New Tobacco Bill Bans Flavored Cigarettes

[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:

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

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.

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.

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

Only the children matter. Stop being selfish.

 

[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!

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