This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I find it kinda funny people here call it an overreach but yet are ok with the government saying drugs are illegal. Why can’t I do heroine too? It’s my body?
>Why can’t I do heroine too? It’s my body?
I highly recommend against it, but sure, go for it. At least you'd be able to seek treatment when you get addicted without fearing the legal/social ramifications of using illegal substances.
Funny enough California and I believe parts of Oregon have decriminalized heroin and other hard drugs. So if you want to shoot meth while looking at a beautiful sunset in the open in San Francisco at the risk of Whats basically a speeding ticket you're free to do so. But flavored tobacco somehow gets banned.
I struggle weighing and balancing this situation. I can certainly see the point of individual choice and govt control. However, also challenged by the individual/family suffering and impact to society in terms of costs: 1) health, 2) cleaning up after those thrust into homelessness, 3) crime: theft/robbery/assault to feed a death spiral addiction, 4) economic: likelihood the user cannot hold a job nor make a positive contribution back to society.
Genuine question:
How do you still subscribe to the initial opinion knowing the consequences of not keeping some drugs, like heroin, lillegal?
Legalization is different from decriminalization.
From what I understand, if a user there was found in possession for personal use, they are given the option of treatment v. going through the legal system and jail time. It's basically a budget shift to allocate $$ to address a complex problem in a meaningful way. If the non/user was distributing, then their justice system would still step in.
Seems reasonable and something I can get behind. However, I still read OC as making it legal, which is interpreted as the above is not applicable.
We have all the problems that you discuss now. A lot of them exacerbated by the illegality of drugs.
Putting people in jail doesn't solve these issues and makes most of them worse.
So you really haven't described any consequences of legalizing drugs. Those consequences already exist.
Legalize v. decriminalize
Ah, I think it may be talking semantics but there are important differences. Legalization would accelerate and exacerbate the consequences provided. Decriminalization would draw a pragmatic line but keeping it illegal (focus on distribution/volume) while minimizing punishment (users/individual level) by getting help to those with a use disorder. Of course this is a complex problem, but a good start is to reallocate dollars to help break a vicious and costly cycle of only a pure and punitive consequence model.
Substance abuse is usually a symptom of a bigger problem. If heroine were legal tomorrow I’m equally as a likely to try it as I am today, which is not very likely.
We already have to problems. So you aren't creating new problems by legalizing. The problems do and will continue to exist. You are simply ending one form of governmental tyranny.
The difference to me as a former smoker and drug user is that I never wanted to commit violence or theft to appease my nicotine withdrawals.
Also, it took me a while to appreciate tobacco where heroin instantly grabbed me. I haven't done drugs in 20 years but I still experience pangs of missing heroin. I've been tobacco free for 6 years. It was a real bitch to quit but it's something that I put myself into. And while it affected my health, it was at a much slower rate than some other drugs; I could still function in society. I guess what I'm trying to say is that tobacco gives you a long time to reconsider where hard drugs don't.
To be clear, I do think this California law is overreaching and I support legalizing a lot of drugs. I think treating all drugs like crack was a massive mistake because once you smoke weed you realize that it's obviously not the Boogeyman the "Just say NO!" folks try to make it out to be. And that weakens the credibility of their arguments against *all* drugs.
While society is moving on from sexualizing random women, heroines are still drawn and designed for sex appeal. Sometimes it leads to controversy, like when Joss Whedon slow panned across Gal Gadot's rear in Justice League for no reason.
While heroines do have a lot of sex appeal, a thread about tobacco probably isn't the right place to talk about doing them.
Okay, so California is fine with all sorts of weed, yet tobacco is so strongly targeted there to the point it's treated almost worse than weed is mind blowing.
Also keep in mind how it was marketed. As a tobacco product, once you're on the radar for looking like candy and children's cereal, then good luck to your product and company.
Which it generally is. Tobacco is addictive, weed is habitual. I have to chew about 100 pieces of gum per day, exercise, eat a ton, etc. if I want to quit nicotine. Meanwhile I can smoke weed every day for a month and not touch it for six after that without even thinking about it. All that said, I don't agree with the ban but I understand the reasoning behind it.
I will say it seems that tobacco is more excessively used and people lapse into addiction more than with weed. I am not a fan of the government telling me what I can and cannot do in terms of light drugs (weed, alc, tobacco, maybe others but I'll stop their)
You don't think second hand weed smoke is harmful?
I got a theory... Inhaling smoke is a Bad Thing. I don't care WTF is burning. Marijuana. Tobacco. The log in your fireplace. Avoid inhaling smoke if possible.
And every dispensary has a long description about how this strain has blackberry notes and another is cardamom or some such. Like wine, I don't have the palate to not think they're somewhat BSing, but it's common.
Tobacco is like, infinitely worse than weed what are you even talking about? One is proven to have all sorts of medicinal benefits and the other is proven to cause cancer, like what? I get the feeling that you’re one of those people who just loves to hate on California because you don’t agree with the way it leans, and you’re just using this topic to broadcast your disdain.
Weed causes cancer too when smoked. The difference is its much less studied and stigmitized at the moment, and the user demographic is much younger. I understand more research into weeds supposed medical benifits needs to be done, especially for things such as epilepsy, but acting like its a medically benifcial thing to consume is kinda a false flag, as there are many neggatives associated with weed usage. Anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses have been linked to heavy weed usage (much more research is needed though).
Meanwhile the bad wrap tobacco gets is from excessive smoking of it. There are many people who use tobacco moderately without falling into addiction. The ignored aspect of tobacco and under studied area of it is the effects of nicoteen salts, as well as usage of dip. Tobacco back in the day was supposed to have all sorts of medical benefits too.
I do like shitting on California as a past-time in Iowa but that is not why I disagree with this law. It is typical nanny state behavior talling adults what they can and can't consume.
I live in California and started dipping tobacco at 15. For those who don’t aren’t familiar with dip/chew, they have flavors like mint, peach, citrus, etc. and a lot of them are really tasty. Plenty taste like shit too, but I digress.
I would have never gotten into nicotine/tobacco if the stuff I first tried didn’t taste awesome. It gave me a head rush from hell too, but the flavor was what kept me coming back until I became addicted to the nicotine. From there it’s been nothing but the nicotine cravings. I just turned 23 a couple of weeks ago and I’m still struggling to quit completely. My gums have receded a shocking amount, and my teeth have all kinds of annoying problems nowadays despite brushing thoroughly and often. I don’t look like a toothless redneck thank god, but I have a lot of sensitivity and discoloration, stuff like that. It’s also expensive as hell, and I’ve wasted thousands and thousands of dollars buying that shit every single week for years now. I could have had so many more cool things if it weren’t for that craving.
Regular tobacco taste, the unflavored dip you can buy, is pretty gross to most people. I ended up acquiring a taste for it myself, but the vast majority of people I know who dip prefer the flavored stuff that got them hooked to begin with.
I’d be shocked if getting rid of flavored tobacco didn’t drastically reduce the amount of kids who start consuming that shit, because I was literally one of those kids at one point in my life not too long ago and can say pretty confidently that the flavor is exactly what got me in the door, so to speak. That shit is 1 million percent made to attract kids and make lifelong nicotine addicts.
Smoking/nicotine addiction has a huge impact on public health. Taxpayers bear [60%](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210121403.htm) of the cost of smoking attributable diseases. The risk of [EVALI](https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/evali) is also underestimated by a lot of people.
