U.S. to Crack Down on Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes
NBC News and the Providence Journal report that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a rule which will classify cigars, chewing tobacco and nicotine-containing fluid for electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. Under the rule, sale of those items to people under 18 years of age is to be prohibited. The electronic parts of electronic cigarettes are not covered by the rule. According to NBC News, the rule "will be open for public comment before it becomes final." The FDA regulates cigarettes and loose tobacco for smoking.
[Continues...]
Courts in EU, India Uphold Anti-tobacco Laws
On 4 May the European Court of Justice turned down challenges to the 2014 revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. The law entails enlargement of warnings, prohibition of menthol cigarettes, prohibition of packages holding fewer than 20 cigarettes, restrictions on advertising of electronic cigarettes, and limits on the nicotine content of fluid for electronic cigarettes. It enables EU countries to require plain packaging. The court said the regulations were necessary to comply with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Also on 4 May, India's Supreme Court declined to further delay the implementation of a requirement for larger warning messages on cigarette packages. Several cigarette manufacturers including ITC Ltd. have shut down their factories. The chairman of ITC decried the requirement, saying:
Behind this is vested interests... where money is given into the hands of so-called NGOs, who are being influenced to kill local brands knowing fully well that smuggled cigarettes of some other industry are going to be used here.
Golden Tobacco in Gujarat has been following the rule, which had originally been intended to take effect 1 April 2016, "from April 2015 [sic]."
coverage:
- Irish Times (EU)
- Belfast Telegraph (EU)
- Live Mint (statement from ITC chairman)
- Voice of America (government-sponsored; covers India)
- Nikkei Asian Review (shut-downs in India)
- Reuters (India)
- Christian Science Monitor (both EU and India)
- The Wall Street Journal (paywalled; about shut-downs in India; predates ruling)
- Reuters (about shut-downs in India; predates ruling)
- The Wall Street Journal (paywalled; about EU)
- Quartz India (India, Golden Tobacco)
- The New York Times (EU, India)
further information:
- 2014 Tobacco Products Directive (PDF)
- press release from cigarette manufacturer JTI regarding EU ruling
Related Stories
Late Wednesday, Brown signed the bill raising the age for tobacco use, including vaping, to 21, the Associated Press reports. He also vetoed a bill that would have asked voters to divert tobacco taxes to pay for the health expenses of those with tobacco-related ailments, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Source: NPR
E-cig startup Juul plans to go global by raising $1.2 billion
"Juuling" might be a thing around the world in the future, because the e-cig-maker has big plans to go global. According to Bloomberg, Juul is raising $1.2 billion in a financing round, which would put the startup's value at a whopping $15 or $16 billion. If you need something to compare that to, Lyft recently reached a $15 billion valuation after raising $600 million. The publication says the company is hoping to use the money it raises from investors to make its USB vape pens available outside the US and Israel. Currently, if you want to buy its trendy pens and nicotine pods outside those two countries, you'd have to find resellers.
Does this story make you want to sell drugs flavored water to children?
Related: Tobacco Roundup (U.S. to Crack Down on Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes)
F.D.A. Seizes Documents From Juul Headquarters
The Food and Drug Administration conducted a surprise inspection of the headquarters of the e-cigarette maker Juul Labs last Friday, carting away more than a thousand documents it said were related to the company's sales and marketing practices.
The move, announced on Tuesday, was seen as an attempt to ratchet up pressure on the company, which controls 72 percent of the e-cigarette market in the United States and whose products have become popular in high schools. The F.D.A. said it was particularly interested in whether Juul deliberately targeted minors as consumers.
"The new and highly disturbing data we have on youth use demonstrates plainly that e-cigarettes are creating an epidemic of regular nicotine use among teens," the F.D.A. said in a statement. "It is vital that we take action to understand and address the particular appeal of, and ease of access to, these products among kids."
Previously: Tobacco Roundup (U.S. to Crack Down on Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes)
E-Cig Maker Juul Valued at $15-16 Billion
The US officially raises the tobacco buying age to 21
A new law in the United States that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21 is now in effect, according to the US Food and Drug Administration.
