Bloomberg is A Waste Of Oxygen Now He Wants To Hide Cigarettes

reply to post by lacrimaererum


Lacrimaererum

YOU calm down. there is no health risk to displaying cigarettes and the government has no excuse for interfereing with commerce in this way.

They are now at the point of banning smoking outside, not because there is any health risk but simply because they don't what "the children" to see smokers enjoying themselves.

Enough is enough!!!! Smokers need to fight back and non-smokers need to help us.

Next they will be banning fat people from going to the park to spare "the children" from seeing fat people enjoying themselves.

Tired of Control Freaks

Here is some good news for smokers!

The US FDA is dropping its fight to put grusome pictures on tobacco packs and going back to the drawing board

www.washingtonpost.com... -e32ad90da239_story.html

In a 19-page opinion, Leon ruled that the proposed requirements went too far because they were “neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks.” Rather, he wrote, they were intended to evoke emotional responses that would provoke people to quit smoking or never start. “Although an interest in informing or educating the public about the dangers of smoking might be compelling,” Leon wrote, “an interest in simply advocating that the public not purchase a legal product is not.”

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by Petriclivicus


Well, he believes that since it is a bad influence on children, ALL Cigarettes should be hidden out of sight so that children will not be influenced.

Well nude magazines are hidden or covered up (in the u.s) , nothing bad about it but it is kept out of sight mostly with children seeing it being the main reason. I think cigarettes are a lot worse to be seen in a kids everyday life to be honest. So if tits are so bad that they cant be shown to kids then why display not cancer inducing cigarettes for all kids to see as if it is normal?

the people in this thread that are outraged at the suggestion that someone might wish to conceal cigarettes to prevent children from seeing them are behaving in a very similar way to the people who spout from my cold dead hands in reference to gun control.

the similarities in personalities are quite amazing.

i really wonder how many people getting upset over this cigarette issue are also pro-gun advocates.

its like a part of society has evolved that just goes into a rage when anything new is suggested. people so scared of change , even for the good.

people want to try and help other people, give them advice maybe improve their health and lives and all they are met with his 'this is an outrage'

Q: maybe we should stop selling buckets of fizzy drinks?
A: argghhh rage, what about freedom of choice!! i deserve the right to drink a bucket of fizzy drink if i like, i wanna be obese and drive around on a mobility scooter for the rest of my life.

Q: maybe we should keep smokes outta view? might stop more kids taking up the habit? seems straightforward?
A: arrrgh rage!! freedom of choice!!! free speech!!! arrrgghh i have the right to increase my chances of getting cancer, i want my kids to have the right to increase the right to getting cancer !! arrrgghhh!!!

no matter what changes are suggested , it just seems that a certain section of people are so scared of any change they just automatically launch into an immediate objection mode.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

Now you are deliberately twisting my point

I am talking about dedicating a whole plane to smokers. There are many flights that leave from the same point of entry and fly to the same destinations throughout a day. Why can't there be a separate flight for smokers.

Why can't there be a separate train car for smokers?

Why can't some bars and restaurants be smoking bars and restaurants?

Then all you have to do to ensure your preference is choose to patronize flights, train cars, bars and restaurants that choose not to cater to smokers.

As for littering - I could not care less for your opinion! Why should I? People like you will never be happy until you have completely demonized smokers, robbed them blind with excessive taxes and in general, denied them the right to participate in society in the manner that they choose?

Explain to me why I should care about your opinion?

Why can't I have an ashtray in my own private vehicle? Why can't there be ashtrays in convenient spots where smokers gather? There are convenient trash cans for people to dispose of garbage but littering is still a problem.
Why should I, who is denied an ashtray and has no safe means of disposal of butts, not also litter?

Tired of Control Freaks

Because throwing your butts anywhere you please contributes to a littereing care free society, if you can't understand that basic concept then it is just beyond me to explain to you, make it your problem to at least try to make a difference, you just seem to have no respect for your human peers, your whole idiology is that if you can't do what you want screw everyone else, and screw whatever anyone else wants. You seem to lack empathy for others which is quite sad and in being "tired of control freaks" you just seem to be a control freak yourself.