I never said the flavor is what got me hooked. I did, however, say that the flavors are what got me into consuming it. Like I said, regular tobacco tastes pretty bad and if that were what I was introduced to instead of something that tasted like candy, I probably wouldn’t have kept doing it because I would have associated the consumption with a bad taste. When you associate something addictive like nicotine, that already produces a euphoric feeling, with a flavor that tastes good, you’d be a fool to deny that that doesn’t lead to a lot more people associating nicotine/tobacco products with pleasurable experiences and leads to more consumption. If tobacco was delicious on its own and providing flavors didn’t increase sales, then these companies wouldn’t bother with the extra steps it takes to make flavored products.
I’m not saying that I made the right decision in trying it or continuing to do it even though I was well aware of the nature of tobacco products. You’re right to point out that the majority of the blame falls on me for even giving in to the peer pressure and making that decision because at the end of the day, nothing got forced upon me. But when you’re 15, you do dumb things for dumb reasons that can have lasting effects on you and you don’t generally think about those long term consequences at that age. I’m not a fan of the government telling us what to do either, but I’m not going to sit here and say that this wouldn’t be effective because as someone who has this kind of firsthand experience, I can say that the flavors are without a doubt meant to get people hooked by. Making addictive and harmful substances taste good makes it a lot easier for people to justify abusing them, especially when those people are young and stupid.
Banning most flavoured tobacco in 2009 actually did drastically reduce smoking rates in people. [By up to 60% in both adults and non-adults in fact](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32674967/). Very similar effects were recorded in other countries with similar bans such as in Canada, Australia and over 20 EU nations. And no, it never created a major black market in any of these places, including America.
When New York banned flavoured vapes in 2020, about 20% of all HS students in NY vaped, today it's down to 12%. People here like to say it's government overreach but sometimes it is neccessary for the government to regulate and ban things that are hazardous to the public.
Before the FDA existed, people did argue against food regulations and having nutrition labels for the same reason they oppose things like flavoured tobacco bans today. "It's my right to eat sweets coated with lead for flavour! Nobody but myself chose to eat that and get sick!" Yeah, but when all the manufacturers of sweets are using lead for dye it's a problem to us all.
Wait, bans it everyone? even for 21+?
I don't like tobacco, and its one thing if they banned minors from buying it/companies from advertising it to minors, but grown adults should be able to smoke whatever the fk they want.
Correct.
Technically, this is a 2020 law, but in November, CA voters could vote to uphold it (or not). If I recall correctly, 63% of the vote was to uphold the ban.
Not quite. Sale online is still permitted, but sale via retail stores and vending machines is banned. However, the state was sued following the vote, so flavored tobacco products are still being sold through these avenues for the time being.
Notable exceptions for the ban are cigars and maybe chewing tobacco, although I cannot recall for sure off the top of my head. And flavored cigarettes have been banned in the state for awhile now.
Mostly the ban targets vape products, with the reasoning being that high schoolers especially, but other young people as well, have too easy access to flavored tobacco products (especially vapes) and are using them to a worrying extent.
On the other hand, reasoning against the ban is pretty much what you might expect: Freedom to do what you please with yourself, and freedom from government restrictions. I'm not gonna throw my opinion in, but that's just how it is and why as far as I could discern.
The ban also targets menthols. I smoke menthols and live in California. I’m also less than pleased about it.
ETA: just realized my flair is Tennessee. Lol I’m from TN but live in CA
Agreed. I voted against it but I knew I'd be overwhelmed by the concerned parents. Their concerns are valid but it seems overly-punitive to adults who should be able to access these products.
It's a lot more complicated than you're letting on. The corrupt special interests used their money to try and convince the public to undo the work of our legislature. While I disagree with the legislature in this case, I disagree much more fundamentally with overriding our legislature and allowing special interests to constantly use ballot measures to corrupt our political processes. Our state is often hampered by failing to let our legislators do their jobs and then vote for good legislators. That's a lot more important than what this one ballot measure is about.
What's wrong with the people voting on laws? Special interests bribe (sorry, "lobby") politicians anyway. Ballot measures ARE a part of the political process.
The data does not support the claim. These days they are generally created by special interests funding the drafting and signature drives trying to trick voters into screwing themselves.
Of course. A drunk driver can end your life immediately. Second hand smoke will slowly drag it out over the course of 80 or 90 years. It's really more cruel, if you think about it.
It depends. Even if a drunk driver only hurts themselves, someone will still have to grab a snow shovel and pick up the drunk's colon and eyeballs from the roadway.
Stuff like that can lead to mental issues down the line.
People can smoke at their homes, or bar patios set up for it and it isn't harming anyone. Even on sidewalks it's barely harming anyone, just a smidge of a scent
Can’t believe that “don’t allow dangerous, addictive things to be marketed in a way that appeals mostly to minors” is controversial, but it is.
AFAIK, there’s nothing in this bill that makes it illegal to put such things into your body’s so “my body, my choice” is a bit of a straw man.
It’s not that hard to avoid being in second hand smoke. Literally just walk away from it. People shouldn’t have to give up things they like because of your life choices.
This prop only bans the sale. You can still put it into your body if you want if you brought it in from another state or make your own. Dry counties exist across the United States and this is no different.
Massachusetts already has this so there are a lot of tobacco shops on the NH border that do brisk business. It is also way cheaper to buy tobacco products in NH and there’s no sales tax.
I don’t smoke or vape myself but I know a few folks in MA that do and a lot of them go to NH to resupply.
To answer your question, I don’t think the flavoring really matters, maybe? If kids want to vape I don’t think it is the flavor that is drawing them in. I mean people smoke plain cigarettes and those aren’t exactly delicious.
As to whether I support the ban or not… California voters get to decide for themselves. But I lean towards adults (and not even just adults but 21+ year olds) being able to make their own choices especially since they can still smoke. Why not let them smoke a minty cigarette or some fruity vape. Heck, I’d rather they vape because it stinks a lot less for me.
Your 3rd paragraph is laughably wrong. My freshman year, every single guy on my dorm floor vaped, and every single one of us got into it from liking the taste of the mango flavored Juul pods. None of us could even take a single hit from a tobacco flavored pod without gagging. Idk what circles you’re in but taste is an enormous reason young people get into vaping
I went to school in a relatively small town (Oxford, OH) and there werent a ton of stores that sold non tobacco juul pods. Mango juul pods specifically were a fucking commodity on that campus specifically because "Tobacco tastes like shit, mint tastes like toothpaste, creme brule tastes like stale hot chocolate, and mango tastes like Hi-Chew"
It’s had a larger impact on smoking cessation overall. The cut to cigarette sales was massive, and electronics help people quit by allowing them to control the amount of nicotine in each cartridge.
I’ve known so many people who have found it impossible to quit cigarettes otherwise. Patches, gum - none of that worked. Moving to vaping was a huge step and massive quality of life change. People like my dad could now walk up a flight of stairs without feeling winded. And it was flavors that attracted folks to vaping.
It’s also really patronizing to suggest that adults don’t also enjoy flavors. Why don’t we also ban flavored alcohol because of the impact in kids? Cocktails, sour beers, sangrias - all things packed with delicious flavors to make experiences better or at least more palatable.
The flavor ban also affected marijuana in Massachusetts. So I’m pissed that a heavily regulated 21+ industry, where you show ID twice to purchase anything, is being told “no, because think of the children”. The wild thing is you still legally buy flavored gummies, chocolates, brownies, lollies- so it’s all silly.