Last week, President Donald Trump signed the new minimum age into law as part of a sweeping spending bill. On Friday, the FDA noted on its website that "it is now illegal for a retailer to sell any tobacco product -- including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes -- to anyone under 21. FDA will provide additional details on this issue as they become available."
The increased age restriction for tobacco purchases is one of several provisions outside of the spending measures themselves attached to the broader $1.4 trillion spending agreement.
Also at ABC.
Previously: California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
California's Legal Smoking Age Set to Rise to 21
Tobacco Roundup
U.S. Surgeon General Decries Teenage Vaping
Oregon Becomes the Fifth State to Raise the Tobacco Age Limit to 21
San Francisco Bans E-Cigarette Sales
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:10AM
The most surprising thing about this article, is that apparently selling them to under-18's was "legal" before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:28AM
Not really (well, except for some unscrupulous sellers who aren't going be bothered by the new regs anyway), more it is codified now.
Would like to hear the uber-libertarian crowd chime in. One the one hand, FREE MARKET. On the other hand, unless you researched it, it was difficult to determine what was in the liquid, and even then, maybe they lied. How does the free market solve this without a body count or government intervention? I would expect some oversight to ensure truth in labeling at a minimum. The fear is that this moves to regulatory capture and ultimately stagnation.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:18AM
I'm not sure the liquid is the main problem. You can make your own very cheaply (something Big Tobacco wants to prevent, which is why it is pushing for strict regulations), and some models of vaporizer allow you to vape solid weed rather than nicotine in liquid. Nicotine is sold in gum and patch forms, why would a heated liquid be much worse?
The problem is that you have vape shops popping up everywhere and every gas station in America selling cheap vaporizers. They might contain the finest of Chinese plastics and other chemicals that get heated into the vapor. With almost no regulations to deal with and a massive increase in users in a short period of time, the health effects are unstudied. If there are a thousand models on the market, how do you know which ones are safe?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:40AM
Because at least for the liquid sold, there is absolutely no telling what is in it (let alone concentration). Could be nicotine, could be a mild stimulant, could be caffeine. There is no accountability except for seller assurance for something he has probably never seen, and was probably produced in China as well. Hell, there is difficulty in having a proper documentation for pharmaceuticals.
The exposure from actual vapors minute compared to the liquids/flavorings. The effects from possible dioxin exposure would be far less than you would get exposed to from other sources. I would trust people would at least rinse vapors out, but perhaps I'm giving people too much credit.
Tracking down unadulterated tobacco isn't as easy as you think, unless you live in big tobacco country, or grow it yourself.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:33AM
I can't speak to vaporizers, but for E-Cigs (AKA PVs), even the Chinese ones are all metal in the parts that get hot. They've been around for over a decade without regulation with few problems.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 07 2016, @12:34PM
Uhhh you don't buy shit from gas stations, same as you wouldn't expect gas station food to be high quality or good for you?
Pretty much every town has a vape shop now and I have yet to walk into one where they didn't really know their shit, in fact its insane how much those guys can tell you about the various makes and models and juices. A good chunk of them now also have what is called the "in house brand" where you know what is in it because you can watch it being made right there on the spot. I personally love this about mine as you can come up with any combination you can think of and if its something they've never made before? You get to name it and its added to the house brand list.
But the old "but think of the childrens!" is just that, as I've been to vape shops in 4 states so far and NEVER, not once, been in a shop that didn't card if you looked like you were under 30. Most of the guys you find in the shops BTW are just like me, ex-smokers that used vaping to get off the cancer sticks. I smoked for nearly 30 years and tried everything, gums and patches and pills, none of that shit worked, but thanks to vaping I've been cigarette free for over 3 years.
Oh and if this was actually about "the kids" instead of helping out RJ Reynolds and pals? They wouldn't be worried about vaping, hell I have yet to hear of a single kid that OD'd on an e-cig, what they'd be worried about is purple drank, which is the latest "in" drug and which has had a shitload of ODs and which has "legal" knock offs aimed directly at kids [wikipedia.org].
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:05PM
You don't, but how many millions of people do?
