Feds and cigarettes (legal, death, Obama, companies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They recently passed legislation to help curb cigarette use with large warnings on packages and limiting nicotine among other regulations. I never smoked anything in my life so it doesn't really effect me in the least. But their goal is to curb or reduce the number of smokers in the country then shouldn't they have also included Hollywood in their legislation? Hollywood seems to go out of their way to include smoking in their movies. The writer of the movie "Basic Instinct" did so with the intent of glamorizing smoking. He held this mentality right up until he developed cancer from his smoking. When Selma Hayek got the dream part in the movie Frida she had to take up smoking for the role. She'd never smoked before the movie and is hooked still to this day. They could have made that movie without any cigarettes or cigars shown. I use to hear people rave about the movie "Breakfast At Tiffanys" so when it came on I watched it. The entire movie was nothing more than a smoke fest. Remember the Christopher Reeve Superman movie? In the comic books Lois Lane never smoked cigarettes but she smoked Marboro in the movie. When Superman was battling the superpowered villians from Krypton they threw a large Marboro cigarette truck at him even though Marboro never had a truck like that. They were included as part of a product placement deal. Though such deals aren't legal anymore, the cigarette and cigar industry does find ways to include their products in movies.
Another way they could curb cigarette use is to ban machine rolled cigarettes. Make everyone have to roll their own or stuff it in a pipe. It would also be the "green" thing to do since cigarette butts are basicly fiberglass type material and the machinerly rolling the cigarettes would be shut down conserving energy.
Philip Morris supported this legislation and actually worked with several anti-smoking groups like Tobacco-Free Kids to draft the legislation. They did so because the bill would restrict several advantages RJ Reynolds has over PM and severally restricts access to the market by new upstarts. In other words, this will help Philip Morris have even greater control over the market and allow them to make even more money.
People always support tax increases in tobacco and yet these same people are always the ones who wonder why tobacco companies are seeing record profits. You know why? Cigarettes are cheap to make. A pack of cigarettes costs slightly more to make than a candy bar. When the government adds several dollars worth of tax, the tobacco companies can add another dollar or so without people looking to other brands or other companies because the prices are virtually the same across the board with all taxes on tobacco.
Oh, and reducing nicotine means that smokers smoke more (which increases cancer rates among smokers) and banning machine rolled cigarettes would mean that smokers are inhaling more tar; which is the stuff that contains the majority of the chemicals which cause all those cancers. So, your plan is basically reduce the chemical with very little association with cancer and increase all the stuff is heavily associated with cancer.
They don't want to curb it at all. They just want to tax peopole to death for it. I can't wait until Obama starts taxing all of the other stuff he wants and then we can sit here and watch everyone else moan and groan about thos taxes he said he would not raise. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL XDufus people who voted the man because they believed him. After all, he is nothing but a polititican and that means he is a liar.
Another way they could curb cigarette use is to ban machine rolled cigarettes. Make everyone have to roll their own or stuff it in a pipe. It would also be the "green" thing to do since cigarette butts are basicly fiberglass type material and the machinerly rolling the cigarettes would be shut down conserving energy.
most of us here grow our own tobaccy now and roll our own. no obama taxes for us sorry barry.find another way to steal our money
They recently passed legislation to help curb cigarette use with large warnings on packages and limiting nicotine among other regulations. I never smoked anything in my life so it doesn't really effect me in the least. But their goal is to curb or reduce the number of smokers in the country then shouldn't they have also included Hollywood in their legislation? Hollywood seems to go out of their way to include smoking in their movies. The writer of the movie "Basic Instinct" did so with the intent of glamorizing smoking. He held this mentality right up until he developed cancer from his smoking. When Selma Hayek got the dream part in the movie Frida she had to take up smoking for the role. She'd never smoked before the movie and is hooked still to this day. They could have made that movie without any cigarettes or cigars shown. I use to hear people rave about the movie "Breakfast At Tiffanys" so when it came on I watched it. The entire movie was nothing more than a smoke fest. Remember the Christopher Reeve Superman movie? In the comic books Lois Lane never smoked cigarettes but she smoked Marboro in the movie. When Superman was battling the superpowered villians from Krypton they threw a large Marboro cigarette truck at him even though Marboro never had a truck like that. They were included as part of a product placement deal. Though such deals aren't legal anymore, the cigarette and cigar industry does find ways to include their products in movies.
I never thought I'd agree with you, sailordave, but whadda ya know? I used to complain about the smoking in movies, and on cable shows, e.g. "Sex in the City", and the thinly veiled smoking sometimes on "teen" shows on over-the-air TV, and my DD would get angry with me. Then she took a cancer course in her studies as a biology major at the U of Colorado. Her professor agreed with me, esp. about "Sex in the City". Even though the lead character quit, this tripe will be in re-runs for a long time, encouraging 20 somethings to smoke. According to the American Public Health Association, the tobacco companies' latest focus is on people in their 20s, as fewer turn 20 addicted to cigarettes.
......and limiting nicotine among other regulations..
That's like trying to regulate alcohol by decreasing the proof of a bottle of liquor. The alcoholic will just drink two bottles instead of one. Smokers vary in their consumption quite a bit, if you ask any long term smoker they will most likely tell you their habit has pretty much remained level over many years. Decreasing the amount of nicotine *may* help prevent new smokers from becoming addicted at most. It may actually be harmful for those already smoking as I think they would just increase the consumption.
why does anyone really care about this crap .why is it some sort of personal crusade wether someone has a smoke or a drink. its really none of your business.go live your own life and leave everyone elses alone.i know it will be hard at first but you will get used to it.
They recently passed legislation to help curb cigarette use with large warnings on packages and limiting nicotine among other regulations. I never smoked anything in my life so it doesn't really effect me in the least. But their goal is to curb or reduce the number of smokers in the country then shouldn't they have also included Hollywood in their legislation? Hollywood seems to go out of their way to include smoking in their movies. The writer of the movie "Basic Instinct" did so with the intent of glamorizing smoking. He held this mentality right up until he developed cancer from his smoking. When Selma Hayek got the dream part in the movie Frida she had to take up smoking for the role. She'd never smoked before the movie and is hooked still to this day. They could have made that movie without any cigarettes or cigars shown. I use to hear people rave about the movie "Breakfast At Tiffanys" so when it came on I watched it. The entire movie was nothing more than a smoke fest. Remember the Christopher Reeve Superman movie? In the comic books Lois Lane never smoked cigarettes but she smoked Marboro in the movie. When Superman was battling the superpowered villians from Krypton they threw a large Marboro cigarette truck at him even though Marboro never had a truck like that. They were included as part of a product placement deal. Though such deals aren't legal anymore, the cigarette and cigar industry does find ways to include their products in movies.
I never thought I'd agree with you, sailordave, but whadda ya know? I used to complain about the smoking in movies, and on cable shows, e.g. "Sex in the City", and the thinly veiled smoking sometimes on "teen" shows on over-the-air TV, and my DD would get angry with me. Then she took a cancer course in her studies as a biology major at the U of Colorado. Her professor agreed with me, esp. about "Sex in the City". Even though the lead character quit, this tripe will be in re-runs for a long time, encouraging 20 somethings to smoke. According to the American Public Health Association, the tobacco companies' latest focus is on people in their 20s, as fewer turn 20 addicted to cigarettes.
post-1980s, the psychology of portrayed smoking is interesting -- which characters would smoke, why, how, which would quit, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
