var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
chapoec
September 23, 2009 11:55 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

I don't like the fact that the FDA banned these flavored cigarretes. What next ban different flavors of beer. What makes this even worse they banned the flavors to protect Philip Morris. Pathetic.

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
tekdemon
September 27, 2009 12:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chapoec: Well you know if you want nationalized healthcare where costs get spread to everyone and the government then smoking being the cause of the top 3 causes of death as well as a massive percentage of healthcare costs is kind of a problem.
But if you wanna pay for your own health insurance as a smoker be my guest so long as you don't want to have kids since you're also driving their health care costs up. Or I suppose you can prepay for their increased healthcare costs or something.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
September 24, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chapoec: In all fairness, the last and only time I had flavored beer (ie Mikes) was when I was under 21.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
September 24, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chapoec: Actually, most places beer can't have any flavors but barley, water, and hops. If anything else is put in the recipe it has to be called a malt beverage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zombies.like.lattés.too
September 24, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: @babyruthless: @billy: I believe secret curse was referring to the Reinheitsgebot (German Purity Law) of 1516 that dictated beer could only contain water, barley and hops.


It's since been repealed, but some brewers still adhere to the tradition.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 24, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: Plenty of beers with flavors are still called beer, not malt beverage. Besides, wheat beer contains wheat in addition to barley, water, and hops...and it's still called \"beer\".

Beer is a type of malt beverage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
babyruthless
September 24, 2009 2:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: When I was at Sweetwater, they said that you are allowed to put herbs and spices in beer and it still be beer, at least in GA. Coriander is legit in your hefe. Their Sweetwater Blue, however is technically a malt beverage because it has blueberries in it, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Spider Jerusalem
September 24, 2009 2:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chapoec: I think Consumerist owes its smoking audience a \"how to\" guide to making flavored tobacco, because I'm horrified that all the hookah bars in L.A. are about to be shut down by this stupid piece of legislation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 24, 2009 9:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spider Jerusalem: Doesn't the legislation apply just to premade cigarettes, not loose smoking tobacco?

I foresee goths rolling their own, while high school hoods still smoke their Marlboro Reds In A Box.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rockasocky
September 24, 2009 9:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spider Jerusalem: Does this really shut down hookah? I thought it was only for \"a cigarette or any of its component parts.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LightningUsagi
September 24, 2009 12:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rockasocky: There's been heavy debates on hookah forums for months about this, and I'm hoping we're correct in assuming that shisha is safe from this. I don't think it applies to shisha since the tobacco is not something you could use in a cigarette.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
September 24, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LightningUsagi:@ubermex:

First they came for the cloves and I did nothing...

I just think that if you let the nanny state get away with bans like this that only benefit one company, pretty soon they are going to come after the rest, because it's cutting into the profits.

God preserve us from the nanny state! Nothing's worse than someone making legislation \"for your own good.\"

And, full disclosure - non smoker, here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ubermex
September 24, 2009 12:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spider Jerusalem: Hookah bars and pipe tobacco are not affected by this. They use a specific type of tobacco that is just for them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spider Jerusalem: check my flickr stream for the tag tobacco or the set 'making kretek'[same user name] after october 2nd. i've been flavoring my own and the pics are on there but i just lost my pro account status between now and my next payday.
so i'll reinstate it on the 2nd. it doesn't apply to hookah tobacco though, just pipe tobacco. [which yes, i use for making cigarettes]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shivver
September 24, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chapoec: Didn't you listen to the Secretary of Energy the other day? We're all spoiled teenagers who need to be told what to do by our intellectual betters. I have no doubt that flavored beers will eventually be targeted, but only because we're all too stupid to know how bad they are for us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pegr
September 24, 2009 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver:


Great. There goes my idea for chocolate flavored cigarettes. I was going to call them \"Coco Puffs\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
September 24, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver: @sleze69: Part of the larger debate on cigarette marketing is that flavor additives mask the harshness of the smoke, which makes them easier to smoke and therefore more attractive \"starter cigarettes\"--in other words, ideal products to get non-smokers hooked. These are usually children at this point in tobacco's history, since there aren't a whole lot of adults who spontaneously decide to take up smoking these days.

Same with alcopops that disguise the alcohol flavor to make the drink taste more like a soft drink or fruit drink.

In both cases, I think the government interference--right or wrong--is aimed at preventing these industries from bringing in new customers at a young age. They're not really designed to tell adults what's good or bad for them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 2:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: that arguement from the government might make sense except i started smoking on camel wides and switched to cloves in my mid 20's.
and they aren't trying to ban apple pucker or cinnamon vodka. *grumble*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
September 24, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I started smoking Marlboro Reds when I was a teenager cause I'm not a fucking pussy.

I guess fancy goth kids need something to make them more fruity and independent by all wearing and smoking the same lame shit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shiznannigan
September 25, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: Marlboros were originally marketed towards women, using the slogan \"Mild as May\". Pussy.

*The more you know*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 24, 2009 11:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: I started smoking Marlboro Reds when I was a teenager cause I'm not a fucking pussy.

Nah, just an idiot willing to smoke something that both tastes and smells awful for the sake of being \"cool,\" as opposed to those who choose to smoke something that tastes and smells good. Sheesh. I personally think smoking anything makes you repugnant, but I'd much rather be forced to breath their \"fancy,\" \"fruity\" second-hand smoke than yours. (Nice not-so-subtle word substitution there, btw. You sound like one of those idiots who toss the f-word and g-word around as if they were an insult.)

In case it isn't clear from the above, I agree that banning flavored cigarettes is ridiculous. Either ban tobacco entirely or let the consumer continue to decide ways in which he or she will poison him or herself, and tax, tax, tax the hell out of it. Corporate-sponsored legislation is what we ought to ban.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
September 24, 2009 12:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I disagree. If the state wants to prevent children from doing something, then explicitly ban children from doing that thing. If you can't enforce that ban, then so much the worse for the state. Banning a practice for all people because you don't want a subgroup to engage in that practice in my view is not morally acceptable.

The state has a duty to craft laws that are narrowly tailored to explicit and justifiable purposes. I do not want there to be any discretion in law enforcement. What is illegal should be a short and explicit list with no room to add things we discover later we don't like so much (at least not ex-post-facto). Criminalizing behaviour of groups you don't like very much and/or want to \"improve\" smacks of the overreaching and busybody state which prevents people from achieving the freedom that same state is supposed to be protecting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
September 24, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: I should clarify that when I say \"children\" I really mean youths who try smoking for the first time. I don't have any info on when that average starting age is.

