New Tobacco Bill Bans Flavored Cigarettes

[Axiom_Blade]

What do y'all think of this new bill that places tobacco under the oversight of the FDA?
Sounds good, right?
Cigarettes can no longer be marketed as "light" or "low tar". I'm fine with that, too. However, why is flavored tobacco banned now?! No more cloves, no more fruit-flavored smokes, no more shisha for hookas! Menthols, for some reason, are curiously exempt. Hhmmm..

It turns out:
...the bill was largely shaped by Philip Morris (now called Altria), which sells more cigarettes than nearly every other American tobacco company combined.

"It is a dream come true for Philip Morris," Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told me. "First, they make it look like they are a reformed company which really cares about reducing the toll of cigarettes and protecting the public's health; and second, they protect their domination of the market and make it impossible for potentially competitive products to enter the market." Other tobacco companies have taken to calling the bill the "Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009."

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/06/08/cool-refreshing-legislation-philip-morris?page=full (http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/06/08/cool-refreshing-legislation-philip-morris?page=full)

This is all kinds of wrong. But what I am doing is running to the store and stocking up on Djarum Specials and Blacks.

[GreyICE]

What? That's retarded. Do they really think that has a hope in hell of standing up in court?

WTO is going to smash this one. I mean it doesn't even make any sense, it's pure protectionism.

[oldhat]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124474789599707175.html

The new ban on candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes isn't expected to have a big financial impact. Menthol cigarettes are initially exempt from the ban because of demands from the Congressional Black Caucus. About 75% of African-American smokers buy menthol brands.

The FDA is required to set up an advisory panel that will report within a year on whether menthol should be banned.

As far as banning fruit flavored tobacco, good. That stuff is designed to get children interested in smoking. The number of hooka smokers who will suffer (?) under this law is so small, they're of no real importance. People who really want to smoke hookas can get regular tobacco and make their own flavored tobacco.

I hope they ban menthol cigarettes, too. I find it bizarre that the Black Caucus fought against the menthol ban. They're happy that those cigarettes are killing off their constituents?

[dirtywick]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124474789599707175.html



As far as banning fruit flavored tobacco, good. That stuff is designed to get children interested in smoking. The number of hooka smokers who will suffer (?) under this law is so small, they're of no real importance. People who really want to smoke hookas can get regular tobacco and make their own flavored tobacco.

I hope they ban menthol cigarettes, too. I find it bizarre that the Black Caucus fought against the menthol ban. They're happy that those cigarettes are killing off their constituents?

Yeah, **** hooka smokers and black people!

:con2:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is "cancer" a flavor?

[CynicalSkeptic]

I don't understand why it has to move to the FDA's control. Couldn't the same restrictions have been put in place under the FTC and BATF?

[Axiom_Blade]

As far as banning fruit flavored tobacco, good. That stuff is designed to get children interested in smoking.
I assume you have evidence for this?
Children aren't the only people who like fruit flavoring. I know adults who smoke those.

Cloves would be banned under this bill, too. That's my favorite cigarette!


The number of hooka smokers who will suffer (?) under this law is so small, they're of no real importance.

So, because they're in the minority, their rights don't matter?


People who really want to smoke hookas can get regular tobacco and make their own flavored tobacco.

Even if they could, why should they have to?

I hope they ban menthol cigarettes, too.

Sure. I hope they ban something you like, too.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As far as banning fruit flavored tobacco, good. That stuff is designed to get children interested in smoking. The number of hooka smokers who will suffer (?) under this law is so small, they're of no real importance. People who really want to smoke hookas can get regular tobacco and make their own flavored tobacco.

You're right. However, I don't think the law even extends to a ban on flavors of loose-tobacco, but just cigarettes. That's fine by me. I don't think many kids are hooked by pipe-smoking or roll-your-own cigs.

[The Nimble Pianist]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124474789599707175.html



As far as banning fruit flavored tobacco, good. That stuff is designed to get children interested in smoking. The number of hooka smokers who will suffer (?) under this law is so small, they're of no real importance. People who really want to smoke hookas can get regular tobacco and make their own flavored tobacco.

I hope they ban menthol cigarettes, too. I find it bizarre that the Black Caucus fought against the menthol ban. They're happy that those cigarettes are killing off their constituents?

I assume for the sake of consistency you oppose flavored beers and liqueurs?

[The Nimble Pianist]

An interesting bit from the cited article:



Continues Siegel: "Most health groups are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Philip Morris in lobbying for this legislation. [But] smaller companies are opposing it. The reason the small companies are standing in opposition is that the bill would essentially freeze current market share." Indeed, a statement by R.J. Reynolds says the bill would make it "virtually impossible for tobacco manufacturers to develop and introduce products that have the potential to reduce the risk of tobacco usage." As troubling as the menthol exemption is, the strangling of these alternative products, and of the competition to Philip Morris, is equally stunning.

