The President’s staff admitted to the New York Times that our President Barack Obama still smokes. That’s right. The man who signed the Tobacco Bill that puts Big Tobacco more under the watchful eye of Big Brother, is STILL a smoker.
HYPOCRITE!
As we reported here, Barack Obama smoked occasionally during his campaign, and admitted to being an addict in the past.
Now, the New York Times has revealed that Barack Obama still smokes occasionally.
Barack Obama just signed legislation bringing tobacco products under federal control. The new law will allow the federal government to regulate the amount of nicotine in tobacco products, and ban advertising and marketing geared towards minors.
Obama stated when signing the law, that his goal is to prevent children from becoming addicted to smoking. At the press conference, Obama refused to answer any questions regarding whether he still smokes.
When asked about the President’s occasional smoking habit, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said:
He struggles with it every day. I don’t honestly see the need to get a whole lot more specific than the fact that it’s a continuing struggle.
Clearly, if he did not in fact still smoke, the answer would have been, No, the President no longer smokes because it’s dangerous and he wants to set a good example.
Even the New York Times (Obama’s sluttiest cheerleader) calls him an occasional smoker, acknowledging that the answers from Obama’s staff and Obama’s silence on the issue can only lead to the conclusion that the President still smokes.
My question is, where does he smoke? If it’s in the White House (most likely answer), that’s a no-smoking zone, and he would be in violation of federal law.
If George W. Bush smoked in the White House, the liberal media would be asking “How many children has George W. Bush killed with his bad example?”
But Obama, once again, gets off easy.
If only we could get a picture of Obama lighting up in the Oval Office. That would be priceless.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
If the President doesn’t smoke in public and doesn’t explicitly admit to smoking, then how is he setting a bad example for children, who probably don’t know he smokes unless dolts like you tell them?
In that same vein, why would you want to catch him smoking in the Oval Office? I guess the possibility of exposing his vice to children is ok if it’s for your amusement.
This would never have happened to Bush because he was never this closely scrutinized, not even when he was waging a false war. I wonder why not…
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Joyce, bush was never this closely scrutinized?
You are joking. Surely. The rest of you post loses all credibility because of that ridiculous comment.
As for “dolts like you” “revealing” his smoking, his staff revealed that he smokes with their inept comments. We’re just reporting it.
I suppose you think it’s better that we act as his minions and hide his secrets? Do you also think it’s better to lie to your children instead of the hard truth sometimes? That adults do bad things, and that the President is one of them, when he tells you to do one thing and then does something else?
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
I think this just demonstrates how hard it is to quit.
You’ve also failed to make clear where the hypocrisy lies. His goal in signing the bill is to prevent children from getting into the same situation he personally struggles with.
Please connect the dots on where you see hypocrisy.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Rob L, perhaps you need sock puppets to explain to you the more basic points.
If I tell you to do one thing, when I am not doing it myself, that’s being a hypocrite.
“Don’t smoke kids. Now excuse me while I smoke.”
That’s hypocritical.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
And yes, it is hard to quit, but millions of people did it. He should be one of them if he’s going to create an agenda about STOPPING SMOKING.
Would Obama hire a Surgeon General who smoked? Of course not.
Why don’t we hold Obama to that kind of standard?
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
I think your logic only works if he was brazenly smoking without making an effort to quit. His life would clearly be easier if he were a non-smoker and there’s definitely intent to quit. Millions have quit smoking and many millions have not. To my knowledge, 0.00% of smokers have quit while being the President of the United States.
I can’t remember the exact statistic, but a huge number of active adult smokers wish they could kick the habit. One old article puts it at 68% ( http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/05/11/1420.aspx ). Obama is trying to prevent kids from being trapped like he currently is. There is no hypocrisy in that, instead his struggle serves as a warning.
He is only seen struggling with the problem. He is never seen enjoying smoking or glorifying it in any way.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
How long were we in Iraq before the widespread speculation that there were no WMDs? “Let’s not question it.” Good reporting, guys.
Then again, Pres. Obama works in the oval office with no jacket, OMG, it’s appallingly newsworthy; then and only then, who knew or cared otherwise, we find out the Bush never allowed that.
What smoker do you know would recommend that kids smoke, even as they do it themselves? Sorry, Ignatius, I can’t imagine any kid reading this voluntarily, and no, if it’s important to you, you really don’t have to tell your kids that the President smokes, unless of course they ask. LOL
I guess my point is, there are so many substantive things you can disagree with about the Obama administration. This smoking issue is lame and par for the course in right-wing reportage these days. It just make me wonder what the nitpicking is about.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Don’t smoke, kids. (Even though I secretly smoke).
Even a three-year-old can see that’s hypocritical.
And Joyce, if you have issues with us reporting this, please also send a letter to the editor to that right-wing rag known as the New York Times, which has this story on its website.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
This FDA Tobacco Bill is a total load of crap:
1) One thing most people didn’t notice was that Phillip Morris was one of the bill’s biggest supporters. Why? Because it stifles competition from smaller companies and actually helps the big tobacco companies in terms of market share.
2) Mandated reduction of nicotine levels will simply lead to more smoking. Research has shown that smokers (of both tobacco and cannabis) are very effective at titration; that is, changing their dose to achieve a desired effect. If cigarettes contain less nicotine (which, in itself, carries almost no health risks), they will burn more tobacco (which is where all the carcinogens are).
3) The FDA requirements will push out many smoking alternatives which greatly reduce the harm associated with nicotine use, such as snus and e-cigarettes. While these devices deliver nicotine with virtually none of the ill effects associated with smoking, the FDA can — and will — deny them approval on the grounds that they may encourage smokers to switch instead of quit. While this is obviously a good thing for a smoker to do, it has been implicitly deemed morally unacceptable and so will be prohibited by our government.
This act is all about political correctness, and has absolutely nothing to do with benefiting the public health. With that in mind, I’m not the least bit surprised to see the hypocrisy mentioned above.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
I think he should smoke all he wants, just light one after another. I will happily send him a pallet of Camels.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Rhayader, your point #2 goes to show why government regulation in this area is so misguided. Less nicotine = more smoking = more cancer. A bunch of bureaucrats come with an idea that “sounds good” without thinking of the ramifications fully.
Incidentally, I wonder how Obama gets his cigarettes? He surely can’t buy them himself. So…why not just instruct his staff not to buy him cigarettes? It’s that simple. End of habit.
Obama is just weak.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yes but the cigarette companies have been suspected of ADDING extra nicotine to cigarettes, simply to make them more addictive.
Less nicotine equals more smoking? What research? Name it. This is not how addicitons work. You cannot satisfy an addiction. That is why it is called an addiction. Someone who is addicted to cigarettes will smoke a ton of them no matter how much nicotine is in them. Less nicotine would make them less addictive from the get go, esp. for kids.
I will have to think about the rest of it.
So what if Obama smokes? Who cares? i don’t.
June 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
As a smoker of 40 years , smoking is a love hate habit. I love to smoke but hate the smell and what it causes. I quit a year ago by using Cnyticts ( sp). Easy as falling off a cliff. My wife, kids and grandkids ask me to quit. Obama could quit but you can’ t until you decide to. As for kids, they preach about the dangers of smoking they have learned in school.
This bill is the firat step in letting the FDA have controll over others items.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Listen I’ve never done a drug and I never will, but this goes completely against the constitution. The restrictions made by the Fed should be eliminated. The greatness of this country is that the states and that the states have the power over your laws.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
could you pick another nonissue and hype that too so we can wade in to a fiesty debate?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
@Klo: Here’s a link if you need one:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m467gw18324l6121/
There are plenty of other studies if you search “cigarette titration nicotine level”. By the way, to quote the above linked study, “A cigarette with low tar and CO, but medium to high nicotine yield, would seem to produce less hazardous effects and is worthy of further investigation.”
To me, it’s like the “high potency pot” scare stories. A few grams of really high-grade stuff will last me a lot longer than the same amount of low-quality merch crap, because I need to smoke less to achieve the desired effect. With marijuana, whatever health hazards exist are almost exclusively the result of combusting the plant material, not from THC itself (which is analogous to tobacco and nicotine). So, increased potency means I smoke less, which has a positive health consequence. Not that you’ll hear the drug warriors say that, of course. It’s not politically correct.
And like you said, that’s just one dubious aspect of this bill. The new barriers of entry to safer alternatives is a real problem from a public health standpoint.
Oh and yeah, I couldn’t care less if Obama smokes or not either.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:48 am
@charles: this goes completely against the constitution. The restrictions made by the Fed should be eliminated. The greatness of this country is that the states and that the states have the power over your laws.
I agree! I hope you apply the same reasoning to other drug laws as well.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:07 am
“You cannot satisfy an addiction. ”
Once again weve got the great “a$$talker” at it again.
Yes you can satisfy an addiction.
Millions of people live very long functional lives along side their addictions. In some cases depending on the substance you can stay satisfied til it kills you.
Less of any drug will not make it any more or less addicting from the “get go”
The simple prescence of the effect is what will cause people to go in search of more potency or quantities.
I guess all those flavored Snaps and Liquors will have to come off the shelves as well ?
No more boiler makers, no more drinking games, no more energy drinks, no more extreme sports or video games geared to kids etc…
Marketing and free speech are under attack.
This all wrong, just wrong, period.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Marketing and free speech are under attack.
Yeah I totally agree. Our government seems to respond to any negative circumstance with some sort of crackdown or restriction or regulation. This not only perverts our Constitution, but it also carries with it a negative net impact on overall well-being, nearly without exception.
Of course, one could view this one of two ways: as a step forward on the part of an overbearing government, or the desperate last acts of men quickly falling from power. I would like to think the second is a more accurate characterization. For instance, in 1970, 80% of the American population self-identified with one of the major two political parties; that number in 2007 was measured at 61%. People from all walks of life are getting sick of the hegemony and dominance, which I believe is ultimately a good thing for those of us who regard personal liberty highly.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
What’s Obama have in common with Joe Camel? The cool, iconic cartoon character was used in marketing Camel cigarettes up until 1998. At that time, because of governmental pressure, Joe Camel retired. It seems that he was becoming as recognizable to kids as Mickey Mouse. President Obama is a cool character himself, and images of him smoking make an impression on kids and have no place in print. Images of Joe Camel are no longer tolerated. The same should be true in the case of President Obama and the pictures that are leaking out.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Why not just ask B.O. how much he took in campaign contributions from the tobacco industry?
In case he won’t tell, we will:
And this is just a random sampling:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=philip+morris&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A
B.O. needs not to take his own agressions and personal excess baggage out on the American citizens, and direct it to the appropriate sources in psychotherapy. Personally, this thing with us being his whipping boy because he didn’t get his pony when he was a kid, we are not his Daddy, and *we* don’t smoke in front of his kids, is getting old really fast.
It hasn’t taken long to realize this guy’s two french fries short of a Happy Meal, my friends.
But he has taught Americans one great lesson - research the candidate you vote for, next time (if we still have that “privilege” in 4 years).
June 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Giving the fact that he is going through a hell of a lot of pressure to get things done, I would be a bit more tolerant of his mishaps. I even noticed he has a hell of a lot more gray hair now only a few months in the presidency, I figure he’s going through a lot of stress.
It’s very easy for us to sit here and judge him for smoking, as if it would affect his ability to govern. He’s now trying to fix health care the most pragmatic way possible, he’s trying to do things right in the way he thinks is best. I’m not a supporter on many of his policies, but I sympathize with the fact that he is trying. Even Right-wingers have to admit neither Bush or McCain would have even tried to do what Obama is doing. Stop listening to Fake News (a.k.a Fox News), do your research, be pragmatic, do your research, don’t politicize everything, and you’ll be a smarter person.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Even Right-wingers have to admit neither Bush or McCain would have even tried to do what Obama is doing.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? You seem to be working under the unquestioned assumptions that Obama’s massive undertakings are noble and true to the vision of our country established by the Constitution. I beg to differ.
(NOTE: I’m not a “right-winger” and didn’t vote for either Bush or McCain.)
Also, you’re right, the fact that Obama smokes cigarettes carries no relevance to his ability to govern; I have no problem with him burning down heaters every now and then. But it does seem a bit hypocritical for him to be championing this awful, moralizing, intruding tobacco bill while he himself enjoys the occasional cigarette. Pot, kettle, all that good stuff.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Today I came across the most wasted time of an individual that seems to think talking about an individual that is human, “Obama.” I am so tired of reading Gossip about Obama. When I read something worth reading, I will be the first one to say, “Wow, Obama is or is not doing his job properly.
Tell me one thing, posting things about Obama smoking is just showing me what is wrong with our teenagers today. Everyone wonders why kids pick on kids to the point of murdering fellow students. I would say it is because of this example of Gossip.
Why hurt Obama’s children or his wife by continue use of slamming this man. Let’s talk about how the world was a mess before Obama got into office and how long it is going to take before we begin to see change. Obama did not put us in this mess; our country was a mess before Obama took office.
Obama never said smoking was good for you. If smoking was not addicting than Obama would have stopped smoking years ago. So let us talk about the years that the government turned their backs upon regulating nicotine years ago. I am sure it was not Obama.
So the next time you post something, It would be great if you talked about ideas on how to pull America out of the mess it has been in for the past several years. I would probably than be interested in your articles.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@Brenda
So let us talk about the years that the government turned their backs upon regulating nicotine years ago.
That lack of regulation made for a better situation than the one we’re about to enter. Just because something — cigarettes, drugs, housing markets, whatever — has the ability to negatively impact people does not mean that government regulation and central planning of that entity will improve things.
Personal freedom and free markets are not just something we should be paying lip service to. These structures were put in place because, at the end of the day, they are more conducive to the common good than centralized planning.
It would be great if you talked about ideas on how to pull America out of the mess it has been in for the past several years
Your metaphor betrays your philosophy. A free society — which by nature will exhibit cyclic behavior — does not need to be “pulled” out of anything. Give people freedom to live, work, and earn, and they will naturally do what is best for the collective good.
Along those lines, of course, there are plenty of things we could be doing to increase personal freedom. Chief among those changes would be ending the disastrous drug war.