That's all I have to add.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 24, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I don't know the average age, but the vast majority of smokers in the US start before age 18 - on the order of 80-90%. Note that this does not include \"social smokers\", people who can somehow avoid becoming addicted to cigarettes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Preyfar
September 24, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin: I'm a social smoker. I may have a cigarette every month or two, and even then /just/ a clove cigarette. =/ Or I used to...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
September 24, 2009 1:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: At some point there is an age of majority where the state has no right to ban an activity. This law bans these items to all persons, including all persons above the age at which we absolve any claim to control their actions as they regard their own bodies. It doesn't matter for this when people actually first start smoking. You should not prohibit adults from self-effecting actions for the sake of the children.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 24, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: They certainly have the \"right\" to do it (assuming that it otherwise doesn't run afoul of the Constitution). Whether it's good policy or not is a different story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
September 24, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: My argument isn't legal, it's moral. As to the constitutionality of the law, it probably is constitutional insomuch as the FDA has been found constitutional in the past.

Although there may be an interesting case about whether or not an agency can ban the combination of two things that independent of each other are legal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
September 25, 2009 4:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: Sex. Selling things. Selling sex, illegal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 25, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: Yeah, I wasn't sure what he was getting at there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thrillwill
September 24, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I just want to pip in that as someone who started smoking at an early age I found Menthols to be absolutely disgusting. 20 years later I still do.

The real reason Menthol's weren't banned is the same reason no one will come out and just ban cigarettes entirely - they generate too much TAX revenue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
September 24, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver: Here in CA, Alcopops are already being targeted using the same argument.

It's only a short leap to flavored beers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shivver
September 24, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If we all agree that tobacco products are bad, why don't we just ban them altogether? It's rather hypocritical to demonize a product so much while simultaneously depending on its sales for much-needed tax revenue.

I say that as an on-again smoker who would love to see the public backlash such a ban would cause. Not to mention the resulting budget crisis that would follow the collapse of cigarette tax revenue.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
September 24, 2009 2:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver: Because the last time we tried it with the Volstead Act (Prohibition) it created the greatest opportunity for expansion in the organized crime market. People were going to drink, period, and whether it was bootlegged in from Canada or distilled in someone's basement, the stuff was available. In fact, the Kennedy family is well known as the descendants of bootleggers.

Now if you try the same trick with tobacco, people are still going to smoke. They'll buy them from \"importers\"
who will charge what the market will bear, and you'll criminalize something that's been legal for centuries. You think crack wars are a problem? Wait until you see tobacco wars, coming to a street corner near you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tekdemon
September 27, 2009 12:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I think the idea is mostly just to make it less appealing to smoke, especially to the younger folks. And since cloves and flavored cigarettes are all designed to target younger people (yes they are because older smokers stick to whatever they've been smoking and it's definitely not flavored cigarettes) they're getting the axe first.
And frankly I remember being damned surprised that cloves had sugar coatings on the filter to give them a sweet taste. I didn't think much of it then but the fact that they're mostly smoked by young people for whom regular cigarettes aren't really as appealing is a pretty strong reason to start banning flavored cigarettes first to cut off the supply of new smokers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bjcolby15
September 24, 2009 1:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver: I second that.

They don't ban cigarettes because the taxes on them are too lucrative not to pass up.

In Massachusetts, cigarette taxes are $3.52 - $1.01 for the federal tax and $2.51 for the state, and that's before sales tax, etc. Tax accounts for anywhere between 45% of the price of name brand cigarettes to an eye popping 60%+ for the generics. That's higher than the IRS income tax ceiling of 35%.

I can guarantee that if the states actually advertised the actual tax rates, not just the tax values, you'd see people willing to go through nic fits just to avoid the tax.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
September 24, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver:

Yes, because total prohibition just works so well.

Also, how much you wanna bet smoke shops start selling flavorings to mix into loose tobacco?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
September 24, 2009 12:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver:
I'm an off/on smoker who only smokes menthol. If they weren't available, I wouldn't smoke at all. So, despite my feeling that people should be able to make personal choice, I am personally okay with a ban on menthols.

I know, I know. I could just choose not to smoke at all. But I am weak.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
September 24, 2009 12:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver: We've all known for years that ciggys are bad. just as the last Editor of the bible, James I/VI who wrote 405 years ago \"A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.\" (counterblaste to tobacco, 1604)

Smoking is a great example of people following marketing over common sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 24, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ktetch: Marketing isn't necessarily the cause of most smoking. For one thing, habitual smoking has existed for longer than modern marketing methods, so there's clearly some other draw. Smoking appears to strongly correlate with depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses. (This is one theory as to why the antidepressant buproprion, aka Zyban or Wellbutrin, helps people quit.)


I'd bet that marketing has an influence in getting people to smoke one brand over another brand, but not to start in the first place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tankueray
September 25, 2009 1:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin: You forget alcohol as well. When we were at the city council meeting protesting the smoking ban, one bar owner got up and said,\"Beer and cigarettes are like cheese and macaroni.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
September 24, 2009 12:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ktetch: As much as I agree with King James on smoking, I doubt he had scientific data to back up his \"dangerous to the lungs\" claims.

I think he just hated the habit and found it offensive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tekdemon
September 27, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dohtem: Are you nuts? Smoking effects every single smoker's lungs-if someone smokes long enough they're guaranteed to get emphysema that you would notice without needing any fancy medical tests.
And back in the day they didn't just smoke premium leaf tobacco with a filter so I rather suspect that the effects were even more obvious.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sheogorath
September 24, 2009 8:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dohtem:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that even people in the 1600's could figure out that the big lumps of black goo in the lungs of dead smokers weren't supposed to be there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LeoSolaris
September 24, 2009 12:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sheogorath: From Wikipedia: \"In England, dissection remained entirely prohibited until the 16th century, when a series of royal edicts gave specific groups of physicians and surgeons some limited rights to dissect cadavers. The permission was quite limited: by the mid 18th century, the Royal College of Physicians and Company of Barber-Surgeons were the only two groups permitted to carry out dissections, and had an annual quota of ten cadavers between them.\" That means the colonies, too, as they were under English Law at the time.

Though the hacking cough of some smokers could be a pretty good give-away of lung problems.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sheogorath
September 24, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LeoSolaris:
Doesn't mean they couldn't learn from other places, or from illegal dissections.
Further, I'm sure that an anti-smoking king could fit the corpses of smokers into that 10 per year quota.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dohtem: actually he was trying to stop it from being imported from the colonies because it was giving the colonists more money to spend which made them get all uppity.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
September 24, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This has been discussed in the past a lot. Because menthols are mostly smoked by blacks, this topic is a very touchy race issue similar to the bar sign from last week (banning people wearing certain clothes). If the FDA banned menthols, there is a fear that they would be accused of \"targeting blacks.\"


@Shivver: I'm a \"never smoker\" and believe that people who smoke are stupid for doing it. However, I think that if someone wants to smoke, they should be allowed to do so. If someone wants to smoke menthols or cherry flavored cigarettes, they should be allowed to. Although I like the banning of smoking in restaurants, I think the banning of smoking in bars is ridiculous (it's a part of bar atmosphere).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tekdemon
September 27, 2009 12:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: You probably just feel that it's a part of bar atmosphere because it only recently got banned where you live. At first it seems freakish-no cloud of smoke above your head...being able to see the lighting clearly, and coming home not smelling like cigarettes. And it's weird at first but then you realize it's kind of nice. Then after a while you pretty much forget bars were ever smoky to begin with.

