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

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!

 

[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:

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:

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

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?