Smokerism

Help Stop Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010

NoMoreTobaccoTaxes — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:53 GMT

Ok, so hopefully by now you've contacted your local representatives in Congress about stopping HR 4439. If not, you can stand up and be counted using this website.

How else can you help? Get your fellow pipe smokers active in this cause! To make it easier to do so, you'll find attached to this posting a copy of a PDF file that you can print up, cut up and hand out to all you know. This will hopefully make it easy for them to find the Rally Congress site set up to stop this affront to our sensibilities.

Everyone is free to download and use this document to help in this new fight against tyranny!

Stop The Insanity New York!

NoMoreTobaccoTaxes — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:04:03 GMT

From the city that brought you the smoking ban in parks and other public places under the guise of protecting children from SEEING people smoking comes a new low in their erstwhile condemnation of the LEGAL smoking public.

In late October, the NYC City Council voted to ban sale of ALL flavored tobacco products (except of course menthol cigarettes). This ban would include flavored chewing tobacco and cigars! Mayor Bloomberg, who kicked off the city's crackdown on smoking in 2002, is expected to sign this bill into law soon.

The argument is that the FDA's recent legislation that prohibits the sale of flavored cigarettes (except menthol of course) doesn't go far enough to stop kids from being tempted to smoke. They are claiming that little cigars, cigars, snus and chewing tobacco are all "gateway drugs" that Big Tobacco is using to drive kids to smoke more cigarettes. Of course this is in direct contradiction to the fact that Big Tobacco doesn't produce any flavored smokes BESIDES menthol cigarettes and hasn't for years. Not coincidentally, this legislation purposefully excludes products flavored with "menthol, mint or clove tastes or aromas" from the ban; precisely the only flavored smoking products that Big Tobacco DOES produce.

Brooklyn Councilman Lewis Fidler is the sole voice of reason on this board. His nay vote was cast rightfully because the sale of tobacco products to minors is already illegal and these new laws will do NOTHING to stop that.

Amazingly enough, in this day and age when municipalities are cutting back on critical services like law enforcement, medical and educational services they have chosen a course of action that not only does NOTHING to stop kids from starting to smoke, it does so an estimated cost of $2 million per year in tax revenues that will be lost. How many cops can you add to the beat for $2 million per year?

Why not try increasing the tax on this class of product to price it out of the hands of teenagers? That is the stance that Councilman Fidler espouses as being a more attractive alternative.

More importantly, if you REALLY want to do something about keeping kids from starting smoking via flavored products, why not stop the hypocrisy initiated by the FDA legislation and ban the sale of menthol cigarettes instead of high end luxury products (like fine flavored cigars) enjoyed by consenting adults that are already priced out of the reach of most children?

STOP THE INSANITY NYC! Stop making the useless gestures that make for great sound bites ("It's for the kids") that in reality only go to further stigmatize and criminalize legal consumers of tobacco-based products. Shame on you!

Flavored Cigarette Ban Starts Tuesday, Sept. 22nd

NoMoreTobaccoTaxes — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:22:20 GMT

The Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into effect by President Barak Obama on June 22 2009 has a provision that prohibits any flavored cigarettes (except for menthol of course) from being sold as of Tuesday. In a “Letter to Industry on Cigarettes Containing Certain Characterizing Flavors”, sent to tobacconists across the country on September 14th, states that

establishes a tobacco product standard special rule for cigarettes that states in part:

…a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.

This standard applies to all tobacco products that meet the definition of a “cigarette” in section 900(3) of the Act even if they are not labeled as “cigarettes” or are labeled as cigars or as some other product.

Of course, they don’t really explain what the text of Section 900(3) is so many tobacconists have been struggling to try and understand what that means. Does that mean that pipe tobacco and cigars WILL be affected? At face value this could be the case.

Here is the actual text of the appropriate section:

‘‘SEC. 900. DEFINITIONS.

‘‘(3) CIGARETTE.—The term ‘cigarette’—
     ‘‘(A) means a product that—
         ‘‘(i) is a tobacco product; and
         ‘‘(ii) meets the definition of the term ‘cigarette’ in section 3(1) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act; and
     ‘‘(B) includes tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette or as roll-your-own tobacco.
‘‘(4) CIGARETTE TOBACCO.—The term ‘cigarette tobacco’ means any product that consists of loose tobacco that is intended for use by consumers in a cigarette. Unless otherwise stated, the requirements applicable to cigarettes under this chapter shall also apply to cigarette tobacco.

The Section referred to above is most likely Title 15, Chapter 36, Section 1332(1) of the US Code:

(1) The term “cigarette” means—

(A) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco, and

(B) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in subparagraph (A).

