You're right about that picture. I should have checked more carefully.
Harlowe wrote:What you do not do is deny adults products that are legal just because it might appeal to a teen.
The products aren't legal. Didn't you read the LA Times article?
Seriously though, the tobacco companies have been marketing the flavored cigarettes to kids more recently than you think. They were forced to pull products off the shelf and rename and package some flavored cigarettes in the last 4 years. I don't think banning them is the best solution, but we've got to do something to deter the industry from cynical marketing.
Select wrote:Luck that she turned out intelligent? Or luck that someone's son was intelligent? Personally, I think it's more about teaching proper protection - which is good parenting. Then it's a little bit of luck that they're not too stupid that it went in one ear and out the other I agree with the rest you wrote.
An ultra-conservative parent can teach his daughter that abstinence is the best way not to get pregnant. It's still luck if she doesn't end up pregnant. A liberal parent can teach his daughter they hey, I wish you wouldn't do it, but if you're gonna do it anyway, using protection is the best way to go. Dumb girls can follow good habits, and smart girls can make mistakes. Educating them about the benefits of the morning after pill doesn't guarantee that she'll go to the store, buy it and take it.
Again, good parenting doesn't guarantee anything. Kids have these, uh, minds of their own. You do your best educating them however you think they should be educated and the rest is up to them.
And sometimes the kids even improve on the adults. Before I quit smoking, the 20 year old would rip me a new asshole every time she saw me light up!
Oh yeah, huge improvement in odds for drinking/drugs/pregnancy by being a good parent. The statement I was strongly disagreeing with said it was guaranteed. Even a good parent counts their blessings when the kiddo turns out ok.
And yeah, we shouldn't be marketing our vices to our children. Let the grown ups decide for themselves, but don't encourage the kids.
There are PLENTY of marketing restrictions on smoking. (Personally, I don't smoke, except for the occasional cigar.. and by occasional, I mean 3-4 times/year). When was the last time you saw a cigarette advertisement on television or radio? (Answer: not since 1971) They've been banned from billboards since 1999, no more Marlboro Man up there on the freeway. Since 2007 the MPAA upped the rating for films showing smoking. In 2003 magazines routinely found in school libraries had tobacco advertisements eliminated.
About the only place where you see cigarettes advertised nowadays are liquor stores and sponsorship (NASCAR, etc).
Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is not a healthful choice.. but it IS a choice, and should not be taken away from adults, who have the god-given right to fuck themselves up. Don't tell me what to put in my body, and I won't tell you what to put in yours...
And as someone else pointed out on this thread (Harlowe?), flavored alcoholic drinks that taste like fruit punch and lemonade (Mike's Hard Lemonade anyone?) are out there... I suppose Lurker wants to ban them too, after all, he knows whats best for us all.
What's next? Banning R-rated movies? Violent video games? Skateboarding?
How about driving cars Lurker? Want to ban them too? Check into the major cause of death in young people.
Lurker is off base with this one. And he reveals his attraction for the nanny-state, with Lurker's vision of what values the nanny should have. I'm glad Select brought this up. It shows the true intent of leftists... they want to dictate was is and isn't good for you. They want to remove personal choice, and hide behind platitudes of protecting others.
Bullshit...
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
It's not a leftist thing Embar. It's neither strictly Left or Right. Lets be honest, the Right has zero interest in personal liberties. Their concern is only for how this affects the business, not people having choices.
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is not a healthful choice.. but it IS a choice, and should not be taken away from adults, who have the god-given right to fuck themselves up. Don't tell me what to put in my body, and I won't tell you what to put in yours...
Now if you could extend that understanding to people who over eat.........
Embar,
I think you need to re-read what I've posted because I don't think you're accurately characterizing my position.
My original post was that the user comment Tax and Jaro liked was stupid. While there's no substitute for good parenting, the government still has a role to play in protecting consumers. Turns out Jaro agrees, he just thought the ban went too far. After that, my main point was that we need to prevent cigarette companies from marketing their products to children and that they have a documented history of doing exactly that. I asked how we should stop a company from coming up with marketing ploys to sell dangerous products to children. I ended by saying, "I don't think banning them is the best solution, but we've got to do something to deter the industry from cynical marketing."
