Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

FDA Rules Could Smoke the Cigar Trade

Cigar enthusiasts none too enthused

Next>

by PolitixMayday

Staff Writer t

Another danger of smoking cigars: Jack Nicholson / Image: Carlos Serrao - Celebrity Pictures

The FDA is looking to regulate the cigar industry the same way it does cigarettes. Doing so would fundamentally change how the cigar industry works, cigar shop owners say, and endanger 85,000 jobs in an industry that operates on slim margins. Why do this? Well all you have to do is think of the children.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Should the FDA regulate cigars like cigarettes?

40 Comments (view in Forum)

  • Bobolinsky
    !
    I'm surprised it took them this long. Bloomberg and Michelle Obama are way ahead in the nanny state department.
    .
    This is a nice little, insignificant, and relatively benign example of the rich always using government as a tool. Why the opposition?
    .
    Expensive cigars are are a form of "conspicuous consumption", and who conspicuously consumes? The rich.
    .
    Another tobacco related example demonstrating the same point. As cigarette taxes became prohibitive, poor smokers turned to rolling their own. About 5 five years ago, the federal govt. raised taxes on loose cigarette tobacco to prohibitive rates as well. The industry responded by calling their loose tobacco "flavored pipe tobacco". Flavored pipe tobacco was explicitly excluded from the increased tax on loose tobacco. Lefty's aren't the only ones who can play at semantics.
    .
    Who smokes pipes? Rich people and college professors.
    .
    Nanny statists have now realized how the loophole was exploited by the poor so now they are working to close that up. I wonder how they'll shield the pipe smokers this time.
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    I forgot to conclude... If the rich will always use government to their own advantage at the expense of the poor, wouldn't it be wise to limit government's power? Why are Libs so eager to hand it over?
  • dances-weebles
    !
    your error is in believing that it's the liberals who want to hand all the power over to the government. all they want to do is to force the government into doing exactly what it's supposed to do, and to stop doing what it isn't. it's the liberals who want a strict adherence to the constitution, rather than twisting it around to mean that the wealthy conservatives get richer at the expense of those less fortunate, and the religious minorities can dominate others with their oh so 'godly' rhetoric.
  • RSC1
    !
    @dances-weebles Why is it always stated "Rich Conservatives" I know several quite wealthy liberal democrats. You people are so damned envious of anyone who has made money you just cannot stand it. Did you ever look at a photo of any liberal? they look so sad and are always whining. To ny knowledge I have never seen a democrat that was for adherence to the constitution. Example: Obama, Mad Nancy, Searchlight Harry and all Obummer's czars.
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @RSC1 yeah... you're probably right. but what about the liberal republicans or the conservative democrats?

    and i don't know about all of those people, but both ms. clinton and president obama aren't liberals. they're both moderate.
  • RSC1
    !
    @dances-weebles I see that we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a liberal. If those two ladies are moderate I would say they are also beautiful! Surely you jest!. BTW I have never met a conservative democrat in the last 30 years.

  • Load more replies >

  • ir0nw0lfe
    !
    I think the public us educated on the dangers of smoking . Whether its cigarettes or cigars, the public knows smoking and second hand smoke damage the lungs and brain. Yes, its s health hazard and smokers understand the risks. Why kill an industry that's. Marginal in its influence. Unless we are talking about marijuana of course, then the laws of physics and biology magically change for the panacea of weed! Smoke all you want.
  • freethinker
    !
    I am not a smoker and don`t care about smoking per say. but I am concert about the nanny state getting more involve in our lives. with that in mine. Google Hitlers Germany`s anti smoking policy.
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    @dustyoutlaw sorry you are way wrong there,pot has 4 time the carcinogens of cigarettes with no filter..http://cyber.law.harva rd.edu/evidence99/marijuana/He alth_1.html

  • Load more replies >

  • blackpatriot
    !
    No give people the right to do what the hell they want with their bodies whether it's harmful or not who are we to judge , as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
  • CommonSense
    !
    I'm sick of all the "think of the children" nonsense.
    Children are not allowed to smoke cigars (and for good reason).
    Will somebody please think of the adults? Treating adults like they are children is not going to protect our children.
  • marine1
    !
    If children are not allowed to buy smokes, why do we see them all over the streets and in their cars smoking? Why don't all you progressive 1/2 wits start fining them for skoking instead of going after 32 oz soft drinks, or decriminalizing less than 2.5 grams of pot.
  • CommonSense
    !
    I'm against the new soft drink law you idiot!
    If you were a progressive you'd be calling me a conservative and saying we should be more concerned about smoking than abortion and I'd be saying I'm pro-choice you idiot and pointing out that if you were a conservative you'd be bashing me about supporting the soft drink law(which again, I do not support, afterall people can go get refills so it's a pointless law).
    Usually pro-tobacco people are conservative so it's odd that you assumed I was progressive. I'm independent and wouldn't call myself pro-tobacco. In fact I support smoking bans in public restaurants, although I think those laws should only exist at a local level, because I don't believe a person in one town in a state has any legitimate interest in whether or not it is allowed in another town. He doesn't live there, he's not breathing in the smoke unless he visits and when you visit another town you consent to its laws(or lack thereof) and all that comes with it.
  • CommonSense
    !
    Sorry for using that word. But it is seriously ridiculous(I assume this word is OK) to make assumptions about a person's political beliefs when the person hasn't stated anything to that effect and it does show polarization.
    I've read comments before blaming public smoking bans on liberals, yet I know some liberals who are against them. Labels like "liberal", "conservative", "progressive" are broad and refer to a person's general set of beliefs, so making assumptions about just one of the person's beliefs is ridiculous.
  • FenceSitter K
    Politix Diplomat
    !
    I totally understand what you're saying CommonSense, and it's an interesting observation regarding political labels.

    Thanks for your response!
    - FenceSitter
  • MrGrey
    !
    We need to stop defending industry's like smoking and cigars by "how many jobs" might be lost or threatened. Well guess what, they chose to go into an immoral industry that artificially inflates GDP yet decreases our gross national happiness index.
  • Just_Lisa
    !
    Why not put all this kind of thought into a much bigger issue that is harming children and entire families WAY more then cigars or cigarettes? Drug addiction. Smoking is peanuts compared to this.