Menu

cigar wars

What Do Most Idiotic NYC Regulations Have in Common? Michael Bloomberg

0

bloomberg
Just days after his soda-restrictions were overturned, Bloomberg is at it again

Bloomberg announced today that he plans to pursue more pipe-dream regulatory action in New York City. He plans to pursue a tobacco product display ban, along with legislation that would enforce the measure. This after a judge struck down Bloomberg’s large sugary-drink ban, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”

I’m no lawyer, but that sounds like legal lingo for some less-respectful adjectives.

You can read the full announcement below. Basically, tobacco sellers will now have to keep tobacco products out of sight from, you guessed it, their customers.

Aside from the specifics of this or that regulation, New York is becoming a pretty suffocating place to live. But I guess that’s life in a democracy: the majority are duped or tempted into more state control, while the “forgotten third man” (in Bloomberg’s case, anyone who wants to enjoy life) takes the bill.

Citizens of New York City, hear this: there will always be another regulation around the corner to “make life better/safer/cleaner/greener/insert adjective here,” and sooner or later, it will hurt you.

As C.S. Lewis wisely observed,

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

~~~

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced new legislation, the “Tobacco Product Display Restriction” bill, which would make New York City the first in the nation to keep tobacco products out of sight in retail stores.

Under the new legislation, sellers would be required to keep tobacco products out of sight, except during a purchase by an adult consumer or during restocking: tobacco products would be required to be kept in cabinets, drawers, under the counter, behind a curtain or in any other concealed location.

The bill does not impact advertising for sellers.

A second bill, “Sensible Tobacco Enforcement,” is comprised of policies that will combat illegal cigarette smuggling, said Bloomberg.

The Sensible Tobacco Enforcement bill increases penalties for retailers who evade tobacco taxes or sell tobacco without a license; prohibits retailers from redeeming coupons or honoring other price discounts for tobacco products; creates a minimum price for cigarettes and little cigars, at $10.50 per pack; requires that cheap cigars and cigarillos be sold in packages of at least four, and little cigars be sold in packages of at least 20.

Cigars that cost more than $3 each are exempt from the packaging rule.

It also gives the Department of Finance the authority to seal premises of tobacco sellers that have had repeated violations of the law.

The bills will be introduced at the request of the mayor by Council Member Maria del Carmen Arroyo, chair of the Health Committee, on Wednesday.

Watch for details on CSPnet.com and in CSP Daily News.

Cigar Wars: Government Action Could Hit JT Cigarro’s “Members Only Room”

, , , , 0

JT Cigarro

A cigar lounge in Fargo, ND could be facing legal action after trying to exploit a loophole in the statewide smoking ban.

According to an article written for a ND news outlet:

“Fargo Cass Public Health director Ruth Bachmeier says she plans to file a complaint with Cass County prosecutors against the JT Cigarro owner, who’s been allowing people to smoke in a “members only” room through what he has called a “loophole” in the law.”

This strikes me as just another example of the bizarre trend of state clampdown on private smoking locations. As many non-smokers agree, there is no compelling public health reason disallow cigar lounges from allowing smoking, especially in a separate members only room. Every individual entering that shop, especially members, are more than aware that they will encounter smoke, and have implicitly agreed to take the risk of being in the same room as smoke.

 

This story should also stand as an example to NYC cigar shops that open and allow smoking before smoking licenses are obtained: don’t do it. It isn’t worth getting a $5000 fine or having your shop closed. Wait for your permit.

For more information about JT Cigarro, check out their Facebook page. Read the full article here.

The Case Against a Smoke-Free America

, , 0

On Wednesday, an Oregon based cigar smoker (like myself!) wrote a great article in the Atlantic titled “The Case Against a Smoke-Free America.” In it, Jacob Grier makes the argument that it is time for people to realize that smoking can be enjoyed in moderation, and that it can be enjoyed as an art as well.

Grier writes:

“millions of people do see the need, and they’re not all just looking for a nicotine hit. There is much more to tobacco than mass-produced cigarettes; premium tobacco is arguably every bit as artisanal as many of the other food and drink products that those of us in the culinary world obsess over.”

Grier goes on to write that:

“More generally, we must stop treating smoking as pure vice. Lost in discussions of the very real problem of how to reduce deaths from smoking is an acknowledgement that tobacco has redeeming qualities, that it can be enjoyed in moderation, and that not all forms of tobacco use are equally dangerous. We can and should educate consumers about the risks of tobacco and tax it appropriately. But we should also respect the rights of consenting adults to gather in private places and decide for themselves what to ingest into their bodies.”

Props to Jacob on a great article. Give it a read.

You can read the full article here.

Cigar Wars: Missouri Seeks to Dramatically Hike Tobacco Tax, IPCPR Opposes

, , 0

September 27, 2012 (Jefferson, MO) – Proposition B, a proposed 150% tax increase on cigars and pipe tobacco, in addition to a 760% tax increase on cigarettes, is causing quite a stir in Missouri. Politicians claim the tax hike will help fund education and health care, while small business owners are criticizing the open attack on their businesses.

