Guys, Im pretty sure the "tobacco-like product" they refer to is not candy or gum at all. As a tobacco user, I have been seeing more and more of this herbal...tobacco like product in the stores i get my chew from. It looks just like tobacco, its a crushed leaf etc. but its offically not tobacco but some kind of mint or something and you spit etc. when "chewing" it . I have a feeling thats what theyre talking about. Not a candy product that comes ina package similar to tobacco. On this board its often easy to miss the forest due to the trees (ya'll need to quit thinking so d@#n much)

It's a rainy day. I feel like lighting a fire, so here goes.

"Even though the players were not using tobacco, they gave the appearance of using a tobacco product, which is <i>not acceptable</i>" [my emphasis].

I am strongly anti-smoking, and I'm glad it's now banned in public places. I played ball with several guys who chewed tobacco, and I thought it was pretty revolting.

However, Joe DiMaggio smoked. Babe Ruth smoked (and died of throat cancer). Many current players leave the dugout to smoke in the runway. Half the baseball Hall of Fame chewed tobacco.

Is tobacco use a moral evil such that society must obliterate all possible hints of it? What's the matter with having licorice or this ground up mint in your mouth simply because one uses it the way one uses tobacco? How about drinking from an aluminum soda can in the dugout? Doesn't that simulate alcohol use?

Recently, the government commissioned a statue of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the statue was to be based on a famous photograph. However, the photograph showed Roosevelt with his trademark cigarette holder, so they ordered that, though Roosevelt's hand would remain in front of his face, and though his fingers would remain in a "V," there would be no cigarette holder. There were several other modifications to please various interest groups. (They also removed Eleanor's trademark fur stole, either from this memorial or another one, after protests from animal rights activists.)

Does the crusade against tobacco mean that history should be changed and people prohibited from "appearing" to use tobacco? I'm reminded of the comment of one college student after her professor recounted some World War II history that didn't jibe with her ideology: "There are some facts students just shouldn't know."

Should Fed insinuate itself into what is really a political issue? Should the umpire be responsible for enforcing political correctness on the field? I can imagine the case book ten years from now: "The umpire hears a male player complain that male batters get 4 balls and 3 strikes, but female batters get 2 balls and 8 strikes. After the umpire reminds the player that the new system meets federal guidelines by producing male and female baserunners in equal proportions, the player refuses to recant. Ruling: The complaining player is ejected and sent for re-education. The next three opposing female batters are awarded first base."

PS. A survey of local high school students revealed that more of them smoke pot (well over half) than cigarettes. Reason? Pot is easier to buy.

Yep. And if you can imagine that the so-called, "War on Drugs," over the last 18 years has made heroin much cheaper and much more readily available than marijuana, then you finally understand why our young people have such a severe problem with heroin. It's cheap, it's everywhere, and it's available, and our so-called drug education programs lump marijuana and heroin into practically the same category.

While sometimes we mean to do good, it can definitely backfire. Decriminalize, regulate, tax, and reform!

Hey,
What happened to all of those cool candy cigarettes we had as kids? They surely contributed to adult smoking, ...wait, I don't smoke...huh?

Much ado about nothing.

Yeah, every kid in the neighborhood loved to play "guns," too. Amazing that during all the decades since, not a single kid has shot anyone for real.

Greymule:
I wasn't referring to the problems with youth and tobacco, I was referring to the "raging" debate over the Fed rule.

You make a great point.

You'll like this:

Once when I was in the P/R - advertising business I had a television station as a client. I also ran ads on that station for other clients. One day I had a meeting with both the managment of the station to discuss some "image" problems and with the sales office to place a buy.

In the meeting with the vice president/GM I was asked how to best get out their message that television doesn't encourage violence. Their position, I was told, was that televsion is pure entertainment and does not effect anyone's behavior.

Later, in the sales meeting, I was presented with facts and figures of how advertsing another client's products on television would succeed because of television's ability to persuade and "modify" behavior.

And all the time everyone kept a straight face.