Biden Administration Targets Removal of Most Nicotine From Cigarettes

#76
#76
BowlBrother85 said:
Actually, it's matters like this where the 1984 analogies are somewhat applicable to Democrats.

While the intentions might be good, it is not the role of the United States government to serve as a "nanny" for people who live unhealthy life styles. In this country, an adult has the right to consume carcinogens, and destroy their liver if it makes them happy.

The government should do nothing more than make information concerning the addictive nature of nicotine available to the public... but then mind their own business.
Click to expand...


Fair enough but does that making info available include requiring that the tobacco companies be straight with customers on it, too? Or just that the government explain the science?

My concern is with the science deniers that seem to take some weird delight in misinformation that hurts others. We've seen much of that from the Trump camp over the last five years, even after he's been out.

Would Trump for example be able to tell the CDC to stop warning people about the hazards of smoking whilst he pockets many millions from the tobacco companies, on top of the millions he'd make with his fundraising campaign against the very government he leads, deluding people into thinking it's patriotic simply to reject the science. Even if it's correct.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
Fair enough but does that making info available include requiring that the tobacco companies be straight with customers on it, too? Or just that the government explain the science?

My concern is with the science deniers that seem to take some weird delight in misinformation that hurts others. We've seen much of that from the Trump camp over the last five years, even after he's been out.

Would Trump for example be able to tell the CDC to stop warning people about the hazards of smoking whilst he pockets many millions from the tobacco companies, on top of the millions he'd make with his fundraising campaign against the very government he leads, deluding people into thinking it's patriotic simply to reject the science. Even if it's correct.
Click to expand...

The warning is right on the package and people know the health risks involved. It’s their choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, tbwhhs and 0nelilreb
#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
Fair enough but does that making info available include requiring that the tobacco companies be straight with customers on it, too? Or just that the government explain the science?

My concern is with the science deniers that seem to take some weird delight in misinformation that hurts others. We've seen much of that from the Trump camp over the last five years, even after he's been out.

Would Trump for example be able to tell the CDC to stop warning people about the hazards of smoking whilst he pockets many millions from the tobacco companies, on top of the millions he'd make with his fundraising campaign against the very government he leads, deluding people into thinking it's patriotic simply to reject the science. Even if it's correct.
Click to expand...
At this point who is not aware of the science that smoking causes cancer? How many people learn about it because of labels on packaging?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, marcusluvsvols, landscapingvol and 2 others
#79
#79
0nelilreb said:
I’m saying lowering the nicotine won’t make new smokers smoke less if it’s the nicotine they are after and most don’t start because of nicotine but peer pressure . See whiskey or beer . Have you every met anyone that starting drinking because of the alcohol content or drank less because of it ?
Click to expand...
You aren't making sense. A shot of whiskey will give you a buzz. 2 beers in an hour will give you a buzz. A cigarette with hardly any nicotine won't give you a buzz.
 
#83
#83
K-town Vol Fan said:
You aren't making sense. A shot of whiskey will give you a buzz. 2 beers in an hour will give you a buzz. A cigarette with hardly any nicotine won't give you a buzz.
Click to expand...

So then you and your friends will just not smoke , or will you triple up to get the buzz ? Come on man
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
#85
#85
lawgator1 said:
My concern is with the science deniers
Click to expand...
Science deniers mostly just hurt themselves.
utvolpj said:
At this point who is not aware of the science that smoking causes cancer? How many people learn about it because of labels on packaging?
Click to expand...
Opinion | Why people like Rush Limbaugh believe their own lies