And then if they tried to re-introduce smoking in bars you'd probably whine about that, just like people would probably whine like crazy now if they tried to re-introduce it in restaurants or on planes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 24, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: Then again, cloves are smoked by goths, who often appear whiter than even Glenn Beck.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Dienacarfire
September 24, 2009 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

H.R. 1256 is a crapshoot. We're banning a product that didn't have a very large market for adults and was smoked by very few teenagers (about .09% of teen smokers from the information I've seen). The entire bill was aimed at removing a competitor (albeit a small one) from the national market.

As far as I understand, the Congressional Black Caucus influenced the exemption for menthol and this entire bill was backed by cigarette companies as a \"we're saving children from gateway cigarettes\" when most of them smoke menthol or regular anyways.

As a side not to this, clove cigarettes are only illegal for distribution. You are still able to import them from outside sources for personal consumption.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
tekdemon
September 27, 2009 12:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dienacarfire: 0.09% my butt, anybody who's been to a high school or college party can attest to the high proportion of people smoking cloves.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
September 24, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dienacarfire: When I first read this law (I'm a clove smoker, and thus have been forced to quit) I looked into it a bit. Children/teenagers prefer plain old tobacco flavor, or menthol. The ban was total marketing bs. I'm interested to see how Indonesia's WTO complaint goes. I'll look for the study again and post a link about the youth preference.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tankueray
September 25, 2009 2:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita: @catastrophegirl: Question: When I was in high school I used to buy these tobacco-free herbal cigarettes. (NOT THAT KIND!) We used them in theatrical productions. They didn't have any special flavor, kind of tasted like alfalfa. Anyway, I was thinking about trying them to try to quit. Are these going to be done for as well? (Sorry, I actually read legislation and interpret it for a living, but I'm down two Vicodin and a really bad cold at the moment...)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 25, 2009 2:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tankueray: the smoke shops around here dont carry bidis anymore but mostly because they didn't sell anyway. they haven't had them in a while. i see some online a few places

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tankueray
September 25, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Yeah, these were way before bidis. I didn't know what a bidi was until I had a friend in college from India and we were watching a documentary about Indian youths.

These were originally intended for theater. They looked like a box of Marlboro Reds (like on TV, where they're called Morleys?) I had to drive 2.5 hours to find a shop that sold them.

It occurs to me that this law doesn't ban the possession or import, just sales in the US, yes? I could see some of my friends in Mexico having a lucrative online business. (I've had cigarettes in Mexico that should be illegal! - Again, not that kind!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 25, 2009 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tankueray: well if they are actually a tobacco free product then they probably don't fall under this part of the law anyway, since it specifcally mentions tobacco:

\"…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\"

[www.fda.gov]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JPropaganda
September 25, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Actually, I'm pretty sure Tankueray isn't talking about Bidis, which do have tobacco in them and are usually wrapped in a eucalyptus-like leaf. I've seen those tobacco-free cigarettes and have used them in stage productions as well - it seems those should be fine as they have no tobacco.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita: djarum has started importing the djarum mini cigars which are similar. i don't like them very much but they are tolerable.
the smoke shop near me had a bunch of sample that they brought in for the shop staff to pass out to the regular clove smokers to try to get them to switch.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kishi
September 24, 2009 12:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Tragic. The smell of cloves is one of my favorite memories of high school and college. Alas...

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
September 24, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: Speaking as a former gothy chick, I agree. *sigh*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
September 24, 2009 2:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: Indeed. Dragon Con will never be the same again without the smell of Cloves wafting from the smoking decks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papercutninja
September 24, 2009 2:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: not to worry. they're still available, as they're not marketed as \"cigarillos\" now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dulcinea47
September 24, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: I am tempted to run down to the quick shop and see if they still happen to have some on the shelf so I can get one last pack of cloves. I haven't had any in years but would have liked to have one last pack for nostalgia's sake!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
September 24, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: /nails hand to forehead
/cries

Smoking cloves was my favorite naughty thing to do when I was in high school. I also can't smell them without having flashbacks to my favorite hole-in-the-wall goth club, now defunct. Sigh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChunkyBarf
September 24, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: Same here. I have never smoked them (or any cigarette), but had lots of friends who did, and they smelled really nice. I actually did not mind the second-hand smoke when it smelled good. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
September 24, 2009 6:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChunkyBarf: seconded... i'm a non-smoker, who hates the smell of cigarette smoke, but i love(d) the smell of clove cigarettes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShadowyLibrarian
September 24, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: Thirded. I wonder if those new clove cigars will smell as good...I kind of doubt it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Posthaus
September 24, 2009 12:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi:


Very tragic. I LOVED cloves when I smoked. I also loved charging people a buck to bum them off me.


And the icing of this crummy cake is they have the NERVE to not touch menthol. Ugh.


Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
arixx
September 24, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver

What tax revenue? Ever since my home state of Texas raised the taxes yet again *and* mandated the friggin \"Fire Safe Cigarette\" crap (Tastes like sh*t and can *Cause* fires, BTW), I've been buying out of the country.

It's hilarious that I can buy 6 cartons of smokes from the friggin UKRAINE (made in Switzerland) for a tiny bit more than I can buy 2 cartons in my home state... That's with shipping! And they taste like what I remember =P

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Benguin - viking riding a manticore
September 24, 2009 4:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@arixx: Is it legal to do that? I'm not judging you, I'm legitimately curious. Paying for cigarettes here in the US sucks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crim Law Geek
September 24, 2009 5:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Benguin - viking riding a manticore:
I'm not sure about the specifics, but in most countries there is a limit to the amount of cigarettes one can bring in for personal use. I know in the UK it's 200 cigarettes (a carton). I'm sure the US rule is similar, and it would be a Federal offense to import more without paying the required excise tax.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
September 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Crim Law Geek: not legal in my state:

AN 2003(12)

New Restrictions on Selling Cigarettes to Be
Shipped or Transported to Persons in Connecticut

Purpose: This Announcement alerts persons engaged in the business of selling cigarettes that recently enacted legislation prohibits those sellers from shipping or transporting cigarettes to any person in Connecticut other than a lawful recipient, as defined in this Announcement. This Announcement also requests that newspaper and other publishers and direct mail distributors cease to run advertisements offering cigarettes that consumers in Connecticut may order from the advertiser (by telephone, by mail or over the Internet) for shipment or transport to those consumers.

Effective Date: July 1, 2003.

Statutory Authority: 2003 Conn. Pub. Acts 271, §1.

New Restrictions: It is illegal for any person engaged in the business of selling cigarettes to ship or transport, or cause to be shipped or transported, any cigarettes to any person in Connecticut unless the person is a lawful recipient.