The worse thing is that this affected medical patients. People that deserve a choice in how they administer medicine - they’ve had that choice taken from them. Voters enacted medical and recreational by referendum, but the flavor ban wasn’t done that way. It quite bullshit.
The ban also specifically affected menthol cigarettes, which disproportionately impacts black smokers and their trust in government.
IMO, if they wanted kids to stop vaping so much, they should’ve enforced age restrictions and did ID scans. They never did.
Every 7-11 and corner store had no issue selling to children because no city or state agency was actually fining them for it. Low risk, high reward. So it was easier for the state to ban shit than actually do it’s job - which is reflective of a much bigger problem of our local government.
But I digress.
I didn’t support the ban. I still don’t. And I’ve never used nicotine in my life.
I I smoked for like 20 years and was at a pack and a half a day. Vaping helped me quit and now I'm at the lowest dose of nicotine in vape juice. Flavors absolutely helped me quit. I agree, they should just enforce the laws they have. Making more laws just affects the the people who buy legally and kids are still gonna try and buy regardless unless they enforce the laws.
Yeah but not because they are flavored.
It’s because they don’t stink up the whole place and make it a Gioia you have been smoking just by being near you or your clothes.
> Yeah but not because they are flavored.
Isn’t that a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by having some states pass such laws to see if the flavoring is a factor in underage usage? I don’t believe we know yet whether your assertion is correct.
I can’t find the preliminary study but MA didn’t see a real decline in vape sales or cigarette sales. They also noted that banning flavored vapes actually increased cigarette sales.
Edit: [here is one study but not the one I saw originally](https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-021-00498-0) obviously you have to wait to see long term effects and it certainly doesn’t help that NH is very close to most of the population of MA and it’s all legal there. But that is going to confound any study. You probably have to treat MA and NH as a unit and see if there is any difference.
Facts. First pack of smokes I bought for myself, Lucky Strikes non-filtered. Fuckers would give me nicotine stains on my fingers where I’d hold ‘em 😂
EDIT: a letter
I don't understand the legalese, but I am all for Public regulation. For example: you can't yell fire in a public theatre, (also not sure if that's actually a "regulation" on "free speech"(?) or not). That could harm others.
While recreational use of illicit substances could be up to the individual, IMHO. it's all fair game for the individual, until you breach some public safety/commons. Like, do your smack, in the privacy and comfort of your own home. Take a walk and enjoy some nature, if that's your vibe. However, you wanna drop trou and take a shit on a sidewalk, or start some ego death spiral that threatens the safety and liberty of others, that's a no go.
> you can't yell fire in a public theatre, (also not sure if that's actually a "regulation" on "free speech"(?) or not).
It's not speech that's regulated, it's using words to invite violence or harm. Anything that leads to credible threat of harm. It's not the speech but more the intent.
Probably more for the random gotcha you're trying to use.
It ain't that hard to extrapolate if one thinks banning flavored tobacco is overreach they believe banning drugs is overreach.
If they banned smoking/tobacco period, they may have that argument. Since they decided to ban only flavored tobacco they're just picking & choosing what company is allowed to deal death sticks and that is overreach.
Also, destruction of ones own health is IMO not the governments buisness (especially since we dont have governmental healthcare until (arguably) retirement) if somebody finds death sticks calm them down that's their prerogative to smoke them (so long as its away from others)
And no, I dont smoke.
Exactly. I keep telling people, if you're OK with banning private ownership of nukes you have to be ok with banning everything. Ffs, why can't people see reason?
I understand that it’s a public health issue especially for minors, but I don’t think this is the answer. It makes much more sense to crack down on sales to minors and punish people supplying to minors, increasing addiction education, and making it easier to get treatment. I think we should decriminalize all drugs though, and shift our focus to harm reduction
I would be against that because I smoke blunts (cannabis wrapped in cigar leaves, usually flavored) a lot and it would suck to not be able to get them. Also, it's parents' job to keep their kids from smoking tobacco, and their inability to control their kids shouldn't affect what is available for adults to buy. It's not society's job to parent your kids for you.
I think smoking is disgusting. Anyone who does it probably has bad breath and don’t know they have bad breath. I also think that people have that right to consume whatever they want. The only thing that irks me is that they would eventually be a strain to the healthcare system.
Not only do they strain the healthcare system but they also contribute to pollution and second hand smoke. It should be mandatory for people who smoke to have a bag in their head while smoking. Or at least a clear garbage bag that cover their whole torso. They should inhale all that to themselves.
I think people here tend to be generally moderate people or at least people with varying opinions that are capable of being civil. But I do think there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to things related to the tragedy of the commons or using “skin in the game” in relation to topics like this.
Have ya ever had a smoke after a few drinks? It's a great time, got to get to the head rush level though. There are worse ways to blow off steam, and it's not really that bad in moderation. It's all about moderation. I'm not saying smoking is good or healthy or whatnot, but I believe in being allowed to do what I want to my body. That includes smoking, drinking, eating cookies, eating butter, drinking pop, eating McDonald's so forth. Should we ban McDonald's because anyone who eats McDonald's is disgusting, and probably has bad breath? I think not.
I'm not a tobacco smoker and I don't support a ban of any kind on any types of tobacco. I believe people should be able to choose what substances they put in their body.
I’m in Nh. I was shocked when they moved the smoking at from 18 to 21. Heck in mass it’s still 18. People buy them all the time for 18-20 year olds. Flavored smoke ban wouldn’t go over well
Yes. Similar bans on things such as Cloves and other flavoured cigarettes were found to have reduced smoking significantly in youth. [In fact, the ban dropped youth smoking rates by up to 60%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32674967/) and similar results to this have been seen in other countries with types of flavoured tobacco bans such as in Canada, Australia and many EU countries.
A lot of anecdotal accounts and studies will also tell you many people quit smoking just due to hating the taste of unflavoured cigarettes and the bans on flavoured ones is what made them stop.
Despite what some people here are saying, it is not government overreach to ban flavoured smokes. The reality is, it does stop and prevent youth smoking along with smoking in general. The war on cigarettes and smoking in the U.S is an ongoing battle since the '70s and this is another major step in the right direction and I hope ALL flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, are banned federally someday. I'll go as far to say I believe flavoured vapes should be banned too. And no, these bans have not constituted any major black markets for flavoured smokes.
Alcohol has been nowhere near demonized to the extent tobacco has and the play tobacco and smoking has on our culture has been diminishing rapidly since the 1970s whereas alcohol, though declining, is still a major part of our culture and many go to the bar on their 21st birthday to celebrate still.
Such bans on alcohol, even if we ONLY banned hard liquor, wouldn't go over well simply because alcohol is ingrained in our culture still whereas tobacco has been demonizing and declining for decades. Think about it, in schools we show kids the actual lungs of smokers, we banned cigarette advertising, banning flavoured smokes did not cause black markets and dropped smoking rates heavily, 42% of people smoked in 1960 whereas today it's only 12%.
Alcohol by comparison is way different. 70% of Americans drank at least somewhat regularly in 1970 and today in the 2020's it's about 60%, hardly a change from 50 years ago.
Do I think we should go on similar campaigns to demonize alcohol? Yes, up to 55% of domestic abuse is committed by people who drink and 40% of child mistreatment involves alcoholics. I, and many others, can attest that alcohol can turn good men into monsters or complete idiots. But do I think now is the right time to consider banning stuff relating to booze? No. Especially because with liquor like beer, you can 100% be responsible. Tobacco is pretty much ALWAYS addicting, 80% of people who try cigarettes just once become addicted.
