NYC Bans Flavored Cigarette Products

[Kalcode]

Well once the tobacco industry collapses after smoking is outlawed in your own home due to residual nicotine that may poison the next owner.. and after vaping is outlawed because... its candy.... i guess we will all have to convert to alcoholics.

 

[TheBoogieman]

I started smoking at 14. Not because I saw an ad in a magazine. Not because I saw it in the movies. Not because of flavors.
I started smoking because the friends I hung out with smoked. I started smoking Marlboros because thats my friends smoked. I don't know anyone that started smoking because it came in bubble gum flavors.
The report they use from the FDA states:
Adding candy or fruit flavors to tobacco products make them more appealing for children, the FDA said. A 17-year-old smoker is three times as likely to opt for flavored cigarettes compared to a smoker who is over 25.
The legal minimum age to buy to tobacco in any state is 18yrs. Enforce the laws.
There shouldn't be any 17yr old smokers.

 

[Turbolover]

I started smoking Marlboro reds back in Jr High because all my friends were smoking Camel. I figured that way they wouldn't bum cigs from me. I did have a friend that was older that smoked cherry or strawberry flavored cloves but he was the only person I knew for years that smoked flavored cigarettes.
I'm going to thank the FDA for letting them sell "FDA approved ammonia flavored cigarettes". Personally I think they should ban reconstituted tobacco, that's just gross.

 

[Valkerie]

Banning flavors is a way of removing some pleasure from the act of smoking, chewing or snuffing. I disagree this is about simply control; this is a marker of how despised smokers are and any act that mimics smoking. In Mexico, bubble gum and chocolate cigars are now illegal. They look like tobacco products.

Fact: Menthol was exempted for one reason -- it's the overwhelming favorite of African-Americans. And no politician wanted to anger that faction at this time. Rush Limbaugh went so far as to say it's a plot to kill off black people.

Savvy smokers can flavor their own tobacco. But pure tobacco is bitter. It is an "acquired taste" as they say. Flavoring has traditionally mellowed the smoke for a better taste. And flavors are in most cigs, whether they're advertised or not. Take them all out and the smoke isn't going to go down as easily.

First time smokers will likely gag and cough. And that is exactly what the anti's want to happen. Smoking, chewing, snuffing must not be pleasant! That's the way you stop young people from starting. Three-pronged attack: Make tobacco too expensive to use; make it unpleasant when used; allow it to be used only outside of any public place.

It's working, isn't it?

What this NYC move is just another step toward ultimate prohibition of tobacco use. Not of smoking. Of TOBACCO USE. And whether it's adopted or not will speak volumes on how smokers are seen by the rest of society.

Actually, you need to follow the money. Less than 1% of tobacco sales involve flavored tobacco products. Big tobacco can afford to lose these sales. Menthol is used by considerably more smokers, and would actually cut into profits.

As far as gagging and coughing - I did when I first smoked and it didn't deter me at all.

It is a matter of control. It's much easier to control the masses when things are going badly, when you have a scapegoat that can be attacked. And that's smokers (followed by the obese.)

Healthcare costs too much? Blame smokers, even though studies don't absolutely prove this AND we prepay a little more than 4 cents per cigarette in taxes towards healthcare. Not to mention the more than $4 dollars per pack that is paid in taxes in general.

Governments have traditional prepared sacrificial goats and served them up to cover their failings. It's repeated all throughout history - This time, they are coming for us.

 

[usamare]

Council votes to boost butts
Jeff Stier did a pretty scathing response here, it's definitely worth a read!

 

[TropicalBob]

How do you think Marlboro, or Kent in my case, managed to produce cigarettes with the same flavor year after year, the same nicotine yield test after test? Did a few acres in Virginia produce identical tobacco crops every year, harvested and used exclusively in my Kents? Or did P. Lorillard add both flavors and nicotine to the cigarettes I smoked?

OF COURSE THEY DID. Both were controlled in the manufacturing.

Everything about today's cigarette is carefully manipulated, to make it taste good, deliver an addictive amount of nicotine and keep a smoker on a single brand. The point is: If all flavoring of cigarettes is banned -- not just "cherry" or "vanilla" -- then the next generation product will be far less desirable to new smokers.

That's the goal. I think a major point here is being missed. Just wait until smokers suck down some unmodified tobacco smoke. It'll taste like the worst cigar ever accidentally inhaled.

Flavors are critical to smoking, chewing and snuffing -- in pipe tobaccos, Skoal Bandit Orange, Dholakia Swiss Chocolate nasal snuff, and Phillies Blunt Mango cigars. But most of all, they are critical to the success of Marlboro, Kent and Camel.

 

[emus]

Some of the truly unflavored analogs are sold in foreign countries...yuk.

 

[yvilla]

T Bob, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, or not, but the new federal tobacco legislation does not, in fact, ban all flavoring (but menthol) in cigarettes.

What it does do is ban flavoring that "is a characterizing flavor" of the cigarette. In other words, Big T will still be able to flavor their products to entice old and new users alike, but they just can't flavor them in such a way as to make it obvious - or promoted - as, for example, a "cherry" or a "chocolate" or a "clove" cigarette.

Here's the relevant portion of the new statute:

Section 907(a)(1)(A) states:
“…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.” (From,
General Questions and Answers on the Ban of Cigarettes that Contain Certain Characterizing Flavors)

 

[Valkerie]

T Bob, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, or not, but the new federal tobacco legislation does not, in fact, ban all flavoring (but menthol) in cigarettes.