As used in this Announcement, a lawful recipient is a person who is:
*Licensed as a cigarette dealer by the Department of Revenue Services (DRS) or a person whose name appears on a list of licensed dealers published by DRS (See Names and Addresses to Be Published on DRS Internet Website below.);
*Licensed as a cigarette distributor by DRS or a person whose name appears on a list of licensed distributors published by DRS (See Names and Addresses to be Published on DRS Internet Website below.);
*Issued a permit to engage in business as an export warehouse proprietor by the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. §5713;
*Operating a Customs bonded warehouse under §311 or 555 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1311 or 1555); or
*An officer, employee or agent of the U.S. Government, Connecticut State Government, or political subdivision of either, when the person is acting in his or her official capacity.

i'm having trouble with that last part...why exactly would an agent of the government need to import cigarettes within their \"official capacity\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tankueray
September 25, 2009 2:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Maybe acting undercover to root out the new Connecticut smuggling rings?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
DPGumby
September 24, 2009 12:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know! We should all boycott Philip Morris and all the other tobacco producers! Let's hit 'em where it hurts guys, right square in the profit margins.

(Of course, I am being sarcastic. Thanks to a certain addictive additive, Morris and the others have nothing to fear. There will be no backlash, people love their smokes far too much.)

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
September 24, 2009 6:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DPGumby: i've been boycotting the tobacco industry since i was born

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 24, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: Are you sure?

Philip Morris brands include Maxwell House coffee, Cool Whip, Jell-O, Raisin Bran, Grape Nuts, Oreo, Ritz, Planters, Altoids, LifeSavers, and Toblerone.

Boycotts of megacorps are no simple feat. Hope you keep the full list of brands in your back pocket daily!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 24, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Not any more. SAB (South Africa Breweries) bought Miller in 2002. They merged with MolsonCoors in 2007 - SAB owns 58% of the U.S. operations, MillerCoors 42%.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
September 24, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's messed up.

I really like the smell of secondhand clove smoke. It helps cut through the eau du subway piss that hangs over commuter options in the city.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
VOIDMunashii
September 24, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I used to have a co-worker who smoked cloves, and honestly I didn't mind the smell on her as much as I did the normal smokers.


If we're going to let tobacco be legal, then it should be allowed to be whatever flavour sells. If we're going to ban it, then do so and deal with that feces-storm.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have a chocolate lager.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 24, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VOIDMunashii: I would hate to have a coworker who smoked so much he or she smelled of it. Ugh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
September 24, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:
I don't smoke at work at all. The smell is awful and I'm not going to pay to dry clean my wardrobe that often. In fact, I only smoke when I'm drinking. And then, only outside. The smoker's car comment is dead-on. Yuck.

We smokers do realize that it stinks and makes us stink, by the way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
September 24, 2009 12:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: +1. Apparently smokers are the only ones that don't realize they stink.

You ever hop into a smoker's car?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 24, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dohtem: I truly don't know why, but not all smokers smell that bad. My home spun theory is that people who smoke in their house smell, and people who only smok outside don't.


I smoke when I started at my job. No one else in my office smoked, so I never really mentioned my own smoking. People were honestly surprised to find out I was a smoker when they would see me outside. I can only assume I didn't smell like a smoker, otherwise you think they would have guessed.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
September 24, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not too unrelated side note: As big tobacco gets pushed out of the US and other western countries, they aggressively market to 3rd world countries in Latin America Africa and Asia. Countries that have lax laws against smoking and how they are advertised.

[news.bbc.co.uk]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
porcuPINE
September 24, 2009 12:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

you can still buy flavored tobacco for hookahs and what not...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
September 25, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@porcuPINE: So technically, that wouldn't stop you from rolling your own... hmmmmmmmm...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
September 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Retards. I love clove cigarettes...on the rare occasion that I get any.


And I don't buy for a second that any \"kids\" were being enticed to cigarettes by the allure of smoking cloves. Candy flavors, maybe. Cloves? No.


So someone explain to me why I, a 30-something year old occasional smoker can buy a 1/2 pound cigar and smoke it, but not a clove cigarette?


One more giant EFF YOU to the mental midgets in charge of this crap.


For that matter, I firmly do not agree in them banning candy flavors either. If adults want to smoke grape-flavored cigs (I don't know why you would, but...), then let them.


Stop the asshattery already. Unban cigarettes, make pot legal, admit that teh War on Drugs is a total failure and let everyone get on with their lives.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
starbreiz
September 24, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: totally friended you. you make so much sense. i too, am the occasional clove smoker... especially good for drinking when i get an oral fixation and a cigar is a bit too heavy. not to mention, i buy expensive cigars and it'd be like smoking a $20 bill every time i drank.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Posthaus
September 24, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: I never understood why they saw flavored cigarettes like cloves as a gateway to smoking..generally they were the hardest and most expensive cigarettes to buy!


Hell, before the tax the hell out of tabacco days, IIRC I was paying twice as much for a pack of Djarim cloves as I would for a pack of Camels.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SinDex23
September 24, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: RE: Cigars. Just give them enough time and they will outlaw them. Or tax them out. SCHIP already introduced a tax of more than 1 dollar MORE per stick when it was introduced. My Macanudo Hampton Courts went from 6.50 a stick in NJ to 8.50 thanks to new state Vice Taxes.

If the FDA really cared about people's health, they would make ALL forms of tobacco illegal. Since they only care about their lobbyists profits, they never will.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Benguin - viking riding a manticore
September 24, 2009 4:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SinDex23: Oh, wait a minute. So flavored cigars are exempt? Those Swisher Sweets things I see all the time at Walgreens are still legal? Because frankly I've never heard of a flavored cigarette other than menthol, so I thought that's exactly what this law was talking about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zjgz
September 24, 2009 9:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Benguin - viking riding a manticore: Those are called \"little cigars\". They're basically cigarettes but since they're wrapped in a tobacco leaf instead of paper they are considered cigars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dwasifar
September 24, 2009 9:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zjgz: It's not even a tobacco leaf they're wrapped in; it's paper made with pulped tobacco.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
September 24, 2009 2:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Benguin - viking riding a manticore: People generally call them cloves rather than flavored cigarettes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bjcolby15
September 24, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SinDex23: The states also line their pockets with these taxes, and not often do they use them for health purposes. Right into the general fund to pay for pork programs and give themselves raises.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
September 24, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

...@YouDidWhatNow?:


Also, I'd like to point out that people who smoke menthols are...get ready for it...SMOKERS. You know...the kind of people who have a hard time quitting smoking.


If you stopped selling menthols, you're not suddenly going to have 28% of all your customers go \"oh, well I guess I'll never smoke again then.\" No, in fact I doubt very much that even 1% of those smokers would not just buy regular tobacco-flavored cigarettes and get back to business as usual.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PhilFR
September 24, 2009 12:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry, smoking is bad (whether flavored or not.) But banning adults from consuming them is worse. This is moving in the wrong direction.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
gemetzel
September 24, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My god just ban all cigarettes already. This is bullshit and everyone knows it. CUT THE FOREPLAY AND MAKE THEM ILLEGAL. Smoking is awful and expensive and puts a huge burden on the families and non-smokers who have to deal with it's horrible results. SMOKING IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS AN ADDICTION.