Reynolds, in fact, recently rolled out a product developed in Sweden called Snus. The pouches of moist tobacco are sort of a spitless chew for smokers who don't want to go on the patch. While still a health risk, as a replacement for an addicted smoker, studies showed that snus are a "pathway from smoking," rather than, as menthols are, a gateway to it. That's because while menthols taste like a vaporized dinner mint, snus taste more like a "soggy cigarette," according to Forbes. In other words, the product isn't nearly as attractive to young people as it is to hard-core smokers who need their nicotine fix in nonsmoking environments. One study estimates that if all of Europe switched from smokes to Swedish snus, 200,000 fewer people a year would die of lung cancer there.

Then there are electronic cigarettes, tobaccoless sticks that dispense nicotine vapor. These gadgets are already under FDA scrutiny, even though the associated health risks compared to snus are thought to be slimmer still. Anecdotal stories about the novel devices show people are successfully quitting smoking while using them. The smoking bill would further empower the FDA to take action against these cigarette replacements, even though they use no tobacco and aren't made by cigarette manufacturers.

Doesn't seem this bill has much to do with health advocacy.

[firecoins]

why aren't cigarettes being banned?

[oldhat]

I assume for the sake of consistency you oppose flavored beers and liqueurs?

Alcopop sold in liquor stores near schools? Absolutely.

Listen, I assume you guys don't live in the 'hood. I do. The liquor stores in my neighborhood have cardboard displays for these fruit flavored cigarettes and wrapping papers (for rolling blunts, a hollowed out cigar filled with weed) that are clearly targeted at kids. The packaging is basically the same as sugary cereal or candy. No adult would be enticed into trying a product marketed as tasting like a "Berry Blast" or "Cool Grape." Here's a package for one of the blunt papers:

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/29057432-300x300-0-0_Royal_Blunts_P.jpg

I wonder what that disclaimer is doing on the top of the package if kids wouldn't be interested in it in the first place?

I assume you have evidence for this?

The Canadian government found internal industry documents admitting to as much:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN2649690620090526?sp=true

[The Nimble Pianist]

Alcopop sold in liquor stores near schools? Absolutely.

Listen, I assume you guys don't live in the 'hood. I do. The liquor stores in my neighborhood have cardboard displays for these fruit flavored cigarettes and wrapping papers (for rolling blunts, a hollowed out cigar filled with weed) that are clearly targeted at kids. The packaging is basically the same as sugary cereal or candy. No adult would be enticed into trying a product marketed as tasting like a "Berry Blast" or "Cool Grape." Here's a package for one of the blunt papers:

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/29057432-300x300-0-0_Royal_Blunts_P.jpg


LOL. Thanks for the unneeded explanation. I'm quite familiar with blunts ;)


I wonder what that disclaimer is doing on the top of the package if kids wouldn't be interested in it in the first place?



The Canadian government found internal industry documents admitting to as much:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN2649690620090526?sp=true

I don't know if that matters much. Fact is:

- Selling to minors is already illegal, including those blunt wraps without the tobacco, and even the lighters or matches necessary to spark them.

- Regardless of the company's original intentions, there are adults who enjoy these products.


I could understand advocating change in advertising strategies that do not single out children, but outright banning the entire product (to even adults)?

[The Nimble Pianist]

The Canadian government found internal industry documents admitting to as much:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN2649690620090526?sp=true

Can you point specifically where in that article it says what you think it says?

I've read it three times and it says nothing about internal industry documents admitting to designing these products for the purpose of getting kids hooked.

[oldhat]

- Regardless of the company's original intentions, there are adults who enjoy these products.


OK, so internal industry documents prove they created these products to hook kids on a deadly substance, but even if they've been lying about not marketing these products towards kids, on balance it's OK because there are some adults out there who use the product?

That's like saying a toy manufacturer produces a cap gun marketed towards kids that keeps blowing kids' fingers off, but it the product shouldn't be banned because there are some adults who can use the cap gun responsibly.

Remember lawn darts?

[oldhat]

Can you point specifically where in that article it says what you think it says?

I've read it three times and it says nothing about internal industry documents admitting to designing these products for the purpose of getting kids hooked.

Third paragraph:

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said the industry's own internal documents showed it was using sweet flavors like grape, banana and peach to entice teenagers to try tobacco for the first time so they become addicted.

[The Nimble Pianist]

OK, so internal industry documents prove they created these products to hook kids on a deadly substance, but even if they've been lying about not marketing these products towards kids, on balance it's OK because there are some adults out there who use the product?

That's like saying a toy manufacturer produces a cap gun marketed towards kids that keeps blowing kids' fingers off, but it the product shouldn't be banned because there are some adults who can use the cap gun responsibly.

Remember lawn darts?

I think that's a bit of a stretch for a comparison. Toys, almost by definition, are a child's article. Tobacco, by our understanding, is a "grown up thing".

