Pipe prices after a tobacco ban

[bnichols23]

I remember when I first got into the tobacco business back in the mid-70s there were rumblings that anti-smokers would kill the tobacco industry by 2010. Some are still working hard at it, but we're still here, albeit somewhat changed since then. It may come yet, but my gut thinks it won't be in my lifetime. Been wrong before, but that's my guess & I'm sticking with it.

 

[brian64]

it won't be the government but your employer and or your insurance provider who will price you out or by having a no nicotine policy as a condition of employment.

True. Going forward, "public health" issues and insurance costs will be the primary M.O. by which any number of controls, prohibitions and mandates will be justified and instituted.

That failed due to it being an immediate act. The antis have had decades and generations of non tobacco propaganda to influence the market.

Great point Embers. I would add that in those days it was actually still thought necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment in order to institute such laws/regulations. That perspective is mostly non-existent these days.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"IMO there’s no current movement to ban tobacco."
Believe me, governments around the world are seriously working towards this.....all for our own good of course :roll:
Regards,
Jay.

 

[jpmcwjr]

It's sooooo comforting to know our gov. has our best interests in mind, at all times.

 

[tennsmoker]

Cellaring, boys, cellaring. That's the answer to anyone's idea of a ban.

Most of us have enough pipes to outfit a pipe club. So, pipes, check. Tobacco, checking.

Keep that cellar alive and well, deep and wide, me mates.

 

[cortezattic]

8O Oh! Pipe+Stud. OK, I get it!

 

[retreadpipeapprentice]

In short I think yes they would still sell pipes for looking at and collecting. And firms like Cornell and Diehl would start selling the largest collection of male focused potpourri! in little tins.

 

[cajomu]

So far, there has been no effort to regulate the sale of unprocessed tobacco or the growing of tobacco for personal use. So, it is unlikely that the use of tobacco will disappear any time soon, although the quality of what people smoke may diminish as commercially available tobacco becomes prohibitively expensive and starts to disappears.

 

[madox07]

Ban on tobacco? You guys tried a ban on alcohol before ... that didn't go very well. :puffpipe:

 

[cosmicfolklore]

On second thought, a ban might be just what we need. Having the government and the church come out against anything seems to make things way more popular and profitable.

 

[madox07]

Cosmic +1 :lol:

 

[gerryp]

Imagine walking into a head shop and seeing a big sign that says "For marijuana use only!" hanging over the bongs.

 

[ashdigger]

Madox, the ban on alcohol went fantastic!! It was so successful I'm free to buy alcohol almost anywhere at anytime in NV. In lesser free states you have to go to a state liquor store. But it's still available. I can only hope the tobacco ban is as successful.

 

[mso489]

Prohibition was tried with alcohol, and I think it illustrated the problem with banning widely used substances. Alcohol certain has all the dimensions of health hazard, safety hazard, and being socially corrosive, as the temperance movement so effectively pointed out. Prohibition just surfaced catastrophe in a variety of other forms. So I don't expect to see it tried again in that form.

 

[warren]

There is a big difference in the attitude of the general population to consider when making a comparison to "prohibition" and the possibility of a total ban on tobacco. Prohibition was thrust upon the country by a small minority of the citizens through simple zealotry and an impressive marshaling of that minority to pressure the elected representatives. The vast majority of the adult population imbibed to some degree. Prohibition was not acceptable to the population as a whole. The banning of tobacco? Look at the numbers. There are a few similarities but, congress won't go off "half-cocked" as it did with alcohol. Too much revenue, from top to bottom, from small local governments to the Feds, is involved.
I like to believe that the general populations' attitude to tobacco will be ... to see it as unacceptable in public but, perfectly acceptable in private, not withstanding the feelings of employers/insurers. Time will tell.

 

[kiltedpiper]

In short I think yes they would still sell pipes for looking at and collecting. And firms like Cornell and Diehl would start selling the largest collection of male focused potpourri! in little tins.

And suddenly, Potpourri would be consider manly, but only in very small pots that you carry around with you. Revolutionizing the market and all that.

On second thought, a ban might be just what we need. Having the government and the church come out against anything seems to make things way more popular and profitable.

Cosmic, I have to agree. I know I would make it a point to be more pointed in my smoking if the churches near me started complaining. But that's the whole 'uneducated heathen' portion of me. And the government is just giving me more and more reasons to move to the middle of nowhere and just say goodbye to society...(once i build a big enough tobacco cellar to last me)

 

[3rdguy]

Bengal Slices now at 14.40..
https://www.pipesandcigars.com/p/bengal-slices-pipe-tobacco/1500142/#p-195970