Recommended Posts

So if the Canadian govt forces cigar smokers (effectively) to buy online, in Cuba, etc, aren’t they going to take a hit in tax collections? Not sure how this makes any financial sense (since we know despite their moralizing that politicians do care about the cash...)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Monte 4s Bar code authentication works. no box date no original bands  

It's as if they have no concept of the Internet, or mail, or airplanes that take you places you can buy cigars. Causing grievous harm to small business owners, congrats.

The flimsy thin cardboard is a complete piss take. It's one thing for the fun nazi's to insist on plain packaging,  thats bad enough.   But I do think there is credible grounds for someone to ins

3 minutes ago, vhampl03 said:

So if the Canadian govt forces cigar smokers (effectively) to buy online, in Cuba, etc, aren’t they going to take a hit in tax collections? Not sure how this makes any financial sense (since we know despite their moralizing that politicians do care about the cash...)

I mean if we assume they're trying to cut tobacco use from 15% down to 5% that's already giving up a lot of tax revenue, unless they expect to triple taxes from their already ridiculous current rates...

As @MMarbs said this is about hating on tobacco and pandering to that sentiment. Not about any rational goals. This is the same government that legalized marijuana. And as was said they have no interest in cracking down on alcohol either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bijan said:

And it's probably 99% cigarettes and vaping, and 1% cigars (if that much). So we're just collateral damage. Guilty by association. Etc.

Yes, premium cigars would be such a low percentage of overall tobacco use. All of us know, that we didn't get into smoking cigars because the boxes and bands look pretty. Wha kid can afford cigars costing between 30 and 60 dollars ? I believe an argument here in the U.S. went for a lesser regulation for premium cigars because they were not all lumped in with all other tobacco products. At least for now..

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sw15825 said:

Yes, premium cigars would be such a low percentage of overall tobacco use. All of us know, that we didn't get into smoking cigars because the boxes and bands look pretty. Wha kid can afford cigars costing between 30 and 60 dollars ? I believe an argument here in the U.S. went for a lesser regulation for premium cigars because they were not all lumped in with all other tobacco products. At least for now..

At the same time the FDA is close to regulating new cigar blends (grandfathering everything prior to 2007).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/news/business/premium-cigar-industry-gets-3-12-more-years-to-argue-against-stricter-fda/2332954/%3foutputType=amp

Something to keep an eye on.

Edit: latest news

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-marks-historic-public-health-milestone-finalization-two-key-rules-companies-seeking-market-new

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

How do you know they’re pizza flavored?  ?

This was just something we came up with in high school economics. We were split up into groups, tasked with thinking of a new product, and then how we could market it. My group came up with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, glow in the dark (4 different colours), pizza flavoured condoms. We thought TMNT is popular, and teens are engaging in sex earlier, this would promote safe sex, and besides... who doesn't love pizza? And for giggles, you can compare the size of your schwartz in the dark.

image.gif.f448927c220f2d733ce2931d3dd651bf.gif

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cigaraholic said:

You can’t make sense out of nonsense....like kids in Canada can afford a Monte 4

No, those lucky times are gone, since gov has taken them their income from dealing with weed. So that’s all pretty consistent ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So plain packaging is meant to cover up and highlight the  disgusting/dangerous/morally corrupt/ignorant items that are harmfull to good honest folk and their children.

  Why aren't all politicians made to wear ill-fitting olive drab onesies with warning stickers back and front?

"Warning exposure damages the health of you, your family and your unborn children"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainQuintero said:

So plain packaging is meant to cover up and highlight the  disgusting/dangerous/morally corrupt/ignorant items that are harmfull to good honest folk and their children.

  Why aren't all politicians made to wear ill-fitting olive drab onesies with warning stickers back and front?

"Warning exposure damages the health of you, your family and your unborn children"

Don’t laugh... plains packaging for people is here. First thing the new dipshit Congress did here is ban the use of pronouns as a rule in Congress (the lower house). The planet has gone mad. Time to light up a cigar watch it burn from both ends!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Don’t laugh... plains packaging for people is here. First thing the new dipshit Congress did here is ban the use of pronouns as a rule in Congress (the lower house). The planet has gone mad. Time to light up a cigar watch it burn from both ends!

Gendered pronouns not banned from Congress (in general) only removed from the house rules document:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/16/fact-check-house-rules-only-changed-gendered-language-one-document/4175388001/

Still silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cigaraholic said:

You can’t make sense out of nonsense....like kids in Canada can afford a Monte 4

Even if they could they would likely prefer weed over a cigar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My letter to my MP.

