The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1256)

[frogmaster]

I feel for the anti-smoking peeps.

Everyone agrees that cigarettes are bad for you, there is no argument there

Comments

[quetzal]

They don't give you a fun buzz.

I disagree. ^_^

Though you are right on the rest. They do taste awful when you start, they're bad for you, and they're really hard to give up.

[frogmaster]

Really? I never thought they did anything more than give a little energy boost, akin to a weak caffeine buzz.

That and quell the nicotine addiction pangs, which on balance would appear to be a buzz. ;)

[quetzal]

Nope. A cigarette actually gives a pretty solid buzz, more so than most average cups of coffee. For me, anyhow. I've smoked and quit a couple of times now, and it's always the same.

[frogmaster]

So do you wish you never started smoking?

Or are you happy with the choices that you have made so far?

[frogmistress]

I don't agree that it is moving in the right direction. I think banning advertising within a distance of schools is down right ridiculous. A picture of the Marlboro man ain't what's getting the tots to puff.

So much gets into legislation because it's "for the children."

Look what we've done to "sex offenders" in the name of "protecting the children." It's gone quite overboard with the mildest of offenses ending up with lifelong punishments. But, no one will argue against because it's "for the children."

I think it is time that people raise their own damn kids and quit trying to raise mine, thank you very much.

Sorry, but I really abhor pandering and that's mostly what this bill is. There is very little in it that will actually do any good.

Hmph.

[frogmaster]

I know, you have a "hot button" against anything with "for the children" in it.

I do to, because most of it is stupid.

The only reason that they target "the children" in anti-smoking is that is when most smokers get addicted. So they figure it is the best place to target the actions.

Smoking is a stupid habit, most of the stuff in HR 1256 probably won't cut down on the numbers of people that start smoking. But it also doesn't significantly impair the rights of those people that choose to smoke.

I'm all for trying to cut down on the number of smokers while not making smoking illegal. It's easier, cheaper and still gives John Q. Public the right and opportunity to be stupid. Because that, evidently, is important. ;)

[frogmistress]

No, not anything with "for the children" in it. Just the dumb things.

"...doesn't significantly impair the rights of those people that choose to smoke" is not a distinction I'm comfortable letting anyone but the smoker make. Sorry.

It is very important to have the opportunity to be stupid and don't play like you don't know that. :)

I understand targeting the children. *sigh* We both know that this will keep as many children from smoking as abstinence only plans keep them from fucking.

I understand your desire of regulations. I like regulations, too, when they keep me safe from evil, greedy people. I do not like them when they are gratuitous and done to make it look like the jerks in the big houses are looking out for us so we should vote for them again.

Cutting down the number of smokers is a good goal. I agree. But, we both know that education is a much, much more effective than bannings. :)