FDA Regulations Killing Cigar Art

[Professor Twain]

We've all been concerned about the impact of the new FDA regulation of cigars on various aspects of the cigar industry. Today the Tampa Bay Times offered a very nice article on the impact of these changes on the beautiful packaging of cigars.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/big-new-warning-labels-may-doom-tampas-cigar-box-art/2293431?utm_source=TBT_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daystarter

Since such health warning labels probably do little or nothing to deter people from buying cigars, and moderate cigar smoking has little or no negative health effects, such measures are a terrible invasion of personal freedom and show disrespect for an important area of artistic expression.

[SCgarman]

26 minutes ago, Professor Twain said:

We've all been concerned about the impact of the new FDA regulation of cigars on various aspects of the cigar industry. Today the Tampa Bay Times offered a very nice article on the impact of these changes on the beautiful packaging of cigars.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/big-new-warning-labels-may-doom-tampas-cigar-box-art/2293431?utm_source=TBT_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daystarter

Since such health warning labels probably do little or nothing to deter people from buying cigars, and moderate cigar smoking has little or no negative health effects, such measures are a terrible invasion of personal freedom and show disrespect for an important area of artistic expression.

Unfortunately the FDA could care less. Their goal is to abolish tobacco products through onerous taxes and legislation.

[jwr0201]

I've not heard this, but not surprised.  At the cigar B&M I work at, we spoke with a few of our cigar vendors and learned that as of recent legislation, no free cigar samples are permitted.  Once a nice treat to be able to sample new offerings, or just a nice gift from a good supplier - no more.  That means from vendors to retailers or even at cigar events, where free cigars used to be a major draw.  They expect that within two years, cigar shops will have the humidor areas darkened out so the cigars cannot be seen by customers.   Also that customers will not be able to access the humidor cigar storage areas themselves to make their choices, but will have to ask the tobacconist for their cigar purchases.  Once again, politicos and special interests are hard at work protecting us from ourselves.  

My question is who in the hell can protect us from them???

[Sean3]

5 hours ago, NYgarman said:

Unfortunately the FDA could care less. Their goal is to abolish tobacco products through onerous taxes and legislation.

Well said, and 100% correct...but don't get me started on those dimwits.

[LandCruiser]

Just another useless bunch of monkeys that are trying to find a way to keep collecting a paycheck. 

 

Damn joke 

[sactochris]

I don't think they want to abolish tobacco at all. They want to squeeze all the tax revenue out of it they can. Tobacco taxes are often easy to pass because they don't effect the vast majority of people.

[PigFish]

18 hours ago, Professor Twain said:

 

Since such health warning labels probably do little or nothing to deter people from buying cigars, and moderate cigar smoking has little or no negative health effects, such measures are a terrible invasion of personal freedom and show disrespect for an important area of artistic expression.

I have a slightly different take on the 'cause and effect' portion of this statement.

Regardless of the perspective of cause and effect, this IS AN INVASION OF PERSONAL FREEDOM. It is when we frame our argument and accept the dialectic of the oppressive government and their actions that this argument is lost. This is simply a freedom of choice issue, and all the arguments related to health and wellbeing as defined by a 'master power' are in fact not relevant! You either have a right to smoke or you don't. Your personal feelings about whether or not to smoke can certainly contain relevant and irrelevant data and 'so called' facts. Separating the right from is or is not 'wise' is not a choice when it comes to the role of government. It is a personal choice!

Cheers! -Piggy

[PigFish]

16 hours ago, jwr0201 said:

I've not heard this, but not surprised.  At the cigar B&M I work at, we spoke with a few of our cigar vendors and learned that as of recent legislation, no free cigar samples are permitted.  Once a nice treat to be able to sample new offerings, or just a nice gift from a good supplier - no more.  That means from vendors to retailers or even at cigar events, where free cigars used to be a major draw.  They expect that within two years, cigar shops will have the humidor areas darkened out so the cigars cannot be seen by customers.   Also that customers will not be able to access the humidor cigar storage areas themselves to make their choices, but will have to ask the tobacconist for their cigar purchases.  Once again, politicos and special interests are hard at work protecting us from ourselves.  

My question is who in the hell can protect us from them???

This is a political question. The answer, you can protect yourself!

Please read the Family Protection And Tobacco Control Act. Look at who voted for it. Do not vote for that candidate again in your district. Regardless of the party affiliation, this simple test defines who believes in freedom and who believes in large government. It is a simple litmus test for the smoker. Look at whose presidency and administration voted this into law and hold those accountable.