So, no. I'm not for the government taking away choice from adults. I am against an industry developing strategies to sell dangerous products to kids. I don't put alcohol, cars, or video games into the same category as an addictive and deadly drug, so I don't think those comparisons hold much water.
I've always flip-flopped on things like cigarettes. I'm usually for letting people do what they want with their bodies, but addictive, deadly drugs has never sat well with me (and yea, sometimes even alcohol), so I change a lot. I can say I am definitely for banning them in public places (Jaro expressed rage over that), because while I do think we should be able to do what we want with our bodies, what drugs we use shouldn't enter another person's body without their consent.
I wouldn't say I expressed rage, I just think it's asinine and unnecessarily intrusive. I believe business owners should have the right to declare that a legal activity can take place in their establishment. Non-smoking consumers have a choice in whether or not they wish to dine, drink, or shop in an establishment that allows smoking. Before Nebraska's smoking ban went into effect, there were restaurants and bars that had voluntarily gone non-smoking to attract the business of non-smokers who chose to dine and drink in non-smoking environments. The power of the consumer, in this example, was pressuring businesses to make the choice for themselves. There were also establishments that chose to continue allowing smoking, because they wanted to keep the business of their smoking patrons. The operative concept through all of this, just to clarify, has been choice. I'm advocating for the most choices available to the most parties, resulting in specific establishments catering to differing consumers. The bans eliminate that choice and diversity.
As a side note, at least one establishment refused to obey the ban for some time after it went into effect. Big Jonh's Billiards, for at least a year that I recall, had a sign on their door stating that it was a smoking establishment and if you didn't like it your business was not wanted. I'm assuming they've since complied (I haven't been there in a couple years), but it seemed odd to me that they got away with it for as long as they did. This is a large pool hall (At least 30 tables) in a large building with high cielings and excellent ventilation. The owner specifically chose the building when he opened in Omaha to allow for smoking without clouding the place to hell. I may be remembering wrong, but I believe he opened in Omaha after California's smoking ban put him out of business.
And Embar, this is hardly a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. This is primarily a smoker vs. non-smoker issue, in my experience. I'd wager my views are pretty damn liberal to you, but I'm against these kinds of bans on tobacco products. My parents are definite neocons, and they're for it. Most people I know are polarized primarily on whether they smoke or not, with only a few exceptions.
Last edited by Jarochai Alabaster on Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we."
-Carl Sagan
Jarochai Alabaster wrote:
And Embar, this is hardly a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. This is primarily a smoker vs. non-smoker issue, in my experience. I'd wager my views are pretty damn liberal to you, but I'm against these kinds of bans on tobacco products. My parents are definite neocons, and they're for it. Most people I know are polarized primarily on whether they smoke or not, with only a few exceptions.
I agree, but I'm not a smoker and I still think this is bullshit, because I believe people should be able to make their own damn choices and feel it's unnecessarily intrusive. I also believe businesses should be able to choose what legal activity they will or will not allow in their establishments.
Lurker wrote:Should parents be required by law to put infants in car seats or buckle up their children?
Not specifically, no. IMHO, it's redundant to legislate for every idiotic way a parent can endanger their children. Doesn't the law already provide for that just in general? There's no law (that I'm aware of) that says you can't let your children play with your steak knife collection, but that doesn't mean you can't go to jail for it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the law should say that as a parent, anything contrary to a child's immediate safety is against the law. Why try to legistlate every conceivable stupid thing you can do to endanger your child?
These bans/regulations on substances might infringe on your being right now - but the future generation who won't have a taste for them; they will help advance the species through the doing-away of stupid shit like cigarettes/alcohol/etc.
Didn't your mama ever tell you not to tango with a carrot?
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is not a healthful choice.. but it IS a choice, and should not be taken away from adults, who have the god-given right to fuck themselves up. Don't tell me what to put in my body, and I won't tell you what to put in yours...
Now if you could extend that understanding to people who over eat.........
That stance applies to people who over eat as well. Or any unhealthful lifestyle. My issue with people who make unwise decisions is their expectation that others should bail them out from the mess they got themselves into through personal choice. As it applied to obese people, I was talking about healthcare costs. Why should I or others pay for the healthcare of people who choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle?
Bringing that back to this particular topic, would you want to subsidize healthcare costs for a smoker?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I agree with the rest you wrote.
