Comments on: Smoke (two of) ‘em if you got ‘em http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/ What is seen and what is unseen. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:26:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mary Siracusa http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/comment-page-1/#comment-2007 Mary Siracusa Thu, 10 May 2007 04:11:10 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/#comment-2007 I feel that the FDA is trying to figure away to stop people from smoking, but I doubt anything will actually work. If people want to smoke they will continue to smoke regardless of the amount of nicotine in the ciggrettes. I think that giving smokers the option of choosing the type of nicotine amount is a good way to start. But in the end smokers will still pay whatever price and get the amount of ciggertees to get the nicotine they need to get through there day. I feel that the FDA is trying to figure away to stop people from smoking, but I doubt anything will actually work. If people want to smoke they will continue to smoke regardless of the amount of nicotine in the ciggrettes. I think that giving smokers the option of choosing the type of nicotine amount is a good way to start. But in the end smokers will still pay whatever price and get the amount of ciggertees to get the nicotine they need to get through there day.

]]> By: Alma Oubre http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/comment-page-1/#comment-1927 Alma Oubre Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:50:10 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/#comment-1927 The amount of nicotine should not be determined by the FDA. I am a non-smoker, but I feel that if they were to reduce it then why don't they just raise the tax. Raising the tax will be the same because smokers will buy more if the nicotine is less. If the FDA has the ability to do this, then what will be their limit? They will think that they can make laws or rules for other things, too. I agree with Allie. Who is to say how much nicotine each person can have. The amount of nicotine should not be determined by the FDA. I am a non-smoker, but I feel that if they were to reduce it then why don’t they just raise the tax. Raising the tax will be the same because smokers will buy more if the nicotine is less. If the FDA has the ability to do this, then what will be their limit? They will think that they can make laws or rules for other things, too. I agree with Allie. Who is to say how much nicotine each person can have.

]]> By: WB http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/comment-page-1/#comment-1839 WB Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:09:19 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/#comment-1839 For arguements sake, not saying I agree here. Let's say I am for the reduction on Nicotine in a cigerette, and I can see benefits from it, but the son of a smoker, I also see the negatives. If we decrease the tax it would be a great thing for the government and would provide jobs. For instance - the companies cannot just produce this extra pack without hiring employees, bosses, accountants to handle the extra paper work etc. Therefore society benefits from more jobs and is basically redisbursing the money to other people which will be helping some poor people! Now the downside is that the more people smoke is the more 2nd hand smoke is in the air. Now being the son of a grandparent who died of 2nd hand smoke without them touching a cigerette in their life, where is that right? They made the choice to try and stay healthy, but for one to make the other choice, they die, not right. So we can increase the nicotine in a pack, less 2nd hand smoke, less jobs, and simply wont happen because the companies are not maximizing profits. Or we can decrease nicotine, hurt the smokers pocket by redistruting it to others, increase more jobs, but hurt the surrounding individuals. To me (a non-smoker), cigerettes are not a need, but someone who is a smoker might disagree. Simply leave it untouched I would say. For arguements sake, not saying I agree here. Let’s say I am for the reduction on Nicotine in a cigerette, and I can see benefits from it, but the son of a smoker, I also see the negatives.

If we decrease the tax it would be a great thing for the government and would provide jobs. For instance – the companies cannot just produce this extra pack without hiring employees, bosses, accountants to handle the extra paper work etc. Therefore society benefits from more jobs and is basically redisbursing the money to other people which will be helping some poor people!

Now the downside is that the more people smoke is the more 2nd hand smoke is in the air. Now being the son of a grandparent who died of 2nd hand smoke without them touching a cigerette in their life, where is that right? They made the choice to try and stay healthy, but for one to make the other choice, they die, not right.

So we can increase the nicotine in a pack, less 2nd hand smoke, less jobs, and simply wont happen because the companies are not maximizing profits. Or we can decrease nicotine, hurt the smokers pocket by redistruting it to others, increase more jobs, but hurt the surrounding individuals.

To me (a non-smoker), cigerettes are not a need, but someone who is a smoker might disagree. Simply leave it untouched I would say.

]]> By: Allie LeBlanc http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/comment-page-1/#comment-1516 Allie LeBlanc Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:45:24 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2007/03/06/smoke-two-of-em-if-you-got-em/#comment-1516 Instead of minimizing the problem of ciggarettes being so addicted, this is just going to cause more problems. People buying more ciggarettes, complaining about the more smoking, and someone will try and throw the blame on the FDA for causing people to smoke more and get more harmful effects from the tobacco and other chemicals in ciggarettes. Bottom line I think it is a bunch of BS. Who are we to say how much nicotine and individual can have? If someone wants to pollute their lungs and everything else, why should we stop them and what right do we have to? What's next, a law preventing one to commit suicide? Instead of minimizing the problem of ciggarettes being so addicted, this is just going to cause more problems. People buying more ciggarettes, complaining about the more smoking, and someone will try and throw the blame on the FDA for causing people to smoke more and get more harmful effects from the tobacco and other chemicals in ciggarettes. Bottom line I think it is a bunch of BS. Who are we to say how much nicotine and individual can have? If someone wants to pollute their lungs and everything else, why should we stop them and what right do we have to? What’s next, a law preventing one to commit suicide?

]]>