US: HR 1256

[egan.]

Egan, I think you're compartmentalizing yourself - the Republicans and Democrats are both expanding government power, the difference is only that one party wants to kill brown people and the other wants to kill babies.

As for the PM advantage... other companies that rely on specialty tobaccos for a large part of their business are just completely out of luck. Considering that PM dominates the 'gas-station' brands, and their only soon-to-be-banned cigarettes are unheard of and worthless anyway, they won't be facing what someone like Nat Sherman is about to deal with.

Jeff

Jeff, I actually agree with you and I don't think I'm compartmentalizing at all. If anything my points above illustrate your point exactly b/c they point out that assigning blame to one party for a pervasive trend is distracting and ultimately untrue. It has more to do with what fox news on one side or msnbc on the other keeps hammering you with.

On the issue at hand, you haven't really clarified how things will get worse at tobacconists.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

The government has ZERO right meddling in this.

As much as I can't stand smoking (cigarettes) I have to agree.

 

[JBroll]

I noticed that J didn't name Democrats, so I thought you were jumping a bit too far there - but this is something Obama has personally showed much support for (and something very similar to something Bush vetoed)...

As for tobaccionists... the kind of smokes banned are often claimed to be 'gateway smokes' that get children started early - in fact, that's exactly why they're only available at specialty tobaccionists and made by small companies that don't spend every waking hour throwing more addictive additives into their smokes. This was passed under the banner of protecting the children (it even has 'Family' in the title, for fuck's sake) but the real 'gateway smokes' (the ones you can nick from gas stations or purchase easily with fake IDs from inattentive clerks at the grocery store) are PM's bread and butter.

Seriously... nobody smokes fucking strawberry cigarettes anyway - odd things, like cloves or the now-discontinued Earl Grey cigarettes by Nat Sherman, are more specialized and have a following from silly old people who want to try new things. What's really happening is that those 'specialty' things, a niche market that PM wasn't able to get into, are now going to be illegal for what honestly comes down to no good reason at all - the claim is that children start smoking them because they mistake them for candy and LIGHT THEM ON FIRE, but that never happens. These 'specialty' or 'flavored' cigarettes (excluding menthols, of course) are no longer going to be available, throwing companies that made them practically out of the country and getting rid of the vast majority of the competition to the 'Big Tobacco' whipping-boy. Few people can compete with the rapid speed at which companies like PM throw out cheap, shitty, additive-shocked smokes, and now the other major avenue for them to compete through is just gone.

Jeff

 

[egan.]

I noticed that J didn't name Democrats, so I thought you were jumping a bit too far there - but this is something Obama has personally showed much support for (and something very similar to something Bush vetoed)...

As for tobaccionists... the kind of smokes banned are often claimed to be 'gateway smokes' that get children started early - in fact, that's exactly why they're only available at specialty tobaccionists and made by small companies that don't spend every waking hour throwing more addictive additives into their smokes. This was passed under the banner of protecting the children (it even has 'Family' in the title, for fuck's sake) but the real 'gateway smokes' (the ones you can nick from gas stations or purchase easily with fake IDs from inattentive clerks at the grocery store) are PM's bread and butter.

Seriously... nobody smokes fucking strawberry cigarettes anyway - odd things, like cloves or the now-discontinued Earl Grey cigarettes by Nat Sherman, are more specialized and have a following from silly old people who want to try new things. What's really happening is that those 'specialty' things, a niche market that PM wasn't able to get into, are now going to be illegal for what honestly comes down to no good reason at all - the claim is that children start smoking them because they mistake them for candy and LIGHT THEM ON FIRE, but that never happens. These 'specialty' or 'flavored' cigarettes (excluding menthols, of course) are no longer going to be available, throwing companies that made them practically out of the country and getting rid of the vast majority of the competition to the 'Big Tobacco' whipping-boy. Few people can compete with the rapid speed at which companies like PM throw out cheap, shitty, additive-shocked smokes, and now the other major avenue for them to compete through is just gone.

