Elfersupper and the rest of the “addicts” list seem to have a real problem acknowledging teenager addiction.
If I had posted that teenagers are graduating but can’t read their diploma, or twelve-year-olds are having babies, fifteen-year-olds are shooting one another, seventeen-year-olds are dying of AIDS, there would be little controversy.
But because I touched their own personal addiction they go ape-$h*t. Deal with it, the smoking wars are over.
Nicotine vaporizers should absolutely NOT be available to children. Minimum age laws should be a priority. Same way we don’t allow 15 year olds to buy Peach Schnapps and puke all over themselves, or gamble in Vegas.
Who do you think would oppose such laws? Anti-tobacco big Pharma front groups. They lobbied against minimum age laws because they wanted this kind of shocking headlines...1 kid tried it last year, 2 did this year! OMG it doubled! We have to do something “for the chilruns”. Adults who want to improve their health are just collateral damage.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/anti-smoking-advocates-admit-real.html?m=1
Anti-Smoking Advocates Admit the Real Reason They Oppose Ban on Sale of Electronic Cigarettes to Minors: They Want Them Taxed Like Cigarettes
As anti-smoking groups’ opposition to legislation that would have banned the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors in Rhode Island and Ohio has unfolded, it has become clear that their main concern is not protecting the health of children, but making sure that electronic cigarettes will be taxed at the same rate as cigarettes.
Within two days, Rhode Island’s governor and anti-smoking advocates in Ohio have admitted that their primary concern is not protecting the health of children, but protecting cigarette sales from competition from much healthier e-cigs, which presently enjoy the advantage of avoiding tobacco excise taxes.
The real issue for these anti-smoking groups is apparently the desire to make sure that e-cigarettes do not enjoy any competitive advantage over tobacco cigarettes. They especially want to make sure that theses products are taxed at comparable rates.
Here’s what Governor Chafee had to say in his message vetoing legislation that would have banned the sale of e-cigs to minors: “The sale of electronic cigarettes to children should be prohibited, but it is counter-productive to prohibit sales to children while simultaneously exempting electronic cigarettes from laws concerning regulation, enforcement, licensing or taxation. As a matter of public policy, electronic cigarette laws should mirror tobacco product laws, not circumvent them.”
Almost simultaneously, an anti-smoking advocacy group in Ohio (the American Cancer Society) admitted their the main reason for their opposition to a proposed ban on the sale of e-cigarettes to minors is that they want these products taxed similarly to cigarettes.
According to an article in the Columbus Dispatch: “Anti-smoking advocates say that below the surface of House Bill 144 is a tobacco-industry-crafted “Trojan horse” designed to ensure that the emerging electronic-cigarette market and other alternative nicotine products remain taxed at a lower rate than traditional cigarettes and stay outside the state’s indoor smoking ban.”
The Rest of the Story
So what is the problem with these bills, in the eyes of the anti-smoking groups? The problem is that in banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, these bills define e-cigarettes as vaping products rather than tobacco products. This disturbs the anti-smoking groups because they want e-cigarettes to be defined as tobacco products so that they are taxed at the same rate and treated the same way. The bottom line: they don’t want e-cigarettes to have a competitive marketing advantage.
This is completely ironic because what the anti-smoking groups are doing is protecting cigarette sales from potential competition. The irony is that the tobacco companies are the ones who are pushing for this legislation.
So the rest of the story is that we have an irony of epic proportions: the tobacco companies are lobbying to sacrifice cigarette sales at the expense of the much safer electronic cigarettes, while the anti-smoking groups are lobbying to protect cigarette sales by making sure that it is not too easy for smokers to quit smoking and switch to electronic cigarettes. These groups want to remove the competitive economic advantage that e-cigs currently have and institute economic reforms that would stimulate cigarette sales at the expense of a competitive product designed to get smokers off of cigarettes.
Drango seems to have a problem with acknowledging s/h/it's own "addiction" to attacking others who disagree with s/h/it on the subject of tobacco.
I do believe Drango must be employed by the pharma/body parts cartel because of how ape-$h*t s/h/it goes when the industry is shown for the greedy busterds they actually are.
If I had posted an article about how the pharma/body parts cartel bought and paid for every piece of legislation that attacks those who enjoy tobacco there would be plenty of controversy because Drango and fellow travelers (who are all addicts - using their definition)would be going bananas.
Drango and fellow travelers are NOT and have never been conservatives, no matter what they claim. Conservatives DO NOT approve of the government intruding on the clientele of businesses. Draino and fellow travelers are thrilled that catering and photography businesses are being sued out of business because they do not wish to participate in gay "marriages."
No amount of denial is going to work to refute that final point - if you support government forbidding a business owner to cater to smokers, then you also support government forcing business owners to cater to homosexuals.
Not hardly, pilgrim.