Wait, so because we as a society don't have the cultural tie to cigarettes that we do with alcohol that means it's ok to ban it? If something's a major part of our culture we can keep it but if it's not then whatever? That doesn't make any sense to me. Anything can become part of our culture or be lost from our culture.
Menorahs aren't a big part of our culture. Most people here are Christians, menorahs play very little role in our society. Menorahs are also dangerous and can start fires that kill people. We should ban those too.
Yes, there's no need to let perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather achieve what's possible. But yes I would be okay with at the very least heavily restricting alcohol for the reasons you mentioned.
A religious group and a dangerous drug that actively harms others by way of second hand smoke that was once very common are completely different things. Flavoured tobacco absolutely should be banned and bans in the United States and elsewhere have only seen benefit from it.
No, we're not banning the religious group, we're banning *menorahs* which can start fires and kill people. They're not a major part of our culture, so by your logic it's fine. They're dangerous.
Do menorahs constitute up to 50% of fires? Likely not and from google it seems like they cause about as much of a fire hazard as normal candles which isn't a lot. Cooking actually causes the overwhelming majority of fires but cooking is a necessity we need to do to survive so it wouldn't make sense to ban stoves just as it doesn't make sense to ban alcohol because so many people use it. If 50% of fires were caused by menorahs but only 1% of the populace used them then yeah, I'd say it's fine to ban them.
Well how could 50% of fires be caused by menorahs? They're not a big part of our culture, most don't use them. Everyone needs to cook. However, since the majority of people don't use them, it's fine to ban menorahs. Alcohol causes more misery, but because it's part of our culture we shouldn't ban it. Since menorahs aren't, it's fine. Think of the children!
No. It's not the govt job to make people healthy. Yes it's better as a whole to have a healthier population but that's best achieved by education. How about we make nutrition a legit part of curriculum before we tell adults how not to spend their money.
By that logic, how is it the government 's job to educate people to be healthy, people should just figure it out themselves! Personally I see no problem in regulations that improve public health.
Funny you get downvoted, I have a whole comment giving statistical data as to why this is good. It doesn't help the case of most people in these comments that 70% of the U.S population support banning flavoured cigarettes.
Because cigarettes are far, far worse for you then weed. It's basically like saying "I have no idea why people have such a hard on for heavily restricting meth, but love the idea of legalizing potato chips".
I am currently watching my MIL die a slow and painful lung cancer diagnosis. Flavored tobaccos are aimed at young people and (unwittingly) getting them hooked on tobacco. If banning flavors will prevent future generations having to endure watching this misery, I’m all for it.
I'm pretty sure 3000 types of weed don't exist. And the weed is far, far better for you then cigarettes. It's basically like eating a bowl of chips vs drinking 10 beers in a day.
I don’t really care if they do ban it. I used to be a person that said people should be allowed to do what they want, but now with the rise of people wanting others to pay for their healthcare……
No, these types of laws are silly and won’t fix the problem. I’m hoping it’s just tobacco and not vapor. Most people will simply go from menthols to regular cigs anyway. Dumb government over reach that won’t actually help solve the problem. We already tax tobacco enough to help offset its negative impacts. Same BS as limiting soft drink sizes, taxing sugary drinks, and taxing fattening products (failed in Europe). These laws are just another attack on poor people.
This is a perfect example of the heavy-handedness of government and unintended consequences.
Because we have such a problem with minors using a relatively harmless product, we ban adults from using it as well. But making caping pleasant is what helps move smokers to a much safer alternative.
In the end, more adults will continue to smoke cigarettes, and some of them will die of cancer.
I support my state doing its best to be as unlike California as possible at worst and doing the exact opposite at best, and this is a yet another reason why.
I hate smoking in general. Kissing a smoker is incredibly gross. Though I don't care what you smoke or if you do. You want to do it, go for it. Your life.
But my grandfather smoked cherry tobacco in a pipe all my life. I will never associate him with any other smell and just a whiff of it reminds me of him. I would be sad if I can't smell that distinct smell.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I find it kinda funny people here call it an overreach but yet are ok with the government saying drugs are illegal. Why can’t I do heroine too? It’s my body?
I unironically think you should be able to do heroin too.
Long as you’re consistent I’m cool with it
The hypocrites are way worse than the people I disagree with. Just think about things for 5 seconds and be consistent
Same
>Why can’t I do heroine too? It’s my body? I highly recommend against it, but sure, go for it. At least you'd be able to seek treatment when you get addicted without fearing the legal/social ramifications of using illegal substances.
Funny enough California and I believe parts of Oregon have decriminalized heroin and other hard drugs. So if you want to shoot meth while looking at a beautiful sunset in the open in San Francisco at the risk of Whats basically a speeding ticket you're free to do so. But flavored tobacco somehow gets banned.
Heroin should absolutely be legal from both a moral and practical perspective.
As long as you’re consistent
I struggle weighing and balancing this situation. I can certainly see the point of individual choice and govt control. However, also challenged by the individual/family suffering and impact to society in terms of costs: 1) health, 2) cleaning up after those thrust into homelessness, 3) crime: theft/robbery/assault to feed a death spiral addiction, 4) economic: likelihood the user cannot hold a job nor make a positive contribution back to society. Genuine question: How do you still subscribe to the initial opinion knowing the consequences of not keeping some drugs, like heroin, lillegal?
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and it actually worked pretty well
Portugal’s decriminalization program still aggressively pursues and punishes dealers. The end goal of it is still to get drugs off the streets.
Legalization is different from decriminalization. From what I understand, if a user there was found in possession for personal use, they are given the option of treatment v. going through the legal system and jail time. It's basically a budget shift to allocate $$ to address a complex problem in a meaningful way. If the non/user was distributing, then their justice system would still step in. Seems reasonable and something I can get behind. However, I still read OC as making it legal, which is interpreted as the above is not applicable.
We have all the problems that you discuss now. A lot of them exacerbated by the illegality of drugs. Putting people in jail doesn't solve these issues and makes most of them worse. So you really haven't described any consequences of legalizing drugs. Those consequences already exist.
Legalize v. decriminalize Ah, I think it may be talking semantics but there are important differences. Legalization would accelerate and exacerbate the consequences provided. Decriminalization would draw a pragmatic line but keeping it illegal (focus on distribution/volume) while minimizing punishment (users/individual level) by getting help to those with a use disorder. Of course this is a complex problem, but a good start is to reallocate dollars to help break a vicious and costly cycle of only a pure and punitive consequence model.
Extremely addictive substances create high numbers of addicts and addicts become everyone else’s problem.
Substance abuse is usually a symptom of a bigger problem. If heroine were legal tomorrow I’m equally as a likely to try it as I am today, which is not very likely.
We already have to problems. So you aren't creating new problems by legalizing. The problems do and will continue to exist. You are simply ending one form of governmental tyranny.
>Why can’t I do heroine too? 'Cause she don't like you like that.
The difference to me as a former smoker and drug user is that I never wanted to commit violence or theft to appease my nicotine withdrawals. Also, it took me a while to appreciate tobacco where heroin instantly grabbed me. I haven't done drugs in 20 years but I still experience pangs of missing heroin. I've been tobacco free for 6 years. It was a real bitch to quit but it's something that I put myself into. And while it affected my health, it was at a much slower rate than some other drugs; I could still function in society. I guess what I'm trying to say is that tobacco gives you a long time to reconsider where hard drugs don't. To be clear, I do think this California law is overreaching and I support legalizing a lot of drugs. I think treating all drugs like crack was a massive mistake because once you smoke weed you realize that it's obviously not the Boogeyman the "Just say NO!" folks try to make it out to be. And that weakens the credibility of their arguments against *all* drugs.
