newsletter 102108-re do:Layout 1

Transcription

OCTOBER 2008
In This Issue:
WILL CIGARS
BECOME A PART
OF THE FDA
REGULATORY
SCHEME?
WHAT IS
IN THE NEWS?
THE 2008
STATE CIGAR
TAX RATES
About Us
C
igar Rights of America
was formed in April 2008
to meet the demand of cigar
lovers across the United
States for a voice in the debate over cigar rights for those
who enjoy cigars for pleasure
and not because of any addiction to, or dependence on
nicotine.
CRA is a membership organization dedicated to maintaining the personal freedom
of individuals to enjoy cigars.
Its activities are focused on
education about handmade
premium cigars, opposing unfair legislation such as excessive state and federal cigar
taxes, overly restrictive smoking bans, cigar sales restrictions, and FDA regulation
of cigars.
The organization receives
funding through membership
dues, revenues from events
and from sponsors. As of October 2008, sponsors include
Arturo Fuente Cigars, Ashton
Cigars, Camacho Cigars,
CAO Cigars, Casa Fernandes
Cigar, Corona Cigar Co.,
Davidoff/AVO Cigars, Diamond Crown Cigars, Don
Pepin Garcia Cigars, Drew
Estate/Acid Cigars, Fonseca
Cigars, General Cigar Co.,
God of Fire Cigars, Graycliff
Cigars, Humidipak, La Aurora
Cigars, La Flor Dominicana,
Oliva/NUB Cigars, Padilla Cigars, Padron Cigars, PROCIGAR, Prometheus, Rocky
Patel Cigars, Tabacalera Perdomo,
Tatuaje Cigars,
Thompson Cigar Co., Torano
Cigars, and Xikar.
For more information, or to
join, please visit www.CigarRights.org. Comments or
questions may be emailed to
info@cigarrights.org, faxed to
(818) 541-6865 or mailed to
Cigar Rights of America, 2222
Foothill Boulevard, Suite
E122, La Canada Flintridge,
California 91011. CIGARS PART OF THE FDA REGULATORY SCHEME
Have no doubt, the bill now in Congress to use the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration as an oversight agency for tobacco products includes cigars.
A
1
tobacco and the sealing gum (usually gum tragacanth, a natural product) used to hold the cap together. In better machinemade cigars, the ingredients are generally short-filler tobacco
with the wrapper made of natural leaf or homogenized tobacco
leaf (HTL), a paper-like substance thatʼs made from the scrap
tobacco, including leaf stems.
(2) BE SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS prescribing “good
manufacturing practices” that specify how cigars should be
made, packed and stored. This potentially onerous regulation at least notes that historical manufacturing practices be
taken into account and the financial resources of the makers
be referred to when making any requirements. It would be a
terrible thing, indeed, for small cigar makers to be eliminated
as family cigar operations have been the lifeblood of new
concepts in the industry for more than 100 years.
(3) USE TOBACCO, especially foreign-grown, that (under sec.
907 (a)(1)(b)) “was grown or processed using a pesticide chemical that is not approved under applicable Federal law for use
WWW.CIGARRIGHTS.ORG
lthough the bill talks about “tobacco products” to incorporate all types of tobacco – cigarettes, cigars and pipe
tobacco – the primary focus is on cigarettes and on trying to
keep younger people from smoking. In sec. 901 (b), the bill
states that “This chapter shall apply to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco
and to any other tobacco products that the Secretary by regulation deems to be the subject of this chapter (emphasis
added). That means an empowered FDA and a spirited director could turn the screws to cigar makers.
The bill as passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.
1108) by a veto-proof 326-102 margin on July 30, 2008 runs almost 100 pages in length and while aimed at cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco products, there is plenty for cigar smokers
to get edgy about. If the FDA did extend the billʼs requirements
to cigars, manufacturers would be required to:
(1) DETAIL OUT ALL INGREDIENTS in their cigars, which for
the premium market wouldnʼt be that difficult: generally, itʼs the
OCTOBER 2008
ISSUE 1, VOLUME 1
in domestic tobacco farming and processing . . .” This could be
a problem for some leaf growers in Central American countries
who may be using chemicals not currently approved in the U.S..
(4) POTENTIALLY HAVE TO CONTROL THE NICOTINE content of cigars, reduce or eliminate other “harmful components”
of their products.
(5) SUBMIT NEW PRODUCTS AHEAD OF TIME in a process
which could take up to six months (180 days) for approval or
denial, similar to the process used for drugs in the U.S.
(6) PAY FEES TO THE FDA to support its activities involved in
tobacco control. The amount to be paid (and no doubt passed
on to the consumer) would be based on a formula used in the
2004 bill for the termination of the tobacco quota; cigar makers
were charged with 2.783% of the total amount of that fee, based
