Today, another small part of america has died.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with selling tobacco cigarettes, per se.
Why then, is the government moving towards ending or severely limiting the practice?
Why the fuck is anti-smoking a political issue in the first place? -- it's a personal choice, and isn't the government's business.
Why the fuck should the government have the authority to regulate tobacco?
If I want to grow tobacco on my property, cure it, roll it into cigarettes, and sell them to a consenting adult, why does the government have any right to interfere or even know about it?
The end is near – buy some ammo.

6/12/2009 1:51:14 PM

Quote :

"The end is near – buy some ammo."

and shoot up a Holocaust museum.

6/12/2009 1:56:52 PM

Today, another small part of america has died.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with selling food, per se.
Why then, is the government moving towards ending or severely limiting the practice?
Why the fuck is anti-eating a political issue in the first place? -- it's a personal choice, and isn't the government's business.
Why the fuck should the government have the authority to regulate food?
If I want to grow food on my property and sell it to a consenting adult, why does the government have any right to interfere or even know about it?
The end is near – buy some ammo.

6/12/2009 1:57:55 PM

^^
Godwin's law on the first reply. You are a winner.

^
So, are you suggesting that because food safety is important, and the role the government plays in ensuring food safety has anything to do with this? Because it doesn't. Food is necessary for all. Tobacco is not -- it is a choice. True that food can be unhealthy, but I don't see the government banning or taxing junk food (yet?)

Fraud is a crime. If you sell brownies, but they're really dried up squares of cow shit, that is a crime. That is fraud. There exists a legitimate role of government to prevent and prosecute fraud.

Selling unhealthy food is not a crime. If you sell triple-cheese bacon burgers, and someone eats too many and gets sick, that is not a crime. There is not a legitimate role of government to prevent or prosecute unhealthy food consumption.

Selling other unhealthy products is not a crime. If you sell cigarettes, and someone smokes too many and gets sick, that is not a crime. There is not a legitimate role of government to prevent or prosecute unhealthy tobacco consumption.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 1:58:26 PM

LOL@ calling that a godwin. It's a fucking current event.

6/12/2009 1:59:28 PM

Today, another small part of america has died.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with randomly firing a gun in the air, per se.
Why then, is the government moving towards ending or severely limiting the practice?
Why the fuck is firing my gun a political issue in the first place? -- it's a personal choice, and isn't the government's business.
Why the fuck should the government have the authority to regulate where I fire my gun?
If I want to fire a gun on my property and hit a non-consenting adult, why does the government have any right to interfere or even know about it?
The end is near – buy some ammo.

6/12/2009 2:01:37 PM

If the people we save from Tobacco, end up dying from cancer anyways. Did we really prevent anything?

6/12/2009 2:05:38 PM

^^^^is there a role for the fda to require foodmakers to list ingredients? (as is a major part of the provision for cigarette manufacturers)

is there ANYWHERE in this law that talks about prosecute consumption of cigarettes? i mean from whose ass are you pulling that?

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 2:10:17 PM

^^^What?
Randomly firing a gun in the air, per se, is wrong, if it constitutes an unreasonable danger to others. If you are in a highly populated area, doing so is clearly wrong.

Quote :

"If I want to fire a gun on my property and hit a non-consenting adult, why does the government have any right to interfere or even know about it?"

Because the individual you shot didn't consent to it, therefore you violated their rights, and it is the government's role to protect the rights of individuals.

Quote :

"is there a role for the fda to require foodmakers to list ingredients?"

Not a proper one. In a free and proper market, some food producers would voluntarily list ingredients, and other's wouldn't. People would tend to prefer the products with ingredient lists, even if they somehow all cost more. Also, independent (read: can't be bought by lobbyists,) thrid-party groups could test the products to reveal ingredient lists, and publish them like consumer reports publishes product information findings.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 2:10:37 PM

I don't understand this witch hunt against tobacco. Everyone knows its bad for you adn the consequences of habitually smoking. If you choose to smoke a pack of day for 30 years good for you; these people are just helping Darwin out. As an adult it should be your responsibility not the gov't to ensure you don't smoke.

6/12/2009 2:11:57 PM

The FDT Administration my son.


^ It's the same with all other drugs as well IMO. It's not anyone elses problem as long as the drug use isn't causing others harm, and it's certainly not the government's/taxpayer's responsibility to forcefully prevent a coherent adult from putting chemicals into their own body. Victimless crimes aren't crimes at all.

