Additive free cigarettes are not quite the tasteless item one might think they are. Both Winston and American Spirit make a additive free cigarette and they're both good smokes. I usually roll my own and I use additive free tobacco for my needs and have no complaints whatsoever.
123 days ago | Tagged As: yes
If Tabacco is what people want to smoke, then what is the need for all the additives? If it is just the companies's way of making money off the ignorance and health of people, then this is a malicious action and it shouldn't be allowed. Smokers have the right to a good smoke. ;-)
123 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I don't smoke, but I fully intend to one day (what an unfortunate life plan), and the "healthier" my smoke is, the better.
122 days ago | Tagged As: yes
See, that's great thinking right there. I'd love to light me up a good tobacco pipe, but if they took out all of the poison that made it that much worse, I'd be grateful.
122 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
No, for the same reason drugs shouldn't be forbidden. Each human being is responsible for his/her own life. As long as we are all well informed about the addictive or poisonous effects of a substance, it's up to us to decide wether or not to consume it. The problem is that while there is a lot of propaganda about the bad effects of other drugs, it's harder for people to notice how bad cigarrettes really are. The simple fact that they are legal is enough for a lot of people to think they are not so bad. So what happens here is that we are not well informed.
123 days ago | Tagged As: No
"Each human being is responsible for his/her own life" - I personally have higher hopes for the nature of human beings as being able to exhibit some care for each other's lives, other than their own. People by themselves do not go out and put the poisonous additives alone, they were led into making this "choice" because this is the tabacco that was made available by the companies. The harmful product is put out there by someone who wants to make money, and then we make the "choice". Its not like people went out and asked companies to put the additives in. It is an artificially created demand. There are more than 600 additives in cigarettes, which are not regulated and are used in order to make the product more addictive and that make it easier to start smoking or continue smoking. Most of this additives are unknown. Currently in Europe the European governments don't even have the right to demand information about the addittives from the companies. This makes it "being well informed" almost impossible. Tabacco companies cater to a demand, which companies have taken advantage off by adding substances that the consumer initially didn't ask for. I do not see why it is acceptable that Companies behave in ways that are careless to the consumers to whom they cater a service or a product.
123 days ago | Tagged As: yes
You totally changed the meaning of what I said, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I meant is that when it comes to our own lives, we should be given the freedom to choose how we want to live. I share with you the ideal of people being more caring towards others. I just think we disagree on how this should be achieved: you seem to rely on laws, I rely on proper education and information. It's just unfair when we are not provided with proper information. Powerful companies use psychological tricks in adds, carefully choosing images and wording in order to blind us from the true addictive and destructive nature of their product. As you said, we are an easy prey. And it's not hard to realize that the only reason why these things are still out there is because they are a huge source of money. What you fail to see is that companies are not the only ones gaining in this game - the government also is. One of the most ridiculous arguments for the legalization of drugs is "Let's tax it!", which shows the real nature of a government which is not there for the people, but for money and power at any costs. Should tobacco companies be forced to take the poisonous additives out of cigarettes? No. Who would force them, the government? Who is gonna force the government, us? I don't thing that doing things by force really solves anything, we've got too used to fighting. We fight for our health, governments/companies fight for their power. Can you blame them in this horrible selfish world we have created? I think that problems like this, or of companies polluting the environment or exploiting employers won't be solved by simply "forcing" them to do good. We need to make people aware (this includes those in power), to inform and educate them about how a less selfish world is better for all of us, and stop relying on laws and governments.
