Yes and in the cigar and pipe realms many were relieved California exempted them, they hope that will create a precedent. Personally I think any sort of flavor ban is overreach, I hate cigarettes but if a grown ass adult wants to smoke strawberry flavored cigarettes they should be allowed to.
I'm generally less hostile than most others on this forum on certain stripes of tobacco sales regulations and taxes, but even I find the fixation on flavored tobaccos to be rather absurd. The argument is since these tobaccos are artificially flavored, they must therefore be targeted to children.
It's such an absurd argument, they mean to tell me Borkum Riff Whiskey is targetting kids? Even if a kid did manage to acquire some they'd burn their tongue and never try it again. It's especially asinine considering flavored alcohol doesn't get a fraction of the heat, sure there's been attempts to go after alcopops but liqueurs and flavored vodkas / whiskeys are largely accepted.
In fairness to the regulators, trying to prevent people from smoking Borkum Riff Whiskey should be considered a kindness, because that stuff is foul.
Very true, my state doesn't allow mailing pipe tobacco but from what I understand it was never specifically banned. The law sought to prevent the online sale of chew and RYO to keep minors from obtaining it, which to be fair probably was a problem. There's no restrictions on cigars at all because they're considered processed and not loose. The people who wrote the legislation probably had no idea about flakes, cakes, plugs, and certainly not ropes, I'm sure the only only exposure to pipe tobacco they had was whatever OTC their grandpas smoked.In fairness to the regulators, trying to prevent people from smoking Borkum Riff Whiskey should be considered a kindness, because that stuff is foul.
Jokes aside, I doubt they think much of Borkum Riff or any pipe tobacco. Their focus, as best I can tell, is on vaping, because that is one area where they are seeing an increase in young smokers.
Dorky hipsters like me are a rarity. Not many young folks smoking a pipe. Though I will be 38 next month, so I am probably well past the point of being young.
It's hard to find anything that isn't political. Even tobacco is.
Borkum Riff and Prince Albert Soft Vanilla were my earliest tobaccos. Never got tongue burn from them.
Exactly, any target of legislation is inherently political. I don't believe it's partisan however
I had no idea there was vanilla PA. I've gotten tongue bite from all the OTCs I've tried including the ones I still enjoy however I've never found it to be particularly unpleasant or long lasting. However I can't imagine teenagers looking for a quick nicotine fix would smoke carefully
I started with RYO. It easily translated to pipes and I was 17 when I bought my first pipe back in '91.
I started with cigars. I've heard people who start with pipes have the worst problems with tongue bite, it's only been a brief and mild annoyance for me
The state has a very long history of puritanism and social control: "In Massachusetts Bay, the product fared less well. The first general letter (April 17,1629) from an official of the New England Company to the Massachusetts Bay settlers prohibited the planting of tobacco except in small quantities for medicinal purposes (Werner, 1922: 100)." (source: 'History of Tobacco Regulation - Regulation of Production - US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse) History of Tobacco Regulation - Regulation of Production - https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2b_2.htm
Tobacco always was, at least in Europe. King James 1 of England hated tobacco-smoking so much, he forbade its use at court, and anywhere he went on a state visit (including on the routes to and from). England's Catholic arch-enemy, Spain, profited from James' deliberate suppression of the tobacco industry in England and America, and vast quantities of Spanish tobacco were consumed in England as a result. A growing body of influential opinion pointed out that this was unpatriotic (and bearing in mind that in the 17thC religion too was as much a political turf war as a matter of personal salvation) ; meanwhile, King James first raised tobacco taxation in order to deter smoking, then realised the Treasury depended on the revenue from these taxes which were, at the same time, reducing the *legal* importation and sale of tobacco, thus in turn depressing the domestic tobacco economy, reducing *legal* tobacco consumption and lowering his tax income. He bowed to the inevitable and relaxed the anti-tobacco laws, in the interests of furthering the cause of Protestantism and maintaining his income, as being a greater good than the health of his subjects. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yep and that continued well into the 20th century with groups like the Watch And Ward Society banning / censoring books and plays. Hence the idiom "banned in Boston" to mean any work of art that's been victim of censorship.