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jack T Ripper
September 24, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: Lots of things are an addiction. Should we ban video games and caffeine and masturbation and chewing gum and cell phones and sugar and starch and carbs and everything else that is addictive? Just because you don't agree with the habit doesn't mean your habits are better. We all have 'bad habits' that are not looked at as such because they are socially acceptable. There are a lot of things people do that are harmful and yet aren't illegal. Unprotected sex is harmful to way more people than smoking is, yet the last time I checked it wasn't the law that I had to have protection for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Benguin - viking riding a manticore
September 24, 2009 4:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: Take everything you just said, but replace smoking with alcohol. Let me know if you still agree.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tekdemon
September 27, 2009 12:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Benguin - viking riding a manticore: Except low amounts of alcohol are beneficial for the health and contribute positively to society. Excess amounts are bad for the health of course, so I suppose some sort of anti-college-kids-binge-drinking-to-death law would be acceptable to me.
And I would no longer have to drag my dumbass friends home when they vomit all over the place after going past their limit.
Actually, I think you've sold me on this law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rey
September 24, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Benguin - viking riding a manticore: And then gemetzel can take everything that was said replacing smoking with meat or chocolate or sugar or Kettle Crisps. I'm certain there must be agreement unless gemetzel is a whining hypocrite.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gemetzel
September 24, 2009 5:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Benguin - viking riding a manticore: Oh I do. I realize that if we remove smoking we must also consider other things that are harmful to people, but I just can't see this in a bad light. There is nothing beneficial about smoking cigarettes, not even in moderation. I just don't understand the appeal of it. Smoking is something we can do without and the world would be a better place if it were gone and yet people insist on allowing it to continue. The same can be said for any number of other vices, but seriously consider what would happen if no one smoked or drank, would that really be so bad?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayde_drag0n
September 25, 2009 12:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel:i'm sure you don't understand the appeal of head cheese, but on that basis would you ban it?? its stinky AND disgusting!! the world would be a better place if we put restrictions on breeding.. but i don't see a bandwagon for that. the world would be a WAY better place if we took all criminals and low lives and put a bullet in their brains.. bu thats not gunna happen either.. the same could be said about other vices.. hmmm are you talking about sex or gambling.. we should ban those?? you seem to think the world would be a better place without them.. what other vices would you like to ban?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rey
September 24, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: Where's your proof that there is NOTHING beneficial about cigarettes? Sure there's no RDA for them (like with chocolate), but there are benefits to some - like how when I do allow myself a smoke, I'm much less likely to want to punch nosy busybodies in the face.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drizzt380
September 24, 2009 9:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel:
So lets just get rid of everything that we can live without and won't really hurt us if we get rid of it.

Anything with high fructose corn syrup. Not only will this free up more corn crops for ethanol production, but there have been studies which show consumption of fructose over sucrose increases obesity and can lead to insulin resistance. So no cokes, no heinz ketchup, goodbye to some fruit drinks, no wonderbread(we should really make it at home anyway right?), lets shut down Kellogg and nabisco, and get rid of Robitussin.

Also, anything thats a snack. I mean, it feels good but it doesn't really support a healthy lifestyle.

What else can we get rid of....private vehicles. Switch everyone over to public transportation!!! Less pollution and everyone can still get to work. We'll just roll that into the taxes.

In fact, with all the foods out there that people could possibly be eating that they really shouldn't be eating, we'll just make the public food option mandatory. Meals ready to eat, to be picked up at your local grocer. Of course, everyone will be given a set amount of meals per person. Don't want anyone eating more than they should and getting fat right!!

And everyone spends way too much time sitting around doing things like watching TV, or going on the internet or reading books that have no true value beyond entertainment. Throw in some mandatory outside activity. At least to cut back on that. I mean, we don't want to invade peoples life decisions too much do we?

(note:all of this was obviously hyperbole)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tankueray
September 25, 2009 2:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drizzt380: I am really sick right now and you are not effing taking my Robitussin! [cough cough] I need a smoke...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mazzic1083
September 24, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drizzt380: Sounds great, comrade.


Actually that sounds like a prisoner's day to me, and according to that episode of the Office they have it better than I do...


\"Michael we don't even get outdoor time!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chapoec
September 24, 2009 3:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: fUCK YOU this is not a nanny state. but more and more its becoming that way. stupid government leaders think we are children and can't make educated decisions. I don't really smoke. Just at parties or when I drink.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fuzzymuffins
September 24, 2009 3:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel:

not addicted. i go through pack of clove cigarettes in 3 months. in fact i don't ever need them at all, but once in a while i enjoy them. i don't smoke around children, or others inside, so any crap you give me about 'second hand smoke' doesn't apply.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zjgz
September 24, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fuzzymuffins: Same here, I normally don't smoke but an occasional clove is delicious. The pack i have now will probably last me until Christmas. But I don't think I should have to be inconvenienced because someone can't handle tobacco. And I haven't actually seen anyone who was addicted to cloves.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: if that happens i'll just start growing my own tobacco too. i'm in a tobacco producing state right down the road from a tobacco farm. i seriously doubt the local tobacco farmer wouldn't sell me some plants/seeds when he or she sees their income suddenly evaporate

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Confuzius
September 24, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl:
Growing tobacco is more illegal than growing marijuana, since it's breaking more tax laws.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Southern
September 25, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Confuzius: Growing tobacco is more illegal than growing marijuana, since it's breaking more tax laws.

Growing TOBACCO for your own personal use is perfectly legal in the USA. You just can't SELL it. More and more people in the US *are* starting to grow their own tobacco, in fact.

[www.msnbc.msn.com]

Now, if it gets TOO popular, you can bet they WILL make it illegal. :P But we're not to that point yet. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Confuzius: true, but it's only taxable if i sell it. i'm a chain smoker. i can smoke waaaay more than i grow on my little half acre

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thehouserules
September 24, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Prohibition didn't work out too well for alcohol. I think it would be even worse for tobacco. People would be growing illegal tobacco all over the place, and it would cost a fortune in enforcement.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 24, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: Im not a smoker, and hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but cigarettes only hurt those who choose to smoke them, so Im fine with them being legal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
September 24, 2009 8:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: \"Im not a smoker, and hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but cigarettes only hurt those who choose to smoke them\"

Except, they don't. Some studies have pointed at secondhand smoke being more harmful than firsthand smoke. Smoke hurts the people AROUND the smoker, possibly more than it hurts the smoker.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayde_drag0n
September 25, 2009 12:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack: and you should probably do your research

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zjgz
September 24, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack: Citation? I believe that to be utter bullshit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rey
September 24, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack: If that were actually true about second-hand smoke, I think all of our grandparents would have been dead before they reached puberty to give birth to our parents.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 24, 2009 1:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack:


Could you link to that study? Never heard of that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
September 24, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: The study was done in the UK within the past few years. There's a lot of Google noise when searching for it, though. Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit where they originally said there was no actual link between secondhand smoke and cancer or heart disease. Since then, they have retracted that statement, and pointed to this study as the reason why.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drizzt380
September 24, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel:
I don't need to link to a study. Its common sense, if you think about it the right way.

