FDA CHOOSES OPTION 1, WILL REGULATE PREMIUM CIGARS

[PigFish]

It is a war that has been fought outside of the US for 20 years.

It is a war that we (cigar lovers) have been losing throughout that time.

We fight and occasionaly there are victories (UK reversal of Cigar plain packaging/UK tasting lounges/out door specific smoking), but there is no genuine ....excuse the pun..."clean air" to plan decisively for a decade ahead.

The Anti Smoking/Anti Cigar lobby are zealots who understand/speak the language of the slithering poitical machine. The zealots never stop. They work against our freedoms every day of the year. Every year. More times than not they are funded by ther own associations via grants from the Governments themselves.

From our perspective no one should give up the fight. What they hate more than anything are scenes and pictures of people actually enjoying themselves in the face of tighter legislation. It irks them no end.

But while they will be slapping themselves on their collective backs this morning/evening, they are already putting in plan the next phase of their assault. It would already have been planned. The next 5 phases have been planned.

Their one weakness is that they they tend to overreach. They end up passing so many laws that at the extreme edges, the laws can only be enforced by the public. Intelligent civil disobedience is like the "undergound" in this war.

Buy time. Challenge everything (the current case in the WTO is an example). Work out the grey areas. Exploit them. Don't work with these zealots with industry surveys etal (ever). Turn the focus on the manufacturers to band together (Cuban and non Cuban). let them develop and work on new distribution/product strategies that reflect the current and evolving legislative environment as opposed to putting their head in the sand (as many do) and playing the victim card. They also need to plan 5 phases ahead.

It is ugly out there in many parts of the cigar world. The heartbeat of cigars (and it's continued survival) is the growing number of people who enjoy them, smoke them, share them. It is growing even in the face of tyrannical legislation in Oz, Europe, Asia.

This is what confuses the zealots. This is what they can't come to grips with. How is it that even with all this legislation and curbing of freedoms, the love affair with cigars grows stronger.

They can legislate against smoke.....but like whisps of smoke itself, they are having a hell of a time bottling and burying it.

Fight, live, laugh, love. They are only capable of the first and are incapable of understanding the other three (and never will) as they pertain to our lifestlye choice. That is our advantage.

... very good post my friend! Worth quoting. God help us when we cannot even convince our mates that their 'moderate' position on the many individual details of these zealous positions, means that we will eventually lose!

Fight them always, on every facet... otherwise we lose! -Ray

[ShortFatHokie]

It's always "liberals this" "liberals that" until the liberals do something you agree with, then you stfu pretty fast.

The only problem with this statement is that the liberals in the US will NEVER do anything I agree with...

[PigFish]

Is there any quicker way to get a right winger's head to explode than to talk about the government? It's always "liberals this" "liberals that" until the liberals do something you agree with, then you stfu pretty fast.

This is not a liberal issue. This is the government doing its job (poorly).

The US government wants to end tobacco use among children. It has today decided to use a club instead of a scalpel. Fair enough.

The proper response is to contact your congresspeople and ensure that they understand the difference between a premium cigar and the kinds of things that kids smoke.

The sky is not falling. This is not "Embargo part 2" and it's not the end of anything. No evil government liberal is out to get your cigars, or to shut down boutique companies that make them. They just need a little help understanding the issue and shaping legislation to fit the problem.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that there is a problem: the American tobacco industry has been working for decades to addict children to cigarettes. This is a response to that. It goes too far and casts too wide a net. Let's help them figure out where the boundaries need to be, rather than endulge our right-wing anti-government conspiracy theories. They're lame and tired.

Mate... You seem to be the only guy getting his panties in a wad here.

In California they just passed a new 21 year old smoking law. Dem. gov., Dem legislature. Classic liberal vs. conservative positions at play in that state everyday. They followed Hawaii, another state run by liberals. It is not a coincidence.

Write yourself a new script, the old one is fiction!

Cheers! -Piggy

[scar]

LOL

[PigFish]

I see, when you lose the argument, you change it... Typical!

For those who need the facts:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers voted Thursday to raise the legal age for purchasing and using tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21, putting the nation's most populous state on the brink of becoming only the second after Hawaii to bar teenagers from lighting up, dipping or vaping.

Before it can become law, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown must sign the legislation, which has already passed the state Assembly. His spokesman said the governor generally does not comment on pending legislation.