To humor though, yes. We shouldn't outright ban it.

Remember motorized scooters? When I was 15, I was able to legally buy one. Three years later, the law changed banning children from doing so (while keeping the scooters available for adults) as a number of accidents occurred.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Third paragraph:

Wow. How oblivious of me. Sorry, and thanks.

[Axiom_Blade]

Alcopop sold in liquor stores near schools? Absolutely.


This is all moot, anyway. There are already laws against selling tobacco or alcohol to minors. There's also laws preventing adults from buying those products for them. The sensible thing is to enforce the already-existing laws, instead of using prohibition.

Cannabis is illegal for anyone to purchase. It doesn't have any fruit flavoring. There isn't any advertising, "targeted at youth" or otherwise. Yet, plenty of minors still smoke it. How do you explain this?

[The Nimble Pianist]

This is all moot, anyway. There are already laws against selling tobacco or alcohol to minors. There's also laws preventing adults from buying those products for them. The sensible thing is to enforce the already-existing laws, instead of using prohibition.

Cannabis is illegal for anyone to purchase. It doesn't have any fruit flavoring. There isn't any advertising, "targeted at youth" or otherwise. Yet, plenty of minors still smoke it. How do you explain this?


But of course! It's because the tobacco industry is producing blunt wraps knowing damn well that their intended use is for smoking weed.

That was meant to be sarcastic, but there is a bit of truth in it (I think).

I know I'm only speaking from anecdote, but I've never seen a person buy a Swisher Sweet to actually smoke it. Nonetheless, should we ban Swishers at the expense of the minority that actually do smoke the tobacco in them simply because many kids are acquiring them illegally and subsequently using them in an illegal manner?

[oldhat]

This is all moot, anyway. There are already laws against selling tobacco or alcohol to minors. There's also laws preventing adults from buying those products for them. The sensible thing is to enforce the already-existing laws, instead of using prohibition.

No one's arguing for banning cigarettes outright. I'm not. But I do think it's morally reprehensible that giant tobacco companies are cynically marketing these products towards youth and then lying about it. And let's be honest, there is a racial and class component to all of this. What function do these flavored cigarettes serve? How does society benefit? How come tobacco products, which kill hundreds of thousands of people, are less regulated than dog food and makeup? We're all paying hidden costs in the long term for the emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease these products cause through higher insurance premiums and needlessly lost work productivity. Anything to cut down on the number of future smokers, and banning the manufacture and sale of flavored cigarettes will do that, is a good thing. Pretty much any social engineering within a democratic framework which reduces the number of smokers, I'm in favor of.


Cannabis is illegal for anyone to purchase. It doesn't have any fruit flavoring. There isn't any advertising, "targeted at youth" or otherwise. Yet, plenty of minors still smoke it. How do you explain this?

That's the power of pop music and MTV.

The funny thing is I'm a smoker. I see those displays when I buy cigarettes from the corner store and I wince for buying into Big Tobacco's marketing juggernaut in my own small way.

I'm trying to quit. It's a horrible habit that I wish I never started.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Will they be banning tobacco flavor?

[The Nimble Pianist]

That's the power of pop music and MTV.


I don't mean to badger this to death, but would you favor a bill that restricted what rappers could rap about? I'm trying to understand where you draw the line in actually banning something simply due to how children might (and indeed do) use it.


The funny thing is I'm a smoker. I see those displays when I buy cigarettes from the corner store and I wince for buying into Big Tobacco's marketing juggernaut in my own small way.

I'm trying to quit. It's a horrible habit that I wish I never started.

Best of luck to you friend. Odd thing is, I'm a non-smoker. Never even tried the stuff. Nonetheless, I don't want the government telling me I, a 23 year old, may not have a clove or a watermelon flavored Swisher simply because those things attract children.

[Axiom_Blade]

No one's arguing for banning cigarettes outright. I'm not.
Yes, but they are banning certain types of cigarettes outright.


But I do think it's morally reprehensible that giant tobacco companies are cynically marketing these products towards youth and then lying about it. And let's be honest, there is a racial and class component to all of this. What function do these flavored cigarettes serve? How does society benefit?

I don't know. How does society benefit from music? Movies? Video games? Wine? Spicy foods? Dirty dancing? Hula hoops?


How come tobacco products, which kill hundreds of thousands of people, are less regulated than dog food and makeup?

Well, you got me there. I'm in favor of FDA oversight, just not the prohibition on flavored tobacco.


That's the power of pop music and MTV.


For serious?
MTV allows ZERO drug references. I remember when they bleeped the word "chronic" out of a Snoop Dogg song.
I can't remember the last time I heard a drug mentioned in a pop song.

The reason kids smoke cannabis and tobacco is because A) they see their peers do it, B) they see adults do it, and C) they want to know what it's like. Plain ol' curiosity and wanting to fit in. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're smart about it.


