Bloomberg continues his nanny-state rage...

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-plan-keep-tobacco-products-161130326.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new proposal would require New York City retailers to keep tobacco products out of sight under a first-in-the-nation proposal aimed at reducing the youth smoking rate, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday.

The legislation would require stores to keep tobacco products in cabinets, drawers, under the counter, behind a curtain or in other concealed spots. They could only be visible when an adult is making a purchase or during restocking.

Bloomberg said similar prohibitions on displays have been enacted in other countries, including Iceland, Canada, England and Ireland.

"Such displays suggest that smoking is a normal activity," Bloomberg said. "And they invite young people to experiment with tobacco."

Right... because having the curtained back room for pornography has deterred the youths from becoming porn addicts.

At this point I do believe Bloomberg is making shit up as he goes. Sad.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,474
136

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Uhmmm, there is a pretty strong link between advertising and cigarette use.

Whether you agree with the policy or not is up to you, but the idea that there is no basis for it is silliness.

Did you read the article? We're not talking advertising.

The legislation would require stores to keep tobacco products in cabinets, drawers, under the counter, behind a curtain or in other concealed spots. They could only be visible when an adult is making a purchase or during restocking.

Yeah, because those cigarettes sitting in their nondescript cartons behind the drug store check-out counter just make smoking look soooo enticing. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2011
16,818
9,167
146
Uhmmm, there is a pretty strong link between advertising and cigarette use.

Whether you agree with the policy or not is up to you, but the idea that there is no basis for it is silliness.

These bans have very little positive effect and some very negative ones as well. People who smoke go to buy cigarettes regardless if they are displayed. People who don't are unlikely to suddenly buy some since they were just sitting there out in the open.

We have had this ban in Canada for years now and it's pointless. Just extra costs for retailers to comply.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Uhmmm, there is a pretty strong link between advertising and cigarette use.

Whether you agree with the policy or not is up to you, but the idea that there is no basis for it is silliness.

I believe I gave a pretty convincing counter-example.

It doesn't matter anyways. I do not believe cigarettes should be illegal, and I do believe Bloomberg does want cigarettes to be illegal.

Cigarette advertising was not illegal when I was growing up, and yet somehow I was able to escape their "evil clutches".

The only question is, will this re-engineering of society end before or after toilet paper is replaced by three seashells?

I flat out don't like Bloomberg's agenda. And considering he is buying elections across the country, his policies does affect me half-way across the country.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,503
564
126
Why doesn't he just ban them and the tax money that goes alone with it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,775
6,514
126
What right did the government have to take cocaine out of coke?

The government has no business telling stores how to display cigarettes. All the government has to do is ban nicotine in them. That way people who want to smoke will turn my the millions to smoking cheap toilet paper or grass clipping from the lawn.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Uhmmm, there is a pretty strong link between advertising and cigarette use.

Whether you agree with the policy or not is up to you, but the idea that there is no basis for it is silliness.

When did stocked shelves become "advertising" and can you provide any factual evidence that it can scientifically be linked to tobacco use?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
What right did the government have to take cocaine out of coke?

The government has no business telling stores how to display cigarettes. All the government has to do is ban nicotine in them. That way people who want to smoke will turn my the millions to smoking cheap toilet paper or grass clipping from the lawn.

Who are you and what did you do with the real moonbeam? There is not a single insult in that post AND I agree with it!
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,622
0
0
What right did the government have to take cocaine out of coke?

The government has no business telling stores how to display cigarettes. All the government has to do is ban nicotine in them. That way people who want to smoke will turn my the millions to smoking cheap toilet paper or grass clipping from the lawn.

Government don't have the right to dictate what you put into your body as per the original understanding and knowledge of the Constitution.

That's the reason why Congress needed to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Repealed because of increase in crime.

Same thing with ban on drugs, except this time it's done unconstitutionally. We saw the same increase in crime, especially in inner city areas and minority population. It's amazing how naive people are. They trick themselves into thinking that alcohol and drugs are different.

