsmoker, but it's enough to make me want light up a cherry flavored cigarette right on the steps of the Capitol.
19 Responses to “Thumbs Down, President Obama”
Problem is, ciggarettes are highly addictive.
So?
OK, I'll take a swing.
Let's say Astra-Zeneca was selling a little pill that everyone knew was poisonous and also was addictive, but it made your penis huge.
OK, maybe a bad example. But at what point do we draw the line here? Is it about people having the freedom to make the rest of us pay for their emphysema treatments, or is it about companies having the right to sell us anything they want to make a buck, even if it makes us sick?
How come no one ever hates on alcohol even though it kills tons of people - directly and indirectly - every year?
It's inconsistent, but perhaps part of it that alcohol doesn't seem to be addictive to almost everyone like nicotine? There are lots of laws and restrictions on alcohol, it's just that everybody ignores them for some reason.
The laws here in Georgia regarding alcohol are particularly absurd. You can go somewhere and drink on Sunday, but you can't go somewhere and buy booze to take home and drink? Asking for trouble.
Cigarette smoke doesnt bother me, but I want to gag when I smell someone smoking a clove. Not that that should be the reason (or should there be a reason) to ban them outright, but I just had to mention it. I could say the same thing about cigars but you won't see them get banned.
The FDA's got a right to regulate poisons, it's definitely under their mandate.
Shit smells awful. Should be a f*cking crime to smoke them in my general presence.
The FDA does not have a mandate to regulate "poisons," it has the statutory power to regulate food, drugs, cosmetics and other public health instruments such as medical devices. It was long considered completely antithetical to the FDA's mission to regulate tobacco. In fact, there was a 2000 Supreme Court case that said the FDA overstepped its authority when it tried in the 90's to regulate tobacco for the first time.
This is why the warnings on cigarettes have traditionally come from the Surgeon General. It's also why there was an entirely separate government agency whose sole purpose was to regulate 3 inherently dangerous products: alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
The FDA never had the power, let alone the "mandate," to regulate tobacco until new legislation passed this summer that actually explicitly gave it that power for the very first time.
pwnt.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/...ckydoodle/paris_pwnt.jpg
Nicotine is not addictive to everyone who smokes, just as alcohol is not addictive to everyone who drinks. It's all on a scale - some people are hooked right off, others can put them down with no problem.
This country has a complicated relationship with tobacco, mostly to do with the making money and somewhat to do with class and tradition, but I really don't think that they get to tell me I can't smoke cloves. At least cloves have a history, having been invented in the 1880's, and as far as I'm concerned, they're more harsh than all but the cheapest cigs.
However, that's a red herring, because the problem is not that kids want cloves - kids want to "look cool" and people (apparently) keep violating the law to sell them cigarettes. If the law we have was enforced I think we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
"The FDA never had the power, let alone the "mandate," to regulate tobacco until new legislation passed this summer that actually explicitly gave it that power for the very first time."
Yeah, I know, and now they're exercising the power.
cry moar?
"It's all on a scale". That's right. We can buy some kinds of alcohol for drinking, but we can't buy ANY kind of alcohol for drinking. It just so happens that some forms of alcohol have other uses so it's easy to get anyway, but I don't think you are supposed to sell Sterno as a beverage.
Cigarettes only have one use, so it seems more draconian to ban certain types of it.
Having said that, I'm still not sure how I feel about this. It seems like adults should be able to do things like this within their own homes without becoming a criminal.
Hm. If this merely bans the sale of flavored cigarettes and not their production, then there is nothing to prevent an enterprising fan from making their own, is there? It's not nuclear science.
If so, then I don't see the issue. A person might have the right to consume whatever they please, but I don't think they have the right to sell whatever they please.
Apropos of nothing...Tondee's Tavern looks like it has activity again.
Drew,
Look up Wickard v. Filburn in Wikipedia. The problem if the Federal government doesn't really recognize that distinction.
And yes, Zaid, they are just exercising their newly granted power.
But instead of crying moar, I'll just point out that if the FDA takes this new power to its logical conclusion, the total banning of cigarettes, you will see a black market and a rise in criminal activity in this country that will make prohibition in the 1920s look like a few teenagers drinking booze in the bushes.
I don't think they're going to ban cigarettes, Obama will veto he's a smoker :p
Enterprising fan makes her own flavored cigarettes.
http://www.boingboing.net/...1/howto-flout-the-obam.html
In re: Wickard v. Filburn: it's not that I don't think the government has the power to ban production for personal use - it does, of course - it's whether they exercise that power in this case.