You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
will only have positive consequences
What are the positive consequences besides more smokers, increase in tobacco sales, and more government regulation?
This "oh lets do it for the health" holds zero water because it was attempted in the 90s, and by coincidence is also when health care costs shot through the roof.
I want you to tell me how government regulation of nicotine and sin taxes helps reduce smoking and the overall cost of health care. Its a proven fact that smoking light cigarettes is worse on your health because you inhale deeper, keep the smoke in longer, and buy more tobacco.
How does this help?
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
2) This is not the Soviet Union James.
Its getting awfully damn close when the government is telling you how much of something you can put into your own body when its obvious what the true intentions are. Its why PM is foaming at the mouth. Their profits are about to double.
Reagan Republicans are DEAD.
The Reagan republicans(and democrats) are not dead. They're just waiting for someone with a brain and actual interest in the country hits the national stage.
. Right now - Newt Gingrich & Sarah Palin are the big hopes for 2012. If that's the case, Obama can go ahead and start writing his re-election speech for January 2013. He's got it in the bag.
He may be a bit nutty, but don't write off Gingrich so soon. There is going to be a huge backlash to Obama mania, and someone is going to take advantage of that.
I actually hope someone not known nationally hits the stage in the next year or two.
Because you can't smoke an ugly girl pretty.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
Neemo wrote:Canada's govt did this years ago...didnt really curtail too much. more like weening society's youth off of the addiction
It doesn't ween anybody off. It just increases cigarette consumption. Like when you have a pack of Camel lights, you smoke them twice as quickly as you would a pack of full flavor.
I don't think anybody has pointed this out but it makes cigs more deadly to current smokers. It means you get twice as much of a chance of lung cancer since you'd be smoking double.
Hrm...didn't see the second page.
At least It'll give the government more money...Oh, wait that won't work...they'll just have to give it back to us with more "bailouts"
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
Axlin08 wrote:2) This is not the Soviet Union James.
Its getting awfully damn close when the government is telling you how much of something you can put into your own body when its obvious what the true intentions are. Its why PM is foaming at the mouth. Their profits are about to double.
Reagan Republicans are DEAD.
The Reagan republicans(and democrats) are not dead. They're just waiting for someone with a brain and actual interest in the country hits the national stage.
. Right now - Newt Gingrich & Sarah Palin are the big hopes for 2012. If that's the case, Obama can go ahead and start writing his re-election speech for January 2013. He's got it in the bag.
He may be a bit nutty, but don't write off Gingrich so soon. There is going to be a huge backlash to Obama mania, and someone is going to take advantage of that.
I actually hope someone not known nationally hits the stage in the next year or two.
Because you can't smoke an ugly girl pretty.
Gingrich is already positioning himself to blame everything on Obama only 5 months into the man's presidency. Gingrich is a very intelligent man, and was a big mover and shaker in getting the Republicans back control of the House in the 90's. But Gingrich doesn't have 'President' quality. Just like Joe Biden didn't have it. Gingrich could very well be someone's VP, but there gonna need more of a 'face' for the actual person. I haven't seen that, and Sarah Palin ain't it. She's an idiot.
The biggest problem I have with the Republican party right now is how quick they have forgotton.
All that bitching, all that complaining about how Democrats never gave Bush a fair shake (I agree), and how only a few months into his presidency, he "was a fake president. Selected, not elected. Worst president ever", from the Democrats...
The Republicans turn around and do the same thing to Obama. All it is, is revenge. Obama has been a perfectly fine president so far.
Republican or Democrat, we HAVE TO STOP writing history 5 seconds after it happened. Same with George W. Bush.
Ask me in 3 years what I think of Obama's first-term, and I think i'll be able to give you an honest summary.
Right now it's hard to take people serious with all this, "he's a Muslim. He's a terrorist. He's the worst president ever. He supports Arab states, and is anti-Isreal. He's bankrupt the country. He's a total failure", etc.
All I know is that if Obama is THAT bad, I need to give him amazing credit where's it's due. If he can run America into the ground THAT QUICK, then I guess we were bluffing all those years. The REPUBLICAN foundations which bankrupt the country in the first place, weren't so strong after all, and neither was America's spirit.
I see people all over the place bitching and complaining about the situation of the country, yet don't want to do anything to help get it back on track as an America.
Here's a better quote, "it's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". THAT'S what this country needs right now, but instead we've got these Gen Y'ers running around expecting the world, for sitting on their ass.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
I want you to tell me how government regulation of nicotine and sin taxes helps reduce smoking and the overall cost of health care.