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/16/400144741/use-of-e-cigarettes-triples-among-u-s-teens [npr.org]
Surveys are showing that teens are vaping, but that teen smoking has dropped. I expect they can get their vaping supplies from older kids/adults, even more easily than alcohol. I bet some parents even enable the habit since it is a lot more discreet and less dangerous than drinking, or just easier to siphon off some e-liquid. I'm more than willing to ignore this "problem", but don't be surprised if some form of vaping yields a cancer risk in future studies.
Otherwise, I agree with your post. A legal purple drank with melatonin in it? Clever.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday May 08 2016, @01:15PM
Teens drink too, do we blame the beer? No we blame the ones giving it to them and rightly so. If an adult buys porn and gives it to their kid, blame the porn industry? Nope we blame the bad parents.
If you want to see what its really about look up "FDA Ecig 2007 rule" and get ready to be gobsmacked at just how bought and paid for the FDA has become as congress is scrambling to STOP the FDA from handing the ENTIRE ecig business to RJ Reynolds and company. What is the 2007 rule? It would mean that no ecig product which wasn't on the market by 2007 could be sold which would mean the ONLY ecigs that could be sold would be "cigalikes", aka the cheap weak battery POS that tastes like you are smoking an old tire and which doesn't do shit to help smokers quit. Its also one of the most expensive makes you can buy at around $10 for a unit that if you are REALLY lucky lasts about 3 hours, compared to the tank and battery units where the batteries can last for years (I have several reaching the 2 year mark, work just fine), the coils are cheap (A $2 coil lasts around 3 weeks) and for enough juice a heavy smoker like me cannot run out for an entire month? $20.
BTW you wanna make a little guess as to whom owns every.single.one. of the ecigs that can be sold under the 2007 rule? If you said RJ Reynolds and friends? Then you are correct and now know just what bullshit the FDA has become. Study after study shows smoking going down thanks to ecigs, study after study show they are much MUCH safer than ecigs, with the British study recently released showing them 95% safer than cigarettes which is why British doctors are now prescribing ecigs to smokers, what does the FDA want to do? Hey lets go back to giving smokers no choice but big tobacco, I'm sure that will help people quit smoking...what a fucking scam and a perfect example of how rotten and corrupted our systems have become. Can you say "regulatory capture" boys and girls? I think you can.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:42AM
They've been available for more than 10 years and the body count is currently zero. Perhaps part of it is that the vase majority of manufacturers and sellers are fairly small. Too small to develop the structural collective psychopathy seen in large corporations. Perhaps they're small enough that they simply cannot afford to kill off their customers. Or perhaps it's simply that there isn't much to go wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:48AM
I don't get it. Do you think that the "uber-libertarian crowd" only supports the free market because they think it brings more practical benefits? I don't know about others, but for me it's because I think the other options are unethical. Even if the free market was more 'dangerous' in some ways, I would accept that as a cost of living in a free society.
I don't agree with banning cigarettes or similar products for people under 18.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:28AM
Yup, that's where parenting comes in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:30AM
Seriously, can anyone give me one reason why tobacco and any form of cigarettes should be legal? They serve no legitimate purpose, cause lung cancer and diseases like popcorn lung, and have no redeeming qualities. Why shouldn't they be banned completely?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:53AM
For the same reason soda, religion, nutrition-free fast food, holier-than-thou condescension, and alcohol are legal, I guess. I have no idea otherwise.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Informative) by boltronics on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:35AM
> ...reason soda... nutrition-free fast food...
At least those don't negatively affect people around you when you consume them, unlike most tobacco products.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:50AM
So your main problem is when people smoke around you, rather than with the products themselves. Well, it's not necessary for someone to smoke around others when they are using the products. You can't blame the products themselves just because the users do bad things.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by boltronics on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:43AM
Yes I can. How are you supposed to consume cigarettes and the like away from other people, when they are so addictive and you cannot always control your location? Some workplaces are difficult to enter without walking past a group of smokers... but where are they supposed to go? Are you saying tobacco isn't the cause?
Along those lines, it's sad to see parents smoking in a car with their children in the back, but it happens all the time. What gives people the right to harm others like that? You would think there's nobody you would care for more than your own children, but apparently the cravings are just too great to control. Either that, or those people are just complete scum.
