tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 19, 2019 21:08:28 GMT -5
Apparently I was a bit to indirect in making my point. It wasn’t about smoking. My point was that if the Democrats wanted to take action on any topic, they had the ideal opportunity. The fact that they took no action demonstrates that the Democrats really didn’t want to address the issue. In the spirit of there is more than one way to skin a cat, I suspect that the Federal government could ban smoking. All you have to do is declare that tobacco is a pharmaceutical product. After all, tobacco use generates all kinds of physiological responses, just like other drugs. Under the control of the FDA, access to tobacco could be at the discretion of your Doc. And how many Docs do you think would actually prescribe tobacco use for their patients? I don't think that conclusion can be drawn. it could also mean that they are in the pocket of tobacco companies, or that their constituents don't want them to address the issue, and they set their own preferences aside.
that happens in politics.
My premise was that neither party addresses tobacco use when they have the opportunity because they are in the pocket of tobacco companies and because of tobacco farming interests. Since, according to the CDC in 2015, only 15.1% of US adults smoke, and that number has dropped from 20% a decade ago, smokers are a declining voting block. Congress has gone against the wishes of a bigger portion of the population before, so I don’t really think it’s about the wishes of the voters. It’s more likely about the campaign contributions.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,798
|
Post by kadee79 on Nov 19, 2019 22:59:20 GMT -5
This thread is about vaping...not smoking...
However, I'd like to point out that not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer & many non-smokers do get lung cancer. Smoking may contribute to it, but it doesn't guarantee you will get it.
AND, look what happened when they banned liquor back in the days of Elliot Ness & all the "goons"!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 20, 2019 9:20:42 GMT -5
I don't think that conclusion can be drawn. it could also mean that they are in the pocket of tobacco companies, or that their constituents don't want them to address the issue, and they set their own preferences aside.
that happens in politics.
My premise was that neither party addresses tobacco use when they have the opportunity because they are in the pocket of tobacco companies and because of tobacco farming interests. Since, according to the CDC in 2015, only 15.1% of US adults smoke, and that number has dropped from 20% a decade ago, smokers are a declining voting block. Congress has gone against the wishes of a bigger portion of the population before, so I don’t really think it’s about the wishes of the voters. It’s more likely about the campaign contributions. They're probably a declining voter block, that doesn't mean people who want the federal government to stay out of this kind of thing are declining though. You can't equate "people who smoke" with "people who would oppose outlawing tobacco". I don't smoke, I'm fine with outlawing smoking in areas (like public areas or something) but I wouldn't want the government outlawing tobacco for people who want to use it. A quick Google suggests an article that says 25% of Americans support a total smoking ban (essentially making smoking totally illegal. What acts has Congress passed that had less than 25% support among Americans? And how have those acts turned out? Specifically acts that directly impacted how people live their day-to-day lives.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,372
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 20, 2019 9:51:02 GMT -5
My understanding is that the banning of flavored vapes is to reduce the appeal to teenagers (and apparently pre-teens).
The tobacco companies have all kinds of restrictions including mandatory health warnings (introduced by democrats), bans on television advertising (not sure who started that, but Nixon signed it into law, back when the parties could work together on stuff), mandatory anti-smoking campaigns paid for by tobacco taxes, lawsuits filed by democratic AG's that had big effects on the industry and the democrats giving additional power to the FDA over the tobacco industry. I'm sure someone could write a book on what laws are in place to curb cigarette use and who initiated them.
So, banning flavors wouldn't be an unreasonable proposal, and might deter younger vapors. But, I think the whole death thing is kinda unrelated to the flavors. Maybe we just care more when a teenager gets an acute lung disease that kills them, vs an older person?
Jule has stopped certain types of advertising that was targeting teens in hopes of avoiding liability. I believe over time, vape advertising will be more and more regulated and there will be the same kind of pressure to stop this at the teen level. But, not today.
|
|