People are just more ignorant of their God given rights, so when government takes them illegally, nothing is said.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,474
136
When did stocked shelves become "advertising" and can you provide any factual evidence that it can scientifically be linked to tobacco use?

Why exactly do you think companies decorate the boxes they sell things in? Did you not realize that is advertising?

NIH studies have found a link between the number of cigarette retailers in an area and the odds of youth smoking.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Why exactly do you think companies decorate the boxes they sell things in? Did you not realize that is advertising?

NIH studies have found a link between the number of cigarette retailers in an area and the odds of youth smoking.

Well holy shit. When a product is more readily available it will be more likely to be consumed? How much did we waste in tax payers money on that study?

I dont know what cigarette's behind the counter look like in NYC. But here in MN they are behind the counter. And all you can maybe see is the label of the brand. If NYC isnt any different this seems like another over reach by this douche in trying to fix a problem by passing another annoying law.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I've found a recent picture of Bloomberg:

MargeSimpson3.gif
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Well holy shit. When a product is more readily available it will be more likely to be consumed? How much did we waste in tax payers money on that study?

I dont know what cigarette's behind the counter look like in NYC. But here in MN they are behind the counter. And all you can maybe see is the label of the brand. If NYC isnt any different this seems like another over reach by this douche in trying to fix a problem by passing another annoying law.

Alright, I am about to increase smoking among the teenage population of ATOT:

jsmLv1R.jpg


Look at that horrid advertising, I just have to have one, I mean all those bland geometric colors just make cigarettes look so cool! That's what the kids are into these days, you show them teal rectangles and they just go out and buy a dozen cartons with their friends like they're possessed or something.

Then again, from what I've seen of New York City, perhaps their teenage population is that stupid. Yet another reason to not live in the city.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,474
136
Well holy shit. When a product is more readily available it will be more likely to be consumed? How much did we waste in tax payers money on that study?

I dont know what cigarette's behind the counter look like in NYC. But here in MN they are behind the counter. And all you can maybe see is the label of the brand. If NYC isnt any different this seems like another over reach by this douche in trying to fix a problem by passing another annoying law.

So we are in agreement then. Glad we cleared that all up.

This reminds me of the soda ban. I am fairly ambivalent about the policy personally, but then we have the usual suspects run in here and say there is no basis for such action. Whether or not you think the ban is a good idea, there is certainly an empirical basis for it.

That was my only point, but people here frequently confuse having their horrible arguments pointed out as evidence for supporting the opposite position.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Shall I go down the list until we hit on an approved reason why Bloomberg is an authoritarian prick?

If we continue to focus on all these small-time issues, we just get ourselves pissed off at each other and miss the large picture. Bloomberg believes he is creating a better society, and to that I do believe he is making things up as he goes.

Is there a study that shows a link between reduced exposure to cigarettes in stores, and a better society?

Please, do point me to that one.


And then please do give your personal opinion, do you believe we become a better society, a better community, when Bloomberg decides to restrict sight of tobacco products?

Bloomberg cannot even claim the typical reduced health care costs, because studies have been done that say smokers over their lifetime rack up fewer expenses than non-smokers. There is no possibility of reduced tax burden or health insurance costs.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
I'm outraged, how dare the Mayor try and save some young lives. It's almost like he cares about people.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
22,024
868
126
I'm outraged, how dare the Mayor try and save some young lives. It's almost like he cares about people.
Bullcrap. If he really cared about the peoples health he would be banning alcohol as well as soda and cigarettes. I dont see him banning booze. Why? Because he probably drinks. Yet how many people die a year from alcohol related incidents, be it liver cancer or drink driving or whatever. I am sure the tax payers are footing the bill for those booze related health issues just as much as the soda and cig related health issues. Its the same old shit, politicians want to ban/tax cigs and shit but never booze, because they all drink.