It would be great to have laws that said smoking around other people who are under age or have not provided consent was illegal, but even if that was always possible, how could you enforce it? Are family members going to call the cops because a parent was smoking at the dinner table?
So I believe tobacco products need to be phased out, and of course that's a very difficult challenge. The best way to do it is to make it socially unacceptable. More public locations need to be illegal to smoke in such as building entrances, train, tram and bus stops - which will help make smoking additions impractical for many. More advertising restrictions and warnings on the packaging and around where they are sold are needed, so the summary suggests we're moving in the right direction. There should also be heavy restrictions around advertising through sponsorships. I'd also like to see these items taxed so much that heavy addition to tobacco products are simply unaffordable to most, which could also help fund public hospitals. But that's just me.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:39AM
Yes I can.
Alright, you can; it's just foolish. It's the fault of the user in the end, not of the inanimate object which has no sentience whatsoever.
How are you supposed to consume cigarettes and the like away from other people, when they are so addictive and you cannot always control your location?
Not smoke, that's how. Oh, that's uncomfortable? Too bad. They're the ones who chose to get addicted to the garbage.
If the private property owners don't like smokers standing around and smoking, they can kick them off the property. If they tolerate them, then take up the issue with the property owners.
Are you saying tobacco isn't the cause?
Existing is also a cause. If people didn't exist, this wouldn't be a problem. Blame everything but the people actually doing the bad thing.
So I believe tobacco products need to be phased out, and of course that's a very difficult challenge.
Stopping X from being abused is difficult, so ban X entirely. I don't find that to be just. Our rights shouldn't vanish merely so the government's job is easier.
It's not just difficult, but even more difficult and disastrous than asking people not to smoke around others without their consent, not to mention a violation of people's rights. Haven't you learned anything from prohibition and the drug war, or is your only issue with them that they aren't/didn't work well? Because I am opposed to violating people's fundamental right to control their own bodies, which is a principled stance against prohibition that isn't based on how effective the bans are.
More advertising restrictions
At least in the US, I can't see how that could possibly exist in harmony with the first amendment. The current advertising restrictions have the same problem, even if the courts, which often do not obey the constitution, do not recognize it.
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:50PM
No, I'm not saying we should move towards making smoking illegal, just as I think Marijuana shouldn't be illegal. There are too many problems associated with doing that, and I don't feel I have the right to push for that either.
As I understand it (from the perspective of someone who has never been to the US), Cannabis is legal in some states of the US but there are very tight laws around it, often restricting where it can be smoked, how much you can possess at a time, and very little protection from people such as employers discriminating against you for using it. Simply put, it is allowed but very clearly socially unacceptable, and probably well enough controlled that it should help prevent addiction. If Tobacco ended up the same way in my country, I'd likely find that quite acceptable - so long as it was implemented along with sufficient child protection laws to come down hard on users subjecting children to passive smoking.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:08AM
Because instead of being a twit, you might have spent some time investigating other attempts at banning tobacco. Surprise- every single one failed.
Now, can you give me one reason why such a hopeless endeavor should be tried yet again?
Here's a clue- banning a substance is uniformly, across the board, with out a doubt, is a complete waste of resources, and more often than not compounds problems than simply leaving people to their own devises as over 40 years of the drug war can attest to.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:53AM
It's also a complete violation of people's fundamental right to control their own bodies, which is a much more important consideration than whether or not the prohibition would be successful. It's odd how so few seem to care about that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:08PM
It's also a complete violation of people's fundamental right to control their own bodies
True, smoking is a complete violation of my right to not have to inhale a carcinogenic substance which makes me cough violently for minutes afterwards. It should be banned in all public spaces, including sidewalks.
Oh wait, you're arguing against banning tobacco. All right then, carry on. I'll just keep convulsing every time I pass a smoker on the street and notice him too late to keep my breath for a minute.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:55PM
I'm glad I quit smoking years ago. I like to think I'm not as oblivious as that dip in the theater, but still I must have been incredibly inconsiderate to others. I bet my neighbors weren't too fond of me.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 08 2016, @10:50AM
True, smoking is a complete violation of my right to not have to inhale a carcinogenic substance which makes me cough violently for minutes afterwards.