Jeff

I gotcha. I certainly am not surprised that things favor the major industries, but I also think that the tobacconists will probably be ok. FWIW I am on some mailing lists and was spammed pretty hard about the tax hike (the SCHIP) so in some ways the fact that this is the first I've heard about this gives me the impression that this isn't as concerning to the specialty market. OTOH it may be the combination of these factors that will really do the most damage (more expensive, less selection).
FWIW I have to say that I've never seen anyone over 20 smoking a clove so for better or worse they might have a point there. That of course doesn't mean I support any sort of ban.

 

[JBroll]

I've never seen anyone under 20 smoking cloves... in fact, I only see 20-year-olds in solid black smoking them.

The tobacconists who don't get significant income from specialty smokes will be fine, but the rest are legally screwed.

Jeff

 

[egan.]

I've never seen anyone under 20 smoking cloves... in fact, I only see 20-year-olds in solid black smoking them.

The tobacconists who don't get significant income from specialty smokes will be fine, but the rest are legally screwed.

Jeff

I guess we went to high school different places. Solid black is correct though.

I think we are using specialty differently, but from what I can tell the issue is aromatics, yes? That being the case it is more of a protection PM than a benefit. No one is going to say, "well I can't get my orange infused pipe tobacco so I guess I'll switch to Marlboros."
I'm actually surprised that this is in for the simple fact that so many politician smoke or violate interns with high end cigars.


Edit:

So I just read the full bill and this is what it actually says:

Prohibits a cigarette or any of its components from containing as a constituent or additive any artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or any herb or spice (including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, and vanilla) that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.

Note the specific use of the word cigarette which implies that this does not affect pipe or cigar aromatics. I'm no lawyer, but the law is actually pretty specific about it's definitions of the various products because cigarettes are taxed at a higher rate than cigars and some other tobacco products. Note the extensive list of products in the quote below for a demonstration of this. I don't know that this even applies to cigarillos. This is the only mention of flavor additives in the bill. This would also explain why I never received a single "call your congressman email. Obviously the methol exception is pretty blatant pandering to the big companies.

Prohibits the Secretary from: (1) banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products; or (2) requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero.

Self explanatory. For those folks freaking out, no one is banning cigarettes.

The summary is here and if you scroll down you can read the whole bill.

 

[jrt12]

"I've never seen anyone under 20 smoking cloves... in fact, I only see 20-year-olds in solid black smoking them."

oh shit! that is so right on


@ egan: i do agree with you that i might have too easily blamed the left for this, however, notice i said the left and not dem vs. rep. cuz i'll say this, i'm on the right but that party and their figures dont speak for me (steele, limbaugh, and most def not mccain).

anyways, my point is.... youre right, its not a party issue. jeff said my point better than me. bigger govt and more control is always bad news in my opinion regardless of who's in charge for the moment

 

[iekobrid]

i'm on the right but that party and their figures dont speak for me (steele, limbaugh, and most def not mccain).

I listened to a broadcast of Newt Gingrich speaking at a party fundraiser this afternoon, and for every one good, solid point made the guy spewed two fallacies, three misrepresentations, and half a lie. I know any politician worth their salt is only going to tell people what they want to hear, but this was embarrasing. (I'm registered GOP.) I reeeally hope he doesn't turn up on any ballots in three years.

 

[egan.]

@ egan: i do agree with you that i might have too easily blamed the left for this, however, notice i said the left and not dem vs. rep. cuz i'll say this, i'm on the right but that party and their figures dont speak for me (steele, limbaugh, and most def not mccain).

anyways, my point is.... youre right, its not a party issue. jeff said my point better than me. bigger govt and more control is always bad news in my opinion regardless of who's in charge for the moment

Fair enough. And my (over)reaction to the rhetoric thing is b/c we are constantly inundated with one-liners masquerading as news. It totally creates a situation where it is easy to "know" things without ever hearing any details.