The funny thing is I'm a smoker. I see those displays when I buy cigarettes from the corner store and I wince for buying into Big Tobacco's marketing juggernaut in my own small way.

I'm trying to quit. It's a horrible habit that I wish I never started.

I wish you well in your attempts to quit.
This reminds me of those ex-alcoholics I've met, who tried to convince me to stop drinking. They saw one beer as the gateway to a lifetime of liver damage and waking up in gutters. They had bad experiences with alcohol, and wanted to save me from them. However, their experiences weren't mine.

I've been a casual smoker for the past 15 years. I had my first cigarette when I was 17. I've never been addicted. I know nicotine is very addictive for most people, though. There should be programs available for those who've decided to quit, just like any addictive drug.

[oldhat]

I don't mean to badger this to death, but would you favor a bill that restricted what rappers could rap about? I'm trying to understand where you draw the line in actually banning something simply due to how children might (and indeed do) use it.

First off, I think tobacco products have very little redeeming social value because nicotine is highly addictive and smoking kills hundreds of thousands of people. Using tobacco doesn't make people healthier or smarter or happier and in fact it's quite dangerous. We, as a society have placed restrictions on other dangerous products, like lawn darts and brass knuckles. So this isn't something new. And tobacco products, like guns and alcohol, have a special status in the marketplace.

Compare tobacco to products like superglue or brake cleaner. Those do have redeeming social value, and even though kids can get high off of those products by huffing them, they're not designed to appeal to kids and they aren't marketed to them. So banning them makes no sense.

But fruit and candy tobacco products are specifically targeted at kids. The displays in the store, the packaging, the sugary taste, everything. That's the distinction. They are (cynically) marketed this way knowing that kids will eventually become loyal, addicted customers. Addiction to tobacco is a social ill that is entirely preventable if more people aren't tempted to try smoking when they're young. One very effective way is removing those temptations from the marketplace. Again, anything to prevent teen smoking is good in my book.

Tobacco companies don't make tobacco products that are flavored with tastes adults like but kids think are gross, like coffee, whiskey or bitters. The tobacco companies know perfectly well what they're doing.

[dirtywick]

First of all, tobacco companies do make adult flavored cigarettes and cigars. They're called cigarettes and cigars. Secondly, there's absolutely is fruit flavored alcohol and sweet tasting coffee.

[oldhat]

First of all, tobacco companies do make adult flavored cigarettes and cigars. They're called cigarettes and cigars.

Yes, that's the point. Tobacco smoke is pretty disgusting tasting to kids so they cover it up with fruit and candy flavoring to make it more appealing to first timers.

Secondly, there's absolutely is fruit flavored alcohol and sweet tasting coffee.

Fruit flavored alcohol is a pretty broad category. There's a huge distinction between the marketing and packaging of something like a vodka with some currant essence thrown in and alcopop.

I doubt many serious adult drinkers find sugary swill like Mike's Hard Lemonade appealing. That stuff is made for people who haven't developed the acquired taste for alcohol yet, like teenagers and sorority girls.

[dirtywick]

Yes, that's the point. Tobacco smoke is pretty disgusting tasting to kids so they cover it up with fruit and candy flavoring to make it more appealing to first timers.

I'd say they make it more appealing to people who don't enjoy the natural flavor. I'm sure there's overlap, but I'd have to see some data as to who is buying more of these.


Fruit flavored alcohol is a pretty broad category. There's a huge distinction between the marketing and packaging of something like a vodka with some currant essence thrown in and alcopop.

I doubt many serious adult drinkers find sugary swill like Mike's Hard Lemonade appealing. That stuff is made for people who haven't developed the acquired taste for alcohol yet, like teenagers and sorority girls.

Guess everyone has an opinion, and mine is I doubt these products exist for children, but for people who like sweet flavors and are primarily adults.

[dirtywick]

To be more specific, this is what I think:

These uncovered documents are the old ones from the 80's and earlier. I don't think tobacco companies do this purposefully to nearly the extent that they once did, if at all. Tobacco companies are probably the most heavily scrutinized and penalized industries in the history of everything ever.

Furthermore, people want to smoke and drink, and find the types of products they enjoy and buy them. Even serious drinkers, because there's not a bar in town that doesn't serve a margarita or have some apple puckers or rose tequila or those other broad drinks.

Finally, marketing on children works because they badger their parents into buying the items they're marketing them at, because kids don't have any money. You can put a box of Frosted Flakes with Tony the Tiger on the bottom shelf where kids see it and they'll throw a fit to get it, and some parents cave. Do that with a bottle of liquor with Jim the Alcoholic Armadillo or a pack of blunts with Strawberry Shortcakes smoking one, forget it, no parent is going to buy that for their child/teen, it'd be insane. In a time when the tobacco industry is much more heavily regulated and scrutinized, and awareness is what it is, I don't buy that marketing to children like that could possibly work like when it did when carding wasn't enforced much. I'd bet that exposure to tobacco products among teens is more likely from them either stealing or getting cigarettes from their parents/adult peers(respectively) who are outside of that target group being adults and all...unless adults actually buy this "kiddie" **** too, in which case it's marketed to everyone anyway.