I'm just asking something simple, throw away you cigarette butts, because if you can't even do that then your exactly the type of person who would throw plastic bags out your car etc. Make a difference, set an example.

You should start an airline or transport business that caters for smokers, it just doesn't make sense.

Business is about maximizing profits, airlines want their planes full to the brim, if there was designated airplanes, train cars etc, then supply and demand would be out of sync, smokers would be paying astronomical fees, then with the whole "everyone is against us" paranoia, people would still be moaning and complaining.

Truth is people need their means of transport and need to say thank you and amen if it's available and take what they get.

ETA: Seperate train cars, airplanes would also need more maintenance. to everyone, the transport business and the government, due to health consequences.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
the people in this thread that are outraged at the suggestion that someone might wish to conceal cigarettes to prevent children from seeing them are behaving in a very similar way to the people who spout from my cold dead hands in reference to gun control.

the similarities in personalities are quite amazing.

i really wonder how many people getting upset over this cigarette issue are also pro-gun advocates.

its like a part of society has evolved that just goes into a rage when anything new is suggested. people so scared of change , even for the good.

people want to try and help other people, give them advice maybe improve their health and lives and all they are met with his 'this is an outrage'

Q: maybe we should stop selling buckets of fizzy drinks?
A: argghhh rage, what about freedom of choice!! i deserve the right to drink a bucket of fizzy drink if i like, i wanna be obese and drive around on a mobility scooter for the rest of my life.

Q: maybe we should keep smokes outta view? might stop more kids taking up the habit? seems straightforward?
A: arrrgh rage!! freedom of choice!!! free speech!!! arrrgghh i have the right to increase my chances of getting cancer, i want my kids to have the right to increase the right to getting cancer !! arrrgghhh!!!

no matter what changes are suggested , it just seems that a certain section of people are so scared of any change they just automatically launch into an immediate objection mode.

Since you put it that way, you know for the kids and all. Seriously though, why do we constantly justify giving up our liberities for the children? Where do we draw the line at state intervention to protect our children?

Your justification for gun control and anti-smoking bans leads to one place. Nazi youth camps. I'll pass.

Originally posted by Mykey057420

Since you put it that way, you know for the kids and all.

Seriously though, why do we constantly justify giving up our liberities for the children? Where do we draw the line at state intervention to protect our children?

Your justification for gun control and anti-smoking bans leads to one place. Nazi youth camps. I'll pass.

what exactly is ,an 'anti-smoking bans' ? you cant even speak properly.

i was talking about placing cigarettes out of sight. i did not mention banning anything.

reply to post by Rubic0n


Rubicon

The question to ask here is not "why can't cigarette displays be hidden to "protect" the children". The question to ask here is "Should anything that affects the children be hidden from sight"

The would include: Alcohol. vchocolate, pop, sugared cereals, movie posters, all commercials must be sanitize ect etc etc.

The world is NOT Disney Land and barring children from any thing that might harm them would also leave them impaired to live in the world.

Consider this: In Canada, woman are allowed to be naked in public from the waist up. If children can see breasts in real life, is there really a necessity of hiding magazines with naked woman from there sight?

People fight in public where children can see. People get drunk in public where children can see. Smokers are forced to smoke on the street where children can see. People have car accidents and harm other people where children can see. People have sex where children can see. People kiss and cuddle where children can see.

Are you saying we should sanitize the world to protect the "children"?

What value is there is hiding cigarette displays?

Experience in the four countries where cigarettes displays have been implemented provide clear evidence that when cigarette displays are banned - the smoking rate among young teens RISES!

Then there is the issue of unduly interferring with commerce. I have tried to buy cigarettes in a store where displays are banned. It usually goes something like this....

I would like a package of Canadians, full strenth, regular size.

The clerk lifts the door and looks and reports that they are out of my brand.

Um...ok...well what other kinds do you have.

Well I can't show you but I have a written list that you can look at?