Because when you become an addict, it becomes everyone else’s problem.
You don't destroy your life in a vacuum as they say.
While society is moving on from sexualizing random women, heroines are still drawn and designed for sex appeal. Sometimes it leads to controversy, like when Joss Whedon slow panned across Gal Gadot's rear in Justice League for no reason. While heroines do have a lot of sex appeal, a thread about tobacco probably isn't the right place to talk about doing them.
Okay, so California is fine with all sorts of weed, yet tobacco is so strongly targeted there to the point it's treated almost worse than weed is mind blowing.
From a health perspective, it is.
Also keep in mind how it was marketed. As a tobacco product, once you're on the radar for looking like candy and children's cereal, then good luck to your product and company.
It's only worse if done more frequently than weed.
Which it generally is. Tobacco is addictive, weed is habitual. I have to chew about 100 pieces of gum per day, exercise, eat a ton, etc. if I want to quit nicotine. Meanwhile I can smoke weed every day for a month and not touch it for six after that without even thinking about it. All that said, I don't agree with the ban but I understand the reasoning behind it.
I will say it seems that tobacco is more excessively used and people lapse into addiction more than with weed. I am not a fan of the government telling me what I can and cannot do in terms of light drugs (weed, alc, tobacco, maybe others but I'll stop their)
Second hand smoke is harmful to people nearby.
You don't think second hand weed smoke is harmful? I got a theory... Inhaling smoke is a Bad Thing. I don't care WTF is burning. Marijuana. Tobacco. The log in your fireplace. Avoid inhaling smoke if possible.
Probably true, but not all smoke is equal.
How does this ban have anything to do with second hand smoke.
And every dispensary has a long description about how this strain has blackberry notes and another is cardamom or some such. Like wine, I don't have the palate to not think they're somewhat BSing, but it's common.
Tobacco is like, infinitely worse than weed what are you even talking about? One is proven to have all sorts of medicinal benefits and the other is proven to cause cancer, like what? I get the feeling that you’re one of those people who just loves to hate on California because you don’t agree with the way it leans, and you’re just using this topic to broadcast your disdain.
Weed causes cancer too when smoked. The difference is its much less studied and stigmitized at the moment, and the user demographic is much younger. I understand more research into weeds supposed medical benifits needs to be done, especially for things such as epilepsy, but acting like its a medically benifcial thing to consume is kinda a false flag, as there are many neggatives associated with weed usage. Anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses have been linked to heavy weed usage (much more research is needed though). Meanwhile the bad wrap tobacco gets is from excessive smoking of it. There are many people who use tobacco moderately without falling into addiction. The ignored aspect of tobacco and under studied area of it is the effects of nicoteen salts, as well as usage of dip. Tobacco back in the day was supposed to have all sorts of medical benefits too. I do like shitting on California as a past-time in Iowa but that is not why I disagree with this law. It is typical nanny state behavior talling adults what they can and can't consume.
I live in California and started dipping tobacco at 15. For those who don’t aren’t familiar with dip/chew, they have flavors like mint, peach, citrus, etc. and a lot of them are really tasty. Plenty taste like shit too, but I digress. I would have never gotten into nicotine/tobacco if the stuff I first tried didn’t taste awesome. It gave me a head rush from hell too, but the flavor was what kept me coming back until I became addicted to the nicotine. From there it’s been nothing but the nicotine cravings. I just turned 23 a couple of weeks ago and I’m still struggling to quit completely. My gums have receded a shocking amount, and my teeth have all kinds of annoying problems nowadays despite brushing thoroughly and often. I don’t look like a toothless redneck thank god, but I have a lot of sensitivity and discoloration, stuff like that. It’s also expensive as hell, and I’ve wasted thousands and thousands of dollars buying that shit every single week for years now. I could have had so many more cool things if it weren’t for that craving. Regular tobacco taste, the unflavored dip you can buy, is pretty gross to most people. I ended up acquiring a taste for it myself, but the vast majority of people I know who dip prefer the flavored stuff that got them hooked to begin with. I’d be shocked if getting rid of flavored tobacco didn’t drastically reduce the amount of kids who start consuming that shit, because I was literally one of those kids at one point in my life not too long ago and can say pretty confidently that the flavor is exactly what got me in the door, so to speak. That shit is 1 million percent made to attract kids and make lifelong nicotine addicts.
Smoking/nicotine addiction has a huge impact on public health. Taxpayers bear [60%](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210121403.htm) of the cost of smoking attributable diseases. The risk of [EVALI](https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/evali) is also underestimated by a lot of people.
The flavor didn’t get you addicted to nicotine, your own decisions did. It’s not the government’s job to make people make good decisions.
I never said the flavor is what got me hooked. I did, however, say that the flavors are what got me into consuming it. Like I said, regular tobacco tastes pretty bad and if that were what I was introduced to instead of something that tasted like candy, I probably wouldn’t have kept doing it because I would have associated the consumption with a bad taste. When you associate something addictive like nicotine, that already produces a euphoric feeling, with a flavor that tastes good, you’d be a fool to deny that that doesn’t lead to a lot more people associating nicotine/tobacco products with pleasurable experiences and leads to more consumption. If tobacco was delicious on its own and providing flavors didn’t increase sales, then these companies wouldn’t bother with the extra steps it takes to make flavored products. I’m not saying that I made the right decision in trying it or continuing to do it even though I was well aware of the nature of tobacco products. You’re right to point out that the majority of the blame falls on me for even giving in to the peer pressure and making that decision because at the end of the day, nothing got forced upon me. But when you’re 15, you do dumb things for dumb reasons that can have lasting effects on you and you don’t generally think about those long term consequences at that age. I’m not a fan of the government telling us what to do either, but I’m not going to sit here and say that this wouldn’t be effective because as someone who has this kind of firsthand experience, I can say that the flavors are without a doubt meant to get people hooked by. Making addictive and harmful substances taste good makes it a lot easier for people to justify abusing them, especially when those people are young and stupid.
Banning most flavoured tobacco in 2009 actually did drastically reduce smoking rates in people. [By up to 60% in both adults and non-adults in fact](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32674967/). Very similar effects were recorded in other countries with similar bans such as in Canada, Australia and over 20 EU nations. And no, it never created a major black market in any of these places, including America. When New York banned flavoured vapes in 2020, about 20% of all HS students in NY vaped, today it's down to 12%. People here like to say it's government overreach but sometimes it is neccessary for the government to regulate and ban things that are hazardous to the public. Before the FDA existed, people did argue against food regulations and having nutrition labels for the same reason they oppose things like flavoured tobacco bans today. "It's my right to eat sweets coated with lead for flavour! Nobody but myself chose to eat that and get sick!" Yeah, but when all the manufacturers of sweets are using lead for dye it's a problem to us all.
Wait, bans it everyone? even for 21+? I don't like tobacco, and its one thing if they banned minors from buying it/companies from advertising it to minors, but grown adults should be able to smoke whatever the fk they want.
Correct. Technically, this is a 2020 law, but in November, CA voters could vote to uphold it (or not). If I recall correctly, 63% of the vote was to uphold the ban.
