Get 10% off all American dry snuffs. Limited time only. Finest Quality Indian SnuffsToque Snuffs

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID






Please consider helping to support the Snuffhouse forum.

Get 20% off this exclusive hand crafted snuff. Do not miss out.

My rather soap-boxish opinion on why snuff and tobacco in general is underfire

I say this rather one sided, but try to be rather objective in my statements, but as of late I've been silent on my political views due to the American elections, crisis in the EU over tobacco and the proposed lock-down from the USDA/BATF/FDA.

I shall stay silent no longer.

I'm a supporter of the Ban-the-ban initiative here in my home state of Michigan, and support the rights of all tobacco users. We all know there are healthier, and less-healthier ways of consuming tobacco, BUT who's right is it to tell ANYONE in this world, what they can do to their bodies?

I say this now, rather vague because there is a fine line, but a fine line indeed that has been drawn over the centuries. If the action is truly effecting the greater good of citizenry in a given area, yes, we must enforce STRICT health codes, for example, the dumping of human excrement in the streets of town which resulted in the black plague, the use of cocaine and other narcotics that do directly effect other patrons and citizens of our world.

But, I believe there is a much deeper, sinister and evil power in this world that is consuming our rights and individuals of this world. This evil is human greed and is nothing new to any of us. Since it's inception, tobacco has taken heat from governing forces. Whether the concept of, or the taxation there of.

Tobacco in essence, for me and many like me, is a sign of freedom, a sign of creativity, a sign of relaxation, personal choice and perseverance. These rights of self expression are being consumed from within our own government folks. This is not the first time in our history that our freedom of choice has been infringed and surely will not be the last. But, like all forms of persecution, the need to stand, and fight against the tyranny is the only viable option to preserve our style of life.

I urge you friends, write your senators, governors, legislators, presidents, kings, parliaments and other governing forces to stop CEASE IMMEDIATELY this tyrannical oppression. Take the necessary action, be strong, be diligent and take no man's oppression as it is not our way. Do so peacefully, but in a stern manner. Do the right thing for all these rights we are losing (and in some ways forfeiting).

I shall now step from my soap box and go back to my little piece of this world, and take a snuff.

Cheers folks.   

Comments

  • With smoking of tobacco, I fully understand the right of the non-smoker, in as much as their right to NOT be exposed to smoke. I understand and accept the public area smoking bans that came into effect in the UK, even if they did cripple the pub industry. I understand the laws which someone mentioned here in the US, where domestic ventilation systems may be shared, and non-smokers may be exposed to the tobacco smoke of their neighbours. I even understand the laws that ban smoking in cars if children are present. I do not feel that someone should have to be subjected to the noxious chemicals in smoke, if they themselves have not willingly and with full understanding, accepted that lifestyle exposure.

    It doesn't matter how such smoke compares with traffic fumes, or any other form of air polution. Those things are not lifestyle choices. If a person chooses to live a life free of tobacco smoke, they should be entitled to do so. For those who choose the exposure/enjoyment of cigarette, pipe, or cigar smoke, the onus should be on them to ensure that they do not inflict exposure on those who wish to avoid it.

    And then there's snuff!

    Yes, there may be an odour in the presence of a snuff user, but no more than a witness odour of what they recently ate or drank. They may have specks on their shirt front, or other visual evidence, but nothing that impacts on other people present. Providing the snuff user isn't a dirty scruff who coats every surface they pass by with a film of snuff, or leaves patches of snuff on the carpets, chairs and tables of other people from clumsy technique, why should this be deemed as anti-social and socially reprehensible. I would say the same for any oral tobaccos which don't necessitate spitting out trails of mud in front of others.

    I believe a better balance should be sought where those who wish to partake, are allowed providing it does not affect those who do not. Unfortunately as tobacco use is heavily biased towards smoking, so the tobacco controls tend to assume others in the area will be affected, even if smoke is not produced.

    I also fail to find fault with the new regulations asking producers to declare the other additives, so that substances not deemed fit for human consumption are not present. I don't think anyone minds these controls in their food and drink, and I see no issue with ensuring tobacco additives are safe too. Why would Wilson's discontinue such a popular snuff as Grand Cairo? Is it because a couple of the unknown scenting ingredients would be sternly frowned upon? (using this as an example only - not casting aspertions on the product itself)

    I welcome laws allowing the smoke free to be more smoke free. I welcome laws ensuring that those who wish to consume are consuming products that are as safe as tobacco products can be. I do not welcome laws which put small companies out of business, favour international cartels instead, nor laws which frustrate the abilities of those who choose to consume in their ability to buy or use the products in privacy and comfort without affecting others.