(meanwhile other customers are waiting)

When you buy an apple, apples are displayed in a pile or a bag. You see the apples and pick out the ones that you think you might like to eat. The ones that look attractive to you for whatever reason.

When the store is out of my brand, I want to see the packs because usually I see a brand that I tried before and didn't mind. The display reminds me that I tried that one a couple of months ago and have now forgotten about. It is usually the colour of the pack that reminds me of that brand.

Instead I am left to read a list that reminds me of nothing!!!!

Further, the cost to the convenience store is rather large - in the range of thousands of dollars.

Eventually, I am sure that customers just get tired of the hassle and go to a place where black or grey market cigarettes are sold.

This is a link to a study of the effect of tobacco display bans that you can read for yourself.

www.google.ca... 2593&ei=raxJUZ_HKaKE2gXmpICwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEPdRPfNULOomnRiVVI27vqkvWXLQ&bvm=bv.44011176,d.b2I

Further, store owners get money from tobacco companies for their tobacco displays. Why should store owners lose this stream of revenue for whatever dubious protection of the "children"

Are you going to replace those revenues?

Not to mention that in America - regulations pertaining to tobacco displays are the legislative responsibility of the FDA and the regulation strictly forbids anyone from interfering

Bloomberg lost in court when he tried to legislate stores by forcing them to display anti-smoking posters.

Bloomberg's Latest Nanny-State Initiative Could Be Overturned Too

reason.com...

Although his wish to make tobacco products invisible does depend on action by the city council, the absence of which helped doom his drink diktat, the rule he seeks seems to run afoul of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. That 1965 law bars states and municipalities from imposing any "requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health...with respect to the advertising or promotion of cigarettes." The policy Bloomberg wants certainly seems to fit that description, especially since his premise is that cigarette packages promote smoking.

Do law no longer apply to the behavior of prohibitionists? If anti-smokers can break laws, then why can't smokers?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by lacrimaererum


O.K.. . It is obvious that you are a non smoker. I am O.K. with that.
BUT,. .. How in the Hell is hiding the products going to keep kids from seeing them,
OR being exposed to them when they go home to parents that smoke?

This WHOLE Damn policy is a waste of time and TAX PAYERS Dollars.

What part of that do you fail to see.. . .?

Of course this was implemented in Australia first. We are a test subject.
They even wanna take cigarettes off the shelf in Tasmania. I can see them doing it too, its a test to see how far they can push people.

reply to post by Petriclivicus


i smoked for about 20years. sometimes like a train. don't know how long i tried quitting but i eventually succeeded. every week now i find out about someone else i know who has cancer.

you know the old guys who smoked all their lives, the guys in their 90's. they smoked one after their dinner every day. maybe a couple.

they didn't open their eyes in the morning and reach for the smokes beside the bed. lit one up and kept smoking the whole day. that was introduced in hollywood. the hero reaches for a smoke as soon as they wake and we see the next few weeks in their lives and they are smoking all the time.always a smoke in their hand. so we copy them and smoke all the way through the 70's 80's and 90's. Remember Ghostbusters. A kids film from the mid eighties. I don't think there was much screen time where there wasn't someone smoking on screen.

Thats why everyone is dying of cancer now. Most places I worked you didn't even need to light a cigarette. Everyone else smoked and you sometimes couldn't see with the amount of smoke. that is the truth.

you wanna smoke, i don't care. work away.

i just don't understand how people can freak out over wanting to put a harmful product out of sight.

people are reacting like babies. its that simple.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


So, you don't get it.

I think the impact of what kids see at home is going to have more of an effect on them than what they see at the store. Don't you agree?

If so, then how don't you see that it is a waste of time and tax payers dollars?

Also, have a look at the statistics and you will see that people dying of cancer is NOT limited to smokers. Most of the people I know that have died of cancer have Never Smoked.

reply to post by Petriclivicus


What is really hysterical about this whole thing is that it is estimated that over forty percent of cigarette packages or cartons purchased in the New York/New Jersey area, are purchased on the streets from the Mafia. They're cheaper because the purchaser doesn't pay taxes on the black market cigarettes.