 

Dear Minister:

 I am writing to you not only as the Minister of Health, but also as my elected representative for the riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North.  I have recently come to see first-hand the effect of the Federal Government’s “plain packaging” requirement for the sale of tobacco products in Canada.  I understand that this requirement, among other measures, is to further the goal of reducing tobacco use among Canadians to less than 5% by 2035.  Although I support this as a laudatory goal with respect to cigarette smoking & vaping among young Canadians (i.e. <15-18), I can only see this as another example of governmental overreach with respect to the sale and use of premium cigars.  As you may be aware, the FDA in the United States recently codified the definition of premium cigars to make clear that these products are unlike the majority of tobacco products; products that should be the real focus of the Government of Canada’s attempts to curtail smoking.

 I am unaware of any actual research that suggests that the smoking of premium cigars carries with it any appreciable health risks.  Premium cigars are not inhaled, and by their very definition contain only tobacco, water, and vegetable gum with no other ingredients or additives, and no characterizing flavors other than tobacco.  As such, the smoking of premium cigars does not come with the same risks of developing pulmonary disease that the smoking of cigarettes, for example, carries.  As to the issue of the relative risk of oral/esophageal cancers is concerned, the FDA’s own study suggests that any increased risk of cancer for those smoking 1-2 premium cigars per day (more than what is likely typical of your average consumer of premium cigars) is negligible (https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5).  When the data from that study are broken down further, the results paint a different story than what is represented in the original article (https://www.rstreet.org/2016/08/24/fda-study-cancer-risks-nearly-nil-for-1-2-cigars-per-day/).  Other activities also carry with them an increased risks of developing oral/oropharyngeal cancers (i.e. drinking alcohol, participating in oral sex), but I don’t see the Government of Canada stepping in to regulate these activities beyond the punitively high taxes and ineffectual warning labels on alcohol.  I would estimate that consumers of premium cigars in Canada make up less than 2% of the population.  These consumers are overwhelmingly older adults.  Given that the retail cost of one Cuban Montecristo No. 4 (one of the most popular premium cigars sold worldwide) is $27.95 CAD, I hardly think that 16-year-olds are lining up to purchase these.  So, if the Government of Canada is not actually protecting the health of premium cigar smokers (and particularly young smokers), what is the actual point of including these products in the legislation???  It would seem that the legislation as it applies to premium cigars is of no actual benefit to anyone, while severely harming the small business owners who make a living selling premium cigars.  It is a sad fact that there are no longer any La Casa del Habano (LCDH) locations in Canada.  These flagship boutiques dedicated to the sale of Cuban premium cigars are staples in major cities all across the world.

I would expect that our elected leaders are enacting legislation based on the best available evidence and with a clear goal in mind.  I would hope that they are doing this in a targeted manner which facilitates meaningful change where it is desired, without imposing restrictions and hardships where the legislation will accomplish nothing.  With that said, I would like to know the specifics of the Government of Canada’s plan (that tax dollars are paying for) with respect to premium cigars.  Please tell me that not all tobacco products are being characterized/classified the same way, as that would show a failure of critical thinking and an inability to approach a complex situation in a nuanced and even-handed way.  I am aware that the anti-smoking lobby is an extremely powerful force, but I remain hopeful that the Government of Canada will not be swayed by the pressure tactics of such groups.

 Lastly, I would just like to point out the extraordinary hypocrisy of the decision to implement plain packaging for tobacco-related products.  Alcohol is by far the most common drug used by Canadians.  Its use has increased significantly among females since 2013.  Approximately 15% of Canadians who drink alcohol consume above Canada’s Low-risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines.  The risky use of alcohol is still the most prevalent among young adults (age 18-24).  The use and risky use of alcohol by underage youth and young adults (whom you claim to most care about) has remained steady in recent years.  In 2017, the rate of hospitalizations entirely caused by alcohol (249 per 100,000) was comparable to the rate of hospitalizations for heart attacks (243 per 100,000) and the rate was thirteen times higher than for opioids.  In 2014, alcohol contributed to 14,826 deaths in Canada, representing 22% of all substance use attributable deaths (from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Canadian Drug Summary, Summer 2019).  Until such time that you can demonstrate that the smoking of premium cigars is anywhere near as destructive as the use of alcohol in society, I would hope that you treat the sale and consumption of premium cigars with the same latitude that you treat the sale and consumption of alcohol.  So, perhaps it would be best to implement plain packaging for all alcohol products (including mouthwash and hand sanitizer), or dispense with the hypocrisy and exempt premium cigars from this odious requirement.

I look forward to hearing from you with the hope that the points raised here will be addressed.  The last time I wrote, I received a form letter talking about the perils of vaping. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, vhampl03 said:

So if the Canadian govt forces cigar smokers (effectively) to buy online, in Cuba, etc, aren’t they going to take a hit in tax collections? Not sure how this makes any financial sense (since we know despite their moralizing that politicians do care about the cash...)

The Canadian Gov't takes in a staggering amount of money from tobacco taxes, $3.4B Federally and $8.3B including the provinces. My real concern is when a significant portion of this revenue disappears they're going to clamp down on duty free tobacco coming back into the country.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

The Canadian Gov't takes in a staggering amount of money from tobacco taxes, $3.4B Federally and $8.3B including the provinces. My real concern is when a significant portion of this revenue disappears they're going to clamp down on duty free tobacco coming back into the country.