But that's what I think.

[KoihimeNakamura]

lol no.

Adults do buy stuff like Mike's Hard Lemonade, and Swisher Sweets. A lot.

(Hell, a lot of people buy the Swishers packages, and they are at least 20-30.)

(FTR: This is just my experience selling the things, it may vary from area to area.)

[The Nimble Pianist]

In any case (this thread has gone a bit off course).

The OP has nothing to do with children or advertising to such a segment of the population.

It's about outright banning flavored tobacco, except menthol, seemingly at the lobbying of a single corporation with vested interest.

This whole thing seems rather shady, and I call shenanigans.

[TheJim]

Getting back to the FDA bill it is yet another bill that will end up doing more harm than good. Take the tobacco product snuss this a pretty heavily studied product that has so far shown very few side effects and almost none of that of smoking tobacco and yet it is illegal for the makers to market the product as safer than smoking. If theoretically a cig could be developed with zero side effects and lets say improve your health well those researchers broke the law and they could not market the product. This bill is stright out of the teetotaler or abstince only playbook that sees harm reduction as evil.

[JoeTheJuggler]

why aren't cigarettes being banned?
Because prohibition doesn't seem to be a good solution to addiction.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have no problem with banning flavored cigarettes, though I don't think they handled the menthol exception so well.

Despite the talk of "flavor" in cigarette ads, a person who smokes for the first time generally has an unpleasant experience. It's primarily addiction that makes smoking into something pleasant. I think menthol was added as a way to make the smoking more accessible (and probably as a way of getting brand loyalty or at least brand distinction). I would see any fruit flavoring as the same sort of thing. I don't know (or even care overly much) if it's aimed at children or non-smokers 18 and over.

I support reasonable measure to make it harder for people to get hooked (and this includes increasing nicotine content).

ETA: If filters weren't so deeply entrenched, I'd be in favor of getting rid of them too. They're an attempt to soften the harshness of the smoke and to make people think that it somehow makes cigarette smoking safer. Again, the result is more addiction.

[Alareth]

Does this only affect cigarettes or does it also cover cigars and cigarellos?

I ask because it would force companies like Swisher virtually out of business in the US.

(Not that I feel it would be a bad thing)

[Molinaro]

In any case (this thread has gone a bit off course).

The OP has nothing to do with children or advertising to such a segment of the population.
It's about outright banning flavored tobacco, except menthol, seemingly at the lobbying of a single corporation with vested interest.

This whole thing seems rather shady, and I call shenanigans.

Yes it does, because the existance of those products has been stated by the manufacturer's documents to be for just such a purpose.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Yes it does, because the existance of those products has been stated by the manufacturer's documents to be for just such a purpose.

Really? The ban in question in the OP, which is backed by Phillip Morris, has to do with preventing children from being hooked because Phillip Morris is targeting them?

[The Nimble Pianist]

I have no problem with banning flavored cigarettes, though I don't think they handled the menthol exception so well.



I think this is where a fundamental difference in ideals lies. I certainly understand the call to prohibition, but I can't say I'm on board.

Tax and regulate the hell out of them, sure.

[OMGturt1es]

I doubt many serious adult drinkers find sugary swill like Mike's Hard Lemonade appealing. That stuff is made for people who haven't developed the acquired taste for alcohol yet, like teenagers and sorority girls.

Anecdotal as it may be, almost every adult woman I know likes flavored alcohol drinks. And I like them too, on occasion, as do most of the adult men that I know.

And what about cocktails? Vodka and cran? Flavored vodka?

I can understand banning dirty marketing techniques. I can understand punishing various companies for dirty marketing techniques. I can even understand forcing the advertisements to be inherently uncool. Whatever. That's fine.

I can't understand banning the products.

[Z]

I have a feeling banning flavored products is just going to lead to a criminal underground industry of producing flavored products, or to individuals trying to reproduce those flavors themselves - leading to many cases of poisoning and illness in the process. Isn't smoking banana peels supposed to be dangerous? I don't remember.

I can just see when that guy used to smoking whiskey-flavored cigars from our store soaks his favorite smoke in actual whiskey, and then lights it up. Whoosh! Think he'll get a bad burn from that?

Prohibition never really works. If it did, we wouldn't have a drug problem today.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this is where a fundamental difference in ideals lies. I certainly understand the call to prohibition, but I can't say I'm on board.

Tax and regulate the hell out of them, sure.

I don't follow. I said above that I'm opposed to prohibition. Banning flavors and manipulating nicotine levels and whatnot is regulation, isn't it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Anecdotal as it may be, almost every adult woman I know likes flavored alcohol drinks. And I like them too, on occasion, as do most of the adult men that I know.