Only Hawaii has adopted the higher age limit statewide, although dozens of cities, including New York and San Francisco, have passed similar laws of their own.

"We can prevent countless California youth from becoming addicted to this deadly drug, save billions of dollars in direct health care costs and, most importantly, save lives," said Democratic Sen. Ed Hernandez, who wrote the bill.

STATESMAN JOURNAL

Councilor vs. downtown property owner in race to be Salem's mayor

The higher age limit, part of a package of anti-tobacco bills, won approval despite intense lobbying from tobacco interests and fierce opposition from many Republicans, who said the state should butt out of people's personal health decisions, even if they are harmful.

The six bills that passed both houses represented California's most substantial anti-tobacco effort in nearly two decades, according to the American Cancer Society.

"With California having such a huge population, it's going to be very impactful nationwide," said Cathy Callaway, associate director of state and local campaigns for the society.

Advocates noted that the vast majority of smokers start before they are 18, according to data from the U.S. surgeon general. Making it illegal for 18-year-old high school students to buy tobacco for their underage friends will make it more difficult for teens to get the products, they said.

Opponents said American law and custom has long accepted that people can make adult decisions on their 18th birthday and live with the consequences. Eighteen-year-olds can register to vote, join the military, sign legally binding contracts, consent to sex and do just about any legal activity besides buying alcohol.

In response, Democrats changed the bill to allow members of the military to continue buying cigarettes at 18.

"You can commit a felony when you're 18 years old and for the rest of your life, be in prison," Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes said. "And yet you can't buy a pack of cigarettes."

Another bill would classify e-cigarettes, or "vaping" devices, as tobacco products subject to the same restrictions on who can purchase them and where they can be used.

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed regulations for e-cigarettes, but none has taken effect.

STATESMAN JOURNAL

Mississippi flag removed from Oregon Capitol

Anti-tobacco groups fear that vaporizers are enticing to young people and may encourage them to eventually take up smoking.

"All the progress we've made since 1965 to educate people about the hazards ofsmoking may be for naught as vaping has started a new generation of nicotine junkies that will be helplessly addicted and will ultimately graduate to smoking cancer sticks," said Sen. Jeff Stone, a Republican.

Others say the devices are a less harmful, tar-free alternative to cigarettes. They have not been extensively studied, and there is no scientific consensus on their risks.

A vaping industry group, the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, urged Brown to veto the bill, saying in a letter that it could pose problems for vape shops.

"The stigma of being equated with tobacco has many negative consequences," the group wrote.

The bills would also expand smoke-free areas to include bars, workplace break rooms, small businesses, warehouses and hotel lobbies and meeting rooms. Smoking bans would apply at more schools, including charter schools, and counties would be able to raise their own cigarette taxes beyond the state's levy of $0.87 per pack.

The legislation would take effect 90 days after the governor signs it.

The Senate vote came just over a week after San Francisco officials opted to raise the tobacco buying age to 21, making it the largest city to do so after New York. Nationwide, more than 120 municipalities have raised the smoking age, according to Tobacco 21, a group that advocates the policy shift nationally.

Hawaii was first to adopt the higher age limit statewide. New Jersey's Legislature voted to raise the smoking age from 19 to 21, but the bill died when Republican Gov. Chris Christie decided not to act on it before a January deadline.

Anti-smoking groups are collecting signatures for a November ballot initiative that would raise the cigarette tax to $2 a pack and direct the money to health care, tobacco-use prevention, research and law enforcement.

More to come! -Piggy

[planetary]

And let's not lose sight of the fact that there is a problem: the American tobacco industry has been working for decades to addict children to cigarettes. This is a response to that. It goes too far and casts too wide a net. Let's help them figure out where the boundaries need to be, rather than endulge our right-wing anti-government conspiracy theories. They're lame and tired.

Well said!

[PigFish]

Speaking of the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia...

The leftists nemesis... the facts (and figures) and unfunded liability. Any private industry ran their books like government and the board of directors would be wearing orange jumpsuits!

No economy is "liberal-proof." Take a look at the the history of Detroit! Once the wealthiest city in America! Now the 2nd poorest!

... just the fact baby, just the facts! Sell your story to the people of Detroit.

California’s $400 billion debt worries analysts

Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle

Gov. Jerry Brown delivers the annual State of the State address at the State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2016.

SACRAMENTO — California has come a long way to dig itself out of budget deficits, but the state remains on shaky ground due to nearly $400 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt from public pensions, retiree health care and bonds, financial analysts say.

