Obama outlaws the sales of flavored tobacco, shisha, clove cigarettes

By laws0n · Aug 26, 2009 · ·
  1. laws0n
    SWIM dosent know if outside links are allowed or not, he will post some if they are.

    Basically President Obama is going to ban the selling of any flavored tobacco, shisha smoked in hookah pipes, clove cigarettes, flavored cigars. The reason why is because these appeal to minors, which SWIM agrees with but restricting the sales all together is TOTALLY BS.

    There will be no more flavored swishers, flavored hookah tobacco, basically alot of the stuff that make smoking more enjoyable than smoking gross cigarettes that make people smell bad and stain clothes.

    SWIM smokes grape swishers from time to time and it dosent even make then taste like straight up grape, it STILL tastes like a cigar. So Obama's theory of "if they dont appeal to minors and taste bad then they wont even smoke anything in the first place, lowering the % of smokers" is very flawed.

    USA is REALLY against smokers with the recent laws past. SWIM understands the no indoor smoking at public facilities they recently passed in his state, because then the whole place gets stained with smoke, 2nd hand smoke and stuff. They are trying to take it too far though. Some laws their trying to pass are:

    "No smoking with your kids in the car" (2nd hand smoke, the parents wont listen to the kids saying "mom we dont want 2nd hand smoke")

    "No smoking in apartment buildings and rented houses"

    Even "Smoke free counties" (where it will be illegal to smoke even outside in that county, basically anywhere except SWIY's property) But if the house act passes SWIY could only smoke outside SWIY's house or inside if they were owning.

    SWIM thinks this is completely rediculous and almost a rights violation. If they want to decrease the amount of underage smokers then how about stricter ID rules like at smoke shops where they dont really check. And more education about what smoking does to people in school, but instead of just scaring them also talk about different aspects like the cost of smoking a pack a day.

    What does SWIY think about this? Especily SWIYs from different countries where smoking isnt as looked down apon in USA.

    Share This Article


  1. Universal Expat
    Funny.. as he is the first known smoking President in ages. I wish you had a link to verify the claims. I quite preferential to substantiated claims.
  2. sandoz1943
    That sucks! Camel used to make the most delicious chocolate mint cigarettes. So tasty! It was like smoking a Peppermint Patty.
  3. Motorhead
    Monday june 22, 09 Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control act. From the Associated Press:

    The story can be found on any US news site. This is no surprise though, just a while ago the FDA got approval to regulate tobacco so it was just a matter of time before they started passing these laws. Very similar to what has been happening in Canada for the last few years now. Its all geared to prevent young people from starting the habit.

    Very hypocritical though, controlling a companies right to advertise a legal product. I still think tobacco will be illegal altogether in the US and Canada within the next 20 years.
  4. dyingtomorrow
    Hmmm, that sounds a lot different then "Obama outlaws sales of flavored tobacco and cloves."

    SWIM is skeptical about anything he hears that Obama is doing. Like 95% of them turn out to be untrue. It amazing the stuff the right wing media will just brazenly make up and lie about.
  5. chillinwill
  6. Motorhead
    Hopefully OP will post the particular story/link he was reading. From what I've gathered the bill gives the FDA the right to ban flavored products, no specifics yet on what those will be though. I can see the candy flavored cigarettes/cigars being outlawed as they do appeal to teens.

    I haven't found anything though that suggests they will be targeting shisha or the hookah bars.
  7. laws0n
    SWIM just heard from alot of his friends and searched on google to see if it was true and it was. On the other thread it says........

    According to the bill, which can be read online at the Library of Congress website, our cigarettes will be affects in these ways:

    1. Flavored tobacco products will be prohibited. Clove, vanilla, grape, chocolate, etc, will no longer be available. Menthol will stay.

    2. No flavored blunt wraps anymore....

    3. Lower nicotine content, but less additives.

    4. no more "light" cigarettes.

    5. Warning labels covering 50% of package.

    That is CRAZY, no more "light cigarettes"?? Cmon.... SWIM can see no more shisha or something that makes smoking seem more "okay" but some people get sick from smoking anything heavier than "light"

    So does that mean its the same for Native American reservations and online sales? Would be CRAZY if people had to order something as miniscule as a flavored blunt wrap online or drive hours to stock up on them at reservations.
  8. nibble
    It's only the word "light" that will be removed from packaging, the cigarettes will still be available. So if one smoked Marlboro Light he will be able to purchase the same cigarettes but without the word light in the name. Perhaps they will replace the word light with something else.
  9. Sven99
    Not really. Limits on advertising are a critical part of effectively regulating drug sales - you wouldn't allow tobacco advertising in schools for instance. In the UK tobacco advertising is completely banned - why? Because its seen by children.

