Lawmakers Seek Ban on Flavored Cigarettes

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
Will the bullsh!t ever end with these idiot activists?

Lawmakers Seek Ban on Flavored Cigarettes
Anti-Smoking Groups Say Products Target Kids
By MARK JOHNSON, AP

ALBANY, N.Y. (May 11) - They're called "Winter Warm Toffee," "Kauai Kolada," and "Twista Chill," but the flavored cigarettes are leaving a bad taste in the mouths of lawmakers who say they should be banned because they target young people.

Anti-smoking groups have charged that tobacco companies, particularly Reynolds American Inc., are luring teenagers into the smoking habit by offering flavored cigarettes and advertising them in magazines with heavy adolescent readership like Rolling Stone, Glamour and Elle.

"These are designed to attract younger smokers," said Michael Bopp of the American Cancer Society. "We don't want to see a product introduced that will give back the gains we've made in this state in reducing teenage smoking. From a commonsense perspective, adults are not going to be interested in these products."

A bill introduced in Congress in March gives the Food and Drug Administration power to regulate tobacco products and would ban the sale of candy flavored cigarettes. It is currently in the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and in the House Subcommittee on Health.

And legislators in New York, Minnesota, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas have proposed bills prohibiting the sale of the flavored cigarettes.

A national survey presented last week by Buffalo's Roswell Park Cancer Institute found that 20 percent of smokers ages 17 to 19 used flavored cigarettes in the past 30 days while just 6 percent of smokers over the age of 25 did, said Dr. Gary Giovino, a senior researcher at the institute.

"Of course they're going after kids, they're going to be the longer-range consumers," said Katie Spector, 17, a student at Colonie High School outside Albany who recently quit smoking after about five years.

Separately the study found that 8.6 percent of ninth graders in western New York have tried flavored cigarettes in the past 30 days.

"They are using flavors to sweeten the poison," Giovino said.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American, formed by last year's merger of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., sells flavored versions of its Kool and Camel brands.

Fred McConnell, a spokesman for the company, said it does not target minors with its marketing. After meeting with Sen. Charles Fuschillo, a sponsor of New York's bill, Reynolds decided to stop advertising cigarettes with candy or fruit names though the products will still be sold, he said.

"We recognize use of certain names on Camel Exotics have resulted in unintended concerns," he said.

Currently, the company offers two Camel products - "Mandarin Mint" and "Dark Mint." Those will no longer be advertised in magazines, newspapers or stores, McConnell said.

Nonetheless, McConnell said, the company opposes the legislation to ban flavored cigarettes because it would also ban "conventional" cigarettes.

"Ingredients like cocoa, sugar, licorice and menthol have been used in cigarettes for 100 years," McConnell said. "You would ban almost all cigarettes."

The sponsor of the New York bill that would ban flavored cigarettes said he expects the measure to pass the Assembly.

"If there is an effort to discourage kids from taking up the habit, we need to go after products boutique-designed to target them," said Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, D-Manhattan.

The measure is currently in the Senate's Health Committee.

Jamie Drogin, a spokeswoman for Altria, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, said her company does not make any candy or fruit-flavored cigarettes and supports the proposed federal ban on those products.

 

walla

Senior member
Jun 2, 2001
987
0
0
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.

There is a fine line between targeting the 18-25 crowd and the younger children. In fact, there is NO line. They like largely the same things. I thought Joe Camel was cool when I was in my 20s. It was targeted towards the young BAR crowds, not kids.

By this logic, tobacco ads cannot target anyone under 30. And that's just silly.

This is a PARENTAL problem, not the problem of tobacco companies.

BTW, I'm 37, and occationally I'll have a Vanillia flavored cigar.

Flavored tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. WTF do you think Menthol cigarettes are? Pipe tobacco?
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
"We don't want to see a product introduced that will give back the gains we've made in this state in reducing teenage smoking. From a commonsense perspective, adults are not going to be interested in these products."

I'd like to know how he came to that conclusion:p
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,213
18,067
136
I personally know three people, besides myself, that have tried the flavored cigarettes and bought them on a recurring basis. I'm the youngest one at 27.
Oh, and when I researched them after they first came out, I found some documents from the tobacco company that said they were pushing these cigarettes as they allowed a greater profit margin. These sell for generally at least fifty cents more than standard cigarettes, sometimes as much as two or three dollars more.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I think they should just outlaw the sales of all cigarettes.

:beer:

Why not? It worked for alcohol and drugs, right?

:roll:
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
Originally posted by: walla
It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.
I thought it was because his face was a large penis...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I think they should just outlaw ignorance.