on their share of the gross domestic sales total. This fee does
not apply, however, unless the “class of tobacco products” being
taxed is actually under FDA oversight; all cigars are lumped into
the same category.
In The News
You will find news on legislative issues and anti-smoking
movements affecting your personal freedom and rights
to enjoy cigars. Get involved, learn about the Issues and
take action! See the stories to these headlines and more
at www.cigarrights.org/news.htm:
LOS
ANGELES SMOKING BAN: CRA
delegates attend round table meeting.
BOSTON
SMOKING BAN: City's Director of
Public Health doesn't want "anybody to smoke"
DUTCH BAR OWNERS BANDING TOGETHER
AGAINST SMOKING BAN
ATLANTIC CITY MAY DELAY SMOKING BAN
BY A YEAR
SAN FRANCISCO PHARMACY SALES BAN
DECISION COMING
FDA OVERSIGHT LEGISLATION EXPECTED
TO PASS IN 2009
ANTI-SMOKING GROUP ASKING FOR MORE
TAXES ON TOBACCO
INDIA TRIES SMOKING BAN AGAIN
GENEVA SMOKING BAN MAY BE DELAYED
UNTIL 2011
ILLINOIS SMOKING BAN UNENFORCEABLE
IN COURT?
PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE SYSTEM
CHANCELLOR HEARS BAN COMPLAINTS
2
In addition to these impacts on the makers and distributors of
cigars, the bill also includes some troubling provisions for others.
In section 906 (d)(1), the bill gives the FDA an opportunity to
“require restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco
product, including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, the tobacco product, if the Secretary
determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the
protection of the public health.” This is amplified in sec. 906
(d)(4), which directs the issuance of regulations “to address the
promotion and marketing of tobacco products that are sold or
distributed through means other than a direct, face-to-face exchange between a retailer and a consumer in order to protect
individuals who have not attained the minimum age established
by applicable law for the purchase of such products.” In effect,
who could sell cigars and how they are sold could be dictated
by the FDA and all mail-order or Internet sales of cigars could
be abolished.
The one helpful section is 907 (d)(3) (A), in which “banning
all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars,
all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all rollyour-own tobacco products, or (B) requiring the reduction of
nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero” is not permitted
under the Act. Congress reserved to itself the ability to ban tobacco products.
In June, the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR) circulated a note to the trade which stated that
“As we have previously stated and discussed, cigarettes, RYO
tobacco, and smokeless tobacco would be regulated immediately when FDA legislation is enacted; not cigars nor pipe tobacco. Once the legislation is enacted, then the process of the
FDA getting geared up to regulate - and the initial, exclusive
focus on cigarettes, RYO tobacco and smokeless tobacco - are
likely to occupy the agency for two or three years minimum.
“We do not foresee cigars and pipe tobacco being added to
the legislation as Sen. [Edward] Kennedy and [Rep. Henry]
Waxman will strongly resist any revisions or changes made
in the legislation because such changes may undercut the primary purpose of giving the FDA ʻfullʼ jurisdiction over tobacco
products. Even though the current bill is poorly drafted, the
limited changes made to it so far have been adopted in the
face of considerable resistance.”
So the cigar trade is taking a pass on this bill, which will pass
the U.S. Senate, but may be subject to a filibuster first, and a
likely veto from President George W. Bush. There are more than
enough votes to override such a veto in the House, but itʼs not
clear whether 60 votes can be obtained in the Senate.
Although cigars are not in the crosshairs of this bill, they are
in range. One wonders, if this bill passes, what an activist
President or FDA chief might do. It wonʼt be helpful to those
who enjoy tobacco in its most natural forms, as cigars or in
pipes, just like the Taino Indians who met Rodrigo de Jerez
and Luis Torres in 1492. WWW.CIGARRIGHTS.ORG
OCTOBER 2008
ISSUE 1, VOLUME 1
2008 STATE CIGAR TAX RATES
(per the Federation of Tax Administrators Web site)
ALABAMA
4.0¢ per cigar
ALASKA
75% of the wholesale price
ARIZONA
13.0-44.1¢ per cigar
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
ARKANSAS
32% of the manufacturerʼs price
NEW JERSEY
CALIFORNIA
45.13% of the wholesale price
NEW MEXICO
25% of the product value
COLORADO
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
NORTH CAROLINA
DELAWARE
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
FLORIDA
No tax
GEORGIA
OKLAHOMA
HAWAII
OREGON
IDAHO
PENNSYLVANIA
No tax
ILLINOIS
RHODE ISLAND
40% of the wholesale price (cap of 50¢ per cigar)
INDIANA
SOUTH CAROLINA
IOWA
50% of the wholesale price (50¢ per cigar cap)