“Yes, the state’s budget is balanced if you are looking at what they are required to spend cash on this year, but not when you look at their expenses,” said Gabe Petek, a credit analyst with Standard & Poor’s.

The high debt and unfunded liabilities have resulted in the state’s rating lagging behind other states, Petek says. California saw its bond rating rise last year from A+ to AA-, the highest level the state has had in 14 years. Good bond ratings are a sign of a strong budget and financial management and allow states to pay lower interest rates when selling bonds.

“Compared to other states, though, California has one of the lower ratings,” Petek said.

And the reason is clear, he said. It’s California’s debt and liabilities that are concerning financial analysts, particularly the state’s rapidly growing unfunded retiree health care costs, which grew more than 80 percent over the past decade. California has promised $74 billion more in health and dental benefits to current and retired state workers than the state has put aside.

Major liabilities

Without changes, the state estimates that unfunded liability would grow to $300 billion by 2047.

“These liabilities are so massive that it is tempting to ignore them,” Gov. Jerry Brown said last month in his State of the State speech. “We can’t possibly pay them off in a year or two or even 10. And there is little satisfaction in the notion of chipping away at an obligation for three decades to pay for something that has already been promised. Yet, it is our moral obligation to do so — particularly before we make new commitments.”

H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance, said the governor is focused this year on reining in retiree health care costs. The retirement plan is one of the most generous in the nation, covering 100 percent of retirees’ medical costs if they worked for the state for 20 years. Currently, the state pays only for the cost of providing care to retired workers, and does not put money aside for those who will retire in the future.

“The pay-as-you-go model is clearly not going to be sustainable over the long haul, particularly with a workforce that is aging,” Palmer said. “Roughly 1,000 people turn 65 in California each day, a number of those are state workers. What does that mean for the state in terms of long-term fiscal planning?”

Last year, the state successfully negotiated with the professional engineers union to have those workers contribute half of 1 percent to their retiree health benefits in 2017 and 2018 and 1 percent of their salary in 2019. The state will match those contributions.

Pension debt

Engineers, however, will see their contributions offset by a 5 percent raise this summer and a 2 percent raise in 2017.

The engineers union also agreed to increase the amount of time it takes to earn full retiree health benefits from 20 years to 25 years and decrease the coverage the state pays for from 100 percent of premiums to 80 percent. Those changes affect only new employees.

Palmer said the changes along with the prefunding of retiree health will be a model as the state begins negotiations with other unions this spring.

State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa (Orange County) said he’s skeptical that the state’s model for funding retiree health benefits is the right move. Moorlach said offering raises to employees to offset their contribution to their retiree health benefits puts more pressure on the pension system, which pays retirees based on their salaries.

“As we say in accounting, it’s missing the sizzle of the deal,” said Moorlach, a certified public accountant and financial planner.

Moorlach said he’s concerned with the state’s pension debt — the teachers retirement system alone faces a $72.7 billion unfunded liability. The most recent estimate in 2014 for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System shows a $43.2 billion unfunded liability.

Bond debt

Bond debt also has risen substantially in California, with the state’s reliance on borrowing for infrastructure resulting in 1 of every 2 dollars spent on those projects going to pay interest, according to the Department of Finance.

Bonds are approved by voters and generally used to pay for infrastructure, such as building schools and roads.

From 1974 to 1999, California voters approved $38.4 billion of general obligation bonds. Since 2000, voters approved more than $103.2 billion. The state is paying on $86.8 billion in bond debt with another $32.3 billion expected to be issued in the coming years.

In November, voters will be asked to approve a $9 billion school construction bond.

The state has $77 billion in deferred maintenance needed to fix roads, highways and bridges, which Brown said is likely to require a new tax or fee.

All these debts and liabilities should concern taxpayers, said Autumn Carter, executive director of California Common Sense, a Mountain View nonpartisan policy group that does fiscal and budget analysis. When the next recession hits, Carter said, the state’s payments on pensions, retiree health and bond debt will put pressure on social services and other programs.

“There is nothing that says we have to fall into financial ruin,” Carter said. “There is still time to turn it around. We can still attack debt and tackle the cost growth associated with pensions and retiree health care, but we have to be willing to do it.”

Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez

[SmittyinAZ]

Come on Ray, you're holding back here. Tell us how you really feel. : )

[planetary]

Speaking of the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia...