It would be interesting to see what amount of that is from premium cigars. There is already a technical requirement that duty free tobacco have Canada duty paid stickers or face an additional charge on entry, but I don't know what happens in practice now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bundwallah said:

I like what you wrote. Perhaps if we found some supporting material on health effects @Cigar Surgeon this means you.  We can get this on the E-Petitions site?

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Home/Index

I saved the links in my article so they'd be easy to reference:

https://developingpalates.com/editorials/cigar-editorials/cigar-editorial-now-scheduled-the-death-of-the-cigar-industry-in-canada/

I included all that information in my original feedback and they just hand waved it away. 

 

1 hour ago, Bijan said:

It would be interesting to see what amount of that is from premium cigars. There is already a technical requirement that duty free tobacco have Canada duty paid stickers or face an additional charge on entry, but I don't know what happens in practice now.

"Only the federal government provides details on the amount of tax received from taxes on different types of tobacco products. In the case of federal revenues, 94% cames from cigarette sales, 2% from cigars and 4% from all other tobacco products, including oral tobacco and heat not burn sticks."

That's from Smoke-Free Canada and intuitively that would match my guess as the last time I tried to quantify how many cigar smokers there were in Canada it was a very, very low number. 

That number will be higher in provinces such as Alberta where the cigar taxes are higher, but I wouldn't think it would be much higher than 5% - 6%. 

So that's $68MM Federally and $415MM if we include and assume a higher rate for provinces. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

That number will be higher in provinces such as Alberta where the cigar taxes are higher, but I wouldn't think it would be much higher than 5% - 6%. 

Ontario might have them beat :(

At least based on prices for cigars Monte 4 in price and up. Since it looks like Alberta's maximum tax per cigar is $8.61.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Ontario might have them beat :(

At least based on prices for cigars Monte 4 in price and up. Since it looks like Alberta's maximum tax per cigar is $8.61.

Eh, when I was in retail the actual manufacturer's cost of cigars including PTT was lower in Ontario than many provinces. That isn't to say B&Ms aren't charging more at the retail level, but it isn't because the cigar costs more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

Eh, when I was in retail the actual manufacturer's cost of cigars including PTT was lower in Ontario than many provinces. That isn't to say B&Ms aren't charging more at the retail level, but it isn't because the cigar costs more.

Could be. I don't know the retail side of it. But if PTT is capped at $8.61 per cigar in Alberta then any cigar that's $16 or more (in price+Canadian duties) will have higher PTT in Ontario.

Edit that's 142% in Alberta capped at $8.61 vs 56% in Ontario, no cap (as far as I know).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the packaging on those look "Military Grade" like they came out of an MRE (Meal Ready to Eat)

 

Army Unveils "Class VI" MRE Line; Soldiers Still Complain » Article 107 News

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Salomones said:

The Netherlands are may be the next.

https://ministryofcigars.com/plain-packaging-coming-to-the-netherlands/



Gesendet von meinem moto g(9) plus mit Tapatalk
 

I've never seen this before, thanks for sharing. He is right with saying the Dutch have a history in cigar making and he is right about cigars being a premium product which is less prone to addiction next to the health risks of tobacco. But lets not be silly, Dutch brands are to my opinion in no way a premium product. The majority are allready packed in cardbox boxes, only 50's in a SLB are wooden boxes. There are some lines of Balmoral (brand of Agio) which are considered premium, but also these are only sold by premium tobaconists, not the regular newspaper and magazine stores or gas stations were 99% of the people smoking are buying their products. 

The below picture is a example, cigarette packages are worse and rightfully so. The boxes are ugly already with warnings this product will kill me someday (as if a regular product in a grocery store won't someday) and pictures of people with bad teeth or oxygen right up the nose trills. Although the box adds a little to the "romance" of the product in my case they mostly end up in the dumpster, I don't store them in the box, knowing what month/year the box is for me important to know.

IMG_20210128_024156.jpg

IMG_20210128_024148.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bijan said:

Gendered pronouns not banned from Congress (in general) only removed from the house rules document:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/16/fact-check-house-rules-only-changed-gendered-language-one-document/4175388001/

Still silly.

Technically they are not banning cigars either. The war on language and liberty marcheth on.

When I was in banking (lending) it alway struck me as queer that ethnicity was asked on FNMA standard loan applications. So why exactly, if it was illegal to lend or not lend on an ethic bias, was it included in forms required by market makers that were GSEs?

Regardless of the propaganda spin applied by USA Today, basically to distract from the folly by criticizing those who are pointing out that folly, it would have been particularly nice if they covered true newsworthy events with the same critical perspective.

So how much is a Monte 4 in Canada? You see, they haven’t actually banned them!!!

Are we not blessed by the nanny state? How did we ever get it so good? ?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.