    Simply remodel the registration fees as a cost per ten thousand units, or even per 100 kilos, irrespective of container size, and all of a sudden these laws take on a whole different perspective.
  • For the most part I agree with the OP. I also agree with 50ft. It is no longer a right if your right infringes on someone else's right.

    Also, you ask "who's right is it to tell anyone in this world, what they can do to their bodies?"
    I work in healthcare. I personally don't care what people do or don't do, with one caveat. You can afford to pay for any repercussions that may come from your actions and habits. If you can't afford the hospital bills from your actions, then it's not your right to have the public pay for your right. For example in Arizona there is no motorcycle helmet laws. People have the right to not wear them. However they should not expect the tax payer to cover their hospital stay when they bash their head in because they weren't wearing a helmet. Same with smoking. Older generations didn't know how bad smoking exactly was, but we now know that it is bad for you. If an individual can't afford the rights, then it's not a right for that individual.
  • Tricky one, this 'rights' business. I mean, if one cannot afford to fix a broken leg should they have the 'right' to play football, to give but one example out of potential millions?
  • LloLlo Member
    edited November 2016 PM
    I
  • n9inchnailsn9inchnails Member
    edited November 2016 PM
    "If an individual can't afford the rights, then it's not a right for that individual."

    Im sorry but I find that an extremely ignorant and dangerous point of view.  According to that philosophy poor people have no rights.  If you cant afford to buy food then you dont have the right to eat, if you cant afford life saving medicine than you dont have the right to live, just a few of the countless examples of how that is just plain wrong.
  • I said it before and I'll say it again. Greed primarily Big tobacco & Big Pharma. They have the money to buy every government official everywhere. Big tobacco wants to sell their cancer ,copd ,emphysema ,high blood pressure causing cigarettes, They purposely add more nicotine to make cigarettes more addicting . And Big Pharma supports them so they can sell their useless drugs that manage the symptoms never cure. And the tax man loves big tobacco too.    

    If cocaine and other narcotics  were legal .the cost of such products would be cheap and wouldn't fund warlords.

     Why the FDA why not the ATF ? Big pharma. By putting harm reduction products out of the picture they can insure profits for the future.    
    It's not the having, it's the getting. Elizabeth Taylor

  • @n9inchnails your sanctimony is totally uncalled for as the post you are responding to is not referring to "rights" in that context.
  • @n9inchnails. Oops, I was at work typing it in my phone over the course of a few hours. That was not quite exactly what I meant. I was not meaning to include rights in general. Yes, people deserve to eat, have shelter, the basics of life. What I meant was affording the costs of the repercussions of ill choices stemming from exersicing certain rights when it's not the best choice. if that makes sense. Using the example of smoking. You can exercise the right to smoke cigarettes, but if you can't afford the hospital bills resulting from smoking, your choice to exercise your right shouldn't burden the rest of the population. I hope that makes sense. I'm tired now and going to bed. If not, I will revisit it and try to make sense of it at some point.
  • Hehe. This thread makes me realize how smart the rule about no politics and religion is.
  • This thread might get deleted, if so, my apologies to the administrators. I just had to get it off my chest.

    I'm a full time worker that invests in insurance not because of the law but because without it, I would pay around 150% of my income just on medical supplies for my type 1 juvenile diabetes.

    I do believe people should have to deal with the repercussions of their decisions, but big pharma and big tobacco shouldn't prey on those people either.

    This money=rights issues we're dealing with globally is a very very very dangerous slope.


  • Maybe it will get deleted, but you can't fight this kind of regulations with blowing bubbles and petting puppies.
  • That is true @Llo, and to defend the admins and mods here, I don't think they believe it does either. But, it is easier to keep a rather tamed forum compared to letting a free for all.

    Most of the folks here on the threads (and all that I've ever talked to) seem to be of like mind and good temper, so I have no doubt in our abilities to stay civil.
  • JosephJamesJosephJames Member
    edited November 2016 PM
    @Michibacy Don't feel bad. I just got notice in the mail that my state (NC) has decided for the first time ever to tax labor. I'm an electrical contractor. Before, I paid tax on materials at point of sale for a grand total to charge my customers. No taxes on labor except income taxes. Now, they will be double dipping. I have to not only file income (state and federal) on labor but also collect a sales tax on labor and remit it to the state. It makes doing business just a tad more difficult as I am a hands on guy, not a filler of forms guy. I'll comply, but my customers' bills just went up by whatever the tax is. Apparently, the state went through the database of the state board of electrical contractors. No license=no work, so no hiding from them. 

    Some of my customers pay in cash for a discount and we all know why. Catch me if ya can! 
    ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.