Opponents of the initiative, including the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR), point out that none of the tax revenue raised by Prop. B is required to be spent on tobacco-related illnesses, but rather that a board of bureaucrats directs where the money is spent, even going so far as being able to fund their own special-interest groups.

“We elected these men and women to protect our businesses, not tax them into the ground. One group of business shouldn’t be continually attacked simply because some bureaucrats need to fund a project or initiative. All Missourians should pay their fair share in taxes, rather than one group being endlessly attacked,” said Curt Diebel, owner of Diebel’s Sportsmens Gallery in Kansas City, MO.

The IPCPR also fears that this tax increase will result in “border bleed,” the movement of tobacco sales to neighboring states with lower taxes, ultimately harming local businesses and forfeiting the tax revenue that the Missouri state government sought in the first place.

“Most small tobacconists throughout this country are mom-and-pop operations dotting the American Main Street. In an already tumultuous economy, the government should be focused on preserving jobs, not destroying them,” said Bill Spann, CEO of the IPCPR.

The initiative will be up for vote in November.

Cigar Wars: IPCPR Opposes Omaha City Council Tax Plan

, 0

September 25, 2012 (Omaha, NE) — A recently proposed occupation tax in Omaha, Nebraska threatens to levy a 7% tax on sales of all tobacco products. The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR) strongly opposes this “specialty tax” as it will be detrimental to area premium cigar and pipe retailers.

The tax is designed to raise funds for a University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) expansion. UNMC has $1.2 billion dollars available, which is more than enough to pay for the project. Taxpayers are wondering why they are being forced to fund the university’s expansion.

The IPCPR fears the tax can lead to “border bleed:” the movement of sales from local businesses to neighboring shops as well as to online and mail-­order retailers in order to avoid onerous taxation. Small businesses, including premium tobacco shops, are extremely sensitive to swings in economy and taxation. Adding on yet another tax only compounds the problem in an abysmal economy and increases stress on businesses by driving sales out of  the city.

“The tobacco industry is not a bottomless well for taxes, fees and the like. We are mom­‐and‐pop, Main Street businesses in an industry struggling to survive under increasing scrutiny ad attacks from our very own elected officials, who we elected to defend us. The people who work in this industry shouldn’t have to go home every night fearing that their jobs are being regulated or taxed out of existence every time the government has a project they want to complete” said Bill Spann, CEO of the IPCPR.

This city-­forced tax will certainly prove challenging as businesses struggle to regain footing  and grow in this economy.

Cigar Wars: Letter from IPCPR States Facts, Demands Retraction from Anti-Tobacco Groups

, , , , , , , 0

I’m glad to see someone is doing their homework, because the American Cancer Society and over 40 anti-tobacco groups certainly aren’t. A  letter signed by anti-smoking groups arguing against HR 1639 (exempting cigars from FDA oversight) stated,

“We are particularly concerned about the wide range of products that would likely be exempted from any regulation under the bill, including Swisher Sweets Sweet Chocolate Blunts, Phillies Sugarillos Cigarillos (described on the box as “when sweet isn’t enough!”), White Owl grape Blunts Xtra, and Optimo peach Blunts. These products come in flavors and are among the most popular with youth.”

From the text of the letter, and some commentary posted by other anti-tobacco leaders, this exemption is some sort of sneaky ploy by big tobacco to shift away from marketing cigarettes to children to marketing cigars to children. And if that was the case, it really would be a pretty terrible thing.

Our friends at the American Cancer Society didn’t do their homework. As a letter from the IPCPR points out,  the text of HR 1639 states that the exemption is for cigars that are “wrapped in leaf tobacco, contains no filter, and weighs at least 6 pounds per 1,000 count…” 

If you know anything about Swisher Sweets, you’d know that they are not wrapped in leaf tobacco – a detail that the ACS probably missed, presumably because they don’t know anything about the premium cigar products they are trying to destroy.

Many thanks to the writers of HR 1639, who provided a short, concise exemption that keeps cheap, sweetened cigars highly regulated while trying to save the premium cigar industry.

Read the full IPCPR press release here.

Cigar Wars: Full Text of H.R. 1639

, , 1

HR 1639

The conversation on regulating premium cigars continues, and it is getting a bit ugly. Anti-smoking groups are claiming that H.R. 1639, the bill that would exempt premium cigars from FDA oversight, also exempts tobacco products marketed to kids like Swisher Sweets and other flavored cigars. It might be good to have the full text of the two page bill on hand, which specifically points out that cigars exempted must be “wrapped in tobacco leaf” as opposed to the homogenized tobacco paper found in Swisher Sweets, etc.

Below, find the text of H.R. 1639. You can also find it online.

~~~~~~

HR 1639 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1639

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction over certain tobacco products, and to protect jobs and small businesses involved in the sale, manufacturing and distribution of traditional and premium cigars.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 15, 2011

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. COLE, Mr. CALVERT, and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction over certain tobacco products, and to protect jobs and small businesses involved in the sale, manufacturing and distribution of traditional and premium cigars.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PREMIUM CIGARS.