First, there are two types of second hand smoke. Mainstream and sidestream. Mainstream is the smoke that a smoker inhales and then exhales. I'm going to assume that some gunk got left in the smokers lungs or in the filter so it is less dangerous.

Sidestream however is the smoke that comes right off the end of the cigarette. Never passes through the filter and hasn't been through a persons lungs. So I'm going to assume it is more dangerous.

While my assumptions could be wrong, some studies have shown that sidestream MAY be worse than mainstream and first hand.

Now, we may be able to come to the conclusion that an equal amount of sidestream smoke is worse than an equal amount of firsthand smoke.

Now, we need that a study that shows person could in any way get even close to as much sidestream smoke as a smoker gets firsthand smoke if they aren't sitting in a room filled to the brim with smoke or sitting right next to a cigarette someone is holding trying to inhale as much as they can. I don't think they can prove such a thing.

On a 1 for 1 basis, Second hand could therefore be said to be more dangerous than first hand smoke. Buts that the same thing as saying potassium is more dangerous than water. Enough of either will probably kill you, but the potassium will kill you first if you take the same amount of each until you die. But you are way more likely to run into enough water to kill you versus enough potassium.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
September 24, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Second hand smoke + more strain on the health care system.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 24, 2009 1:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz:


Actually, it's net cheaper for the health system to have smokers, because smokers die rather than have lingering chronic illness at an advanced age.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thrillwill
September 24, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz: There are so many things that are completely unhealthy that if you pursue this logic it'll be welcome to the United States of Sparta.

[www.thrillahill.com]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Free Refills
September 24, 2009 12:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

At least we will still be able to buy Camel Crush Cigarettes! Phew.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 24, 2009 1:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is crap. Unless they can prove that flavored cigs are more harmful (to the point where theys hould be considered a controlled substance) then they should not be banned.


I dont even smoke and I think this is crap.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Slave For Turtles
September 24, 2009 2:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Agreed. I've yet to hear of someone chain smoking fruity tobacco products or clove cigarettes. I had friends who smoked cloves, and it never bothered my lungs, and a pack would easily last a week. I did have one friend who wanted to quit but that was because of money, not health or addiction. Menthol? Now that's gross. Ick!

If they want to keep kids from smoking ANYTHING, then they need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, not deprive law abiding adults. I'm not a smoker, but I think adults have rights. Go after the gas station attendants. If anyone is selling smokes to the neighborhood kids, it tends to be them.

I wonder about flavored beer. Is my framboise lambic or pumpkin ale next? Home brewing is nice and all, but there's an undeniable ease of going to the store and picking up a tasty 6-pack. It's good to be an adult, but are these next?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Slave For Turtles: i chain smoke cloves. about 2-3 packs a day. but when i started smoking it was camel wides. cloves weren't a starter smoke for me because i couldn't afford them. hehe

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Slave For Turtles
September 24, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: I stand informed. Sincere thank yous for speaking up and telling me!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Slave For Turtles: you're right that it's really rare though. hehe. i'm just an anomaly

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Chumas
September 24, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shivver: Trust me on this one: you do not want the millions of smokers in this country to ALL have a nicotine shitfit all at once because of nicotine withdrawl. I was homicidal for a month and I still get cravings 4 years down the road. An entire nation nic fitting would be anarchy.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
zombies.like.lattés.too
September 24, 2009 3:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chumas: Seconded. My boyfriend is quitting smoking right now and I suddenly find myself in an occasionally verbally abusive relationship and it's weird as fuck.


I am absconding with your \"nicotine shitfit\" phrase. It fits perfectly.


Also, congrats for quitting smoking!

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Eldritch
September 24, 2009 1:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aw, not cloves. There go my highschool goth days. The memories... That is not cool, man.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bjcolby15
September 24, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does this mean flavored blunt wrappers they sell in convenience stores are also illegal? That's one thing I will be glad to see banned.

But they will never ban cigs because the taxes they bring in are much easier to collect, and everyone pays them.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
krztov
September 24, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bjcolby15: i cant recall one time in my life ive seen them sold for something other than blunts, like yeah, im sure someone is going to get the snoop dogg grape wrap for some fine tobacco.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
September 24, 2009 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bjcolby15:

Yes, this will ban flavored cigars. But I'm not sure why you are so gleeful.

I used to smoke cherry cigarellos every now and then (and no, I didn't use them to roll a blunt). While I'm not going to argue that they are healthy, they certainly aren't any more unhealthy than a regular swisher sweet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: nope, the smoke shops around here checked into the law and they all now carry djarum black clove flavored mini cigars. also clove/vanilla, clove/cherry combos.
and they sell flavored cigars and wraps

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
September 24, 2009 1:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't imagine that this will last. The backlash from hipster smokers who \"don't smoke\" but smoke cloves will feel like a bitch slap.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 24, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: Hipsters don't smoke cloves - goths do.

Hipsters smoke all-natural American Spirits, which heal the lungs as you smoke them!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
September 24, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Of course the law has a mac truck sized hole.

Goodbye clove cigarettes, hello clove cigars.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Slave For Turtles
September 24, 2009 2:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: And nothing is stopping people from rolling their own, liberally sprinkled with ground cloves from the supermarket. Soon, law abiding adults will be carded if they want flavors or spices from the baking aisle of the grocery store. Can't let the kiddies get into that stuff, can we? /sarcasm/

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Slave For Turtles: actually it's the dredging the tobacco in clove bud oil that really makes it work for me. along with crushed [not ground] whole cloves.
it comes out to about 12 cents each instead of 30 cents each [based on local taxes on what i used to pay]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Slave For Turtles
September 24, 2009 3:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Again, you have educated me! /bow/ Ground cloves never seem to have the same spunk as whole cloves, but it's easier for me when I'm cooking. I'm so lazy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Slave For Turtles: well that and if you buy whole cloves in the grocery store they run about $8 an ounce. i pay 75 cents an ounce buying them by the pound [plus shipping but still WAAAY less than the grocery store]
i learned about the clove oil thing when i got charged with possession of clove cigarettes in florida where they have been technically illegal to 'buy, sell possess or otherwise distribute' since 1985 [although i bought them at the grocery store] and the law reads 'in whole or in part clove, clove oil or eugenol' - so when i started trying to make my own i tested with and without clove oil and it's remarkably better WITH clove oil.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tankueray
September 25, 2009 2:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: I did not know that. I had at least three coworkers at Disney that smoked cloves. Even the non smokers would pass a few around at Jellyrolls on dollar bottle night.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 25, 2009 3:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tankueray: heh, that was part of my defense. i worked at disney at the time [WOD] and bought them at goofy's gourmet. i presented a receipt from disney, photos from church street station and the wrapping from a package with the state tobacco tax stamp on it and a copy of the 1985 tobacco tax code [which the addendum about cloves is a part of] and sent it to the ACLU saying 'wait, it's illegal to buy OR sell them yet they are sold all over and the state tax reviewers KNOW it and it's part of their own law' which is how i got a lawyer.
he ACLU was kind of upset that the purchasers were being prosecuted under the same law that prevented sale but the sellers weren't being prosecuted.
which is why ocoee [that says it all right there] dropped the charges.
actually the sergeant looked at my paperwork when i went for a copy of the charges and probably saw the bit about them being sold at disney, walked back, got the file, looked me right in the eye and started ripping up papers and said 'what charges?'

this being ocoee, it's not like there were more than half a dozen cops and they are only accountable to themselves

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 24, 2009 2:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Menthol smokers would have just switchted brands if Menthol was banned. Maybe a black market would have developed for Menthols.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Benguin - viking riding a manticore
September 24, 2009 4:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edrebber: A BLACK market? What are you, some kind of racist?!

