Friday, June 12, 2009

Historic Anti-smoking Bill


I read an article today about congress trying to pass a "Historic anti-smoking bill aims at stopping teens". Citing the linked article on the Associated Press, the bill will accomplish the following:
(my thoughts are in red)

_ Cigarette packages will have warning labels that cover 50 percent of the front and rear. The word "warning" must be included in capital letters.

Who gives a crap about warning labels. Everyone knows that smoking is hazardous to their health. If they want to scare people, the should put a picture of a lung blackened by smoking. That might scare some teens.

_ Any remaining tobacco-related sponsorships of sports and entertainment events will be banned, as will giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product. A federal ban will be imposed on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.

The ban on advertising near playgrounds is reasonable, I suppose. Not that I think it will really accomplish much. However, I do have a huge problem with the government saying who and who can't advertise at sporting events, etc. The government is becoming way too involved in our personal lives when they are imposing these kinds of restrictions.

_ Point-of-sale advertising will be limited to adults-only facilities, and remaining vending machines will disappear except in places restricted to adults. Retailers who sell to minors will be subject to federal enforcement and penalties.

_ Smokers, particularly the younger crowd, will find they can no longer buy cigarettes sweetened by candy flavors or any herb or spices such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon or vanilla. Cigarettes advertised as "light" or "mild," giving the impression that they aren't as harmful to health, will no longer be found on store shelves.

This really pisses me off because the few occasions I do smoke, it's something like a peach flavored Swisher Sweet. The fact that it will be against the law to sell these it absurd.
Back to black ink ; I'm sick of the red- It's not the government's job to decide what we should and shouldn't consume or where the companies should be able to advertise. If local communities feel it would be best to prevent certain types of advertising, such as cigarettes or adult entertainment, they should be able to enact local laws. The federal government's job is to protect us from things like companies telling you that something is good for your health when they know full well it's not. Cigarettes have warnings, no one claims they are good for you: this bill is overstepping it's bounds.

Why don't the Feds go after Coca Cola, make them sell un-flavored, un-sweetened Coke. No one would buy it if they did. Maybe one day Coke will be the new Public Enemy #1 and this will not be an extreme example but a reality. There are so many items for sale that are very bad for you but they don't have any kind of warning label and the government isn't going after them.

I honestly believe that politicians have to have some kind of issue to champion and tobacco is it. It's all an attempt to look good because the government is trying to save us from the evil out there. This really is part of the foundation of communism - the government knowing what's better for us and forcing us to comply by creating laws.

The outlawing of smoking in restaurants really bothers me because again, it's not the government's job to decide these things. A few people throw a fit about others smoking in restaurants and laws are passed making it illegal. If you don't want to smell smoke when you go out to eat, don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. You have a choice as to which restaurant you dine at. What individuals don't (or shouldn't) have, is a right to force an establishment to run the way you want them to. Your "vote" on the matter is whether or not you patronize the business. If they continue to stay in business without you then you are out of luck. Americans are such entitled babies. We don't deserve most of the stuff we whine about.

This doesn't disturb me so much because I love smoking - it's not something I do very often - what bothers me so much is the precedent that this sets for our government. Read 1984 or hell, read a history book if you think I'm being ridiculous. We are sowing seeds of communism....

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As your money pays for the hospital stays of millions of smokers, I think we (the people and the government)do have a say.

Will it pass? No, BIG TOBACCO.

Will Pot be legal? SHould. Taxable!

coppertopjsq said...

My money also pays for the obese who perpetually eat fast food or the diabetics who don't take care of themselves and eat sweets.

With the current logic the government will ban fast food or sweets because they cost a them lot of money. Where will it stop. The government shouldn't be paying for this stuff in the first place. Health care would be a lot more affordable if the court system hadn't allowed for so many ridiculous settlements. That is the governments job - to protect people, not hand them wealth because they feel an individual deserves it.

America treats the symptoms of problems instead of addressing the real issue. Smokers, the obese, etc. aren't the problem - the problem is the concept that the government should be taking care of them at all. Thanks FDR, Woodrow Wilson and all the rest of you big Gov numbskulls.

coppertopjsq said...

And yeah I agree, Pot should be legalized. I don't see how it's really any different than alcohol.

If you smoke so much that you become an unproductive member of society, that's your problem - not the governments. Of course all the liberals would probably create programs to help them and label addiction to Marijuana as a disease eligible for disability.