^^^^ Rush Limbaugh argued that smoking cigars/cigarettes posed no potential health risks all the way to the bitter end. If having Stage 5 lung cancer wasn't enough to generate some reflection, then there was nothing that could have ever been done for him. I think that is how most smokers are, but it's their life. Take a chance on cutting it short if you want to. It's no skin off my a$$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#88
#88
K-town Vol Fan said:
No, because that sounds disgusting. People will just turn to other things. Vapes, weed, alcohol etc
Click to expand...
Horse crap. I smoked for 20 years. Quit a year ago. Weed and booze would not be the substitute. Vapes? For some people it appears to be. Smoking tobacco has zero to do with pot or alcohol
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
#89
#89
TRUEFANVol said:
In a perfect world, tobacco would be illegal and marijuana would be legal. Fentanyl is already illegal, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. The government should ban all the things I don’t like but keep all the things I do like. Seems to be the only logical defense for a claim as dumb as “ban tobacco but legalize marijuana”
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRUEFANVol, marcusluvsvols and tbwhhs
#90
#90
rekinhavoc said:
Here's a thought and I'm just spitballin' here... How 'Bout we reduce the amount of fentanyl pouring across our southern border and killing 100k a year?
Click to expand...


OrangeTsar said:
Actually, the best thing the Democrats could do to make the country healthier, wealthier, and saner would be to simply ban themselves from political office 😂
Click to expand...

/thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: rekinhavoc
#91
#91
kiddiedoc said:
"Major problem?" How about the now #1 cause of death for those under 50 in the U.S.

Let that sink in.
Click to expand...


Not car accidents. Not cancer. Not drunk drivers, murders, etc...

Fentanyl/opiate overdoses...the number 1 killer of people under 50 years old in the US. Over 100,000 deaths each year..increasing by about 10k per year...so 2023 or 2024 there will be twice as many Americans die EVERY single year from this drug than we lost in the Viet Nam war total.

But lets try prohibition again with cigarettes. Makes way more sense. Right up there with canceling 4billion already funded dollars to finish the wall at Mexico then sending 50billion so far to a country halfway around the world with a dozen allies right next door to enforce THEIR BORDER with Russia.

To say Democrats are dumb as a bag of hammers is a grave insult to hammers. I can and do build houses and apartments all the time with hammers. Dimwits are fecking useless in every conceivable way...except guaranteeing failure and bankruptcy i guess. Great...great at that. The cognitive dissonance needed to be an American Democrat is just ASTOUNDING. THats without even adding the ones who claim to live for Christ....then vote for drive thru abortions, gay everything imaginable, and pretty much everything else God/Christ specifically says is DEAD WRONG. Those folks are the actual pinnacle of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance...they are so dead wrong about every single lie in their heads that the word "delusional" is the only one that fits.

It is absolutely amazing how devoid of logic, reason, honesty, foresight, and responsibility liberals are. To defend all the logical contradictions in your platform is absolutely impossible...for an atheist. To be a "liberal christian" is so profoundly impossible that it is an oxymoron...like a "pregnant man" which by the way liberals have actually used in pictures at kids schools...which has been posted in this forum.

It is embarrassing that people that shtupid share the name" humans", with sane folks... much less "Americans. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc and StarRaider
#92
#92
Vol8188 said:
Yes. The government should ban all the things I don’t like but keep all the things I do like. Seems to be the only logical defense for a claim as dumb as “ban tobacco but legalize marijuana”
Click to expand...
I suppose I should have stated "my perfect world". My intentions weren't to trigger you into a rant. Sorry
 
#97
#97
OrangeTsar said:
Cigarettes are a nasty terrible habit. But it isn’t the government’s job to regulate how a person wants to treat their own body. This Is the very definition of the nanny State
Click to expand...
What I have never understood is why the insurance companies haven't been harder on smokers. If you smoke and walk into a hospital with lung cancer... sorry.... your policy is null and void. We'll help make you comfortable, but you chose this method of suicide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#99
#99
Elhanan said:
This will kill a lot of small farms. Tobacco is one of the best cash crops a small family farm can plant.

I really hope they tie a federal cannabis decriminalize bill to it. That would at least replace the crop with something better or worse.
Click to expand...
I grew up working tobacco fields in the summers. That was some 45 years ago. I was back in my hometown in Kentucky a couple years ago, and there aren't any tobacco fields to be seen. Those small farmers are now growing Frankenwheat because the subsidies are better and the labor is probably a tenth of what tobacco was. Oh, and if you smoked back in the 70s, I probably pissed on your cig. (Anybody that has been 4 tiers high in a tobacco barn knows what I am talking about)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, TRUEFANVol and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top