SOUTH DAKOTA
KANSAS
TENNESSEE
KENTUCKY
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
8-20% of the manufacturerʼs price
12-36¢ per cigar
1.0¢ per cigar
UTAH
MAINE
VERMONT
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
MASSACHUSETTS
WASHINGTON
MICHIGAN
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MINNESOTA
WEST VIRGINIA
MISSISSIPPI
WISCONSIN
MISSOURI
WYOMING
MONTANA
12% of gross receipts
We Need You!
CigarRights.org is a membership organization and we need your help and the help of your friends. Memberships
are available for one year ($30), two years ($55), three years ($80), four years ($105) and lifetime ($500).
You can join on-line at CigarRights.org, but please note: although Cigars Rights of America is a non-profit
organization, contributions, gifts or membership dues are not refundable or transferable and are not deductible
as contributions to a tax-exempt organization for Federal income tax purposes.
Cigar Rights of America neither solicits or accepts membership from any person under 18 years. Thank you.
3
WWW.CIGARRIGHTS.ORG
OCTOBER 2008
ISSUE 1, VOLUME 1
CRA MOMENTS
hare your special moments with fellow cigar enthusiasts.
Email us your photograph for CRA Moments to:
S
photo@cigarrights.org
T
hank you for sharing your CRA Moments with your fellow CRA members.
Jeff, Tyler and Rob enjoy a smoke.
This was the last great cigar smoking event held in Chicago on
December 30th, 2007 — 2 days before the "illegal" laws of the State
of Illinois infringed on all of us.
The place was Gibson's Steakhouse in their elegant “State Room.”
I've attached a picture of me (Bobby Thompson)
enjoying a nice cigar at Jost Van Dyke, BVI!
Trying to catch dinner.
DeeDee Engels from Cigar Grotto, Inc.
4
WWW.CIGARRIGHTS.ORG
ISSUE 1, VOLUME 1
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
We asked for it. We got it. CRA members give us their opinions and suggestions.
Darren Barr writes:
Dear Cigar Rights:
My opinion on SCHIP is that I think it is a
good program for low income families that
need the coverage. I am strongly
against using tobacco tax to fund this
program. It is a bad idea. The number of
smokers is declining because of increases already in taxes and places you
can smoke. My self example I enjoy cigars very much. But with limited places I
can smoke I only smoke a couple of times
a week. The SCHIP should be an option
to purchase for private insurance companies. The private insurance companies
can set up a fund for low income families.
If a family can't afford the SCHIP from private insurance companies than set up different charities where someone can
contribute to a SCHIP fund. Using tobacco taxes for this is a bad idea. However SCHIP is not a bad idea used for the
right reasons.
Respectfully,
Darren Barr
August 26, 2008
===============================
Hob Cunningham writes:
This country was established on the rights
of the individual to own property. I am
against ANYTHING that interferes with
might right to do whatever I want with
my property. That includes what color I
am "allowed" to paint my house or
whether I am "allowed" to smoke a cigar
in my house or on my property.
Heard Cigar Dave speak on this many
times, and when they announced the organization today, I joined immediately. I
am also a member of the NRA. I like a
good steak with a very good single malt
scotch. I am behind you 100%.
Hob Cunningham
Windcrest, Texas.
August 23, 2008
5
===============================
William Rudowitz writes:
I wonder why government focuses on
smoking. I do not like cigarette smoke, at
all, yet I understand that people want to
smoke. I am glad that there is no smoking
in public buildings, restaurants, theaters,
the workplace, etc. However, to begin to
ban smoking in homes, cars and other
private places in an absolute infringement
on our rights as citizens. Why is there no
focus on alcohol? Why not tax the drink
more and prohibit drinking in public
places, similar to smoking? I wonder if
anyone recognizes that
alcohol-related deaths far
and away outnumber
smoking-related deaths.
Combining deaths that
occur from liver disease,
heart disease caused by
drinking, accidents that
occur while persons are
under the influence, violence that occurs when
people are under the influence and all other alcohol associated illnesses.
WWW.CIGARRIGHTS.ORG
Alcohol is more accepted for two primary
reasons: 1) many of the influential people
in our society drink "sociably" and they
see it as an appropriate way to engage in
interaction at events and 2) they tried
once with prohibition and failed so the
government is afraid to try anything again.
I am willing to do all that I can to prevent the ridiculous taxes that have
been proposed and to limit the restrictions placed on smokers.
William Rudowitz
August 19, 2008
OCTOBER 2008
ISSUE 1, VOLUME 1
Tell Us What You Think continues.
===============================
