Reader: To ban dissolvable tobacco Camel Orbs that look like Tic Tacs is nanny state overload

In a post this week, the Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance called for RJ Reynolds to stop Colorado test-marketing of dissolvable tobacco products he believes are being marketing to kids via candy-like packaging -- and the state health board subsequently joined the cause. But one reader wasn't convinced.

Matt in Boulder writes:

I'm certainly no fan of tobacco or nicotine, but I am even less of a fan of Nanny-state BS like this. Just because a product could be attractive to kids does not mean it should be made unavailable to adults. Aside from the look of the packaging, I don't see any difference between these products and Nicorette gum. They both deliver nicotine in a medium that kids like -- gum and candy. So what? Adults like both of those things too. It's already illegal for kids to buy nicotine products. Limiting options for law-abiding adults is not the way to address this "problem".

If Colorado Board of Health is concerned about the packaging and messaging of the product, they should address that issue. They should not try to ban the product itself.

If we, as a country, are that freaked out about nicotine then we should bite the bullet and put it on the Schedule 1 list of drugs. That's really where it belongs anyway. While we're re-arranging the drug schedules we need to remove cannabis from Schedule 1, preferably removing it altogether.

For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
Brian Martinez
Brian Martinez

A voice of reason.  But I'd go a step further: end all regulation of drugs, eliminate the FDA, end the murderous and destructive war on drugs, and let people determine for themselves what they should and should not put in their bodies.  To hear the nanny statists' hysterical arguments, you'd have to be amazed that the human race ever managed to survive before our benevolent government stepped in to determine what was and was not good for us!

Michael Roberts
Michael Roberts

Strong take, Brian. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Matt in Boulder
Matt in Boulder

I generally agree, Brian.  The only change I would make to your proposal is to not eliminate the FDA, but change it's focus.  Instead of determining what drugs can/can't be introduced to the market, I think they should objectively review (not sure how that can happen in today's political climate) all drug products and then enforce truth in advertising rules. 

The gov't has turned our citizens into a bunch of brainless drones.  People think if a product passes FDA approval it must be safe and if one hasn't passed FDA approval it must be dangerous.  Instead of "pass/fail" we need to move to a system of full disclosure and personal responsibility.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault