Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sometimes a Cigar Is a Cigarette
The
federal ban on flavored cigarettes, imposed by the same law that
authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco
products, took effect yesterday. The New York Times
reports
that the FDA is sending mixed signals about whether the ban
also covers small flavored cigars:
At a news conference on Tuesday, agency officials were deliberately vague when asked whether the ban would apply to the growing market of flavored small cigars like Swisher Sweets or cigarillos like Black & Mild, which can have flavors like apple and chocolate.
F.D.A. agents visited a tobacco store in Mobile, Ala., on Saturday and told the owner that the flavoring ban included cigarillos like Black & Mild, according to Norman Sharp, president of the Cigar Association of America.
Another cigar store owner told Mr. Sharp that an agency representative called last week to tell her to remove every flavored tobacco product from her shelves that "looked like a cigarette" but could not define what that meant, Mr. Sharp said.
In a letter to manufacturers, the agency said the ban applied to all cigarette-like tobacco products even if they "are labeled as cigars or as some other product." And in another document to manufacturers, the agency wrote that it was "examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes."...
Dr. [Lawrence] Deyton [director of the FDA's new Center for Tobacco Products] was asked several times on a conference call with reporters if the ban applied to any small cigars or cigarillos. "According to the law, if something is wrapped in a tobacco leaf, that would not be considered..." he said and then stopped and added, "Hold on just a second."
After a delay, Catherine Lorraine, a lawyer in the agency's tobacco center, got on the call and said that if consumers believe a product is a cigarette, then the law defines it as one no matter how it is wrapped or labeled.
"We will be looking at products on an individual basis to determine if it meets that aspect of the legislation," Ms. Lorraine said.
If a consumer believes a product is a cigarette, even if it is not manufactured or marketed as such, that makes it a cigarette? Evidently tobacconists are now expected to read their customers' minds.
The rationale for this arbitrary ban is that flavored cigarettes appeal to minors and therefore cannot be tolerated, even though most of the people who consume them happen to be adults. (The law makes an exception for menthol cigarettes, which are an important source of profit for Philip Morris, the only tobacco company that supported the law.) The same logic condemns not only "alcopops" (sweet malt beverages) but any alcoholic beverage sweeter than a martini.
Tony|9.23.09 @ 11:48AM|#
What if you buy flavored cigars and then remove the tobacco and use it for other purposes?
Tomcat1066|9.23.09 @ 11:49AM|#
Don't you just love it when no one knows what the fuck is what in regards to regulations? I mean, it's only people's jobs at stake here, so obviously this is a part of the law you want as much vague language as possible.
Ska|9.23.09 @ 11:50AM|#
I do not believe marlboros are cigarettes, although they are
branded and marketed as such. Therefore they are no longer
cigarettes.
Oh, it doesn't work in reverse?
|9.23.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Any news on what all this means for the market for shisha? I
would imagine a good number of hookah bars and middle eastern
groceries will soon be raided for having flavors like sour apple,
cotton candy, and mojito...
But seriously, is shisha still too ethnic to be considered by
congress? Or will it go the way of Khat and just freak the fuck out
of people with its otherness?
Kevin|9.23.09 @ 11:58AM|#
This is what some refer to as a "teachable moment." Right before
our eyes, we are seeing the transformation of a once legal product
into something that can be sold on the black market, thereby
turning normal citizens into criminals and providing another
revenue stream for organized crime.
Way to look past the end of your nose, FDA! Whoo hoo!
@|9.23.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Evidently tobacconists are now expected to read their
customers' minds.
And the minds of the regulators. It has always been thus.
|9.23.09 @ 12:01PM|#
There are some very pricey high end cigars (Drew Estate) that are "flavored", although very subtly with all kinds of non-candy flavors. Are they illegal now, too? How the fuck is anyone supposed to know?
Xeones|9.23.09 @ 12:01PM|#
They can have my double apple shisha when they pry it from my cold, blackened lungs.
|9.23.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Most of the big media articles on the change, which just took effect, are praising it, and noting that it's "for the children." Of course.
|9.23.09 @ 12:07PM|#
I have a feeling Rush is going to be on this like white on rice
- he is a HUGE cigar afficianado.