:beer:

Fixed

If they outlawed ignorance they wouldn't have to outlaw smoking. ;)

:laugh:

Bright, educated people put themselves at ASSUMED risk every day.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I think they should just outlaw ignorance.

:beer:

Fixed

If they outlawed ignorance they wouldn't have to outlaw smoking. ;)

:laugh:

Exactly. Those who wanted to smoke would accept that it was deadly and proceed accordingly.

 

walla

Senior member
Jun 2, 2001
987
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.

There is a fine line between targeting the 18-25 crowd and the younger chgildren. In fact, there is NO line. They like largely the same things. I thought Joe Camel was cool when I was in my 20s. It was targeted towards the young BAR crowds, not kids.

By this logic, tobacco ads cannot target anyone under 30. And that's just silly.

This is a PARENTAL problem, not the problem of tobacco companies.

BTW, I'm 37, and occationally I'll have a Vanillia flavored cigar.

Flavored tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. WTF do you think Menthol cigarettes are? Pipe tobacco?


I agree, some of the problem IS parental.

But I think the media/advertisment, too, is a huge influence on everyone's lives, and particularly those who are younger and more impressionable.

I think the problem needs to be tackled on both fronts.

But this is politics and news issue methinks so I'll leave my reasons at that :)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
Originally posted by: walla
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.

There is a fine line between targeting the 18-25 crowd and the younger chgildren. In fact, there is NO line. They like largely the same things. I thought Joe Camel was cool when I was in my 20s. It was targeted towards the young BAR crowds, not kids.

By this logic, tobacco ads cannot target anyone under 30. And that's just silly.

This is a PARENTAL problem, not the problem of tobacco companies.

BTW, I'm 37, and occationally I'll have a Vanillia flavored cigar.

Flavored tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. WTF do you think Menthol cigarettes are? Pipe tobacco?


I agree, some of the problem IS parental.

But I think the media/advertisment, too, is a huge influence on everyone's lives, and particularly those who are younger and more impressionable.

I think the problem needs to be tackled on both fronts.

But this is politics and news issue methinks so I'll leave my reasons at that :)

Really? So should movies, TV and music be censored for violent or sexual content because a kid may see/hear it and be influenced?
 

Lumathix

Golden Member
Mar 16, 2004
1,686
0
46
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

So, if they take the flavored cigs off the market, you don't think the majority of young smokers won't all gravitate to one specific brand of existing cig? Come on, that's with kids do, they try and be like their peers....if these aren't on the market, they will go with something else that's cool.

Point being, banning these will do absolutely nothing, so leave it be. :)

 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
They should put chain smokers and anti-smoking nazis in a room w/o windows and lock the door.

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I think they should just outlaw the sales of all cigarettes.

:beer:

So you can DUI and kill pregnant women instantly? How thoughtful of you.
 

walla

Senior member
Jun 2, 2001
987
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.

There is a fine line between targeting the 18-25 crowd and the younger chgildren. In fact, there is NO line. They like largely the same things. I thought Joe Camel was cool when I was in my 20s. It was targeted towards the young BAR crowds, not kids.

By this logic, tobacco ads cannot target anyone under 30. And that's just silly.

This is a PARENTAL problem, not the problem of tobacco companies.

BTW, I'm 37, and occationally I'll have a Vanillia flavored cigar.

Flavored tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. WTF do you think Menthol cigarettes are? Pipe tobacco?


I agree, some of the problem IS parental.

But I think the media/advertisment, too, is a huge influence on everyone's lives, and particularly those who are younger and more impressionable.

I think the problem needs to be tackled on both fronts.

But this is politics and news issue methinks so I'll leave my reasons at that :)

Really? So should movies, TV and music be censored for violent or sexual content because a kid may see/hear it and be influenced?


To an extent, yes. I think its gone a bit too far lately...the censorship and the sensitivity.

But on the extreme opposite end...if there was no censorship...what stops pornography being shown right after Sesame street? Is that responsible programming?

Again there must be some responsibility among the production of these shows, the network censorship, as well as the parenting. But if the media excercises no control in this regard, what other alternative do the parents have other than keeping their children isolated from it? How can a kid go outside, go to school, watch television without being exposed to these types of ads and programming? Parenting can only go so far.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,171
18,807
146
Originally posted by: walla
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.

There is a fine line between targeting the 18-25 crowd and the younger chgildren. In fact, there is NO line. They like largely the same things. I thought Joe Camel was cool when I was in my 20s. It was targeted towards the young BAR crowds, not kids.