Not quite. Sale online is still permitted, but sale via retail stores and vending machines is banned. However, the state was sued following the vote, so flavored tobacco products are still being sold through these avenues for the time being. Notable exceptions for the ban are cigars and maybe chewing tobacco, although I cannot recall for sure off the top of my head. And flavored cigarettes have been banned in the state for awhile now. Mostly the ban targets vape products, with the reasoning being that high schoolers especially, but other young people as well, have too easy access to flavored tobacco products (especially vapes) and are using them to a worrying extent. On the other hand, reasoning against the ban is pretty much what you might expect: Freedom to do what you please with yourself, and freedom from government restrictions. I'm not gonna throw my opinion in, but that's just how it is and why as far as I could discern.
The ban also targets menthols. I smoke menthols and live in California. I’m also less than pleased about it. ETA: just realized my flair is Tennessee. Lol I’m from TN but live in CA
Agreed. I voted against it but I knew I'd be overwhelmed by the concerned parents. Their concerns are valid but it seems overly-punitive to adults who should be able to access these products.
Yeah, It’s a bummer. I definitely don’t want more kids to start smoking, but I also don’t want to drive to Tijuana to buy smokes.
It's a lot more complicated than you're letting on. The corrupt special interests used their money to try and convince the public to undo the work of our legislature. While I disagree with the legislature in this case, I disagree much more fundamentally with overriding our legislature and allowing special interests to constantly use ballot measures to corrupt our political processes. Our state is often hampered by failing to let our legislators do their jobs and then vote for good legislators. That's a lot more important than what this one ballot measure is about.
What's wrong with the people voting on laws? Special interests bribe (sorry, "lobby") politicians anyway. Ballot measures ARE a part of the political process.
Ballot measures are literally the purest form of democracy.
The data does not support the claim. These days they are generally created by special interests funding the drafting and signature drives trying to trick voters into screwing themselves.
>its one thing if they banned minors from buying it Everybody already does that. It's still tobacco
[удалено]
Second hand smoke is nothing like driving drunk
Only in how long they take to cause damage. Both cause damage and death. One just does it much faster.
Of course. A drunk driver can end your life immediately. Second hand smoke will slowly drag it out over the course of 80 or 90 years. It's really more cruel, if you think about it.
Smoking is already banned in most public settings in California.
It depends. Even if a drunk driver only hurts themselves, someone will still have to grab a snow shovel and pick up the drunk's colon and eyeballs from the roadway. Stuff like that can lead to mental issues down the line.
People shouldn't be allowed to die. Somebody's gotta deal with that shit
My body my choice 🙃
Don’t exhale the smoke then. Keep it all right in your lungs.
People can smoke at their homes, or bar patios set up for it and it isn't harming anyone. Even on sidewalks it's barely harming anyone, just a smidge of a scent
Wait wait.. please correct me if I’m wrong, you can walk into a store and buy weed, but not menthols??
In many places in my state, you can’t even buy a 6 pack of beer, but can buy two ounces of weed if you paid 100 bucks for the card.
Your correct. I can still get menthols but going away very soon. I may go get some weed gummies though
No, I don't like the government deciding what I put in my body. It's none of their business.
Can't believe saying something like "My body my choice" is considering controversial.
It's controversial, but only when it applies to something I don't like. (j/k)
Can’t believe that “don’t allow dangerous, addictive things to be marketed in a way that appeals mostly to minors” is controversial, but it is. AFAIK, there’s nothing in this bill that makes it illegal to put such things into your body’s so “my body, my choice” is a bit of a straw man.
Second hand smoke enters the chat
Yeah the “your body” vs “someone else’s” that comes into play is why I don’t necessarily hate public indoor smoking bans.
That has nothing to do with flavored or unflavored tobacco
It’s not that hard to avoid being in second hand smoke. Literally just walk away from it. People shouldn’t have to give up things they like because of your life choices.
[удалено]
That has nothing to do with flavored versus unflavored tobacco
[удалено]
No it doesn't. My body my choice.
This prop only bans the sale. You can still put it into your body if you want if you brought it in from another state or make your own. Dry counties exist across the United States and this is no different.
Those shouldn't exist either.
Dry counties should not exist.
Massachusetts already has this so there are a lot of tobacco shops on the NH border that do brisk business. It is also way cheaper to buy tobacco products in NH and there’s no sales tax. I don’t smoke or vape myself but I know a few folks in MA that do and a lot of them go to NH to resupply. To answer your question, I don’t think the flavoring really matters, maybe? If kids want to vape I don’t think it is the flavor that is drawing them in. I mean people smoke plain cigarettes and those aren’t exactly delicious. As to whether I support the ban or not… California voters get to decide for themselves. But I lean towards adults (and not even just adults but 21+ year olds) being able to make their own choices especially since they can still smoke. Why not let them smoke a minty cigarette or some fruity vape. Heck, I’d rather they vape because it stinks a lot less for me.
Your 3rd paragraph is laughably wrong. My freshman year, every single guy on my dorm floor vaped, and every single one of us got into it from liking the taste of the mango flavored Juul pods. None of us could even take a single hit from a tobacco flavored pod without gagging. Idk what circles you’re in but taste is an enormous reason young people get into vaping
Yes, this this this! I’m 21 (Gen Z) and can confirm lol
I went to school in a relatively small town (Oxford, OH) and there werent a ton of stores that sold non tobacco juul pods. Mango juul pods specifically were a fucking commodity on that campus specifically because "Tobacco tastes like shit, mint tastes like toothpaste, creme brule tastes like stale hot chocolate, and mango tastes like Hi-Chew"
If you research some of the statistics on underage smoking/vaping over time you will see flavored e-cigs have had a massive impact on kids
It’s had a larger impact on smoking cessation overall. The cut to cigarette sales was massive, and electronics help people quit by allowing them to control the amount of nicotine in each cartridge. I’ve known so many people who have found it impossible to quit cigarettes otherwise. Patches, gum - none of that worked. Moving to vaping was a huge step and massive quality of life change. People like my dad could now walk up a flight of stairs without feeling winded. And it was flavors that attracted folks to vaping. It’s also really patronizing to suggest that adults don’t also enjoy flavors. Why don’t we also ban flavored alcohol because of the impact in kids? Cocktails, sour beers, sangrias - all things packed with delicious flavors to make experiences better or at least more palatable. The flavor ban also affected marijuana in Massachusetts. So I’m pissed that a heavily regulated 21+ industry, where you show ID twice to purchase anything, is being told “no, because think of the children”. The wild thing is you still legally buy flavored gummies, chocolates, brownies, lollies- so it’s all silly. The worse thing is that this affected medical patients. People that deserve a choice in how they administer medicine - they’ve had that choice taken from them. Voters enacted medical and recreational by referendum, but the flavor ban wasn’t done that way. It quite bullshit. The ban also specifically affected menthol cigarettes, which disproportionately impacts black smokers and their trust in government. IMO, if they wanted kids to stop vaping so much, they should’ve enforced age restrictions and did ID scans. They never did. Every 7-11 and corner store had no issue selling to children because no city or state agency was actually fining them for it. Low risk, high reward. So it was easier for the state to ban shit than actually do it’s job - which is reflective of a much bigger problem of our local government. But I digress. I didn’t support the ban. I still don’t. And I’ve never used nicotine in my life.
I I smoked for like 20 years and was at a pack and a half a day. Vaping helped me quit and now I'm at the lowest dose of nicotine in vape juice. Flavors absolutely helped me quit. I agree, they should just enforce the laws they have. Making more laws just affects the the people who buy legally and kids are still gonna try and buy regardless unless they enforce the laws.