What it does do is ban flavoring that "is a characterizing flavor" of the cigarette. In other words, Big T will still be able to flavor their products to entice old and new users alike, but they just can't flavor them in such a way as to make it obvious - or promoted - as, for example, a "cherry" or a "chocolate" or a "clove" cigarette.

Here's the relevant portion of the new statute:

Section 907(a)(1)(A) states:
“…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.” (From,
General Questions and Answers on the Ban of Cigarettes that Contain Certain Characterizing Flavors)

Thank you yvilla, I couldn't find this and I knew that I'd seen it before.

Flavored, as defined above, is a tiny piece of the market. A lot of this legislation was agreed upon by Big Tobacco in order to settle Federal lawsuits.

Smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco and cigars are also a very small piece of the revenue of American Big Tobacco - not smaller firms, not foreign firms, but American Big Tobacco firms. Their primary source of revenue is cigarettes, regular followed by menthol.

The bans won't cut into their revenue any more than they had projected when they cut their deal with the Federal Government. The fingers of blame for health reform costs are firmly pointed at smokers (even though we subsidize our share of the costs with our purchases,) and the obese, who are next on the "health care costs too much because..." blame list.

The NYC ban surprised me because it affected cigars, which traditionally have not been touched by many of the additional taxes and left out of the "flavor" ban. It also leapfrogs the "save our children" BS that's being used to justify the national ban on flavors.

Forgive me, I can't think of any child who started smoking by hitting on a cherry cigarillo, can you?

Bloomberg and the NYC City Council believes they can improve NYC by creating "lifestyle crimes." Like enormous fines for jaywalking and smoking in public spaces.

The "no child should ever have to see an adult smoke, so we're going to ban smoking in parks," is the usual over-the-top pre-election issues we're used to seeing from the past two mayors and the council.

Heaven forbid they should try to settle real issues in NY, like reopening closed fire stations in low income areas.

This is why New Yorkers voted in term limits on these clowns...which they've overturned.

End rant.

 

[TropicalBob]

Thanks, Yvilla. I was NOT aware of that wording (and I bet it's not in the NYC law). Besides, that's the next step for the anti set. Take away taste. But it's nice to know the "characterizing flavor" phrase will stop action in the short term.

The remainder of my anger about snus and chew and dissolvables and pipe tobacco stands! All are adult products. Almost all are flavored -- at least 99%. NYC is doing no one a favor by removing tasty harm reduction alternatives to cigarettes.

And that vote? 46-1. Just how despised are tobacco users? That's one vote we can look at ...

 

[yvilla]

The remainder of my anger about snus and chew and dissolvables and pipe tobacco stands! All are adult products. Almost all are flavored -- at least 99%. NYC is doing no one a favor by removing tasty harm reduction alternatives to cigarettes.

And that vote? 46-1. Just how despised are tobacco users? That's one vote we can look at ...

Oh, we are definitely in agreement here!

 

[Sparky400]

...Legislation NEEDS to be grounded on facts not idea's and interpretation! If they find me 1 neutral study that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that flavored tobacco's are a young persons first or primary smoke and the reason they are getting "hooked" I will begrudgling vote toward a ban....

Agreed. It seems that 99% of legislation these days isn't grounded in facts, research and data. Most based on hair brained ideas, perception, politics and "good" intentions. And, we all know "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

There is a lot of talk that e cigs haven't been proven effective. Well, I think new laws should be taken off the books if not proven effective. Laws, and most other things I think, should be judged by their results not their intentions.

 

[badkolo]

IM stocking up on juice and atomizers becuase i have a scary feeling they will ban it all soon enough.

 

[scottyj]

yes ban it all save the children .......yea ok like making pot ilegle iin nyc ha ha ha ha go on any single street corner in nyc or little store and i bet any amount of $ you can get the stuff as much as you want

 

[Doctor Vapor]

Interesting, at the City Council Public Hearing here in Indy last night, one of the councilors against the smoking ban asked "Where does this stop? I am overweight. Some might call me fat. Do we start banning the overweight from public next?"

The anti-smoking advocate next to me says: "Damn straight. We are coming for you next." I suddenly felt very sick.

There ARE people amongst us who think perfection from a magazine cover is what ALL American's should be and anything less is uncivilized.

They are already coming after overweight people. And if Universal Health Care passes in the US it will be much worse. I am a Doctor and I hear this type of talk from legislators and progressives all the time. I've seen proposed legislation to tax people for healthcare based on their "BMI" (Body Mass Index) which is a terrible, and inaccurate, scale to begin with and should be thrown out of use by the medical community.

The STUPID premise behind this idea is that people are overweight because they eat too much. In some cases this is true, but it is not a universal truth. I have many, many, many, patients who are overweight due to injury and disease. Many are overweight due to childbirth. Some are overweight because of genetics. That’s right, I said it, some people are born to be what is considered overweight in today's society.

I am a 6' tall man and I weigh 210 pounds. Using the BMI scale, I am just below being considered Obese. The truth of the matter is, for a 50 year old man, I'm not doing too badly.

If you are interested in your BMI, here is a link to a BMI calculator. Please remember, this is a horrible scale and is a terrible measure of health, but this is what will be used to tax you on your Healthcare in the US.

Calculate your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator

 

[kcr]

Not to mention that the BMI really has little relationship to the fat on a person's body.

I'd be willing to bet that a really muscle-y Marine would have a BMI off the charts if he isn't real tall.

As to the topic: what on earth is the matter with those people? You can get any manner of illegal substance easily in the city, not to mention the fact that they seemingly actively encourage *all* other vices. There is something almost wholesome about tobacco comparatively speaking, yet they are worried that a child might see someone *smoking*?

Heaven deliver me from these fools.