(a) Exception for Traditional Large and Premium Cigars- Section 901(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(c)) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (2), in the heading, by inserting ‘FOR CERTAIN TOBACCO LEAF’ after ‘AUTHORITY’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(3) LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN CIGARS-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The provisions of this chapter (except for section 907(d)(3)) shall not apply to traditional large and premium cigars.

‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to grant the Secretary authority to promulgate regulations on any matter that involves traditional large and premium cigars.

‘(C) TRADITIONAL LARGE AND PREMIUM CIGAR DEFINED- For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘traditional large and premium cigar’–

‘(i) means any roll of tobacco that is wrapped in leaf tobacco, contains no filter, and weighs at least 6 pounds per 1,000 count; and

‘(ii) does not include a cigarette (as such term is defined by section 900(3)) or a little cigar (as such term is defined by section 900(11)).’.

(b) Conforming Amendments- Section 919(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387s(b)) is amended–

(1) in paragraph (2)(B)(II), by inserting ‘, but excluding traditional large and premium cigars (as such term is defined under section 901(c)(3)’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (5) by inserting ‘subject to section 901(c)(3),’ before ‘if a user fee’.

Cigar Wars: A Desperate Plea from a Philippine Cigar Manufacturer

, , 3

If you think American cigar smokers have it bad–think again. House Bill 5727, a bill currently pending in the Senate of the Philippines, will impose a 12,000% increase in the tax imposed per cigar, from P1.25 per cigar to P150 per cigar. You heard it right. That’s like paying $150 for a house blend.

In the Manila Standard yesterday, a letter from a Philippine cigar manufacturer caught my attention. You can just hear the desperation in his voice as he writes [emphasis mine],

“A Slim Panetela has a net selling price of 12.50 per cigar in a box of 25 cigars for P312.50 per box. If we apply the tax as per Sec 145 (A), the selling price of a Slim Panetela will jump to P162.50 per piece and a box of 25’s will sell for P4,062.50. This is a 1,300-percent increase in selling price.”

He also notes that any taxes the government plans on correcting from the hike won’t come through, because these businesses won’t exist.

So why is the Philippine government undermining the age-old tradition of its own people? Simple, it is being lobbied by the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines to pass the bill “as soon as possible and without delay.”

As the cigar manufacturer points out, the tax will essentially clear out local businesses, in both alcohol and tobacco, and clear the way for European and other companies to enter the market without local competition.

Pretty sickening stuff, if you ask me.

Cigar Wars: A Case for Regulating Cigars

, , , , , 2

Marshall C. Deason – American Lung Association

In the past few weeks, FineTobaccoNYC has been continuing our “Cigar Wars” series, centered on the fight over regulation of the premium cigar industry. We’ve posted quite a few articles from the perspective of the industry, particularly small businesses.

Recently, though, I’ve been reading articles presenting the other side of the issue, and I want to share one that I think presents a pretty good argument for the other side. In “Why protect cigars that are aimed at children?”, Marshall C. Deason of the American Lung Association presents his case for FDA regulation of cigars. I’d encourage you to click on the link and take a read.

For those of you don’t click the link, the most potent argument he makes (in my opinion), is that, if cigars are exempted from FDA oversight, tobacco companies will change their business strategy to market and sell more flavored cigars to children. He notes that products like cigarillos and Swisher Sweets would be exempted as well under the proposed exemption rules.  Deason writes,

“Products that could claim to be exempted include Swisher Sweets blunts and cigarillos, which are available in flavors such as chocolate, strawberry, grape and peach, and Phillies cigarillos, which come in flavors including watermelon, sour apple, mango, banana and coconut. Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that Phillies and Swisher Sweets are among the most popular cigar brands among youth age 12-17.”

I’d be curious to know if our readers find Deason’s arguments compelling. What do you think?

Cigar Wars: FDA Regulation Will Close Shops

1

Courtesy Steve Helber – AP

As the summer drags on and the FDA continues to decide what form of pleasure it will kill next, more and more media outlets are interviewing cigar shop owners around the country about the proposed regulations. And wouldn’t you know it, shop owners are actually confirming that if they are forced to sell from catalogs, place death stickers on cigars, etc, they might have to close!

From the article:

“Josh Johnson is worried the restrictions will force him to shutdown his Huntersville store, Burner’s Cigar Co. ‘That’s our biggest fear that its gonna put us out of business. It’s that it’s gonna put such heavy restrictions that we aren’t going to be able to cater to our customer’s needs,’ he said.”

What I find most unfortunate here is that, in the grand scheme of things, the FDA probably doesn’t care that it could end centuries of tradition, culture, and art that is associated with the premium cigar industry. As others have pointed out, premium cigars are not marketed to the young, nor are they anywhere near the right price range for children to buy.

Does any of this matter? Probably not. Could regulations at some point be the right option? Sure, given the right circumstances, I think they could, and I applaud the FDA for much of the work they have done. What is troubling is when the witch-hunt for health gets out of hand.

Read the full article here.

1 2