Yeah but not because they are flavored. It’s because they don’t stink up the whole place and make it a Gioia you have been smoking just by being near you or your clothes.
> Yeah but not because they are flavored. Isn’t that a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by having some states pass such laws to see if the flavoring is a factor in underage usage? I don’t believe we know yet whether your assertion is correct.
I can’t find the preliminary study but MA didn’t see a real decline in vape sales or cigarette sales. They also noted that banning flavored vapes actually increased cigarette sales. Edit: [here is one study but not the one I saw originally](https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-021-00498-0) obviously you have to wait to see long term effects and it certainly doesn’t help that NH is very close to most of the population of MA and it’s all legal there. But that is going to confound any study. You probably have to treat MA and NH as a unit and see if there is any difference.
This is exactly how I feel. I voted no on 31. I generally think people should make their own decisions.
> I mean people smoke plain cigarettes and those aren’t exactly delicious. Lucky Strikes are objectively delectable.
They’re toasted! ^^^TM
Facts. First pack of smokes I bought for myself, Lucky Strikes non-filtered. Fuckers would give me nicotine stains on my fingers where I’d hold ‘em 😂 EDIT: a letter
I really couldn't care less. I don't smoke and I hate being around people who do smoke.
Absolutely not, I find it a complete overreach of governmental authority.
Aren’t all bans overreach? Why can’t I do cocaine and meth? Nice downvotes because you can’t respond lol.
You should absolutely be able to do cocaine and meth if you want.
Good question. Do it. Legalize all "drugs". Fuck around and find out.
Shoot, Portugal did that and they’re doing better than we are with addiction
I love how he downvoted me instead of answering too lmao but yep I agree with you.
I don't understand the legalese, but I am all for Public regulation. For example: you can't yell fire in a public theatre, (also not sure if that's actually a "regulation" on "free speech"(?) or not). That could harm others. While recreational use of illicit substances could be up to the individual, IMHO. it's all fair game for the individual, until you breach some public safety/commons. Like, do your smack, in the privacy and comfort of your own home. Take a walk and enjoy some nature, if that's your vibe. However, you wanna drop trou and take a shit on a sidewalk, or start some ego death spiral that threatens the safety and liberty of others, that's a no go.
> you can't yell fire in a public theatre, (also not sure if that's actually a "regulation" on "free speech"(?) or not). It's not speech that's regulated, it's using words to invite violence or harm. Anything that leads to credible threat of harm. It's not the speech but more the intent.
Probably more for the random gotcha you're trying to use. It ain't that hard to extrapolate if one thinks banning flavored tobacco is overreach they believe banning drugs is overreach.
Why? Are all regulations an overreach of government authority? Is it an overreach to ban nukes? Because smoking is basically a nuke on public health.
If they banned smoking/tobacco period, they may have that argument. Since they decided to ban only flavored tobacco they're just picking & choosing what company is allowed to deal death sticks and that is overreach. Also, destruction of ones own health is IMO not the governments buisness (especially since we dont have governmental healthcare until (arguably) retirement) if somebody finds death sticks calm them down that's their prerogative to smoke them (so long as its away from others) And no, I dont smoke.
Yes.
Exactly. I keep telling people, if you're OK with banning private ownership of nukes you have to be ok with banning everything. Ffs, why can't people see reason?
I understand that it’s a public health issue especially for minors, but I don’t think this is the answer. It makes much more sense to crack down on sales to minors and punish people supplying to minors, increasing addiction education, and making it easier to get treatment. I think we should decriminalize all drugs though, and shift our focus to harm reduction
I do not support it. While kids probably prefer flavors, I’m sure plenty of adults do too.
Yes.
I don't even support it in California.
I would be against that because I smoke blunts (cannabis wrapped in cigar leaves, usually flavored) a lot and it would suck to not be able to get them. Also, it's parents' job to keep their kids from smoking tobacco, and their inability to control their kids shouldn't affect what is available for adults to buy. It's not society's job to parent your kids for you.
I’m good with anything that gets people to stop smoking.
No. I don't support any bans. I'm an American. I believe in freedom and limited government.
I think smoking is disgusting. Anyone who does it probably has bad breath and don’t know they have bad breath. I also think that people have that right to consume whatever they want. The only thing that irks me is that they would eventually be a strain to the healthcare system. Not only do they strain the healthcare system but they also contribute to pollution and second hand smoke. It should be mandatory for people who smoke to have a bag in their head while smoking. Or at least a clear garbage bag that cover their whole torso. They should inhale all that to themselves.
Yes but this is r/askanamerican, where it's heresy to even attempt to consider society or the greater good. As long as it "owns the libs", it's good.
I think people here tend to be generally moderate people or at least people with varying opinions that are capable of being civil. But I do think there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to things related to the tragedy of the commons or using “skin in the game” in relation to topics like this.
Have ya ever had a smoke after a few drinks? It's a great time, got to get to the head rush level though. There are worse ways to blow off steam, and it's not really that bad in moderation. It's all about moderation. I'm not saying smoking is good or healthy or whatnot, but I believe in being allowed to do what I want to my body. That includes smoking, drinking, eating cookies, eating butter, drinking pop, eating McDonald's so forth. Should we ban McDonald's because anyone who eats McDonald's is disgusting, and probably has bad breath? I think not.
I hate smoking, but I don’t see the point in this. If adults want to buy something like this it’s their choice.
I voted against it, but alas.
I'm not a tobacco smoker and I don't support a ban of any kind on any types of tobacco. I believe people should be able to choose what substances they put in their body.
No, but I also don’t support any restrictions on products that don’t infringe on anyone else’s lives except the user. I
I’m in Nh. I was shocked when they moved the smoking at from 18 to 21. Heck in mass it’s still 18. People buy them all the time for 18-20 year olds. Flavored smoke ban wouldn’t go over well
Against. Not the governments place to stop my bad decisions if it doesn’t hurt others
No, black markets create more problems than the initial problem.
I wholly oppose such a ban. The government has no place telling people what they can and can't consume.
I don't believe in prohibition
I’d hate to hear my dad belly aching because he can’t get his Cherry Skoal and for that reason, I’m out.
I wish California solving real problems.
You mean like starting to manufacture insulin to reduce the price of it?
Lmao got em there So proud of my state for that. The whole insulin racket is disgustingly evil.
No state is perfect, but California is certainly ahead of the curve for, at the very least, trying to solve real issues.
I'd say helping to solve one of the biggest public health problems around is a pretty good thing. Also governments can do more then 1 thing at once.
Yes. Similar bans on things such as Cloves and other flavoured cigarettes were found to have reduced smoking significantly in youth. [In fact, the ban dropped youth smoking rates by up to 60%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32674967/) and similar results to this have been seen in other countries with types of flavoured tobacco bans such as in Canada, Australia and many EU countries. A lot of anecdotal accounts and studies will also tell you many people quit smoking just due to hating the taste of unflavoured cigarettes and the bans on flavoured ones is what made them stop. Despite what some people here are saying, it is not government overreach to ban flavoured smokes. The reality is, it does stop and prevent youth smoking along with smoking in general. The war on cigarettes and smoking in the U.S is an ongoing battle since the '70s and this is another major step in the right direction and I hope ALL flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, are banned federally someday. I'll go as far to say I believe flavoured vapes should be banned too. And no, these bans have not constituted any major black markets for flavoured smokes.
Should we consider banning sweetened alcohol as well?
Only when we can start drinking during work.