So, using the above, it would appear that cigars will not be affected. It is pretty clear that taking a cigarette and calling it a little cigar is not going to exempt that product from this section of the act. However, truly legitimate little cigars will. However, there is wiggle room provided by the appearance portion of (1)(B) above.

However, where does this leave the pipe smoker? Our vendors tell us this is not going to present a problem, however the verbiage in Section 900(3)(B) could be loosely interpreted to include pipe tobacco because people COULD purchase pipe tobacco for RYO cigarettes. We’ve even seen some vendors bagging up RYO flavored cigarette tobacco and labeling it as pipe tobacco. One look at the tobacco will confirm that it isn’t pipe tobacco despite what it says on the packaging.

Originally I assumed this was an attempt to get around the $24/pound federal tax on RYO products (Thank you SCHIPPs) but it may be an attempt to get around this restriction as well. One hopes that shenanigans like this or extensive use of pipe tobacco by cigarette smokers doesn’t cause a crack-down on pipe tobacco.

Comments or thoughts on this topic? Please use the feedback mechanism shown below…

NYC Health Commission Just Doesn’t Think…

NoMoreTobaccoTaxes — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:13:01 GMT

The Rest of the Story blog has a reasoned post today in “NYC Health Commissioner: "We Don't Think Children Should Have to Watch Someone Smoking” about how anti-smoking movement has degraded from protecting the health of those exposed to second-hand smoke to preventing people from SEEING someone smoking. Smokerism is running amuck in this country and those of us who enjoy our LEGAL past-time need to read this and start to stand up to this type of oppression.

According to an article at NY1, New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley explained that the reason behind the city's proposal to ban smoking in all parks is not to protect people from secondhand smoke, but to prevent children from even having to see a smoker in public.
The Health Commissioner was quoted as stating: "We don't think children should have to watch someone smoking."
The New York Times also reported that the Health Commissioner described the smoking ban in public parks as being intended not to protect nonsmokers, but to get smokers to quit by making it harder for them to light up in public.
According to the article in the Times, "Dr. Farley said the ban—which officials said may require the approval of the City Council, but could possibly be done through administrative rule-making by the city's Department of Parks and Recreation—was part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking rates, which have fallen in recent years."
The Rest of the Story
Make no bones about it. Anti-smoking advocates are now promoting smoking bans for the purpose not of protecting nonsmokers from the hazards of secondhand smoke, but of protecting nonsmokers from even having to see smokers in public. And they readily admit it.
For many of my 24 years in tobacco control, the clearly stated goal of the smoke-free movement was to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke by promoting bans on smoking in the workplace and public places. The goal was never to prevent people from seeing smokers. We were talking about a serious health hazard - high levels of direct exposure to a hazardous mix of chemicals in tobacco smoke from other people.
Now, the movement has apparently deteriorated to the point where it is promoting smoking bans simply to prevent people from having to see others smoking.
From an anti-smoking perspective, this is troublesome because I think it will really hurt the cause. It is going to make it more difficult to promote legitimate smoking bans - those which protect workers from substantial exposure to secondhand smoke - in the states which currently do not have workplace or restaurant/bar smoking bans. If we are viewed (now rightly so) as anti-smoking zealots who merely don't want to have to see people smoking in public, then our arguments for intervening in the workplace to eliminate secondhand smoke are greatly undermined.
From a broader public health perspective, this is troublesome because it sets a tremendously bad precedent to ban unhealthy behaviors in public simply because we don't want children to see those behaviors. What's next? Are we going to prohibit people from eating french fries in public because it sets a bad example for kids? Are we going to prohibit the sale of those delicious New York City pretzels because children are seeing the consumption of an unhealthy amount of salt in one sitting? Are we going to prohibit obese people from entering public parks because it sets a bad example?
What the justification being provided for this law does is define smoking as an immoral, rather than simply unhealthy behavior. We generally do not ban unhealthy behaviors in public to protect people from seeing them. The justification for banning certain types of public behavior is either that the behavior harms others or puts them at risk or the behavior violates the public morals. It seems to me that smoking in a wide-open city park does neither. But by justifying banning smoking by arguing that children will see people smoking, city officials are essentially defining smoking as being a violation of the public morals.
I do find it dangerous to set such a precedent, because it is only a small step in logic to use the same reasoning to justify banning obese people from entering public parks. If the justification for not allowing smoking in public is that it sets a bad example for children, then the same reasoning would also support banning obese people from public parks, or also banning a host of other behaviors, from eating Nathan's fries to salted pretzels to high-calorie, colored sugar water (i.e., Coke and Pepsi) in public. I don't understand the singling out of smoking.
What saddens me the most is the loss of the science-base to the tobacco control movement. Not only is the rigor of our science going down the tubes, as I have demonstrated during the past 2 days with these very seriously flawed smoking ban/heart attack studies, but now the science-based justification for our promoted policies is also going down the tubes. Ultimately, I feel this is going to hurt even our legitimate pursuits, such as trying to protect workers from the very real hazards of high levels of secondhand smoke exposure.