That could only be true when and if that event takes place. The mere act of smoking does not necessitate that you breathe it into your lungs, similar to how merely possessing a knife does not mean you will go out and murder someone with it.
(Score: 1) by quintessence on Sunday May 08 2016, @12:15AM
While you are absolutely correct in some respects, there is very little that is absolute.
Especially in matters concerning public health, do you have the right to refuse vaccinations? Do you have the right to use antibiotics in a manner that leads to drug resistance? It is your body. Can you carry enough insurance to cover the ramifications of your actions if you start another plague?
Drug addiction is a supremely gray area, where on the one hand it is generally agreed that it should be treated as a health issue, yet at the same time denying the psychological aspect that goes with addiction and attending to someone going through withdrawal. Not to mention pound of prevention and all that.
Still, prohibition hasn't proven to be effective at all.
This should by no means be construed as justifying the smoking Nazis who have conniptions about smokers while driving off into the sunset. That's just pure hypocrisy posing as concern.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 08 2016, @10:56AM
Especially in matters concerning public health, do you have the right to refuse vaccinations? Do you have the right to use antibiotics in a manner that leads to drug resistance?
I think so, but I also think it's a terrible idea to do those things.
Drug addiction is a supremely gray area, where on the one hand it is generally agreed that it should be treated as a health issue, yet at the same time denying the psychological aspect that goes with addiction and attending to someone going through withdrawal. Not to mention pound of prevention and all that.
It is? Recreational drug use is even less of a gray area to me, because it doesn't involve bacteria becoming resistant to drugs or possibly decreasing herd immunity. At most, the effects on other people would have to be extremely indirect (i.e. drug use might cost taxpayers a bit of money), but that is easily tolerable in the name of freedom.
(Score: 1) by quintessence on Sunday May 08 2016, @11:42PM
It is?
Someone going through alcohol withdrawal to where you have to give them ativan to keep them from convulsing, while at the same time keeping them from drinking could be construed as an obvious violation of the person's right to keep drinking, and you are introducing a drug they didn't ask for into their body as a precaution. And then there is the treatment that follows. All standard medical practice, and all a gross violation of the person's rights by your measure.
It is supremely gray.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 09 2016, @02:13PM
All standard medical practice, and all a gross violation of the person's rights by your measure.
What? How is that a violation of a person's rights by my measure? Speak for yourself. If you're talking about forcing them, then yes, that is a violation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:09AM
Cigarettes do have redeeming qualities, as do cigars and such. The short increase in attention, the increase in blood pressure (the rush), the enjoyable social component, and yes, the taste, are reasons why some smoke.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:10AM
Because banning them completely would start another unnecessary Prohibition/Drug War. Tobacco use is falling among teens (idk about adults) as vaping picks up popularity. Vaping seems to have rewritten the rulebook in terms of social acceptability. Smoking has fallen out of favor in a big way, and vaping is much less obnoxious and pungent.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by CaTfiSh on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:31AM
Because it would allow the state to create yet another victimless crime in which to feed the for-profit prison system. Additionally, the greater the penalties, the stronger the blackmarket which would evolve.
Just get an old straight-grained Charatan and load a bowl of virginian with a touch of burley. Absolute heaven.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:22AM
Because in some countries the extra taxes grudgingly but willingly paid by the smokers help to subsidize non-smokers :).
For example in the UK the tobacco taxes per year is higher than the extra cost of smokers on the NHS. And while smokers die earlier, they tend to die AFTER their most productive years. In contrast the longer-lived non-smokers don't conveniently die after they get older and stop contributing as much, instead go on to use healthcare and other services for decades and a fair number eventually get stuff that is about as expensive to treat as what smokers get (various types of cancer, etc).
So if _adults_ are willing to pay extra for some enjoyment while harming mostly themselves why go out of your way to stop them? We should of course stop people from doing so before they are legally considered adults.
