Rep. Steve Buyer Warns Of The Dangers Of Smoking Lettuce

[Via Media Monitor Jon] Speaking of that landmark cigarette law, wending its way to the President's desk: Not everyone is in favor of it. Some, in fact are downright against it! Take Steve Buyer, from Indiana's 4th District, who wants America to know what the Rules Committee -- history's greatest devils -- wouldn't tell you: If you dry and smoke lettuce, you will end up with "similar problems than if you smoke tobacco." As Buyer says, "it's not the nicotine that kills, it's the smoke that kills!" Specifically the "inhalation of the smoke" that causes a "pandamic" of the cancers!

This will be food for thought when it comes time to start regulating the multi-million dollar lettuce smoking industry, and their army of K Street lobbyists! (HA JUST KIDDING, you know if there was a Lettuce Smoking industry, they'd have already bought this twit lock, stock, and iceberg smoking barrel.)

[WATCH]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[rotundo]

Sigh. Great to take things out of context. His comment was a sarcastic one aimed at someone _else_ who brought up lettuce. And his point is spot on: why do we want to regulate the nicotine content when that won't change a thing relating to cigarette usage or harm? Why do you think Philip Morris supports this law? Because they know for sure it won't matter and it ties up Washington doing useless things while they go about the important business of making money.

I am not a smoker. But this law is pretty ridiculous. So nicotine content per cigarette is regulated: as long as there is enough to get people hooked (and there is) then it doesn't do anything at all. In fact it just gets people smoking more cigarettes to get the effect. And kids don't start smoking because of nicotine or flavoring (also regulated), they smoke cigarettes because they think it makes them look cool. And, to the peers they are trying to impress, they're right, it does.

And besides all of that, I don't think the government should be into regulating plants anyways. I am not a smoker, but if someone else wants to do that, it's their business. This intrusion into other people's lives is ridiculous, and no better than trying to outlaw unhealthy foods or too much tv watching or internet usage.

[Tatonka322]

Your all forgetting the simple fact, tobacco is a plant. I feel the Federal Gov't should have no place in restricting the use of any plant. Pure and simple. That includes poppy plants, coca plants, salvia, you name it.
There are organic tobacco's that can be bought that are free of chemicals and pesticides, which are more than likely the true origins of cancers. If you want to smoke chemical laced tobacco, maybe you deserve to get cancer. But if you want to be responsible and grow your own or buy from someone reputable, good on ya.
You know, diet soda's been linked to causing cancer and other health problems. Maybe we should have the government save us from the evils of Diet Coke!

[gharo]

that was the most stupid i v ever heard of,i hope he was defending other nicotine rich product.
so smoke kills not the tobacco,well tobacco produce smoke so tobacco kills,as far as lettuce,probably he should disscuss it when it is about lettuce.beside what kills is the accumulation process, tobacco is addictive and it is a fact that it is a pandemic,i hope he can picture it now .

[chopsenior]

As for the... "Its the smoke that kills" coment by Rep. Buyer, I think he is suffering from "second hand" information. Perhaps he could explain why so many people die of mouth and throat cancer caused by "smokeless" chewing tobacco? Just wondering.

[iblogleft]

There is an 800lb gorilla in the room. Its called allowing a company to market and sell and profit, from the second most physically addictive drug (next to heroine) we know of.

If tomorrow, I invented a burrito that was so addictive that you had to eat 2 a day for the rest of your life unless you went to rehab, would it be allowed? Of course not.

Physically addictive substances must be regulated, period. Otherwise, I am going into the kitchen with my chemistry major buddy, and we are going to invent some burritos.

[strangelet]

Without advancing an opinion on the actual legislation, I have to make two comments about this idiot Representative's remarks:

1.. It's not the "smoke" that kills you -- it's the tars in the smoke. It is possible that dried lettuce (and how did he possibly miss cornsilk, being from Indiana) does contain similar carcinogenic substances to tobacco, but I would actually like to see proof of that via a citation from a reputable scientific source. Not everything that burns produces carcinogens.

2. If you dried and smoked paper that had been saturated in hydrogen cyanide solution, it would probably kill you pretty damn quick. What relevance does that fact have to the effects of smoking tobacco (or lettuce)? Answer: none. That is why I refer to the dude as an idiot, which is not a term I throw around lightly. There are probably reasonable arguments against the legislation -- in fact, the two commenters on here make some of them. But the (possible) fact that smoking lettuce is hazardous to your health is not one of them.

[chriss0114]

"how did he possibly miss cornsilk, being from Indiana"

because if his state has a chance to make money from it, he would be in favor of it

just think of all the money from the PACs and the Cornsilk lobbyists there would be!

[sychodelix]

The problem is that some of the new anti-tobacco laws also block new types of smokeless tobacco, including new to the us ones like swedish snus (not the Camel one). These laws were written with help from Phillip Morris, who WANTS you to keep smoking with no decent, less harmful alternatives. The lettuce analogy is great. Smoke kills, not tobacco.

[slarabee]

Maybe it is ridiculous. But the fact remains Everyone who smokes knows it is bad for them. Limiting the nicotine will ruin the experience for those of us who smoke. I smoke full flavored cigarettes and who are you to tell me I cannot smoke cigarettes with the nicotine level I WANT in my cigarettes.

Consider is it smokers that want this legislation. No it is not. It is the stick my nose in everyone else's business lobby. I tell you what it is just sad these days. Just because you don't smoke you think you can tell us smokers what to do. It is sad I tell you.

[mgrs]

Of course the legislation is not for smokers. The point is not to deny you and other smokers the levels of nicotine you have come to NEED, but to make it more difficult for future generations to be sucked into such an unhealthy (and costly) habit.

[slarabee]

Well isn't that special. I do not care what the goal is. Fact is it will punish smokers and there has been far to much of that in this hypocritical society.