I don't like tobacco and I don't want to be surrounded by smoke, but that doesn't mean I think that makes it my place to tell some other adult that they aren't allowed to smoke. That is their decision and if they like it, they should be able to do it all they want honestly. The same things goes with other drugs as well though. The government should not be able to punish you for hurting yourself, but this mentality must make a lot of sense to somebody because it's here to stay it seems.

6/12/2009 2:14:12 PM

^^
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Quote :

"LOL@ calling that a godwin. It's a fucking current event."

And what does it have to do with this topic? Buying ammo is clearly a reference to preparing for the possibility of a violent revolution. What does this current event have to do with anything? It seems that it is merely a stupid off-topic attack on guns....

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 2:14:44 PM

how many food makers were publishing their ingredients (accurately) before they were required to?

the additional information to the consumer is something i can fully support in this bill. the possible limiting of flavorings, etc i'm not so solid on. but what is forcing a list of ingredients going to hurt? it's obvious that very few cigarettes list these ingredients. hell i wish alcohol manufacturers were forced to list ingredients and health info.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 2:16:10 PM

Quote :

"It seems that it is merely a stupid off-topic attack on guns...."

It actually is an attack on crazy sensationalists who think everything done by the government that they don't agree with means the end of the world, tyranny, socialism, or communism.

6/12/2009 2:21:48 PM

Quote :

"And what does it have to do with this topic? Buying ammo is clearly a reference to preparing for the possibility of a violent revolution. What does this current event have to do with anything? It seems that it is merely a stupid off-topic attack on guns...."

Well, I don't know what this was about because I didn't read it. But I thought I'd mention that I'm buying ammo because I know Obama has tried to get prices on ammo raised by incredible amounts in the past over there in that shithole, IL. Chicago is free of violence now that the law abiding citizens can't be armed. Oh wait......

This is the reason most people are buying ammo up so heavily. Well, that and the fact that so many people went out and bought guns after they elected Obama. So many new guns have been purchased since his election that the supplies of handgun and rifle ammo disappeared rapidly (If you buy a gun, usually you're going to snag some ammo for it as well). Now it's mostly handgun ammo that you can't find though. Hell, even people that voted for him realized afterward that there will be some serious changes in firearms laws if Obama can help it. A full scale, no-expiration AWB for starters and maybe a 500% increase in ammunition taxes to back that up. Then we can look into canceling those dangerous CC Permits that so many states offer to law abiding citizens. Yay.....

6/12/2009 2:22:44 PM

Quote :

"how many food makers were publishing their ingredients (accurately) before they were required to?"

That doesn't really matter. The real issue is: how much control do people have over companies through their "dollar votes". If the focus was on creating a free and proper market whereby consumer choice dictated market availability to a practical degree, the issue of lack of choice would never be a problem. Corporatism is the problem. Corporate "immortality" is the problem. There are too few food producers, and that results in food producer oligopolies -- then they can all agree (secretly) to not provide information about their products, to fix prices, etc. This is what happened to the tobacco industry. Government allowed too few tobacco companies to exist, and what happened? They all conspired fraud. If there had been 100 times as many smaller tobacco companies, that never would have happened. These policies by the government that allowed for a tobacco oligopoly to exist were simply a part of a long-term strategy to ban tobacco. Now, with this FDA bullshit, that trend is even more strong. Smaller (relatively) tobacco companies like Lorillard will now tend to go out of business and be bought by Phillip Morris -- making the oligopoly even more concentrated. After all, a couple giant fascist tobacco companies is a much easier target to both malign in public opinion and topple with law, than hundreds or thousands of small tobacco companies that might actually provide consumer choice.

Quote :

"the additional information to the consumer is something i can fully support in this bill. the possible limiting of flavorings, etc i'm not so solid on. but what is forcing a list of ingredients going to hurt? it's obvious that very few cigarettes list these ingredients. hell i wish alcohol manufacturers were forced to list ingredients and health info."

Did you not know that there are already lists of these ingredients available? The oligopolist tobacco companies don't provide them, but instead they are provided by smaller companies that agree that the consumer should have that information. Of course, these smaller companies have probably been bought out by the oligopolists, but that's just further evidence that a large number of companies that are constantly coming and going is FAR better that a small number of companies that are around for over a century.

Quote :

"It actually is an attack on crazy sensationalists who think everything done by the government that they don't agree with means the end of the world, tyranny, socialism, or communism."

Well... This is clearly tyranny. So, are we supposed to just let it happen? You can disagree that this is tyranny, but do you not agree that if tyranny were to grow too large, the proper way to fix it would be through revolution?

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 2:37:48 PM

You're missing the point.

This legislation was proposed and ushered through by RJR, with hopes that it would end all forms of advertising.

Right now RJR is #1 in the cig game.

Basically they just preserved their spot at the top. good for people in Winston-Salem I guess.

I have insider info on this. If you want more I got it.

6/12/2009 2:41:52 PM

i've heard this new legislation will also make it harder for people to sue tobacco companies

6/12/2009 2:46:49 PM

Quote :

"i've heard this new legislation will also make it harder for people to sue tobacco companies"

i think so

6/12/2009 2:47:59 PM

That's what they get for smoking that trash.

Shoulda grown their own shyte if they wanted it done right from the beginning son.

6/12/2009 2:51:39 PM

hey hey hey

smoke your own naturally grown herbs every day

6/12/2009 2:54:32 PM

Quote :

"Why then, is the government moving towards ending or severely limiting the practice?"

6/12/2009 2:57:04 PM

^
There is already a country with a total tobacco ban. And there are no shortage of nanny-state types here in america that wish for tobacco to be banned. Fucking crazy.

Quote :

"This legislation was proposed and ushered through by RJR"

Oops, I thought it was Phillip Morris, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. Still, my point still stands (about the further concentration of the [fascist] tobacco oligopoly.)

Quote :

"You're missing the point."

Which one?

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 3:02:18 PM

I just read the first post where you were ranting about big government and assumed the rest was just you babbling the same thing over and over actually.

6/12/2009 3:06:52 PM

^
lol...

Quote :

"is there a role for the fda to require foodmakers to list ingredients"

We can agree to disagree about forcing companies to publish ingredient lists. Since it's something you consume, I guess it might be considered reasonable to at least require the list to be provided somewhere, but there are many other issues with this law:

The FDA can now ban flavored cigarettes. That is complete bullshit. I know plenty of adults that smoke these on occasion. Supposedly the justification for the immoral ban is that these are "candy-flavored cigarettes" and therefore are necessarily designed to appeal to kids. That is fucking stupid. What's next?...a ban on Mike's Hard Lemonade?...on peach schnapps?

They also can regulate nicotine content. This is, by far, the most egregious crap I've seen in my life. Tobacco is a fucking plant. If someone grows this organic plant, that god/nature "invented", and wants to sell it as is, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. How the fuck can anyone justify banning the selling of a fucking plant? Tobacco is not a human invention! Tobacco companies are not drug dealers! This is fucking crazy!

They can also force even larger government warnings on the packages. This is a step in the wrong direction. If someone wants to sell a blank brown paper bag full of cured and rolled plant leaves, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

I am so going to buy a shit ton of ammo. It has become absolutely clear that the peaceful democratic process, peaceful protest demonstrations, peaceful letter writing campaigns, etc. are not adequate protectors of human liberty. Look: I don't want to kill people in a violent revolution. That is not my way. But if every other non-violent way is clearly shown to not be enough to protect freedom, then what options do we have?...to simply roll over and let the nanny-state destroy our freedom? Hell no. I won't go.

6/13/2009 8:16:40 AM

Quote :

"This legislation was proposed and ushered through by RJR, with hopes that it would end all forms of advertising."

Sad but true. We stray from the Constitution..allow gov't more power than it should have, and then get blind-sided when companies use the gov't to give themselves a leg up over the competition.

If we didn't allow the gov't to regulate every little aspect of our lives, companies couldn't get stuff like this passed.

6/13/2009 10:45:29 AM

Quote :

"If we didn't allow the gov't to regulate every little aspect of our lives, companies couldn't get stuff like this passed."

Yup. Every time you think that the government should have the power to do X you should always ask yourself two questions:

Do I want <insert political party opposite to you> to have the authority to control X?

Do I want <insert large corporate entity with deep pockets> to be able to buy and twist this authority to benefit them and harm their competition?

6/13/2009 10:55:30 AM

6/13/2009 11:19:54 AM

You Ida Tarbell, you.

6/13/2009 11:54:08 AM