William Rudowitz writes:
I attended the first Freedom Tour event in
Manhattan the other evening and engaged in some good discussion around
the smoking ban and tax related issues.
The more I think about the taxation story,
the more frustrated I get with the politicians in this country. The concept of taxing to provide health insurance for
children is not necessarily, in and of itself,
a bad thing. However, the plan as it is laid
out is ridiculous. The current plan would
put an end to the cigar industry as we
know it and would therefore not raise any
taxes and not be able to fund any health
insurance or other cause. Then I look at
how much money our government spend
son the health and well being of illegal
aliens and I am forced to wonder, if the
government would stop spending all that
money on healthcare for illegals and
would take that money and spend it on
healthcare for children, I am almost 100%
certain that the bill would be paid in full.
Also, what about the Social Security and
Welfare payments that are made to relatives of immigrants who come here solely
to take advantage of the good nature of
our country and the loopholes in the system? Close the loopholes and strengthen
the requirements to receive such payments, and the bill would be paid in full.
Now, send all of the illegal aliens who are
6
in our prisons back to their countries of
origin and the bill would be paid in full.
Take all of the money our various layers
of government pay to have programs and
products translated to languages other
then English and the bill would be paid
in full.
Finally, stop wasting so much time trying
to take away the rights of smokers of fine
cigars, who aren't hurting anyone and
aren't asking for anything and I'll bet they
could find a way to do all of the above and
not only pay for SCHIP but also pay for
the continuation of Social Security pensions, fund research for alternative energy sources and fix our infrastructure.
You know why they don't do any of those
things? It's because they would have to
have guts to do it and attacking the small
number of us smokers of fine cigars
is easy.
August 21, 2008
===============================
David Justice writes:
Just thought someone should know about
this. I found it on a cigar forum board. It
was posted on 8/4/08.
I booked a 7-day Caribbean cruise
aboard the Carnival
Valor
cruise ship out
of Miami, Fla.
last week. I
chose this ship,
in large part,
because it advertised on Carnival's web site
a comfortable,
fancy cigar bar
that featured
nightly live jazz.
But my first
night on the
ship, as I was
about to clip my cigar, I was told by the
bartender that Winston's Cigar Lounge
would no longer allow cigar smoking.
I complained to our cruise director and
learned that (starting last week), the Carnival corporate office had decided to test
WWW.CIGARRIGHTS.ORG
a new no-cigar policy on the Valor. If customer complaints aren't too high, they
plan to enforce the new policy on their entire fleet.
Cigar smoking is still allowed on open
decks (starboard side only), but not in any
bar or lounge or casino...not even the
Winston Cigar Bar. I thought this was extremely disappointing, not to mention a
tad dishonest. If I had known about the
new policy, I probably would have sailed
with another cruise line.... Smoking cigars
on the open deck proved to be a not-sogood alternative. 1) It was windy, and 2) it
was difficult to enjoy conversation with
friends, since the open deck movie theater was playing every night. (I don't fancy
having to watch Bee Movie with my cigar
and cognac.)
Other than this one issue, the rest of the
cruise was great fun.
Thanks,
David Justice
August 18, 2008
===============================
Brandon Schleeter writes:
You asked for opinions, here is mine—as
concise as I can articulate. There are few
of us cigar "aficionados" who disagree
with funding children and supporting programs that assist children. This is especially true of health care for children and
the SCHIP bill.
However, there are few (if any) other instances of private industry supporting unrelated programs like tobacco taxes
supports SCHIP. Each US citizen is required to pay taxes. I pay mine annually.
Why is a solitary private industry
being singled out to provide that financial support? If you agree with
SCHIP and the bill in its entirety, I ask only
that you think of this- obesity is a terrifically important and continually rising concern amongst children in the USA. Is it
acceptable to tax every fast food chain on
the sale of their hamburgers to finance
children's health care coverage?
Brandon Schleeter
June 10 , 2008
OCTOBER 2008

newsletter 102108-re do:Layout 1

Transcription

Similar documents

the property developer the cigar lover

Cover Feature

Product Sales Flyer

Tabacco Tradizionale

`Red Shoe`

NEWSLETTER

Tobacconist - Holy Smoke

READ MORE HERE.

State of the stogie

Prez Updated Final Final Final