As for secondhand smoke, ban smoking in hospitals and similar places, then have extra licenses/fee/permits for places that want to allow smoking (maybe limited number per area/zone and put it up for bidding with minimum bid). Give people a choice. As a non-smoker I don't like the smell of most cigarette smoke (some pipe tobacco and vape scents are OK) but once in a while I might be OK with putting up with it if my smoking friends want to go some smoke-filled place. While it may be a health risk, I suspect it's not really greater than being driven around by some of my friends ;)...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:48AM
There is no documented instance of cigarettes or e-cigs causing popcorn lung.
They are stress relief, and a moderate cognitive enhancer.
Nicotine is one of the few (and by far the least expensive) substance that can relieve the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
Smoking is probably the worst possible way to use it, followed by American chewing tobacco (as opposed to snus).
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:29AM
Because it's none of your business, you fucking lung-nazi.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:41AM
The PTB rely on HUMAN FLESH in the FOOD SUPPLY to maintain their human appearance
Human flesh exists in a lot of foods today. Sometimes it makes the news. These are PTB slip ups, and/or conditioning this reality.
They rely on the consumption of human flesh to retain their human appearance. They all have the same scent. They exist from the bottom to the top of the pyramid. Some are bums, some are middle/upper class, some are those dancing for you on TV, in a web of deceit to keep your mind and body occupied.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:55AM
Can... can you define "PTB"?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:11AM
Powers that be
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:15AM
I'm having my "this is bullshit" senses tingle.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Touché) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:01PM
You do realize you came here to "Soylent News" to post this don't you? Have you even looked up Soylent Green to understand the name of this site.
We are clearly a cabal of blood thirsty zombie cannibal werewolfs who control the world and now you've revealed yourself as an outsider, you will become grist for the mill.
I wonder if AC tastes like chicken or bacon?
On a more serious note, does your Dr know you're posting on the internet without supervision again?
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:51AM
the global population does not need more addictions than it's already dealing with. now we need a UN treaty that bans the import and export of tobacco products.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:51AM
Interestingly, nicotine without the MAOIs contained in cigarettes is far less addictive.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:46AM
Interestingly most people I know who smoke, do so to control low grade mental illness whether they are aware of it or not.
Vaping doesn't help these people because it's not the nicotine they're "addicted" to. It's the anti-depressants and the ritual of smoking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday May 08 2016, @02:46AM
That's not too surprising since MAOIs were a go-to for depression before the SSRIs came out.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:59AM
A few years ago Mrs Turgid and I were at a pop music festival (Download, Donnington) and there were young orange women dressed up in Marlboro clothes handing out free packets of cigarettes to everyone they could. So we took a packet each in order to sell to get more money for alcohol :-).
Despite all the information, young people still take up smoking. The number of times I've heard them say, "But I'll give up after a while." And then after a few months they're completely addicted and spend the next 10 years fighting it...
What's really infuriating is the way that the tobacco companies target really poor countries with poor public health protection laws and flood them with cheap cigarettes. Tobacco addiction is one of the worst. They say it's easier to come off heroin than nicotine.
But let's not get started on the Establishment's dishonesty in their claims about the dangers of drugs [theguardian.com]. If I had know 20 years ago what I know now about alcohol [theguardian.com] I might not have been quite so enthusiastic and nonchalant about the whole thing and life might have been very different.
Prohibition, in general, is bad, but lack of reliable information is even worse.
You live and learn, so it goes.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 07 2016, @12:38PM
i quit cigarettes 20 years ago. maybe it's safe to try heroin...
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @12:54PM
I realize that was sarcasm but it's actually true.
People don't understand addiction. They think it's addiction to "a thing", but it's not.
Addiction is dependence upon a thing for part of your identity.
If people smoke it becomes part of their identity "I am a smoker", not simply "I smoke".
"I am a drinker", instead of simply "I drink", etc and so forth.
Addictive personalities will tend to become addicted to anything you put in front of them that gives them a positive sensation, especially if you can make a group activity of it.
Whereas those without the addictive personality traits can pick up and put down harmful addictive substances at will and without effort.
