Oh boy, here we go.

The new, flavored cigarettes from Camel have anti-tobacco activists up in arms. Many teens seem to like them, and the manufacturers said the brand is in demand.

The cigarettes come in flavors like lime, berry, pineapple and coconut.

Jehova said that the cigarettes are selling fast. That has anti-smoking activists worried. Dr. Sandra Weibel said it is obvious children are the target.

“I can’t imagine adults in any way would want flavored cigarettes,” Weibel said.

Weibel is the spokeswoman for the American Lung Association. She looked at Camel ads on the computer and said she believes they are marketed for teens.

The writer of this news article didn’t have any trouble finding kids to quote in support of the anti-smoking viewpoint:

“They’re kind of tasty. It sounds like a gimmick for kids, you know. I walk in there, I see the bright colors and I’m, like, ‘I need that cigarette,'” said Kenny Silver, 18, a high school senior.

“It’s all colorful and really cool and groovy and they look nice and, of course, people automatically think, ‘Oh, nice, I want to smoke these now,'” said Hedi Lowe, 18, also a high school senior.

I could point out that both of these kids are 18, which is of legal age to buy tobacco products.

What is with this obsession anti-smoking activists have with “colorful + flavors = marketing to kids”? How is this any different from buying cherry-almond flavored pipe tobacco (which has been around for decades)?

Kids are the only people who find different colors and flavors pleasing? Does something mystical happen when we turn 18 that causes us to start wanting the world to be rendered in shades of off-white and gray, and for everything to taste like oatmeal and Metamucil (which I think is orange flavored)?

TheraFlu comes in lemon and apple-cinnamon flavors. Most cough syrup is some kind of fruit flavor. Pepto-Bismol tastes like pink Necco wafers. Throat lozenges usually have some kind of pleasant flavor, like honey lemon or cherry or orange. Do we conclude from this that the companies making these products are specifically targeting children? That adults would gleefully choke down whatever medicinal concoction they come up with if there were a better-tasting alternative?

As for the objection to “candy flavors”, what would they prefer? Pine fresh? Brussels sprouts? Maybe a nice mahi mahi aftertaste?

WTF, people. This just reinforces my suspicion that the real agenda of all these anti-whatever activists is to stop people from having any kind of fun. For them the ideal world is a puritanical, teetotaling, body-covered-from-neck-to-ankles kind of place where nobody smiles or enjoys life.

(Incidentally, if the American Lung Assocation wonders why I don’t make charitable donations to them anymore, it’s because of asshattery like this. I’ll save my money for the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team and the Ayn Rand Institute.)

5 Responses to “Candy Flavored Cigarettes Marketed to Teens?”
  1. polltroll says:

    The worst part of a cigarette, health wise and for taste, is the paper and chemicals IMHO. The paper for sure. If a cigarette were wrapped in a tobacco leaf, like a cigar, the smoker would be removing the consumption of burnt paper. I haven’t found an un-flavored tobacco leaf product for rolling my particular brand of tobacco so I’m searching for handmade cigars that can be unrolled and the leaves used for cigs. Would you rather inhale the smoke from paper or tobacco.

    I know that’s not really your topic but as a particular smoker I couldn’t resist.

    This is also off topic as I troll;

    [Troll deleted. -Ed]

  2. Sigivald says:

    I don’t see how burning paper is any worse than burning tobacco, in the amounts in question.

    And, heck, I know plenty of adults that like their cigarettes flavoured on occasion. Screw the damned “What about the Children” patrol.

  3. Al says:

    Anyone that expects the major carcinogens to be dramatically increased or decreased by changing paper is confused.

    Smokestacks, catalytic converters, filters – these are all methods of trying to eliminate, reduce, and control pollution from combustion. Carbon dioxide and water are the main effects – but they aren’t pollution other than in a “global warming” sense. But the carbon monoxide and oxygen-bearing nitrogen compounds are the pollutants that are trying to be removed.

    You get those _any_ time you burn _any_ carbon compound in air (which contains nitrogen). There is no way to escape this without removing the carbon or the air. (Burning magnesium doesn’t create CO, but I wouldn’t snort burning magnesium either.)

    You can perhaps shift which of the more carcinogenic you’re ingesting, but the slate of choices starts at ‘bad’ and goes downhill from there.

  4. Anne Haight says:

    I now have a mental image of someone snorting burning magnesium (which reminds me of my ex-boyfriend for reasons that are obvious to people who know the guy in question). ๐Ÿ™‚

    I agree that the byproducts of combustion are questionable, at best, in terms of inhalation by human beings. Wood smoke is actually pretty damn bad for you, in significant quantities, and this would be termed “natural” by most viros.

  5. Tavon says:

    I am so sick of all of these people who have the audacity to want to ban smoking and sue tabacco companies.
    My Mom taught me, as well as school, from a child that smoking was bad for yoir health. This was something that I carried all the way through high school, I was the “goody-two-shoes” who NEVER even tried a cigarette until I was legally old enough, this was no doubt due in part to my severe case of asthma.
    When I tured 22 for some reason, I started smoking. I know, and have known the health risks associated from at least age 5, and I still continue to choose to spoke. No one made me do it excpet myself. It was my choice the tabacco companies had nothing to do with it. Even if they had never invented cigarettes, I would still be breathin in the dirty Baltimore air, and drinking. . . . . So I think people need to lay of tabacco companies.

Leave a Reply