    Placing limits on the tobacco companies is actually a move in the opposite direction to prohibition - which hands the markets over to criminals and removes all government control. Because of effective regulation, 50% of smokers have quit in the past ten years. Why would they ban tobacco when regulating it has been so successful?
  10. Motorhead
    They banned all advertising here in Canada as well. Sure there's nothing wrong with regulating advertising, like not making it appealing to children, but I disagree with banning it altogether.

    Regulating tobacco has worked very well in reducing the number of smokers. Its working so damn well that in 20 years it won't be economically viable for anyone to sell it, or politically viable for any party not to run on a platform that includes banning it.
  11. TruthWalker
    Perhaps if the nicotine content is to be lowered, there will be no need for a cigarette to even be called "light" anymore. Either that, or Congress has decided there can be no "light" version of cigarettes - beer, for example, had to prove that it was in fact light enough to be called "light beer." This is because beer, unlike cigarettes, is still sold as a food product.

    In another example, there is no longer any such thing as Pringles Light - it didnt differ enough in nutritional content from the regular Pringles. However, I think there may be a loophole at this time that would allow the word "Lite," but I may be incorrect.
  12. SullyGuy
    He banned shisha? Last SWIM checked shisha was farrrr from something kids in grade 9 or 10 pick up as a habit... or even pick up at all...
  13. nibble
    Why, what does it achieve aside from increasing sales for tobacco companies? How does it benefit anyone? Tobacco advertising is banned in Ireland too and I see no downside, if someone wants to smoke then they can go and buy a pack of cigarettes. It has no impact on a persons choice but removes the suggestion element.
  14. 12oz-mouse
    The best thing I have noticed about Obama - his dedication for getting rid of tobacco. Seriously can't wait until its outlawed.
  15. honourableone
    In the UK shisha is very popular with a lot of young people, so perhaps this trend is appearing in some areas of the US too, though to be honest I don't think it would make much difference whatever the statistics are here. Shisha is very prevalent amongst the younger generations of asian communities here, and there has been news articles worrying that they consider it to be less harmful than other forms of tobacco.

    This doesn't really make sense "lower nicotine content" - surely that could mean people will have to smoke more (and damage their lungs) in order to acheive the same level of satisfaction? I'm aware psychology would play a big role here, but still... I'm not a smoker, but making flavourings illegal is just silly. The first person who gets arrested for intent to supply a controlled flavour of tobacco is going to be really pissed off.
  16. RaverHippie
    I wonder how hookah bars intend to remain operational...
  17. Motorhead
    To answer your question I'll quote myself from another thread:

  18. drug-bot
    there was a cool hookah bar where swim lives. but it was closed down due to the massachussete state law making smoking in buisnesses illegal, it fuck'n sucks, you cant even smoke in bars or strip clubs anymore, and forget about places that cater to smokers.

    and as towards the posts main point-
    fuck obama he's just as retarded as bush, only he thinks he's all of our little citizens daddy. i hate smoking cloves and flavored cigs but if someone wants one its none of my fuck'n buissness. he's also taxing the shit out swims cigarrettes. repubicans are naziesque, and democrats are a bunch of nannys who knows whats best for YOU!!! we need to end this 2-party monopoly.
  19. helikophis
    Just a comment on all the "Obama" nonsense:

    H.R. 1256 is a bill, which means it comes from the legislature (Congress!) not from the White House. It is not an executive order, issued by the President. It was not written by Obama or his employees. All he did was sign (that is, fail to veto) a law written by Congress, originating in Congress, and passed by Congress. This law has little, if anything to do with either the US Presidency as an institution, or Barak Obama the individual.

    It really confuses me why people act all the time like the President writes the law. This isn't an absolute monarchy people!
  20. nibble
    But you simply can't allow pure free market economics to control the trade of a drug, it is a clear exception. If harder drugs were legalised would you see the same logic applied? The consumer simply does not benefit in that scenario. I fail to see how this removes any consumer choice, cigarettes are still just as available as they were previously, just without the pretty pictures. Advertising is not a source of information, it is designed solely with the intention of getting an individual to purchase a particular product.

    As an aside to anyone who thinks prohibiting smoking in pubs/clubs or such is a bad idea, I ask this: What gives you the right to subject others to second-hand smoke which has been proven to have almost all the negative health consequences of first-hand smoke? That issue is not about personal freedom but the health of others around you.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!