The leftists nemesis... the facts (and figures) and unfunded liability. Any private industry ran their books like government and the board of directors would be wearing orange jumpsuits!

Yes, let's give an entity which has the power to levy taxes the goal of maximizing profit. When people like you say they want to run the government more like a business, I say: be very careful what you wish for. ;-)

[PigFish]

Come on Ray, you're holding back here. Tell us how you really feel. : )

I am just a relaxed, reserved, lovable and jovial fellow...! Just ask anyone...

Anyone!

ANYONE!!!

...DAMN IT... ANYONE??? -LOL

[planetary]

We liberals can't afford to be relaxed, reserved, and lovable like Ray!!

[sactochris]

I think I may have picked the right time time to get out of the retail cigar business in California.

[luv2fly]

I am just a relaxed, reserved, lovable and jovial fellow...! Just ask anyone...

Anyone!

ANYONE!!!

...DAMN IT... ANYONE??? -LOL

Anyone (me) reporting for duty!

[skalls]

My brother's employer bought a company in California for it's contacts, shut down it's warehouse and picture business in the state and shipped the jobs to Arizona where their costs are 1/4 of what they were in CA. Not exactly a state with decent working regulations. Nicer weather than Fargo lol.

Also, I like cake!

Not surprisingly my love of tasty food and general malaise towards working out (golfing doesn't count) I am really regretting not keeping in shape.

I still like cake though.

[luv2fly]

I love cake!

[PigFish]

We liberals can't afford to be relaxed, reserved, and lovable like Ray!!

... just a plot, perpetrated by the man, to keep a brotha' down! -R

[PigFish]

Anyone (me) reporting for duty!

... thanks mate. Was getting worried!!! Walking on 3 hooves over here. -LOL

[TomF]

I am a progressive liberal, and more specifically I am a Democratic Socialist. I'm proud of it. I'm a lifelong union member, sit on the board of my union as well as other trade organizations in my industry, and I have been very successful in my field of work. I believe that we as a nation have a public commons and that these things are the responsibility of government to regulate; things like environmental protections, food and drug safety protections, public infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), police, fire, and airspace regulations.

That said, these tobacco regulations are a bridge too far. This truly is government overreach. So far, this is the first thing (other than some humidor topics) that Piggy and I have agreed on.

[planetary]

Interesting follow-up piece: http://halfwheel.com/5-takeaways-from-fdas-decision-to-regulate-cigars/113899

[Lotusguy]

US politics again

I wish we could just for once stick to the topic at hand (FDA regulation of cigars, in case anyone forgot with all the usual left-right BS) without it degrading into the 3586th repetition of the same arguments?

Has everyone already written to their congressmember? I did.

[DoubleDD]

Has everyone already written to their congressmember? I did.

Not yet, I'm waiting for my paycheck so I can bribe them. It's the only way Illinois works.

[MaxG]

This is not a liberal issue. This is the government doing its job (poorly).

The US government wants to end tobacco use among children. It has today decided to use a club instead of a scalpel. Fair enough.

Freedom is not to be given up. Ever.

[Mattygukas]

A few quick points...

Flavored and infused are attacked with complete vigor, which could kill Swisher/Drew Estate.

It has been said on this thread that government is trying to do their job and stop kids from smoking, well that is already a law so why have another one? Enforce what exists. The government never uses anything other than a hammer in legislation which is why they should stay out of things most of the time.

Can't smoke or drink at 18 but you can go to war or vote? If you are mature enough to fight you are mature enough to make your other choices.

How about we teach our kids about making smart choices and let them become their own person?

Sugar and red meat are worse for you vs tobacco...should we ban those things?

We need to stop eating salads because we are chopping things down that give us O2

Enough people of the government, let us live, be free, and protect us from the people that want to kill us. If I want a big gulp, cigar, steak, cookie, or mixed drink it is my choice!

To those wondering if we should fight, Rob said it well! "Do not go gentle into that good night, rage, rage against the dying of the light!"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CigarSeeker]

For what it's worth guys, I personally signed it. I'll also post this in the US room. Cheers.

http://www.cigarrights.org

[planetary]

I'm seeing an awful lot of sky-is-falling doom and gloom posted online -- like it's going to destroy the boutique NC industry. Does anyone have a read on why people are leaping to that conclusion, when there's a process to get cigars released post-2007 approved for sale?

(Not arguing that this is terrible. Just trying to separate the hyperbole from the facts.)