And what about cocktails? Vodka and cran? Flavored vodka?

I can understand banning dirty marketing techniques. I can understand punishing various companies for dirty marketing techniques. I can even understand forcing the advertisements to be inherently uncool. Whatever. That's fine.

I can't understand banning the products.

But no one is suggesting banning flavored cocktails, right?

The proposed legislation is strictly about tobacco products not "flavored products".

I think there are legitimate arguments pro and con on the issue, but arguing against a proposal to ban "flavored products" in general is a straw man argument.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is all moot, anyway. There are already laws against selling tobacco or alcohol to minors. There's also laws preventing adults from buying those products for them. The sensible thing is to enforce the already-existing laws, instead of using prohibition.
But no one is proposing prohibition of cigarettes or tobacco.

Will they be banning tobacco flavor
No. Why?

Yes, but they are banning certain types of cigarettes outright.
Well any form of regulation of a product can be construed then as prohibition of "certain types" of that product. Equating that sort of regulation with prohibition is dishonest argumentation.

For examples, in regulating food, some levels of contamination in food is beyond the legal levels, and we prohibit selling products known to be so tainted. You wouldn't consider that a prohibition on that kind of food (just the known tainted examples of that food). It's illegal to sell power tools without proper grounding, but that's not the same thing as prohibiting the sale of power tools.

[Whiplash]

I think this is where a fundamental difference in ideals lies. I certainly understand the call to prohibition, but I can't say I'm on board.

Tax and regulate the hell out of them, sure.


Which ultimately ends up punishing people who are addicted to them. And harshly these days.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which ultimately ends up punishing people who are addicted to them. And harshly these days.
Yes, that's very true. At the same time, nicotine addiction punishes smokers and the taxpayer in general. Addressing the problem of nicotine addiction is definitely a balancing of various interests.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Anecdotal as it may be, almost every adult woman I know likes flavored alcohol drinks. And I like them too, on occasion, as do most of the adult men that I know.

And what about cocktails? Vodka and cran? Flavored vodka?

I can understand banning dirty marketing techniques. I can understand punishing various companies for dirty marketing techniques. I can even understand forcing the advertisements to be inherently uncool. Whatever. That's fine.

I can't understand banning the products.

Exactly my position, and you said it much better than I ever could.

Remember though, we technically allowed ourselves to get sidetracked with the alleged immoral marketing techniques (to children) when the central issue here with respect to the banning of flavored tobaccos is of a business allegedly using the law to stomp out competition and in the process stomp out legitimate smoking cessation and reduction products.

[Whiplash]

Yes, that's very true. At the same time, nicotine addiction punishes smokers and the taxpayer in general. Addressing the problem of nicotine addiction is definitely a balancing of various interests.


Yes, I'm beginning to see that. I have to admit, it's a problem for me because I'm irritated with myself. I've tried a few times since the start of the year to quit smoking. And kept going back. And it's starting to hurt financially. In the past year or two, the cost of cigarettes in Wisconsin has practically doubled due to new taxes. And I smoke near two packs a day.

I've decided to try again, probably starting as soon as the next 12 hours.. whenever this pack runs out.

[ImaginalDisc]

Alcopop sold in liquor stores near schools? Absolutely.

Listen, I assume you guys don't live in the 'hood. I do. The liquor stores in my neighborhood have cardboard displays for these fruit flavored cigarettes and wrapping papers (for rolling blunts, a hollowed out cigar filled with weed) that are clearly targeted at kids. The packaging is basically the same as sugary cereal or candy. No adult would be enticed into trying a product marketed as tasting like a "Berry Blast" or "Cool Grape." Here's a package for one of the blunt papers:

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/29057432-300x300-0-0_Royal_Blunts_P.jpg

I wonder what that disclaimer is doing on the top of the package if kids wouldn't be interested in it in the first place?



The Canadian government found internal industry documents admitting to as much:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN2649690620090526?sp=true


Dude, those are like totally. . .wait, what?

Oh, right. They're marketed to potheads who unroll them and use the fruity flavored wrapping for pot smoking.

[The Nimble Pianist]

I don't follow. I said above that I'm opposed to prohibition. Banning flavors and manipulating nicotine levels and whatnot is regulation, isn't it?

Maybe it's a difference in perspective, but I consider the prohibition of particular flavors to be... prohibition.

The only justification I've seen here so far for banning particular flavors is that the marketing used to sell those flavors is immoral. I might agree that the marketing is immoral, but can't we change that without banning the product itself?

[OMGturt1es]

But no one is suggesting banning flavored cocktails, right?

The proposed legislation is strictly about tobacco products not "flavored products".