123 days ago | Tagged As: No
I agree with you on the importance of informing and educating the public. Sadly however, because these companies are given too much freedom, they are not required to provide essential information to the consumer. In a situation without laws where every agent is entitled with freedom to conduct himself in however manner they want, no one is protected. This is the situation you are implicitly supporting. Ideally the information would be available and the public could be educated. However this would not occurr without the proper means to assure it; meaning, the proper laws. Then companies emerge that will not disclose information because they do not have to. What means do you suggest to ensure proper information and education of the public? I suggest laws that protect consumer from the schemes you mentioned such as psychological manipulation through marketing, misleading information, lack of transparency, etc. It seems to me that sometimes we rely too much on the good will of companies to give us the products that we love made in conditions that we approve. But this is not the case. We as consumers are not given all the information to make educated choices, why? because there are no laws requiring the companies to disclose this, and laws are not sufficient to limit the means by which companies take our money. Tobacco companies should be required (because you seem to be against the use of the word force) to take out the additives because the intent in using them is not to fulfill a natural demand from the consumers, but to create an addiction. At the same time the means by which they are creating the product is not transparent to the public, which further limits our ability to be educated. The additives are not serving the needs of a free choice of the public only the will of the corporations. I do not support such a world where everyone is allowed to behave in manners that are harmful to others. A world without laws requires us to respect and value each other's humanity. Selling poison in a misleading package is not respectful of my life or that of my peers.
123 days ago | Tagged As: yes
The problem is that educating people about the consequences of cigarettes costs time and money. Also, some people are stupid or self-destructive and will continue to smoke anyway. Cigarettes are a useless drain on society. If criminalization of drugs was effective, I'd be for it, but since it's not, strong regulations are the next best thing.
122 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Or make tabacco illegal and then let makers add as many harmful things as they want to enable smokers to get a bigger kick. As a legal product it should be made under the government health standards.
123 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Maybe it is made to the government health standards to help control the population growth. By killing off people every year through the use of tobacco companies. Why else wouldn't they be shut down they are under government protection. Evil government conspiracy lol yes this is only a joke so don't think I really believe it.
120 days ago | Tagged As: No
The reason why smokers love cigs so much is because of all that poison. Think about it, would you legalize XTC with the conditions that all neural blockers are removed? it takes away the point of doing it in the first place.
123 days ago | Tagged As: No
They should add more poisons to them. A few suggested ones are arsenic, lead, mercury and deacon. Why should they die slowly? Besides there is too many people in the world anyway. Maybe we could get the gov't to use this to control population.
123 days ago | Tagged As: No
I say no because it's the companies choice. It is no other person's fault than the smokers choosing to buy these cigs full of garbage. Not the companies.
123 days ago | Tagged As: No
To play Devil's advocate for a moment, we have the FDA to regulate that all items available for consumption are safe enough for us to use. Why should companies be given the choice to add addictive substances in an effort to hook people for life, instead of being forced to use tobacco alone? Shouldn't the FDA protect smokers too?
123 days ago | Tagged As: yes
The FDA is corrupted. They pass what they want and ignore what they want. They pass alcohol and that stuff ain't healthy either. Plus, there ARE products that are just tobacco... they're mostly known as cigars. Smokers know they have the option of other tobacco products over cigs... and pretty much every cig smoker is aware they're addicted to them, and they're aware they're addicting from someone else's verdict when they decided to smoke some anyway. I really don't think the FDA is responsible for it all. Everyone likes to blame the FDA for the countries troubles with drugs and even FOOD. HA!
122 days ago | Tagged As: No
I could not agree more, honestly. The FDA is terribly corrupt. But I still think they have an obligation, through their very nature, to regulate all consumables for the best health of our nation. If they weren't in the pockets of the corporations, then perhaps we would be a healthier people. I don't really have a problem with alcohol, except in terms of it being legal while marijuana, a lesser drug, is not. Nonetheless, I agree with your argument that smokers know there are other products, though cigars are not a better alternative. American Spirit, Appu Bidi's, and other purely-tobacco cigarettes are better, while smokeless tobacco products are the best (if a person is going to smoke, that is). On the other hand, I disagree with you saying the FDA should not be held responsible. The FDA is established specifically for the purpose of regulating drugs and food and ensuring they are healthy for our use. If they fail at that, we ought to blame them.
122 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