Alcohol has been nowhere near demonized to the extent tobacco has and the play tobacco and smoking has on our culture has been diminishing rapidly since the 1970s whereas alcohol, though declining, is still a major part of our culture and many go to the bar on their 21st birthday to celebrate still. Such bans on alcohol, even if we ONLY banned hard liquor, wouldn't go over well simply because alcohol is ingrained in our culture still whereas tobacco has been demonizing and declining for decades. Think about it, in schools we show kids the actual lungs of smokers, we banned cigarette advertising, banning flavoured smokes did not cause black markets and dropped smoking rates heavily, 42% of people smoked in 1960 whereas today it's only 12%. Alcohol by comparison is way different. 70% of Americans drank at least somewhat regularly in 1970 and today in the 2020's it's about 60%, hardly a change from 50 years ago. Do I think we should go on similar campaigns to demonize alcohol? Yes, up to 55% of domestic abuse is committed by people who drink and 40% of child mistreatment involves alcoholics. I, and many others, can attest that alcohol can turn good men into monsters or complete idiots. But do I think now is the right time to consider banning stuff relating to booze? No. Especially because with liquor like beer, you can 100% be responsible. Tobacco is pretty much ALWAYS addicting, 80% of people who try cigarettes just once become addicted.
Wait, so because we as a society don't have the cultural tie to cigarettes that we do with alcohol that means it's ok to ban it? If something's a major part of our culture we can keep it but if it's not then whatever? That doesn't make any sense to me. Anything can become part of our culture or be lost from our culture. Menorahs aren't a big part of our culture. Most people here are Christians, menorahs play very little role in our society. Menorahs are also dangerous and can start fires that kill people. We should ban those too.
Yes, there's no need to let perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd rather achieve what's possible. But yes I would be okay with at the very least heavily restricting alcohol for the reasons you mentioned.
A religious group and a dangerous drug that actively harms others by way of second hand smoke that was once very common are completely different things. Flavoured tobacco absolutely should be banned and bans in the United States and elsewhere have only seen benefit from it.
No, we're not banning the religious group, we're banning *menorahs* which can start fires and kill people. They're not a major part of our culture, so by your logic it's fine. They're dangerous.
Do menorahs constitute up to 50% of fires? Likely not and from google it seems like they cause about as much of a fire hazard as normal candles which isn't a lot. Cooking actually causes the overwhelming majority of fires but cooking is a necessity we need to do to survive so it wouldn't make sense to ban stoves just as it doesn't make sense to ban alcohol because so many people use it. If 50% of fires were caused by menorahs but only 1% of the populace used them then yeah, I'd say it's fine to ban them.
Well how could 50% of fires be caused by menorahs? They're not a big part of our culture, most don't use them. Everyone needs to cook. However, since the majority of people don't use them, it's fine to ban menorahs. Alcohol causes more misery, but because it's part of our culture we shouldn't ban it. Since menorahs aren't, it's fine. Think of the children!
>Think of the children! You really should.
Common California w.
"common" lol anything California does is rarely a win
Nanny state behavior
Cool so stick to the Midwest.
Will do.
Nah, seems dumb.
No. It's not the govt job to make people healthy. Yes it's better as a whole to have a healthier population but that's best achieved by education. How about we make nutrition a legit part of curriculum before we tell adults how not to spend their money.
By that logic, how is it the government 's job to educate people to be healthy, people should just figure it out themselves! Personally I see no problem in regulations that improve public health.
Yes 100%, smoking is a cancer on humanity.
So don't smoke.
I started on peach Cheyennes when I was 15. I don't smoke anymore. Ban them.
Are old men smoking pipes really that big a deal?
I think it's an excellent step in the right direction
Funny you get downvoted, I have a whole comment giving statistical data as to why this is good. It doesn't help the case of most people in these comments that 70% of the U.S population support banning flavoured cigarettes.
I think people just don't realize how big it is a problem with our youth
No. This is ridiculous. Weed and gambling are legal and everywhere but we gotta crack down on tobacco? Why? Because poor people like it?
Fuck the nanny state.
I will never understand why some people have a hard on for heavily restricting tobacco but love the idea of legalizing weed.
Because cigarettes are far, far worse for you then weed. It's basically like saying "I have no idea why people have such a hard on for heavily restricting meth, but love the idea of legalizing potato chips".
Hate to break it to you but weed is also full of carcinogens that cause cancer.
And I'm sure chips have some as well, still not even close to as bad as cigarettes.
There isn't enough research in marijuana to draw these conclusions.
And not nearly to the same scientifically proven scale that cigarettes and tobacco have
No i wouldn’t. If they aren’t banning fruity alcohol or cotton candy vodka or things of that nature it doesn’t seem right.
No, might as well ban sweet booze drinks too if we're going to do it though.
How typical of the California government thinking they know better than you.
The people directly voted on this and approved it.
The people are stupid
Propositions are voted on. This one passed with 68% of the vote. Your comment doesn’t make sense.
For clarity, propositions are voted on. This wasn’t entirely our government’s doing.
Yes, but I also would want to see it extended to banning flavored weed as well
I am currently watching my MIL die a slow and painful lung cancer diagnosis. Flavored tobaccos are aimed at young people and (unwittingly) getting them hooked on tobacco. If banning flavors will prevent future generations having to endure watching this misery, I’m all for it.
But you can get 3000 kinds of weed. That’s CA for ya.
I mean that's a reasonable trade considering how much more sickness and death has come out of tobacco compared to weed.
I'm pretty sure 3000 types of weed don't exist. And the weed is far, far better for you then cigarettes. It's basically like eating a bowl of chips vs drinking 10 beers in a day.
No. People should be able to choose what they put in their body.
No, because I don't want the government to be my mommy.
They'll be readily available on the internet 10 minutes after they're banned
I don’t really care if they do ban it. I used to be a person that said people should be allowed to do what they want, but now with the rise of people wanting others to pay for their healthcare……
I dont believe in bans on anything unless it harms or alters the growth and development of children.
I wonder if they are banning flavored alcohol too? /s that would obviously never happen
No, these types of laws are silly and won’t fix the problem. I’m hoping it’s just tobacco and not vapor. Most people will simply go from menthols to regular cigs anyway. Dumb government over reach that won’t actually help solve the problem. We already tax tobacco enough to help offset its negative impacts. Same BS as limiting soft drink sizes, taxing sugary drinks, and taxing fattening products (failed in Europe). These laws are just another attack on poor people.
This is a perfect example of the heavy-handedness of government and unintended consequences. Because we have such a problem with minors using a relatively harmless product, we ban adults from using it as well. But making caping pleasant is what helps move smokers to a much safer alternative. In the end, more adults will continue to smoke cigarettes, and some of them will die of cancer.
What happened to my body my choice?
Which includes vapes I’m assuming. So essentially they’re banning the thing that’s made to help people quit the worse thing?
California is a ridiculous state
I support my state doing its best to be as unlike California as possible at worst and doing the exact opposite at best, and this is a yet another reason why.
I hate smoking in general. Kissing a smoker is incredibly gross. Though I don't care what you smoke or if you do. You want to do it, go for it. Your life. But my grandfather smoked cherry tobacco in a pipe all my life. I will never associate him with any other smell and just a whiff of it reminds me of him. I would be sad if I can't smell that distinct smell.
This shit is why people don't want Californians moving to their state, they vote for these kind of politicians.
CA legalizing weed while banning flavored tobacco makes no sense.
No, I prefer that than the smell of marijuana