I speak as someone who has been there and done that. Some people just don't need anything external to feel whole and complete and if you're like that then you're not likely to become addicted to anything.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:37PM
And then there are others, like me, who see the damage smoking or drinking or drugs have done to the lives of others and make (and mostly keep) a silent vow to never get involved in the first place. Parents and siblings have fallen prey to smoking, and one to alcohol, and that only stiffened my resolve.
I suffer from a case of deliberate cowardice of these things.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:22PM
Hear, hear.
Both of my parents drink (at times heavily, at times lightly) and smoke. My granddad was a chain smoker so bad even my mom (a smoker herself) had to open the windows after his visit.
Anyway, I never touched neither tobacco, alcohol nor (by transitive property) drugs. I'm very okay with being a coward in this respect. I also have to hold my breath near tobacco smoke... it now causes an almost allergic reaction.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:35PM
There's no such thing as "safe" just degrees of more or less safe. But people like to work in absolutes. Heroin isn't "safe" by any means as a recreational drug.
Being addicted to nicotine doesn't usually lead to serious antisocial behaviour, high risk of accidental death, theft and other crimes to pay for the drug, death by overdose etc. It just ruins your health and kills you slowly over a period of decades. People don't choke on their own vomit from smoking cigarettes.
When I had my wisdom teeth out they gave me Fentanyl [wikipedia.org]. It felt absolutely wonderful until I was almost sick and they filled me with something else (presumably adrenaline). It was like being very drunk but without the fear and uncertainty that comes with it. It felt far too good, I was totally relaxed and peaceful.
The way I see it, there's more reason for nicotine to be illegal than cannabis, but then I don't think making drugs illegal is the way to go. It just causes crime and suffering.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:34AM
There you go, pushing your fascist idealism again. Lung-nazi.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 07 2016, @09:59PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:42PM
We need far less laws and far more personal responsibility.
When you advocate "banning" something, the only thing you're actually advocating is the creation of a black market for that item and all the joy that brings with it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:10PM
the only thing you're actually advocating is the creation of a black market
Too simplistic.
Nobody is advocating for a black market.
Perhaps your implication is that a black market is the ONLY effect of banning. That also is untrue.
Banned substances are indeed in shorter supply and harder to get and more expensive.
Some things probably need banning. (I suppose that is debatable, if only we could find a quicker way to teach responsibility). The problem is we waste our time and effort banning the wrong things without any science to back up the bans.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday May 07 2016, @07:27PM
wisdom and youth are generally exclusive. however, corporations are using disinformation and buying off both politicians and scientists, so getting good information about what is bad for you is extremely difficult. it's nearly impossible to buy any foods that aren't engineered to be more addictive. the only real option is to grow and make your own food which is impossible for most people in first world countries.
agreed. the question is whether or not the black market is more harmful than the open distribution of the product. poor nations are not well educated and have problems with corruption, so should we just allow companies to victimize a nation's entire population?
(Score: 2) by devlux on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:09PM
Well the USA is hardly a 3rd world country... yet.
My opinion is that we need to do is get rid of this "everyone is a victim" narrative. When the hell did that even take hold?
Are you a victim? My guess is no. So there is no reason to believe that "they" are either. Being a victim is not a choice you get to make, it's a thing that happens to you without your consent and with someone else's ill intent. You can stop being a victim by choice though, but that takes courage enough to move on with life and way too many people like milking their victimhood for life or longer.
People have been smoking for 500 years now. There is no excuse for anyone to play the victim card on that one at this point.
Same with booze but we've been doing that for 10,000 years. No one can claim they didn't know the effects of drinking to excess.
I figure if you're old enough to make babies and work for a living, you're old enough to make your own choices without getting a "victim card" for every bad thing that happens in your life. This is what I mean by owning your own choices and the fallout from them.
Not owning yourself is just slipping on a collar and adding links to that chain of ignorance I keep going on about.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday May 11 2016, @03:48PM
your view is callus and myopic. you have completely ignored the fact that there is active psychological warfare by corporations to get people to use their product regardless of the cost. you obviously don't comprehend what addiction is likely because you have no experience with it. when corporations stop trying to making people do things they know will harm them, then we can address your issue with people.