The time for this was in the primary. Look at the trend. What goals does your parties platform support; personal freedom, or more and larger oppressive government? Unfortunately, our choices are getting fewer and 'both sides' appear to give little respite from oppression via government growth. We live in the era of the lesser of two evils!

Cheers! -Piggy

[Philc2001]

I may be poking a hornets nest, but it's not so clear cut in my viewpoint. I'm no fan of government intervention and overreach, but the public at large has often been the victim of corporate and government self interest and greed. What some call freedom others may call anarchy. We've all seen this is action... anyone remember the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland catching fire, or more recently the Flint, Michigan lead contaminated drinking water? Where there is money involved self interest often takes precedence over the greater good. 

The tobacco industry didn't help themselves either with their misinformation campaign that tried to cover up the health risks. That raised the stakes and marked them as antagonists at best. 

On the bright side at least we still have a choice, albeit with some unsightly labels, whereas in some countries around the world it is illegal to produce, import, or consume what the government deems bad (i.e. tobacco in Bhutan,  or alcohol is Saudi Arabia for example).

[Colt45]

59 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

I may be poking a hornets nest, but it's not so clear cut in my viewpoint. I'm no fan of government intervention and overreach, but the public at large has often been the victim of corporate and government self interest and greed. What some call freedom others may call anarchy.

The curse of humanity - if there's a buck to be stole, someone's gonna steal it.

My current view - even though I really don't think it's up to any government - is that if it was really about health, they'd either ban tobacco products altogether, or at least dictate that there be no additives. Cigars, typically, have no additives and are not inhaled but are lumped in with cigarettes. Yet at the same time, states continue to look into legalizing marijuana, which I guess has no additives, but is inhaled. And how about that second hand smoke?

And then there's the intoxicating aromas of diesel trucks and buses rolling through a town near you for all to enjoy - but that's OK. And alcohol.... There are warnings, but no real defacing of label or box art.

So to me, it's a sham, no matter the spin.

[SCgarman]

1 hour ago, Colt45 said:

The curse of humanity - if there's a buck to be stole, someone's gonna steal it.

My current view - even though I really don't think it's up to any government - is that if it was really about health, they'd either ban tobacco products altogether, or at least dictate that there be no additives. Cigars, typically, have no additives and are not inhaled but are lumped in with cigarettes. Yet at the same time, states continue to look into legalizing marijuana, which I guess has no additives, but is inhaled. And how about that second hand smoke?

And then there's the intoxicating aromas of diesel trucks and buses rolling through a town near you for all to enjoy - but that's OK. And alcohol.... There are warnings, but no real defacing of label or box art.

So to me, it's a sham, no matter the spin.

Alcohol, Soda, Coffee and Red Meat will be next! The writing is already on the wall.

[Philc2001]

15 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

The curse of humanity - if there's a buck to be stole, someone's gonna steal it.

My current view - even though I really don't think it's up to any government - is that if it was really about health, they'd either ban tobacco products altogether, or at least dictate that there be no additives. Cigars, typically, have no additives and are not inhaled but are lumped in with cigarettes. Yet at the same time, states continue to look into legalizing marijuana, which I guess has no additives, but is inhaled. And how about that second hand smoke?

And then there's the intoxicating aromas of diesel trucks and buses rolling through a town near you for all to enjoy - but that's OK. And alcohol.... There are warnings, but no real defacing of label or box art.

So to me, it's a sham, no matter the spin.

Hi Colt45, not picking on you, but there are some generalizations in your post that are not factually correct. Many cigars do have additives of some kind or another, from sugar water to resins, oils and aromatics used in the curing process. I believe some have also been known to add color or flavoring to their wrappers. In addition cigar rollers use starch or some type of adhesive to keep the wrappers from unravelling. You also generalize that people don't inhale cigars, but there are many people who do, I know I did about 30 years ago when I first started smoking mini cigars.

None of us know for sure if there are any health related side effects from any of these things, hopefully not. But many do believe 2nd hand smoke is bad, and there are a lot of people who don't like the smell of cigarettes or cigars. However, despite all that I do think these labels and warnings go too far and have crossed way over the line of sanity and reason. Even rat poison or ammonia doesn't have the kind of labels being forced onto tobacco. 

[RijkdeGooier]

12 hours ago, PigFish said:

I have a slightly different take on the 'cause and effect' portion of this statement.