Is Blooomberg getting a payoff from the mob to increase the sale of black market cigarettes?

Stranger things have happened.

Oh, yeah. In the same area, one can purchase a Kalashnikov from the mob at a cheaper rate than going across the border to purchase one at a gun shop or gun show. And the Five Families will also sell you ammo.

Hey, I hear the mob is making a killing....pardon the pun.....selling 32 ounce sodas from street vendors licensed by the Gambino Crime Family...

A super huge DUH............

People get to see his face on display constantly, doesn't influence young people to be pathologically stupid!

in australia not only are the cigs hidden behind shutters but all cig packs are now the same colour, a dark sedge green, that includes cigs, hand rolling tobacco and pipe tobacco, no company names except in small black letters that blend in with the basic green colouring and the only pictures on them are the warnings, even the cigs themselves dont have the brand name on the top of the filter, just a code number

Originally posted by Mykey057420

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
the people in this thread that are outraged at the suggestion that someone might wish to conceal cigarettes to prevent children from seeing them are behaving in a very similar way to the people who spout from my cold dead hands in reference to gun control.

the similarities in personalities are quite amazing.

i really wonder how many people getting upset over this cigarette issue are also pro-gun advocates.

its like a part of society has evolved that just goes into a rage when anything new is suggested. people so scared of change , even for the good.

people want to try and help other people, give them advice maybe improve their health and lives and all they are met with his 'this is an outrage'

Q: maybe we should stop selling buckets of fizzy drinks?
A: argghhh rage, what about freedom of choice!! i deserve the right to drink a bucket of fizzy drink if i like, i wanna be obese and drive around on a mobility scooter for the rest of my life.

Q: maybe we should keep smokes outta view? might stop more kids taking up the habit? seems straightforward?
A: arrrgh rage!! freedom of choice!!! free speech!!! arrrgghh i have the right to increase my chances of getting cancer, i want my kids to have the right to increase the right to getting cancer !! arrrgghhh!!!

no matter what changes are suggested , it just seems that a certain section of people are so scared of any change they just automatically launch into an immediate objection mode.

Since you put it that way, you know for the kids and all.

Seriously though, why do we constantly justify giving up our liberities for the children? Where do we draw the line at state intervention to protect our children?

It is tiring to see that occur every single time. Children are being used as a shield to justify peoples arguments in so many ways. By now , to me , it indicates a weak case to the argument the moment i see people use the "for the children.." line.

This has been the norm in Canada for quite sometime now. Not really a big deal. Strange yes, but not a big deal.

reply to post by Quoop


Quoop

I live in Canada - Big whoop to me! Big whoop to the convenience store owners. How many stores closed in your area? Who lost their livelyhoods?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


And how many people in your area has lost their lives through smoking?

More importantly, how many people in your areas life has been influenced by people smoking around them? The number is likely going down. Wonder why?

Kykweer

Well, I'm in the UK, and back in the early 1990's I used to own an independent Off-License shop (Liquor Store).

I don't smoke. In fact I really dislike smoking as a habit.
It seems a bit pointless, expensive and harmful to me, but if you want to, then by all means please do! (As long as I don't have to breathe the UN-FILTERED smoke that your cig is creating.)

Anyway, when I opened my shop, I made a conscious decision NOT to sell tobacco products, because I don't like smoking and didn't want to enable or "encourage" smoking by selling such items to others. It felt two-faced and hypocritical to me.

But, I quickly built up a stream of regular customers who practically begged me to stock cigarettes, so I decided that, as a favour to my regulars, I would stock a limited amount of cigs, but that I wouldn't put them on open display (thereby keeping my regular customers happy, without encouraging others!)

It worked very well for me, and I'm quite happy to see that the rest of the world is starting to catch up!

I may have lost out on a potential income stream, but at least I found a compromise which kept my customers happy, without me having to "bend" my principles too much.

I never once received any hostility with regards to my policy of non-display either, and am quite surprised at how heated the discussion here has become.

GTD