Um, I was responding to oldhat, who claimed, "I doubt many serious adult drinkers find sugary swill like Mike's Hard Lemonade appealing. That stuff is made for people who haven't developed the acquired taste for alcohol yet, like teenagers and sorority girls." That's why, well, I quoted oldhat.

I then, in reference to the OP, wrote that I can understand fighting dirty marketing techniques. If flavored tobacco products are being marketed in dirty ways-- especially if we have good, internal documents from big tobacco demonstrating such-- then I'd think punishment is certainly fine. I can even understand strict marketing regulations. Fine. But I don't believe we ought ban the products themselves. I apologize for not making clear that the second half of my post was in response to the OP, and not to the quoted text.

The two points are related, however, as discussion in this thread has concerned the marketing of flavored alcohol products. It appears that some who favor the banning of flavored tobacco products also approve of the banning of flavored alcohol products. It seems that some have argued that dirty marketing techniques ought result in the banning of products. In both cases, I don't agree.


I think there are legitimate arguments pro and con on the issue, but arguing against a proposal to ban "flavored products" in general is a straw man argument.

Well, I'm not making such an argument to specifically argue against the flavored tobacco product ban. If you read the thread, I think you'll agree that some seem to be advocating the ban of certain flavored, age-restricted items, based on the claims that these flavored products serve only the purpose of enticing the young. This is the general claim to which I was responding.

Moreover, even outside this thread, the two topics are related. I don't wish to find myself falling down a slippery slope, but if we see fit to ban flavored tobacco products because they entice the young, why would we see fit to not ban flavored alcohol products? Do they not entice the young as well?

I don't like it at all. And I think tobacco is a useless product that harms society. I've never even tried a tobacco product. And I never will. And it still stinks.

[Axiom_Blade]

Well any form of regulation of a product can be construed then as prohibition of "certain types" of that product. Equating that sort of regulation with prohibition is dishonest argumentation.


Well, okay, then. I suppose you could regulate beer by banning all of the types of beer that contain alcohol. Hey! You can drink O'Doul's and other kinds of non-alcoholic beer all you want! That's not prohibition...it's regulation!

And then I can regulate coffee, banning caffeine. Now everything's decaf. See, now it's safe, and you can still enjoy that coffee taste!


For examples, in regulating food, some levels of contamination in food is beyond the legal levels, and we prohibit selling products known to be so tainted. You wouldn't consider that a prohibition on that kind of food (just the known tainted examples of that food). It's illegal to sell power tools without proper grounding, but that's not the same thing as prohibiting the sale of power tools.

First off, I don't think there's any market for tainted meat or dangerous power tools, which there certainly IS for flavored tobacco.
Second, safe food is, by definition, less dangerous than tainted food. However, it hasn't been established that flavored tobacco is any more dangerous than regular tobacco.

If it turns out to be more dangerous, then...slap a label on it. A big warning label, with scary red letters. Inform the consumer, and let the market decide.

[quadraginta]

In any case (this thread has gone a bit off course).

The OP has nothing to do with children or advertising to such a segment of the population.

It's about outright banning flavored tobacco, except menthol, seemingly at the lobbying of a single corporation with vested interest.

This whole thing seems rather shady, and I call shenanigans.
Perhaps not coincidentally the recent federal tax increase raised the tax on quality handrolling tobacco by approx. 2000% (yes, 2K, not a typo). This has roughly doubled the cost of (for example) a pouch of Bali Shag.

My understanding from the suppliers I have spoken with is that this was solely the result of intense lobbying by Phillip Morris, who doesn't market hand roll products but does compete with them somewhat with their low cost generic factory mades.

The import handroll tobacco market in the U.S. is almost literally at a standstill as the various companies overseas review their options.

I will not be awestruck if sometime in the not too distant future Phillip Morris were to acquire a few such companies at firesale prices, and the tax on loose tobacco suddenly gets "adjusted".

I'd use a stronger term than "shenanigans"

[ponderingturtle]

I doubt many serious adult drinkers find sugary swill like Mike's Hard Lemonade appealing. That stuff is made for people who haven't developed the acquired taste for alcohol yet, like teenagers and sorority girls.

Yep, people need to keep doing things that they hate, or else they are not real men.

See all the people who think Two Girls One Cup is disguisting just need to develop a taste for it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, I'm beginning to see that. I have to admit, it's a problem for me because I'm irritated with myself. I've tried a few times since the start of the year to quit smoking. And kept going back. And it's starting to hurt financially. In the past year or two, the cost of cigarettes in Wisconsin has practically doubled due to new taxes. And I smoke near two packs a day.

I've decided to try again, probably starting as soon as the next 12 hours.. whenever this pack runs out.