Surely this would decrease the number of new smokers as this would reduce the adictiveness of cigarettes by limiting the ammount of nicotine that goes into the things.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
James Lofton wrote:I want you to tell me how government regulation of nicotine and sin taxes helps reduce smoking and the overall cost of health care.
Surely this would decrease the number of new smokers as this would reduce the adictiveness of cigarettes by limiting the ammount of nicotine that goes into the things.
Not all people smoke because of the addiction itself. There are tons of casual smokers just like there are tons of casual drug users.
How do new smokers start out? As casual smokers. This bill does nothing to combat this problem. Its simply a way for government to meddle even more in our lives and tax us more.
Just like how Obama proposed Universal health care earlier this year, and said we would really do it. The cost is around a trillion. The private sector fell in love with this and not only offered to pay a huge percentage of it, but offered to cap drug prices to keep costs down. He immediately lost interest because if its the private sector the government cant hire bean counters to count your pills and decide what you take, so now he says the private sector has zero interest in his plan even though they did, and the media keeps preaching the lie like its gospel.
Now we're on the verge of Universal health care dominated by the Soviet bear.
I'm not opposed to Universal health care, just pointing out the hypocrisy when big brother cant have full control.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
The Reagan republicans(and democrats) are not dead. They're just waiting for someone with a brain and actual interest in the country hits the national stage.
The problem here for the Republicans is that they're lacking an articulate and engaging guy/person to deliver the message. The Presidential Election is in essence a popularity contest and I'm not sure that there is a current candidate who can match Obama.
Another problem they have is that they have essentially been relegated to the party of the South. The Democrats pretty much took the youth vote and Latino vote by significant margins. I think that they have to determine what their message is--outside of Anti-Obama--and present it to the nation. The Latino issue is complex since there are some key Republicans who favor a hard line stand against illegal immigration and that hurts their attempts to woo the Latino community.
They need to refocus their election strategy because even when they were winning it was basically a bunch of southern states and a few battleground states. They need to copy the Democrats and go towards a 50 state strategy instead of targeting a few key states. The western US is solidly democratic and the Republicans need to make some inroads here if they want to be competitive.
Gingrich is already positioning himself to blame everything on Obama only 5 months into the man's presidency. Gingrich is a very intelligent man, and was a big mover and shaker in getting the Republicans back control of the House in the 90's. But Gingrich doesn't have 'President' quality. Just like Joe Biden didn't have it. Gingrich could very well be someone's VP, but there gonna need more of a 'face' for the actual person. I haven't seen that, and Sarah Palin ain't it. She's an idiot.
I agree with most of this since I too find Gingrich too be an engaging speaker regardless of whether or not I agree with him. His problem is he has a whole bunch of stuff in his closet that would be ripe for Democratic attack ads. His problem is that he's basically an a sleazeball when it comes to women. He tried to make his first wife sign divorce papers when she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. I'm pretty sure he was cheating on his second wife with a younger congressional aide.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
Not all people smoke because of the addiction itself. There are tons of casual smokers just like there are tons of casual drug users.
How do new smokers start out? As casual smokers. This bill does nothing to combat this problem. Its simply a way for government to meddle even more in our lives and tax us more
Exactly. Just like making cigs $10 a pack was going to curb new smokers. Didn't happen. Alot of people just happened to choose cigs over food.
Like you said - casual smokers. I'm a casual smoker. I pick up cigs & cigars and smoke months at a time, and put it down and pick it up later. I don't have a habit or an addiction.
These changes will do NOTHING to changing how I smoke. Not to mention I got a good price on practically a warehouse of cigs years ago, and bought 'em up Art Bell-style, before the government made 'em anymore expensive. So I don't even need to buy a pack for awhile.
Wow, really stopped me from smoking. They showed me.
There's holes ALL IN THIS plan. It's another dumbass anti-smoker propaganda, backed by "let's think of the children", while in reality, all they're doing is making more people smoke, and probably making the fascination of smoking stronger with youth, who are once again told they can't have something. And what happens when that happens? Makes them MORE curious to do it.
The problem here for the Republicans is that they're lacking an articulate and engaging guy/person to deliver the message. The Presidential Election is in essence a popularity contest and I'm not sure that there is a current candidate who can match Obama.
Another problem they have is that they have essentially been relegated to the party of the South. The Democrats pretty much took the youth vote and Latino vote by significant margins. I think that they have to determine what their message is--outside of Anti-Obama--and present it to the nation. The Latino issue is complex since there are some key Republicans who favor a hard line stand against illegal immigration and that hurts their attempts to woo the Latino community.