By this logic, tobacco ads cannot target anyone under 30. And that's just silly.

This is a PARENTAL problem, not the problem of tobacco companies.

BTW, I'm 37, and occationally I'll have a Vanillia flavored cigar.

Flavored tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. WTF do you think Menthol cigarettes are? Pipe tobacco?


I agree, some of the problem IS parental.

But I think the media/advertisment, too, is a huge influence on everyone's lives, and particularly those who are younger and more impressionable.

I think the problem needs to be tackled on both fronts.

But this is politics and news issue methinks so I'll leave my reasons at that :)

Really? So should movies, TV and music be censored for violent or sexual content because a kid may see/hear it and be influenced?


To an extent, yes. I think its gone a bit too far lately...the censorship and the sensitivity.

But on the extreme opposite end...if there was no censorship...what stops pornography being shown right after Sesame street? Is that responsible programming?

Again there must be some responsibility among the production of these shows, the network censorship, as well as the parenting. But if the media excercises no control in this regard, what other alternative do the parents have other than keeping their children isolated from it? How can a kid go outside, go to school, watch television without being exposed to these types of ads and programming? Parenting can only go so far.

The responsibility is solely in the hands of the consumer.

And you cannot childproof the world. Doing so only robs everyone of their freedom. No, you must worldproof your child. Millions of kids see ads everyday and never smoke.

Censorship is wrong. Plain and simple. It is the domain of the weak minded and self-appointed elites.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
WTF? then we have to ban names like Pina Colada, Sex on the beach..etc becuse the names could be used to promote youth drinking.
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
These lawmakers are morons. Kids don't start smoking with these or buy them because of the flavor. Kids buy cheap cigarettes like Carnivals or Broncos because it is all that they can afford, and if they have some sort of income then they'll move up to Camel filters or Malboro 27s or something.

I know this because I was a kid (16-18) smoker. I only bought those flavored ones every once and awhile for the hell of it.. kind of like a gourmet cigarette. Same for the many other smokers I know. Personally I liked normal ones better. But some underage kid is not going to start off smoking $8/pack cigarettes when he could use his $5 allowance to get two packs of Carnival lights.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: walla
I think this is a tricky issue.

The anti-smoking group definitely brings a compelling argument. 3 times as many (% wise) young smokers buy these cigarretes compared to the older ones. The appeal is definitely towards the younger smoker according to their numbers.

It was the same reason Camel ditched the cartoon Joe Camel. The marketing is obviously targeting a young audience.

The smoking industry should be more responsible than this. Or at least conclude that some of their marketing tactics are encouraging the wrong crowd to begin smoking and adapt.

I think the decision for Reynolds to stop advertising, but continue selling, the cigs was the right thing to do. But of course, that will harm the viability of the product in the long run.

There is a fine line between targeting the 18-25 crowd and the younger chgildren. In fact, there is NO line. They like largely the same things. I thought Joe Camel was cool when I was in my 20s. It was targeted towards the young BAR crowds, not kids.

By this logic, tobacco ads cannot target anyone under 30. And that's just silly.

This is a PARENTAL problem, not the problem of tobacco companies.

BTW, I'm 37, and occationally I'll have a Vanillia flavored cigar.

Flavored tobacco has been around for hundreds of years. WTF do you think Menthol cigarettes are? Pipe tobacco?
I agree, some of the problem IS parental.

But I think the media/advertisment, too, is a huge influence on everyone's lives, and particularly those who are younger and more impressionable.

I think the problem needs to be tackled on both fronts.

But this is politics and news issue methinks so I'll leave my reasons at that :)

Really? So should movies, TV and music be censored for violent or sexual content because a kid may see/hear it and be influenced?
To an extent, yes. I think its gone a bit too far lately...the censorship and the sensitivity.

But on the extreme opposite end...if there was no censorship...what stops pornography being shown right after Sesame street? Is that responsible programming?

Again there must be some responsibility among the production of these shows, the network censorship, as well as the parenting. But if the media excercises no control in this regard, what other alternative do the parents have other than keeping their children isolated from it? How can a kid go outside, go to school, watch television without being exposed to these types of ads and programming? Parenting can only go so far.
The responsibility is solely in the hands of the consumer.

And you cannot childproof the world. Doing so only robs everyone of their freedom. No, you must worldproof your child. Millions of kids see ads everyday and never smoke.

Censorship is wrong. Plain and simple. It is the domain of the weak minded and self-appointed elites.
In the wise words of the late great Robert Heinlein, "Censorship is forcing grown men to drink skim milk because the baby can't eat steak."