Curious to see that menthol cigs will be excepted. I wonder if this
has to do with the fact that menthol cigs are preferred by a
certain population subset that overwhelmingly voted for Obama, and
who also commit most crimes. But that would be RACIST, wouldn't
it?
Joe M|9.23.09 @ 12:10PM|#
No, PRiMP, menthol is excluded because Phillip Morris helped craft the regulations. Jesus. This has been in the works for years.
|9.23.09 @ 12:10PM|#
"Evidently tobacconists are now expected to read their
customers' minds."
-I know of other smokable products that are probably more useful
for mind reading skills
|9.23.09 @ 12:11PM|#
I just want to put this out there: a martini, a REAL martini, is a glass of ice cold gin, the way God intended it. The commandment on vermouth allows for a little wiggle room.
John Tagliaferro|9.23.09 @ 12:13PM|#
PR/MP,
But that would be RACIST, wouldn't it?
Yes, it certainly would be.
|9.23.09 @ 12:13PM|#
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE...........98% WATER
VAPOR....STEAM...........
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health
hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated
The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
And concludes:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental
tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association
between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart
disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally
believed.
What makes this study more significant than any other is that it
took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of
non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers
were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days
per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between
environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.
This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light
of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans
the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool
and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging
smoking ban laws.
Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which
concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer..." found
online here.
Excerpt:
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for
a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent
with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no
association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during
childhood."
And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further
highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws,
air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American
Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and
various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed
and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove
that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational
(OSHA) workplace regulations.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the
measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in
secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday
from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound
spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over
1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science,
258: 261-65 (1992)
There. Feel better?
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright
that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under
normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted
below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in
the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very
rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual
PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten,
PHD, July 8, 1997
Indeed it would.
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math
to prove how very very rare that would be.
As you're about to see in a moment.
In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an
independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood
& Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand
smoke.
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything
measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's
PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and
their Washington testimony:
CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually
been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even
find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square
with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the
EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required
to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these
substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is
difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could
be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let
me report some notable examples.
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach
the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering
cigarettes.
"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or
Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up
simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which
they might begin to pose a danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we
could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather
tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room
-- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical
air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is
sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political,
rather than scientific, scapegoat."
thanks to new york city C.L.A.S.H.
Joe M|9.23.09 @ 12:18PM|#
"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two
are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are
three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.
It is not easy to become sane."
Xeones|9.23.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Folks, keep in mind that Parents Rights is a parody, and an unusually cartoonish one at that. Our spoofs have gone far downhill since the days of Neil.
|9.23.09 @ 12:23PM|#
According to this article, http://tobaccoreporter.com/home.php?id=498&art=2573, smokers in LA who are smoking at the beach where smoking is now banned are threatened with jail time. If they happen to be smoking the now illegal clove cigarette, would that involve two charges?
Meta4|9.23.09 @ 12:24PM|#
@ harleyrider1978
Go fuck yourself and your text walls.
BTW, Harleys are the shittiest bikes ever. That's why only fading
hippy grandpas ride them.
|9.23.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Our spoofs have gone far downhill since the days of
Neil.
Who will step up to the plate and return us to the highest echelons
of resident spoof quality? Where is Cesar?
(Sorry, whoever is behind Tony. You're a little too annoying.)
|9.23.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Xeones | September 23, 2009, 12:17pm | #
Yo, fuck walls of text.
Its there so people can read the truth about second hand
smoke.......facts subdue propaganda......it destroys prohibition at
its core.
repealthebans@yahoo.com
|9.23.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Sandi | September 23, 2009, 12:28pm | #
I took a shit on a Harley once.
Meta4 | September 23, 2009, 12:24pm | #
@ harleyrider1978
Go fuck yourself and your text walls.