Regardless of the perspective of cause and effect, this IS AN INVASION OF PERSONAL FREEDOM. It is when we frame our argument and accept the dialectic of the oppressive government and their actions that this argument is lost. This is simply a freedom of choice issue, and all the arguments related to health and wellbeing as defined by a 'master power' are in fact not relevant! You either have a right to smoke or you don't. Your personal feelings about whether or not to smoke can certainly contain relevant and irrelevant data and 'so called' facts. Separating the right from is or is not 'wise' is not a choice when it comes to the role of government. It is a personal choice!

Cheers! -Piggy

For once I disagree with this in part. I disagree where my freedom to smoke intercedes with other peoples right not to be bothered by (my) smoke. 

 

Their right supercedes mine in this case. 

[PigFish]

10 hours ago, RijkdeGooier said:

For once I disagree with this in part. I disagree where my freedom to smoke intercedes with other peoples right not to be bothered by (my) smoke. 

 

Their right supercedes mine in this case. 

Reasonable people disagree mate... I get that. Yet courtesy cannot be legislated and are we talking rights, not to see, hear or smell what we don't like? Does another party not have the right to leave the space next to you. I understand aspects of 'codes of conduct' but what happened to the market deciding for itself? People either attracted to, or detracts from an environment that does not suit them? I mean you might like a rowdy nightclub and your wife may object. Does this give the objector the 'right' to close it down when he/she is around?

Me, I don't happen to like to see, smell and be around a lot of things. I  move elsewhere. I don't like people bringing their crying infants and whining children to restaurants! I don't really want to see some infant breast feed and puke up while I am eating my carne asada... I don't like when people bring their sick kids places either. Or, if someone is hacking up a lung while behind me in the theater. Yeah, sure, they don't want to miss the concert, so they risk my health... This is society and we all have to compromise when we step out of our homes.

How about people traveling abroad and bringing infections diseases with them when they return. Do I have a 'right' to be protected from that?

This 'right not to be bothered,' where does that fit into natural rights and then who limits it, decides it, protect whom from what? Slippery slope, don't you think? Man, I do. That last thing I want government doing is deciding who is to be protected from being bothered! Can we all not be more tolerant?

Cheers mate! -Piggy

[suggs]

RijkdeGooier brings up an interesting point, though, that I think bears some serious consideration. If the standard M.O. for many people here is to launch into a rights-based defense of smokers' use of both public and private spaces, then we ought to have a discussion of the rights of non-smokers to use the same spaces...yes, because of health concerns. Sure, there may be (read: is) overreach by many different parties, but if the tendency is to go "from my cold, dead hands" from the outset, then we should at least give the other parties involved their day in court because of the pluralistic nature of our conception of rights.

[PigFish]

9 minutes ago, suggs said:

RijkdeGooier brings up an interesting point, though, that I think bears some serious consideration. If the standard M.O. for many people here is to launch into a rights-based defense of smokers' use of both public and private spaces, then we ought to have a discussion of the rights of non-smokers to use the same spaces...yes, because of health concerns. Sure, there may be (read: is) overreach by many different parties, but if the tendency is to go "from my cold, dead hands" from the outset, then we should at least give the other parties involved their day in court because of the pluralistic nature of our conception of rights.

Yet that does not consider market driven forces which I believe represent a balance. There are all sorts of health related issues such as people with infectious diseases working in restaurants, yet health testing is taboo! I simply see a double standard in that persecution of a 'certain' minority, smokers is politically correct.

Why can a restaurant or bar, private property not choose his customer base? What is wrong with that? Why insist that the hip-hop dance place, not play music that can damage your hearing or play string quartet?

We have been here and done this all before. One tends to sit on one side or the other. There are those that want large intrusive government protecting one issue or another and different people wanting them to butt out. For the most part, smoking, soft drink sizes, trans-fats etc., I don't want to be told what to do at every turn. My 2 cents.

In all the years that I put up with cigarette smoking in a restaurant, I found myself making choices. Smoking or non became a choice that many people were happy with. Governments forced the issue beyond choice to compliance.

When they tell you that you cannot smoke at all, raise taxes on tobacco and put the industry on the ropes don't blame me. I warned you! The day is coming... Prepare to become a statutory criminal. -Piggy

[suggs]

4 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Yet that does not consider market driven forces which I believe represent a balance.