Hello, my name is Ben and I'm being sarcastic. Nice to meet you.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
thesadtomato
September 24, 2009 2:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unless I read too quickly, no one mentioned that clove cigarette sales were already banned in Maryland and New Mexico for other very spurious reasons.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Posthaus
September 24, 2009 3:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thesadtomato: They were banned in Maryland a long time ago for reasons I can't recall. But IIRC it banned only the sale, you could still smoke them if you got them. And every surrounding state sold them...so it all pans out kinda like how fireworks laws work here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 3:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thesadtomato: technically ANY tobacco flavored \"in whole or in part with clove, clove oil or eugenol\" was banned in florida in 1985 [that includes most tobaccos flavored with vanilla and many spice flavored pipe tobaccos]
they sold them anyway, and all the packs i ever bought carried the florida state tobacco tax stamp.
and a cop once busted me for having a pack in the car when he pulled me over for a taillight. sadly, when i asked for a copy of the charges for my lawyer they threw the charges out.

a far as i know it's been sucessfully prosecuted once, for a $50 fine.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
obfusciatrist
September 24, 2009 2:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's too bad. The last cigarette I smoked was in 1981...when I was 7 (then mom caught me).

But I loved clove smokers. If clove smoking is to be banned it should come after banning incense which I find more obnoxious and all observational evidence shows it causes brain damage in people who light them.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 24, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@obfusciatrist: incense which I find more obnoxious and all observational evidence shows it causes brain damage in people who light them

Thanks for the giggle.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
September 24, 2009 2:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Because making something illegal prevents people from getting it.

*Thumbs up*

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
September 24, 2009 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

not in jest: i now make my own clove cigarettes at home. i's also going to save me a couple of thousand a year.
[btw, not a gothy teen, hehe]

a version of this law was on the table in 2005/2006 and failed due to the trade with indonesia [where clove cigarettes are made] and the menthol thing

in 2005 philip morris quit importing sampoerna brand clove cigarettes [i had to switch brands]

make what you will of that timeline.

the good news is i also happen to be a philip morris stockholder with stock my grandfather left me. and my smokes now taste better also because i regulate the flavor. the bad news is that it's a pain in my ass and i'd rather pay for the convenience.

and no, i can't stand regular cigarettes

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mannyv
September 24, 2009 3:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Menthols weren't banned because African Americans would freak out. And about niche marketing: marketing doesn't work if the target audience doesn't really like the product. For some odd reason, blacks really love menthol cigs. It's weird...like prawns and cat food.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
varro
September 24, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mannyv: Even Dave Chapelle can't explain it.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
fuzzymuffins
September 24, 2009 3:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

aghh! not my clovies!!!

guess i'll just have to take up that $2.5o a pack deal from indonesia. thanks FDA for saving me a bundle!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Joey_Brill
September 24, 2009 6:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The State of Illinois knows when you purchase internet smokes. You get a bill that proposes some bizarre amount. Then you spend three months mailing receipts until they allow you to pay a fine, interest, penalty, and tax.

If you've read about tax letters in your local paper, make sure you file a year-end tax declaration.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
The Marionette
September 24, 2009 7:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ah fuck, so my djarum blacks won't be for sale anymore? I loved the flavor of those, they were so smooth.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
September 24, 2009 11:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If pot is banned, fuck cigarettes. Ban all cigarettes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AnonyLawyer
September 24, 2009 11:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

When o when will they invent a healthy cigarette??

I used to LOVE to smoke. I'm a serial quitter, going strong now for several months. I work out, eat healthy, and am otherwise healthy. My go-to crutch during times of crisis is cigs.

Nothing compares to the psychological balm cigarettes apply when smoked. I know, they are sad, addictive, killers. Big Tobacco would get EVERYONE off its back if they put some dollars into inventing a \"good\" cigarette.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Marionette
September 25, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AnonyLawyer: They have healthy cigarettes, E-cigarettes. Just google for them. They're a bit pricey, but supposedly pays for themselves after a while, or so they say .

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
halcyondays
September 24, 2009 11:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Liberty...slipping away.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Al Swearengen
September 24, 2009 12:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why you need to be suspicious when big business backs reform measures. It is not because they are for reform, it is because the regulatory aparatus that is put in place will prevent competition from entering the market.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rellog321
September 24, 2009 12:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why again do we not have laws that prohibit people or corporations with financial interest from writing or assisting in writing legislation that may impact them again????

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Coyote
September 24, 2009 12:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I do believe there is a much simpler explanation as to why menthol isn't included on the list. A certain commander in chief just happens to smoke them.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 24, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coyote: Are you just assuming Obama smokes menthols because he's black? I've never seen his brand identified, but I guess I figured he was an American Spirit type of guy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
September 26, 2009 6:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NatalieErin: \"Oh my gosh! You said something slightly critical of President Obama! You're a racist!\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Southern
September 24, 2009 12:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They won't ban cigarettes because they make waaaaay too much money off of taxes for them.


This is why they are changing the laws so that Indian Reservation \"Smoke Shops\" have to start paying taxes on any cigarettes that are sold outside of the reservation.


This is why the FDA is making such a stink (and is working to ban) \"E-Cigs\" (Electronic Cigarettes) - because they don't make any taxes off them, and smokers can still get their nicotine \"Fix\".


They're not about to ban something that they literally make BILLIONS from in tax revenue.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LeoSolaris
September 24, 2009 1:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmmm.... This all might not be a bad thing in the long run. When the current head of the FDA leaves, the next one has the option of changing the way the FDA handles this. He or she could remove the \"flavor\" ban, and institute a ban of any added carcinogens.

While the tar in tobacco is bad for you, the additives in cigarettes are what are truly lethal. They might not be as addictive, or last as long on the shelf, or be as cheap, or be truly healthy, but at least they will be a lot healthiER! I wonder how much of second hand smoke is dangerous just because of the additives. The filters were supposed to keep some of the tar from getting to your lungs, not to stop the carcinogens. That was a byproduct.

One can hope anyways.

No by the way, I do not smoke. Tried Djarum blacks a handful of times from my brother, but never picked up the habit. Too expensive. I am just glad that my dad and my brother are both trying to quit.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
eccsame
September 24, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank god they didn't ban flavored alcohol. As long as they keep making bubblegum-flavored vodka, I'm set. You know, since children don't drink. . .