What do you think? Speak up and let your voice be heard in our Feedback section below…

Tobacco Manufacturers and Retailer Sue FDA

NoMoreTobaccoTaxes — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:16 GMT

Numerous Tobacco Manufacturers and Retailer File Lawsuit on FDA Provisions

A lawsuit was filed this week in federal district court in Bowling Green, Kentucky by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Conwood Company, LLC, Commonwealth Brands, Inc., Lorillard, Inc., National Tobacco Company, and Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking to protect the constitutional right of tobacco manufacturers and retailers to communicate to adults about tobacco products.

Lawsuit Focus: Constitutional Protection of Speech

While the lawsuit does not challenge the authority that Congress granted to the FDA to regulate tobacco products, the forty-six page complaint focuses on declaring as unconstitutional those regulations that prohibit or restrict the advertising of tobacco products and the providing of information about tobacco products to adults. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, free speech is protected and the U.S. Supreme Court has defined “speech” to include “commercial speech” which is better known as advertising. In fact, the very first sentence in the complaint quotes the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in the case of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v Reilly which states: “[S]o long as the sale and use of tobacco is lawful for adults, the tobacco industry has a protected interest in communicating information about its products and adult customers have an interest in receiving that information.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks to have declared as unconstitutional the new FDA regulations that would:

Prohibit color lettering, trademarks, brand logos and images on all retail point-of-sale advertising and direct mail advertising.

Restrict tobacco product advertising in retail stores to the use of black letters on a white background to list the brand name, product size, price, etc. (also known as “tombstone” advertising).

Prohibit any color imagery on the packaging of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products.

Prohibit tobacco manufacturers from making any statements about tobacco products in scientific, public policy or political debates.

Besides seeking the declaration of unconstitutionality, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are asking the U.S. Federal District Court in Kentucky for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the FDA from enforcing the provisions of the law that relate to tobacco advertising, tobacco packaging and graphic labeling requirements.

In response, the FDA may claim that these advertising and packaging restrictions are needed to reduce youth tobacco use. However, more than a decade ago in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reno v. ACLU, the court majority held that “regardless of the strength of the government’s interest in protecting children, the level of discourse reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.” In other words, the Supreme Court held that advertising meant for adults and which adults have a right to see cannot be restricted simply because children might also see the advertising.

NATO Retailer Comment

NATO retail member Frank Hinton of Discount Tobacco City and Lottery joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff because, in his words, “we only sell tobacco products to people over the age of 18 and it is not right for the federal government to dictate to me how I advertise legal tobacco products in my stores to adult customers.”

From a NATO press release, 9/2/2009

SCHIP Bill Continues to be Priority of New Administration

NoMoreTobaccoTaxes — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:12:40 GMT

Industry Lobbyists' Consensus Sees Compromise Holding For Next Round of SCHIP Deliberations

November 21, 2008 - As rumors continue circulating about SCHIP in 2009, CAA's and IPCPR's lobbyists, along with several industry consultants, met to share new information and prognostications regarding legislation to renew and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

While tempered with a bit of caution, all parties participating on the conference call remain confident the compromise that was reached and agreed to by Congressional leaders will be incorporated into yet-to-be reintroduced SCHIP legislation.

General consensus among industry lobbyists and consultants holds that despite campaign rhetoric, the reality of governing, particularly in the economic circumstances faced by all segments of the economy, will prove difficult for the new Administration's legislative priorities to be quickly approved.

With those caveats in mind, there were three consensus views that emerged:
While there are credible scenarios that would delay SCHIP, there was much agreement that SCHIP will likely be an early priority of the new administration.
House leadership has signaled it will likely be among the top three priorities of the Congress/Administration. SCHIP has passed the Congress twice in 2007, so passing the "old" bill with the "compromise" language would be an easy step.
The make-up of the new House and Senate is even more favorable than before and the new President will eagerly sign the bill. Under this scenario, SCHIP would provide a high profile legislative victory and a down payment on the health care agenda.

The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR) is a not-for-profit trade association organized as the advocate for the independent retail tobacconist and recognized as the "Voice of Authority and Reason" on premium tobacco related issues.