BTW, Harleys are the shittiest bikes ever. That's why only fading
hippy grandpas ride them
Sad state of affairs when the truth destroys the nazis propaganda
machine.......So I gather you are communists that voted for the
smoker obama........enjoy your outlawed world the rest of us still
smoke and party with the real people........such shallow little
people you are.
repealthebans@yahoo.com
Xeones|9.23.09 @ 12:33PM|#
harleyrider, you'll find very few people at Hit'n'Run who buy into the harmfulness of secondhand smoke, or into any type of prohibition at all. You'll find even fewer people who appreciate when some drive-by who doesn't even take the time to figure out who their audience is here copies'n'pastes some huge amount of text. If you want to post links, that's fine, but you don't have to also copy and paste EVERYTHING BEHIND THE LINK.
Sandi|9.23.09 @ 12:39PM|#
I took a shit in harleyrider1978's mouth once. You should have seen the shit eating grin. Stretched form ear to ear.
T|9.23.09 @ 12:47PM|#
BTW, Harleys are the shittiest bikes ever.
Speaking as someone who has owned a Triumph for over a decade now,
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point.
|9.23.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Don't you just love it when no one knows what the fuck is
what in regards to regulations?
Oh, please. You know perfectly well what the fuck is what in
regards to *these* regulations. It's that everything made of
tobacco is bad, that everyone who sells tobacco products is the
moral equivalent of a child molester and should count himself lucky
he isn't lynched by an outraged citizenry, that anything made of
tobacco and flavored is bad and ought to be illegal, and that, if
some loophole means that a particular flavored tobacco product
might not actually be illegal, you might as well be reasonable and
pull it off your shelves now because we're going to harass the crap
out of you until Congress fills in that loophole.
@|9.23.09 @ 1:02PM|#
everything made of tobacco is bad...
...and there was a lot of smoking in The Sopranos,
therefore all smokers are gangsters.
Concerned smoker|9.23.09 @ 1:15PM|#
I noted recently in an uh, alternative smoking supply store
there was a variety of rolling material which was clear and
flavored. I wondered if the flavored smoking ban would extend to
blunt wraps and if this was the company's hedge product. Anyway, it
was clear and did not burn very well. Burned by itself it seemed to
turn into a charred plastic though I think it was made of
cellulose. The container noted NO TOBACCO CONTENT. I don't think
they are supposed to sell them to under 18s, though. And you
wouldn't get the synergistic effect of combining nicotine with
alternative smoking materials, of course.
One can get blunt wraps which are just a tobacco leaf, no flavor
added. For now.
|9.23.09 @ 2:43PM|#
I can't describe what a cigarette is, but I know it when I
see it.
That's pornography you're looking at.
Paul|9.23.09 @ 3:06PM|#
of flavored small cigars like Swisher Sweets or cigarillos like Black & Mild
I swear to christ if these bitches start fuckin' with my Black
& Mild I'm gonna get medieval...
Oh, and meter's still running on my bet.
|9.23.09 @ 4:54PM|#
harleyrider, you'll find very few people at Hit'n'Run who buy
into the harmfulness of secondhand smoke, or into any type of
prohibition at all. You'll find even fewer people who appreciate
when some drive-by who doesn't even take the time to figure out who
their audience is here copies'n'pastes some huge amount of text. If
you want to post links, that's fine, but you don't have to also
copy and paste EVERYTHING BEHIND THE LINK
If you took the time to read,youd have learned the story is about
how shs doesnt harm anyone.......and there is no reason for any
prohibition.
Rich|9.23.09 @ 5:35PM|#
How the fuck is anyone supposed to know?
Calm down, R C. Just ask a law enforcement officer.
Kiyo|9.23.09 @ 7:34PM|#
I think God is using the FDA to smite us all. The FDA probably thinks that, too.
deja moo|9.23.09 @ 10:14PM|#
harleyrider1978
If you took the time to read,youd have learned the story is about how shs doesnt harm anyone.......and there is no reason for any prohibition.
I read it, and I agree with you that's what it says.
You're still an idiot. Provide links to articles, we're all smart
enough to follow them.
deja moo|9.23.09 @ 10:18PM|#
I only came on this thread to defend my former favorite smoke; rum soaked crooks. ("There's nothing like a good cigar, and this is nothing like a good cigar.")
|11.3.09 @ 12:17PM|#
to deja moo.
you're right! rum soaked crooks are the best! my air force buddy
introduced me to them when we were stationed in korea over 40
years ago. sadly, can't find them or their equal anywhere today-a
sad fact.
rick
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245