Cigar Rights: What doesn’t belong with the others?

It feels kinda like Sesame Street. You’re shown a bunch of pictures and you need to figure out how it doesn’t belong. In this case, we’re talking about the use of cheap “cigars” to be used as blunt wrappers but a law that doesn’t narrow the specification down. I mean, come one. Do they really think that someone is going to take an $8+ cigar and cut it apart to use for marijuana? Serious? That’d be a rather expensive “blunt”. In a country that is about capitalism and trying to be frugal these days, it’s more likely they find the cheapest cigar they can and use that. So why not put a price tag on the cigar to ensure that you’re targeting the right one? The reality is that this law could effectively close down small B&Ms, where people go in to purchase one or two individual cigars to enjoy.

Purchasing a whole box, especially right now, can be a fiscal challenge for some and for others, they just don’t have the space to store it. The ability to go in and purchase a single cigar is akin to going into a restaurant and having a single glass of wine. I understand the purpose of the law but laws are meant to be specific. Broad-sweeping laws like this are too general and open to too much interpretation. If this really becomes law, I’d be surprised and all those involved should be admonished for poor law practise (most politicians are lawyers and they should know better).

Read the article/op. ed. piece below and if you can and haven’t already done so, join CRA today. They are there to protect our rights as smokers.

There is more trouble in Washington , DC , but this time it’s a few blocks from Capitol Hill. It’s in the Washington , DC City Council chambers.

An initial group of five (possibly eight) city council members, including Marion Barry, Tommy Wells, Michael Brown, Yvette Alexander and Harry Thomas, have introduced an amendment to the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982, known as the “Single Sale of Cigar Products Prohibition Act of 2009.” The very reading of “cigars” in a “drug paraphernalia” ordinance is deeply disturbing, and the reason such a trend needs to stop – now.

The intent of the proposed ordinance is to prevent the use of cigars as a means to marijuana use. The draft ordinance defines cigar as “an individual cigar, cigar leaf wrapper, flavored or non flavored cigar that is referred to as a blunt, blunt wrap, or any other tobacco product that may be used in the ingesting, inhaling or introduction of marijuana to the human body.”

In this draft, there is no mention of price, size, hand-made, machine-made, or other defining characteristics of cigars. While media reports have said its intent is to ban sales at convenience stores and gas stations, there is no mention of them in the bill either.

Local premium tobacconists such as W. Curtis Draper and Georgetown Tobacco view the language as too vague, with John Anderson of W. Curtis Draper stating, “It’s scary because it’s open ended.” David Berkebile of Georgetown Tobacco intends to join in the opposition.

The measure is not without precedent. Just over the border in Maryland , Prince George ‘s County Council, where ordinances were advanced to require sales of cigars in packs of five, helped usher in a trend with such public policy. That legislation did exempt stores that specialize in cigar sales.

Earlier this year, Mayor Sheila Dixon of Baltimore , Maryland stated, “cheap cigars are becoming popular and these products are addictive and deadly.” The effort in Maryland was praised by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, stating “Individual cigars are more affordable to price sensitive kids.”

We would like to dramatize how such nebulous policies can lead to unwarranted and unjust actions.

Recently, a customer of Havana Connections, a Richmond , Virginia based premium tobacconist, purchased a $10 cigar, left the shop, and proceeded to drive home. He was enjoying the cigar in the privacy of his car, when he saw the blue lights flashing in the rear view mirror.

When the cigar enthusiast asked what the problem was, the officer said he saw smoke, and wanted to know if he was using marijuana. Obviously, the answer was no, but the officer said “well, I have probable cause. Give me the cigar. I need to test it.”

After some protest, he took it; set the cigar down, and the officer proceeded to cut this premium hand made cigar in half, dousing it with a solution to test for the presence of marijuana. Guess what? There was none. The cigar enthusiast proceeded to say, “you owe me $10 for that cigar.” The officer said, no, but you can take it up with our office. He did, and they gave him $40 for his trouble. True story. Two weeks old. Amazing.

In government, especially at the local and state level, one of the foremost contributing reasons to bad public policy is the setting of precedent and others saying “we should do that too.” That’s how an outdoor smoking ban makes its way from San Francisco to Boston . That has been the case on matters of indoor and outdoor smoking bans, private property (housing) smoking bans, regulation of advertising and marketing, and the setting of tax policy.

Hopefully on September 29, a committee of Washington DC City Council will set aside this proposed ordinance. More so, however, there needs to be a halt to the very introduction of these measures across the country.

2 thoughts on “Cigar Rights: What doesn’t belong with the others?

  1. Paranoia, thats all it is why! the ____ is marijuana being used to discredit legal cigar or blunt smokers,I always thought the U.S an other countries believed in fairness,an a individual’s right to happiness an contentment apperently not.I myself have not enjoyed a good cuban or central american cigar in a long time.Your representitives, stated in the above article are using a “hail Mary” play to strangle the cigar industry an score more points for their idea freedom an democracy.The officer pulling the ADULT driver over for smoking a cigar in his car is totally dispicable would definitely like to get your RSS feed. LONG ASHES always to your movement.

  2. Ah, yes. Ontario. The ultimate nanny state that instituted a law that requires the OPP and others to pull over individuals that are seen smoking in a car with youngsters under the age of 16. Like the police don’t have enough to do already?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.