I think the financial incentive to quit was strong for me (I quit just over 21 years ago). I also completely fell for the "low-tar" or "lights" marketing. I convinced myself that smoking those brands was somehow not as bad as smoking Pall Malls or whatever.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, okay, then. I suppose you could regulate beer by banning all of the types of beer that contain alcohol. Hey! You can drink O'Doul's and other kinds of non-alcoholic beer all you want! That's not prohibition...it's regulation!
No it's not. Beer without alcohol isn't beer. (O'Doul's isn't beer. It is a "non-alcoholic brew" according to the label.) Yet cigarettes without fruit flavoring added are still cigarettes, and no one is seriously suggesting that we ban cigarettes.

You're trying hard to conflate "regulation" and "prohibition" but they're not actually the same thing.

You can make valid arguments why you think this measure isn't a good idea (for example, your point that there's no evidence that flavored tobaccos target children or are more dangerous--my unsupported assumption is that they are more dangerous because they make getting addicted easier), but equating it with "prohibition" isn't one of them.

ETA: Banning coffee with caffeine would be more analogous to banning cigarettes with nicotine. I don't think anyone's suggesting that either. To make the coffee analogy correct, it would be more like trying to ban coffee with chocolate flavoring in it. That would not be equal to the prohibition of coffee. (Just to avoid a sidetrack, no one is in favor of banning coffee with chocolate flavoring, so arguing why that measure would be a bad idea is not valid argumentation vis a vis cigarettes.)

[billydkid]

Cloves would be banned under this bill, too. That's my favorite cigarette!

You, sir, are worse than Hitler!!!

[FlamingMoe]

Why is limiting the amount of nicotine considered a good idea? The nicotine is what smokers are addicted to, so reducing it means they'll smoke more! What sense does that make?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is limiting the amount of nicotine considered a good idea? The nicotine is what smokers are addicted to, so reducing it means they'll smoke more! What sense does that make?
Actually, I think the proposed regulations will prohibit them marketing "lights" or "low tar/nicotine" cigarettes and make it illegal to manipulate higher nicotine levels.

The "low tar/nicotine" regulation is for the reason you point out (smokers tend to draw harder and smoke more of them to get similar levels of nicotine). I think the rationale for prohibiting extra high nicotine levels is that it's easier to become more quickly addicted with higher levels, and really high levels of nicotine can be more immediately dangerous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning).

ETA: I'm not really sure if this is covered in the proposed FDA regulations. This is just what I've heard from some expert on a radio show.

[Puppycow]

Cloves would be banned under this bill, too. That's my favorite cigarette!Think of the children. You're not thinking of the children.
:hit:


So, because they're in the minority, their rights don't matter? Only the children matter. Stop being selfish.


:duck:

[Puppycow]

Why is limiting the amount of nicotine considered a good idea? The nicotine is what smokers are addicted to, so reducing it means they'll smoke more! What sense does that make?

Oooh! More taxes! More profits! :D

And it all goes to help the children (SCHIP). Please think of the children and stop being so selfish! :hit:

[a_unique_person]

What do y'all think of this new bill that places tobacco under the oversight of the FDA?
Sounds good, right?
Cigarettes can no longer be marketed as "light" or "low tar". I'm fine with that, too. However, why is flavored tobacco banned now?! No more cloves, no more fruit-flavored smokes, no more shisha for hookas! Menthols, for some reason, are curiously exempt. Hhmmm..

It turns out:


http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/06/08/cool-refreshing-legislation-philip-morris?page=full (http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/06/08/cool-refreshing-legislation-philip-morris?page=full)

This is all kinds of wrong. But what I am doing is running to the store and stocking up on Djarum Specials and Blacks.

This is groundbreaking legislation, according to this story.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-congress-passes-historic-curbs-on-tobacco-industry-20090613-c6c8.html



The US Congress voted overwhelmingly Friday to grant the government historic powers to regulate cigarette makers, overturning decades of resistance by the powerful tobacco industry.
The legislation, set to be signed into law later Friday by President Barack Obama, grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a regulatory body, the authority to regulate nicotine levels, ban added flavorings and require tough new warning labels in a bid to curb use among young people.
Obama hailed the passage of the measure as a "victory," saying the bill "truly defines change in Washington."



The details don't matter so much, it's the fact that the government can even touch tobacco that is important. It's one highly poisonous substance that has been out of the hands of the government to date to be able to regulate it. That has now changed forever.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I have to say I am not in favor of this bill. But hey, all the people who work at convience stores and ahve to deal with market share don't matter, right?

(Incidently, I never got how people thought Lights were.. light in nicotine.)

Clarification: The problem I have is pretty much if they ban this and then menthol, there goes a lot of our sales. And, incidently, while I don't really care for smoke, I don't see why my or anyone's opinion should stop people of legal age from buying it. Warnings? Hell yes. Banning? Nooo.

[ponderingturtle]

I have to say I am not in favor of this bill. But hey, all the people who work at convience stores and ahve to deal with market share don't matter, right?

This is true of any product so it is not a very strong argument. It is like the "Think of the Insurance Companies" arguments in discussing how to restructure health care.