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
420greg
September 24, 2009 2:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I smoked cloves when Iw as a young gother (it was not called goth in 1981).
They made me so sick that no the smell of one sets me off.

Kinda like when someone had a bad tequila experience and can not stand the site of it now.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
whytcolr
September 24, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This legislation is BS. I keep hearing people say that \"Young people are more likely to start smoking flavored cigarettes,\" so I went and looked at the data that they're using. Most often, they're using this study: [www.rwjf.org]

Guess what? The abstract I linked does a pretty good job of explaining the actual results of the study. Young people are more likely to smoke flavored cigarettes THAN OLDER ESTABLISHED SMOKERS... Older established smokers are not switching their brands/flavors to newer more advertised smokes? What a shocker! (I wonder what the results of a survey of only new smokers would find. Would a new smoker aged 25 be as likely as one who is 17 to smoke flavored cigarettes?)

Also, the study was compiled using two completely separate surveys -- one done on 17-25 years olds, and the other done on those 25 and older. Oh yeah, the study also suggests that the majority of those who smoked flavored cigarettes smoked them once or twice a month, in addition to their regular brand.

And lets look at those brands/flavors that were included in the study -- Two brands of exclusively Menthol flavors, and one brand that included one of four flavors that was menthol. So the study that's being used to support the ban that did not include menthol cigarettes, used surveys that concentrated on 12 total flavors -- of which 9 were menthol.

Curiously absent from the study? Clove cigarettes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
applesanity
September 24, 2009 2:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If menthols are banned, Obama loses the black vote. It's a simple as that. Surprised nobody has had the guts to admit it yet.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Xeos
September 24, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

like so many laws before this one, when our government fails to educate, instead of fixing the problem with education, they simply litigate and create yet another nanny-state law that will not fix the issue. I would love to see teen smoking statistics before and after this law. I wager there will be no tangible decline due to this silly law.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
UniComp
September 24, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Way to go FDA, you almost grew a pair of balls.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jack T Ripper
September 24, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

this is why you should smoke electronic cigarettes. They'll never ban the flavors because there isn't anything in them that is any worse for you than a normal cigarette. In fact, the jury is still out on if there even IS anything harmful in them. It is just like nicotine gum but you get to blow smoke and satisfy the physical habit of smoking. Who wants to smoke tobacco when you can get the same fix from water vapor and not be so offensive to others around you?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Southern
September 25, 2009 3:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jack T Ripper: Sadly, you are mistaken. The FDA *has* declared that E-Cigs are illegal, although they haven't gone so far as to BAN them yet -- but they will.

Already EBAY and AMAZON have pulled down all listings for Electronic Cigarettes, their individual parts, the refill juice, and pretty much everything else E-CIG related. Oh, and PAYPAL has also been warned to stop \"supporting\" sales of E-Cigs (by facilitating payments for them), and the FDA has blocked MANY shipments of E-Cigs coming into the country from China (so supplies & parts are getting scarce).

I had JUST starting vaping a few weeks ago, too, to try and kick my pack-a-day habit. Now I'm afraid I won't be able to get parts & refills for much longer. :(

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
rwalford79
September 24, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does this mean there is a ban on flavored hookah tobacco? If so, Ill be ordering all my products from Dubai... oh wait, I already do.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tcp100
September 24, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is colossally stupid. I am a non-smoker; but I will puff on 2-3 cloves a YEAR. Like others, I like the smell and it reminds me of my youth. (BTW, I question the olfactory sanity of anyone who prefers the smell of Marlboro reds over Djarums.)

So what now? I just imported a buttload from Indonesia, and I'll probably smoke them *more* now. (and it was cheaper!). Good move, FDA!

This whole bill is based on faulty logic; the simple assumption that \"kids like candy; so they must like candy flavored cigarettes!\". Right, nevermind the fact that djarum blacks were $7.50 a pack here in northern VA -- the kids much prefer the two-fifty packs of Jack's from wawa. (just like in my youth in Denver when the majority of poor underage smokers went for the off brand \"GPC\", or good p*uckin' cigarettes as we told ourselves.)

When someone got their hands on a pack of Djarum or Sampoerna, it was a rare and revered experience - but the \"starter\" cigs were definitely the gas station generics.

BTW, Djarum has suspended sales of the clove cigars too now - as the FDA published a clarification on 9/22 that was vague at best. Kretek intl is now suing he FDA to make an actual ruling on their cigar product.

Oh, and btw, to the fellow that thinks he's independent but actually is falling for big tobacco marketing hook line and sinker by thinking he's not a \"pussy\" because he smokes marlboro reds - you do know that primary to your manly idol the Marlboro man, Marlboro's slogan is \"mild as May\". Cloves are actually quite a bit harsher and contain more nicotine plus eugenol. Oh well. It takes a tender man to smoke a mild Malboro Red. Keep f'ing that chicken.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
tcp100
September 24, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Er. Sorry bout that. Should be \"Previously to the Marlboro man, the slogan was \"Mild as May\".\" iPhone predictive text FTW.

Also, as I mentioned, the ban does not cover importation or possession; just domestic sales. Cloves are cheaper online - I just got a few cartons in before the ban from a seller in Indonesia in five days; another few are en-route. So, ex-goths (or people who used to hang around goths, like me) don't despair! The Internet is the answer.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tcp100
September 24, 2009 9:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looks like here in VA you also have to pay tax when importing cigarettes; fortunately here it's cheap - only 3 bucks a carton.

I imagine that does vary by state. Easy to be law abiding here and pay my $12 for the 4 cartons I ordered, but I imagine in NY/NJ this could be an expensive proposition unless you want to skirt the law (which of course I don't suggest).

Quite annoying.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
September 25, 2009 1:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's my theory... Menthols are still legal because menthol is fucking repulsive. Obviously, my own opinions are scientific fact. :)

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jayde_drag0n
September 25, 2009 12:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

ugh people do your research before you claim something as fact.. i'm ALWAYS going to believe a doctor over the news.. or unbiased research pubished in a notable journal over corporate funded research.. here the second hand smoke MYTH from a doctor [skepticdoc.com] with CITED research

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
September 25, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think anyone mentioned this, but Menthols are the preferred variety for black smokers-- a major proportion, like 75%. Could this be another way of oppressing the black man?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
drjayphd
September 25, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Oh, now, I don't know why you'd ever say that (continues nodding yes the whole time)...

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
yetiwisdom
September 25, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

PhilMo/Altria's competitor Lorillard (maker of Newports) has a lot more to lose if Menthol gets outlawed - they'd basically collapse.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mrearly2
September 26, 2009 4:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The FDA: They approve of countless poisons (drugs) but make a big deal of candy...how politically-correct!

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
teael
September 28, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say that we bombard the FDA. You can report the selling of \"flavored\" tabacco at this link: [www.accessdata.fda.gov]

Let's ALL report MENTHOL cigarettes and maybe they'll get the hint.

Reply
");