ANSWERS: 33
  • Interesting, considering that President Obama is a smoker. An ANTI-smoking bill would be a prohibition. This bill simply puts restrictions on how cigarettes can be sold.
  • love it!
  • I think it's a PR stunt. People who want to smoke will smoke, those who don't, won't.
  • i think people are all for BIG government, as long as it's giving them things but when that machine, that the voter has empowered, begins to exercise it' will over people choices they start whining. "any government big enough to give you every thing you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have"
  • I'm for almost anything that stops Big Tobacco and their lobbyists from marketing smokes to kids, like Joe Camel. About time someone stood up to these greedy companies. Update: While it might be time to stand up to Big Tobacco, unfortunately, this bill looks more like it's laying down. According to Dr. Joel Nitzkin, chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force of the American Association of Public Health Physicians, this bill only, quote, “provides the appearance of the federal regulation of tobacco products while assuring the Philip Morris company of the ability to continue to market their current and currently proposed cigarette products with little interference from federal authorities, protection against future liability and protection from competition from other tobacco companies and from smokeless tobacco products.” http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/2/up_in_smoke_how_the_tobacco <shakes head in disgust> If smoking doesn't kill us, lobbyists and corporate greed will.
  • Sorry, this is a duplicate question, will someone please flag?
  • People will still smoke . What would really make the government seem as if they really care is if they gave up all the Tax revenue from Cigarettes and put the money into Health care instead of Foreign Aid or into taking care of the Home shores instead of stunts to remove Civil Liberties. I do agree with the removal of toxins etc and i m not a Smoker.
  • The bill does not do much.Taxing the cigarette users would do something.I think if a pack was $20 a lot less people would be smoking.If that is not high enough to curtail smoking make it $30 a pack.
  • Gotta love the Nanny Gov't. And people continue surrendering their rights to Big Government without even thinking about it! Hypnotoad Strikes Again!!!
  • Sign of the times. Liberals are destroying American liberty, capitalism, and priciples as fast as they can.
  • I have not heard much about it but I think it sucks! That's the way I like to vacation in Mexico because you can smoke anywhere you want to. It's no vacation if you have to be ram rodded about everything & it's become entirely too confining in America.
  • I think it is funny!!!! Where does the money come from to build the government buildings? SMOKERS! Who pay for the "Schip" insurance for children? SMOKERS! Where is the money going to come from as more and more people can not afford to buy them? HIGHER TAXES for everyone!!! His entire Presidency has been nothing but a damn joke!
  • Here it comes! More bullshit!
  • Sounds pretty tame compared to the UK, guys.
  • Yet Obama smokes.
  • It looks pretty close to European laws. I smoke but I don't have any problem with this. Big warning labels? Limiting advertising and promotions? It doesn't infringe on any adult's right to buy cigs nor does it limit (and further than now) where they can light up. I am against some of the current laws of where one can smoke - but that's a different matter. +5
  • I wouldn't say that this bill which Obama intents to sign is "anti-smoking." If anything, it is against the advertisement of smoking, and for awareness of the health risks of smoking. I think that's a good thing. If it was actually anti-smoking in some way, I would probably lose my shit.
  • The whole smoking thing is ridiculous. Everyone knows it causes cancer. Why don't they propose an anti-marijuana bill or an anti-cocaine bill?
  • Well,not all that much really.I dont smoke personally and dont think I will.I dont think either I for example have the right to say to My friends that do.You can't.Doesnt Obama himself take a smoke or two now and again?..I thought I read it somewhere.Seems to Me that while I have the right NOT to inhale that second hand smoke.I believe smokers have the right to smoke.I mean I may have the right to ask those friends NOT to smoke in My home as an example.I think this is an infringement on those smokers rights by saying they cant,by law.SO does that mean if President Obama takes a drag after he signs the bill.He can be arrested for smoking when he signed a bill that is anti-smoking?..Is My opinion.Doesnt make it right or wrong.Just Mine.
  • I think it is a very stupid, ignorant anti-smoking bill. What the hell is happening to our country? Everything is controlled. What to drive~what to eat~ what to drink~the list goes on and on. Do the parents have ANY responsibility what their kids do, anymore. This is a nanny state, we are told we can do this, but not that "FREE COUNTRY" no more!!! What a shame! If someone wants to smoke, they will~smoke~
  • It's bullshit. Kids don't smokes because of a cartoon on the side of a pack of smokes. It's just an excuse for the Annointed One to move on taking up more businesses. Pretty soon they'll need a bailout out and the government will own them.