I don't understand what you mean by "market forces." Do you mean different agents acting within the confines of a particular economic system, or the argument that people will vote with their pocketbooks...and a discussion of "who's rights count" can be solved in the context of the market? If so, we're gonna need a bigger boat/thread! 

5 minutes ago, PigFish said:

There are all sorts of health related issues such as people with infectious diseases working in restaurants, yet health testing is taboo! I simply see a double standard in that persecution of a 'certain' minority, smokers is politically correct.

This is false equivalency. Workers need to work to live; aside from some form of addiction, smokers don't need to smoke. If you're approaching this from one's class position, I can see what you mean, though.

7 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Why can a restaurant or bar, private property not choose his customer base? What is wrong with that? Why insist that the hip-hop dance place, not play music that can damage your hearing or play string quartet?

Again, false equivalency...especially with the hip-hop club. I buy that a business-owner should be allowed to have smoking in his or her establishment if they'd like, so was this a rhetorical question?

12 minutes ago, PigFish said:

One tends to sit on one side or the other. There are those that want large intrusive government protecting one issue or another and different people wanting them to butt out. For the most part, smoking, soft drink sizes, trans-fats etc., I don't want to be told what to do at every turn.

But framing it as an "us against them" dichotomy never really yields any productive discussion because reducing people to two sides always removes any nuances of opinion. I've yet to see any government-loving, freedom-hating, fascists on this thread. I *have* seen those accusations lazily thrown about, however.

[Philc2001]

Interesting discussion. 

It should be noted that establishments here in Florida have a choice of smoking or non-smoking, but with some strings attached. The rule seems to be that a public establishment can optionally allow smoking provided their receipts are not more than 20% from food. As a result, a local cigar bar I visit frequently has a built-in humidor and serves about 20 different drafts on tab, as well as multiple varieties of alcohol, but no food. Funny thing is that gourmet food trucks park outside and serve the patrons in the bar all the time, and the bar allows food to be ordered from outside and delivered to the patrons at the bar.

Another way around it is to turn your establishment into a private club, not open to the general public. Some clubs do it, they simply make you become a member right at the door by completing an application and then you can enter and smoke, drink, eat in their club without restriction.

It may be a bit of a nuisance, but it works.

 

[PigFish]

48 minutes ago, suggs said:

I don't understand what you mean by "market forces." Do you mean different agents acting within the confines of a particular economic system, or the argument that people will vote with their pocketbooks...and a discussion of "who's rights count" can be solved in the context of the market? If so, we're gonna need a bigger boat/thread! 

This is false equivalency. Workers need to work to live; aside from some form of addiction, smokers don't need to smoke. If you're approaching this from one's class position, I can see what you mean, though.

Again, false equivalency...especially with the hip-hop club. I buy that a business-owner should be allowed to have smoking in his or her establishment if they'd like, so was this a rhetorical question?

But framing it as an "us against them" dichotomy never really yields any productive discussion because reducing people to two sides always removes any nuances of opinion. I've yet to see any government-loving, freedom-hating, fascists on this thread. I *have* seen those accusations lazily thrown about, however.

The endless detail of the dialectic is to me more tactic than substance... It is why I am not going to carry this further with you. You (as I see it) will gather your (lets say ones) facts and I will gather mine! Peaceful or non peaceful we will go about attempting to dismiss ones positions in favor of our own. I find this to be a large waste of my time. People either understand freedom issues or they don't. Most don't until they hit rock bottom.

Yes, I hit and run...

There is a reason for government intervention on every level in one's life if you look for it and rationalize it. I see you as rationalizing it, and you likely see me the same way. You may see that the divide is clear here, so do I. We look at the line and place it differently. I get that, and it is nothing personal with you. Don't like my analogies, have reasons not to like them or dismiss them, okay cool!

If the argument is health risk, then all health risks are on the table for me. If the argument is crime, then all crime is on the table for me! We look at things differently. You can call it diversionary if you wish, but I see that view as narrow. I see the endless detail, "well this case is different." argument, as a diversionary tactic... We are different people! I see politics, a mindset, those that prefer large government and you don't apparently. You will draw endless lines (as I see it) on each topic and move it a little here a little there depending on how it affects you. I paint with a very broad brush! You say you see no evidence of those that like obtuse overbearing government in these conversations, yet I do.

You may like 50 ring cigars and I like 42... What is you bailiwick?

Enjoy a good smoke this weekend regardless my friend. My view allows you to and recognizes your right. Persons who wish to detail every aspect of human endeavor exist that don't think you have that right due to their 'superior' interests for their superior intents. They will rationalize restraint on you, me and others the same way you dismiss my arguments, via the very same detail that you present to me here. Yes it is all about safety, this statistic or that. It boils down to the same. My rights are removed in favor of a government that enforces that move. One small group of corrupt elites gets to choose who is happy and who is not, today, for safety sake, tomorrow for any sake they say!!! Each issue is different, there is all that nuance to consider, you said so yourself.

They won't stop at the bar, or at the beach, they will reach into your home. By that time, it will be too late for your position. Your line will be trampled, just like mine was. I see no nuance of opinion. I see an opinion that constantly pushes personal choices to zero while transferring the right to choose to a governing body to infinity. For every guy like you that pushes the line to the bar, there are 10 thousand that pushes it to abolition. Why are you right and all these other folks making the same argument (for abolition) wrong? Is it the nuance? When they reach into your home, are you going to now claim freedom then? Good luck with that one! I tried it with you and you clearly rejected it. Now say I believe tobacco is evil, addictive and harmful. It is not good for you, and you admit it. Please argue your nuance with that one. Your smoke pollutes 'my' atmosphere, and you don't 'need' to do it. You said so yourself!

You have just argued abolition, and won! Congratulations! Your high position of nuance is the position that will bring about your own destruction. Don't say I did not warn you!

I have given my view, parse as you wish.

Cheers! -Piggy

[suggs]

16 minutes ago, PigFish said:

The endless detail of the dialectic is to me more tactic than substance... It is why I am not going to carry this further with you.

If you're not going to carry this further why bother typing the next thirty or so lines? Stop it with your your disingenuous posturing, especially if it's such a large waste of your time.

19 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Peaceful or non peaceful we will go about attempting to dismiss ones positions in favor of our own.

I haven't dismissed your position. I asked you for a few clarifications on what you said and then said your argument had some problems. I didn't dismiss anything.

22 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I find this to be a large waste of my time. People either understand freedom issues or they don't. Most don't until they hit rock bottom.

I asked for clarification of a term you used. If you don't want to give clarification, then at least be honest and say that rather than adopting a can't-be-bothered demeanor...especially when you clearly can.

24 minutes ago, PigFish said:

There is a reason for government intervention on every level in one's life if you look for it and rationalize it. I see you as rationalizing it, and you likely see me the same way. You may see that the divide is clear here, so do I. We look at the line and place it differently. I get that, and it is nothing personal with you.

It's nothing personal with me, either, but I didn't bring this on the level of the personal. We're just two people on the Internet as far as I'm concerned.

27 minutes ago, PigFish said:

If the argument is health risk, then all health risks are on the table for me. If the argument is crime, then all crime is on the table for me! We look at things differently. You can call it diversionary if you wish, but I see that view as narrow. I see the endless detail, "well this case is different." argument, as a diversionary tactic... We are different people! I see politics, a mindset, those that prefer large government and you don't apparently. You will draw endless lines (as I see it) on each topic and move it a little here a little there depending on how it affects you. I paint with a very broad brush! You say you see no evidence of those that like obtuse overbearing government in these conversations, yet I do.

It's not "diversionary" when there are real, substantive differences between individual issues, but we're painting with much too broad strokes (and your diversion has been noted). Although you're correct, there probably are a few pro-regulation/intervention people in the forum. My point with saying that was to point out the reaction of the people reaching for their cigars/guns/healthcare/etc. rather than to deny the existence of the opposing group. I get the underlying relativism, though, at some point most of us are going to be talking past each other.

36 minutes ago, PigFish said:

They will rationalize restraint on you, me and others the same way you dismiss my arguments, via the very same detail that you present to me here. Yes it is all about safety, this statistic or that. It boils down to the same. My rights are removed in favor of a government that enforces that move. One small group of corrupt elites gets to choose who is happy and who is not, today, for safety sake, tomorrow for any sake they say!!!

Again, I haven't dismissed anything. I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts on who the "government" is, though. I thought you were using the word to mean something like "Washington," but you've also said a small group of corrupt elites, too.

41 minutes ago, PigFish said:

They won't stop at the bar, or at the beach, they will reach into your home. By that time, it will be too late for your position. Your line will be trampled, just like mine was. I see no nuance of opinion. I see an opinion that constantly pushes personal choices to zero while transferring the right to choose to a governing body to infinity. For every guy like you that pushes the line to the bar, there are 10 thousand that pushes it to abolition. Why are you right and all these other folks making the same argument (for abolition) wrong? Is it the nuance? When they reach into your home, are you going to now claim freedom then? Good luck with that one! I tried it with you and you clearly rejected it. Now say I believe tobacco is evil, addictive and harmful. It is not good for you, and you admit it. Please argue your nuance with that one. Your smoke pollutes 'my' atmosphere, and you don't 'need' to do it. You said so yourself!

You've read quite a lot of words into my mouth with this post. I would really appreciate it if you would drop the pseudo-friendly demeanor and just speak frankly. Regardless, I'll parse through it.

46 minutes ago, PigFish said:

By that time, it will be too late for your position. Your line will be trampled, just like mine was.

I haven't put forward my position. I asked you to clarify yours and pointed out the problems with it. 

48 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Why are you right and all these other folks making the same argument (for abolition) wrong? Is it the nuance?

I never said anyone was right or wrong. I said non-smoker's have serious health-related claims, when it comes to smoking, that ought to be taken seriously. I also said your argument had some problems. That doesn't make it wrong. You're assuming far too much.

51 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Is it the nuance? When they reach into your home, are you going to now claim freedom then? Good luck with that one! I tried it with you and you clearly rejected it. Now say I believe tobacco is evil, addictive and harmful. It is not good for you, and you admit it. Please argue your nuance with that one. Your smoke pollutes 'my' atmosphere, and you don't 'need' to do it. You said so yourself!

I will admit that tobacco can be both addictive and harmful (it is) if you can convincingly demonstrate how what I have directly said in this thread has lead you to make the following point:

53 minutes ago, PigFish said:

You have just argued abolition, and won! Congratulations!

I have not argued abolition. You've been incredibly dishonest with the vast majority of your post; surely others have noticed this, too. If you're not too busy with not being bothered by what people write on here do a Google search for "slippery slope fallacy," think about what you've written (again, if you've got the time), and then we can have a conversation.

[ayepatz]

At the risk of 30 days in the cooler...

(Don't do it!)

..are we really living in a world...

(They'll ban you!)

...where cigars pose a greater threat to the public health than...

(Shut up!!! DO NOT SAY ANOTHER WORD!!!!!!!!)

...er, certain other, erm, constitutionally protected, er, things?

 

**braces for impact**

 

 

If you see a suspicious post, just dial 911 m-o-d-e-r-a-t-o-r.

[Colt45]

On 9/15/2016 at 9:20 PM, Philc2001 said:

Hi Colt45, not picking on you, but there are some generalizations in your post that are not factually correct.

No doubt, you'll have to forgive my being obtuse. When I use the term typically, it is an assumption - I cannot possibly know how many cigar smokers inhale or don't. But I personally can't equate the chemicals added to cigarettes with spraying bales of cigar tobacco with water or using vegetable glue etc - "natural additives", for lack of better term. Nonetheless, they are generalizations which I cannot corroborate.

There are many things people don't like - someone's loud music, barking dogs, screaming children..... I do agree with a number of members that generally speaking, typically if you will, that my rights stop where my neighbor's begin. Some people don't like certain books, or pieces of art. Who you love . A wide range of personal beliefs. I have a twisted view of government - I actually believe that they work for me, and that I tell them what to do, not the other way 'round.

[PigFish]

Again, I have made sweeping statements about my perceptions of positions. Parse away... 

I have a broad point for membership to judge me on! When someone 'quote' says to me, "you don't need that," in this case, "you don't need to smoke," that person has made an admission to me of misunderstanding individual liberty. I don't live in the land of the needs, but of the free. One of my county's framing documents is not the "Bill of Needs."

I can frame the tit for tat argument, the 'needs issue' using the aforementioned opposition's 'points' and use it to support banning tobacco, adding some of my own 'points' of course just for fun. Would you like to see that? The very points used above will be used by 'someone, the majority' for that very purpose. Why would I want to talk liberty with one that I see has no (apparent) understanding of it...? They are off talking about safety and needs when my position has nothing to do with either.

So for giggles, I am no longer PigFish, but TroutSnout:

Tobacco use is unsafe and unnecessary. No one needs to smoke! Yet, we all need food and clean air! Farming requires energy and resources, should these be wasted on such a dangerous product? Are there not millions hungry in the world? Why would farmers plant a crop, one that is not only of no use to humanity but unsafe for humanity? A pollutant to body and planet. Do you realize the death toll due to tobacco? (Put in statistics here). Is it not in humanities best interest to convert these crops to food stuffs for a starving world? (Put in more statistics here, maybe pictures emaciated kids from the third world with flies on them!). [Do I really need to go on?]

So, from TroutSnouts perspective (he is a leftist by the way and does not understand liberty, or pretends not to for the sake of the argument) and he does not like smokers. He is not a moron, he thinks smoking is bad so he intends to win by pulling heart strings, quoting statistics and framing an argument not on liberty, but needs, hunger, pollution and the world's poor! He always wins with these arguments, it justifies his entire outlook.

How do you win that argument with TroutSnout? You gonna' tell him cigar smoking is 'safe.' Growing tobacco creates jobs...

His argument is about needs and safety after all, and who does not want to be safer? Who does not want cleaner air, more abundant food, and a 'more level playing field?' Who is going to take tobacco (the side of the argument), a dangerous pollutant, an addictive substance, used to make horrendous "unfair" profits, and kill people, mostly lower income people, and support its use over the world's need for food and energy? (Can you say sarcasm?)

Does any of this, sound familiar?

Have at boys and girls... If you don't understand this is an individual liberty issue, about the minority disagreeing with the majority on an issue largely already settled, NOT ONE OF NEED NOR SAFETY, then you have already lost. Feel free to debate the needs and safety amongst yourselves to your hearts content. Yes, I will support my position, but I won't play tit for tat with someone who does not understand the nature of what I am talking about, or is simply attempting to change the narrative! I am not going to argue with those who have already surrendered the position and are negotiating defeat! You guys want to debate safety and need, then you lost me.

I am only going to add, if you are going to argue the need for tobacco, with a cigar smoker no less, then we have already lost!

-Piggy (and TroutSnout) -LOL

 

[suggs]

11 minutes ago, PigFish said:

When someone 'quote' says to me, "you don't need that," in this case, "you don't need to smoke," that person has made an admission to me of misunderstanding individual liberty. I don't live in the land of the needs, but of the free. One of my county's framing documents is not the "Bill of Needs."

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I believe you know that and are choosing to derail at this point. I'm fine with that, though, I don't see much left to salvage in this discussion. You clearly *can* be bothered to divert attention away from valid, legitimate criticisms. You clearly *do* have the time to talk to no one with vague statements that don't address anything the other party has said. Who have your past three posts been for? Is this another long-winded demonstration that you clearly can't be bothered to actually have a discussion?

16 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I can frame the tit for tat argument, the 'needs issue' using the aforementioned opposition's 'points' and use it to support banning tobacco, adding some of my own 'points' of course just for fun. Would you like to see that?

I have directly asked you to do that. Please stop with the false civility. Your transparency is quite obvious.

18 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Why would I want to talk liberty with one that I see has no (apparent) understanding of it...?

Thinly-veiled ad hominems are clearly not beneath you. You don't know me, or my background. But humor me...come down from the mountains, oh sage, that we lowly plebs might hear words of Truth from thine lips.

21 minutes ago, PigFish said:

[Do I really need to go on?]

No, you do not...mostly because I think you're purposely misrepresenting what I've said. 

25 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Have at boys and girls... If you don't understand this is an individual liberty issue, about the minority disagreeing with the majority on an issue largely already settled, NOT ONE OF NEED NOR SAFETY, then you have already lost. Feel free to debate the needs and safety amongst yourselves to your hearts content. Yes, I will support my position, but I won't play tit for tat with someone who does not understand the nature of what I am talking about, or is simply attempting to change the narrative!

Again with the can't-be-bothered demeanor. You clearly can. Just be honest. Also, if you'll do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote, I never said I misunderstood what market forces, individual liberty, etc. are...nor did I make any arguments supporting or opposing any of these concepts. I *did* offer a few examples of what I *thought* you were referring to, but my purpose was to ask for clarification. Instead of clarifying, you assumed I don't understand these things. I can assure you that I do. I asked what I asked not out of ignorance of the concepts. I asked you for clarification about your use of the terms and you've come back with yet another stereotypical, holier-than-thou, post that doesn't address anything. 

 

[ayepatz]

I move that TroutSnout get his (or her, or wherever gender-neutral, right-on sobriquet is is acceptable these days) own column on FOH!

I further move that, in the interest of fairness and impartiality, @PigFish be granted a rebuttal column.