They need to refocus their election strategy because even when they were winning it was basically a bunch of southern states and a few battleground states. They need to copy the Democrats and go towards a 50 state strategy instead of targeting a few key states. The western US is solidly democratic and the Republicans need to make some inroads here if they want to be competitive
The South is pretty Republican, although Florida is a borderline-state. It went for Bush in 2000 & 2004, but this last election went for Obama. It might just be one state, but Florida & California are considered battleground states for their heavy amount of electoral votes, and Florida going Democrat, with a Republican as governor, and being Republican the last two elections - was significant.
Like you said, Republicans need to get out west, which is not a highly contested area, and try to get some votes. Typically rural communites, bit on the conservative side, and probably would easily turn red.
They also need to refocus their efforts on getting Florida back. But the west coast & east coast, are firmly Democrat, and that ain't changing, especially with Obama in office, which the Democrats see as the second coming of FDR.
I agree with most of this since I too find Gingrich too be an engaging speaker regardless of whether or not I agree with him. His problem is he has a whole bunch of stuff in his closet that would be ripe for Democratic attack ads. His problem is that he's basically an a sleazeball when it comes to women. He tried to make his first wife sign divorce papers when she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. I'm pretty sure he was cheating on his second wife with a younger congressional aide
He doesn't need to worry about Democrats with that, he needs to worry about his fellow Republicans. In a party, that made the 'fatal' mistake (imo) by becoming the "party of morals" and got in bed with the bible thumpers (one of the main reasons I dissociated myself with the party), when that Republican primary comes around, the 'next Mike Huckabee' (whoever that's going to be), are gonna cut deep and wide on Gingrich's romantic life.
And the lame thing about it? Most of the people in that party will buy it hook, line and sinker, yet poise Sarah Palin, an absentee mother who tried to cut out the father of her slut daughter's child... they'll put that bitch up on a pedistal and call her 'Queen'.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
Smokers are a dwindling voting block, which is why taxes are continually being raised, smoking bans have become commonplace, etc. I would guess they are mostly split, so it doesn't really cross party lines. Smokers in urban areas are still primarily Dem, smokers in more rural areas are primarily Republican. So it's doubtful when Governors or the Fed raises taxes etc, they suffer much consequences.
James you bring up an interesting point about alchohol vs cigarettes, and it is interesting how cigarettes have been picked on in the last 20 years regarding taxes, bans, lawsuits etc. Almost like prohibition 2.0. I do think it can be viewed as a nuisance. remember before they had smoking sections, imagine sitting at a resturant and having people the table enxt to you smoking while you don't and are eating. (I actually remember being a kid and seeing cigarette butts in the aisle of my Acme supermarket) Then smoking sections were created in about the mid-80s, now outright indoor bans. I guess alchohol causes loudness & obnoxiousness, which can be a nuisance. But that's more common courtesy, if your at a family resturant & there's a young family next to you, don't be too loud and cursing. At the same time, if you have kids, don't take them to what is basically a bar, unless you expect them to hear that stuff (Here in PA, I think underage can be at a bar with adults before 9pm, just can't sit at the bar, belly up).
I think the difference between alchohol & cigarettes is alchohol affects more people in terms of sales & revenue. Cigarettes are sold thru drugs stores (CVS<, Rite Aid), gas stations etc... .then it's done. No one else to pay or work with, just point of sale. Alchohol affects bar owners, resturants, bartenders, waittresses, beer distributors etc. Also, I'm sure a larger voting public being affected has alot to do with it.
As for the GOP, I think Newt is positioning himself to run, and will, and Republican want him to run a la other veteran politicians with little to lose running against the incumbant (John Kerry, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale). Palin will probably run, not sure she'll win the primary, but may be his VP to get the conservative vote out. Not to win really, but to help the Senators & House members who are in tight races get re-elected. Then shoot for 2016 with someone else, esp since Biden would not be running like Al Gore & George Bush Sr did as VP's, having an edge.
As Axlin08 the "History Now" comments are just sour grapes, and they have no plan. Because with the economy pulling out from near collapse, unemployment showing signs of progress, what makes them think people will vote back Republican next time? Joe Scarborough said it best, something like: If there's two parties, and they're both going to spend your tax dollars and run up the debt, but one of them tells you they're going to do it, and the other one lies to you and tells you their not going to do it, people are going to vote for the first one. Cause at least they're honest with you.
Re: Obama to decide how much you smoke
Exactly, and Obama said after he got elected, he did that press conference and said it was going to be a tough road.
I can't believe people are shocked, when he said the problem would not fix itself over night.
When Bush was supporting bailouts, it was a beautiful plan that everyone needed to get behind, but when Obama does it, it's the death of the country.
Double standard. Maybe I see it different, because I voted for Bush & Obama, but I see this as history repeating itself, but with a Democrat instead of a Republican.