  • It doesn't go far enough and there will probably be no improvements in banning this filthy habit for years once it is law.
  • That sounds good to me...maybe we can finally get a real cigarette with real tobacco flavor.
  • At best, it makes me laugh. Do ya'll know who wrote that "bill"? Would it surprise you if I told you it was Phillip Morris? Now, if that doesn't tell the sheeple of the US who owns the government, nothing will! "I would say so. The bill was negotiated between Philip Morris and Tobacco-Free Kids, and it appears from the actual text of the bill that the Philip Morris people did their homework very well and knew exactly what they wanted, while those appointed from Tobacco-Free Kids to negotiate on behalf of the public health community really had no understanding of tobacco-related science, of how and why kids initiate tobacco use, or the steps that could be taken to stop them. So it resulted in a bill that gives the appearance of effective regulation, but not the substance. And with the exception of the graphic warnings, which were added in the Senate, not in the original House bill, every provision having to do with restriction of marketing of tobacco products falls into one of two categories: either it’s already in place as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement, or it has already been thrown out by the US Supreme Court." Up in Smoke: How the Tobacco Industry Shaped the New Smoking Bill http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/2/up_in_smoke_how_the_tobacco
  • Having seen a summary of what is proposed, it seems eminently sensible to me. It seems incredible and uncivilised to me to have a first world country where companies aim to addict children. " ... _ 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. _ 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. ..."
  • i think we need a Pharmeceutical ,alcohol, and obesity bill ,much more direly. these 3 kill more kids and adults everyday than smoking....they all want the new drug on advertising now a days...
  • Im not for smoking BUT however if a person decides to smoke that is their personal problem everyone knows the risk nowdays and as long as they smoke in a smoking area it wont bother me it's wrong for anyone most of all Government to say what is right for us and for them to try to play parent , Whats next are we going to be government mandated to eat everything on our plates ? What right does Government have to tell us whats best for ourselves ? I like to drink coke but i know its not healthy for me but I make the choice to drink it and decide when i had enough i dont need Uncle Sam telling me i can't have any . If we don't start standing up for our rights were going to lose em all sure you may not like smoking as i don't but there is a bigger picture to be noticed here today it's tobacco tomorrow it could be the Government making us all wear the same looking clothes and giving us a manditoy bedtime .
  • It is not tough enough.In countries in Europe and Canada the packages require that over half is covered with warnings about smoking causing impotence,and all sorts of cancers.There is also large graphic pictures of diseased organs.
  • I only read the first few paragraphs and I am all for it. Being one who has smoked countless brands of tobacco, I can say from experience that the cigarettes that contain additives are actually more harmful than the cigarettes that don't. When I smoked all natural tobacco like American Spirit, I would very rarely get sick, but with most other brands, I would have lung troubles, sinus issues, and I would get sick very frequently. It's about time they did something about it. I don't care what the warning labels say, all natural tobacco is less harmful than tobacco with additives.
  • Compared to Australian anti smoking laws its timid... being an ex smoker I will say the same things I have said about Australian laws... " its BULLSHIT!!! ", any and I repeat ANY government that brings in these laws and still has the total audacity and hyporcy to collect and raise taxes is wrong and two faced to the max. Its a legal product and you have to be over a certain age to buy the bloody things anyway and its up to the INDIVIDUAL if they choose to smoke or not to smoke. Why not make the age 18 to be able to buy smokes and leave it at that .. your an adult at that age and have the right to make up your own mind about this, the Governments of the world should be targeting " additives " which are flooding food and drink which kill and do more damage to a wider percent of the population than what smoking does ... the bloody dogooders have won again!!!!
  • WAIT WHAT???? I am a smoker and i dont like the sound of this, i havent heard anything about it untill i saw this post, i have noticed since obama went into office that now the tax's have gone up about 400% on tobacco, but obama smokes dont he? UGH WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TOO!!!
  • I would like to answer this question with a question & answer of my own: Guess who's NOT getting swine flu? You got it. Smokers. Namaste!
  • Hey why not? Obama and his juggernaut government seems to want to control, badger, dismantle, or destroy everything anyhow.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy