(no message)
Not sure if they are going after pipe tobacco as well. That usually is included since most pipe tobaccos are flavored. God forbid we have people enjoying a flavored tobacco, but smoking pot will be encouraged.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
It requires those who want a regulation to sift through old regulations and trim out deadwood. How badly you want the new regulation determines what you are willing to part with, and it makes the proposer of the regulation target specific things that they feel that they can live without. Since you are a leftist and have rarely met a regulation that you didn't like, this is likely a LOT more painful to you than me, but there are SO many regs out there that this rule is easily accomplished on both sides for the foreseeable future.
Had Obama said it, you would be singing ithe idea's praises.
which stated menthol smokes did more damage to lungs than non-menthol.
It took 40 plus years to act on it?
I spent years poring over tobacco data while working for a law firm doing tobacco litigation in the late 90s. Menthols are bad...but not much worse than regular Marlboros.
Also: Filters do nothing.
(no message)
(no message)
Other than that - WTF question is that?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
to get already, since BLM has burned many of their stores
A couple of my own thoughts:
1. Could be a stepping stone to banning tobacco altogether.
2. Prohibition of substances doesn't tend to work, especially of they aren't going to make it illegal to possess.
3. Throws some cold water on Nigel's predictions of MJ legalization. Maybe it's a completely separate issue, but not encouraging.
Link: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/551295-fda-ban-on-menthol-cigarettes-bad-for-criminal-justice-health-policy
(no message)