Some additives in cigarettes will disappear this year, while in Kansas and other states, a new additive will become commonplace.
The Federal Drug Administration has banned sales of flavored tobacco products, with the exception of menthol, as of Sept. 22. Beginning July 1 of this year, a copolymer is being added to cigarettes sold in Kansas to produce what is known as a “Fire Safe Cigarette,” or FSC. It is intended to extinguish itself if the cigarette has not been used for 30 to 35 seconds, thus reducing the number of fires started by unattended cigarettes.
The banning of flavored cigarettes is intended to discourage youngsters from starting to smoke. The cigarettes, which come in an assortment of flavors, are considered a gateway for moving on to smoking regular tobacco cigarettes.
Section 907 of the law, which describes tobacco product standards, states: “Beginning three months after enactment of the legislation (September 22, 2009), a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter or paper) are forbidden from having as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the product or its smoke.
“The FDA is not limited in its authority to take action applicable to menthol or any artificial or natural flavor, herb, or spice not specified above.”
“They’re already a thing of the past,” said Melissa Mercer, manager of Cigarette Outlet. “We’re no longer able to get them. Our distributor’s already quit” filling orders for flavored cigarettes.
“We knew it was coming,” Mercer said of the rules change. “We just didn’t know when or how harsh it was going to be.”
Mercer said that customers from 18 to 80 were fond of flavored cigarettes. One woman already has purchased Cigarette Outlet’s entire supply of Vanilla Sweet Dreams in anticipation of the ban.
“There’s a lot of people buy a pack of those once every several months, just because it’s something different,” Mercer said.
Flavored cigarettes also were popular with college students. Some customers purchased them to smoke while they were out socializing at bars and private parties.
It wasn’t just the college students and older teenagers who enjoyed a flavored cigarette while they were socializing.
Elaina Cahoj, a clerk at Graves Drugs who had been “very much against smoking,” learned that her college-student daughter had smoked flavored cigarettes. Cahoj decided to try one, to see what her daughter found enjoyable.
The taste didn’t appeal to Cahoj then.
Later, though, socializing at a karaoke night about 12 years ago, someone handed her a clove-flavored cigarette. Cloves and karaoke seemed to go hand-in-hand.
“One night, none of us had any, and I smoked a regular cigarette,” Cahoj said.
The regular cigarettes quickly became a habit; it’s one that she continues today.
“The friend who started me on the clove cigarettes, he always felt so bad,” Cahoj said. “I was definitely old enough to know better.”
And she still prefers the taste of the clove cigarettes to the regular variety, though beginning next month, she will not be able to purchase them.
Glen Hadaway, owner of Graves Drugs, another popular tobacco outlet, said that his company had not been notified of the change in the law and, instead, heard about it through an announcement from a tobacco supplier.
“We didn’t get official notice, no,” said Hadaway, who read about the change this month in a memo from the supplier.
Hadaway said that Graves had a limited number of customers for the clove and other flavors of cigarettes.
“We just carried it because people requested we do it,” he said.
Hadaway intends to continuing stocking and selling tobacco products as long as they are legal, although he would much prefer that authorities make up their minds whether to make tobacco illegal rather than taking inch-by-inch measures to reduce the numbers of people who smoke.
“They need to do it or not do it,” Hadaway said. “I don’t care, they need to go one way or the other. They’ve made it so expensive for legitimate retailers to carry tobacco products. ... It’s a real hassle.”
“Sting” operations by tobacco enforcement agencies seem to happen constantly, he said. And, like other stores that sell tobacco, the employees are well-trained to verify ages before selling tobacco products.
He does not expect the disappearance of flavored cigarettes to have measureable impact on his company.
“It’s such a small part of our business, it’s totally manageable,” he said, adding that more than anything else, “it’s annoying.”
Mercer wonders why flavored tobacco is being banned as a gateway-type drug, but flavored alcohol is not.
She also wonders whether the government has polluted cigarettes with health hazards that were not there before.
Some of her customers believe they are being sickened by the additive — often ethylene vinyl acetate — required in Kansas and other states to make “Fire Safe Cigarettes,” which are identified with the initials “FSC” on cigarette packages.
EVA is a copolymer of ethylene and vinyl acetate, 10 to 40 percent being vinyl acetate and the remainder being ethylene.
EVA is added in rings to the cigarette paper; if the smoker is not inhaling when the lit part of the cigarette reaches the chemical ring, the cigarette will self-extinguish, making it less likely to start a fire.
“I had the state in in July, making sure my cigarettes were fire-safe,” Mercer said.
Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma already require FSCs, she said; Missouri does not.
Mercer said that each day, some customers complain that they have become sick because of the fire-retarding additives in the cigarettes.
“Today we probably had five people in here saying they’ve been sick over them,” Mercer said Tuesday afternoon.
Among them, she said, were a law enforcement officer and a waitress.
“The doctor tells her it’s not pneumonia,” Mercer said. “It’s these cigarettes. I think FDA’s doing more damage than they are helping anybody. ... They were hoping it would make people quit. It’s making people sick.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by dirtydeeds (anonymous) on September 5, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on September 5, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by sciguy (anonymous) on September 6, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What next, are they going to outlaw wine coolers and flavored liquors?
Posted by driveonby (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A petition is being drawn up to ban the selling of all nicotine products in Kansas. This should level the playing field, create good health, save the State a ton of money, and thrill the pro ban people. Prohibition of selling nicotine IS enforceable in this day and age. In the 1920's most people quit drinking, as would nicotine users today. There would be some black market but it would be very easy to ticket anyone in possession or selling. Unfortunately the pro ban people would be out of work but, heh, they didn't seem to mind putting small business owners at risk. When you sign this petition you are truly asking for a ban, not a fake ban that bans nothing. This should practically cure all the diseases that pro ban people say are caused from nicotine products. Nicotine replacement is included as this IS nicotine- highly addictive, and MAY cause mouth and throat cancers. Besides, if you can't buy tobacco you will not need a replacement! Look for this statewide petition in Emporia soon. Let's put our money where our mouthes are. This nicotine money should be rejected by our State government on all levels. They can make it up elsewhere. If people cannot BUY nicotine products on every corner THEN they will stop smoking. Putting smokers outside is just hypocritical.
Posted by d23_66801 (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wow, lets ban air, water, and light these could all kill you too! come on people!
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gosh, Just think Kansas would be the first state in the country to prohibit nicotine and smoking. We would even beat out California.
We could show the rest of the country we are truly concerned with the health and well being of all our states citizens.
I'll have copies of this petition to sign as soon as they are available.
Posted by sociallyconsious (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe this article talked about banning flavored cigarette to discourage young people from smoking. I don't remember reading anything about "the smoking ban" in this article.
I have friends who smoke and even though they smoke, they discourage their children from doing so. These cigarettes may be enjoyed by all age's, but the tobacco companies continue to create and market products catered to our children and teenagers. They are the real villians. If they would stop their practices, and market to adults then this discussion may not have been necessary.
As someone who has a parent who has inoperable lung cancer caused by years of smoking, I want to do anything I can to prevent my children and myself from possible suffering in the future.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think instead of banning everything the government should just issue us all protective cocoons to live in. There of course would have to be some people outside the cocoons to delivery food and water to the pod people, they would still be in danger outside the cocoons and would have to endure life's troubles but I bet there would be a few patriotic volunteers. I will be the first to volunteer because I care about your health and this country. No need to thank me just be quiet and get in your pod.
Seriously R. Folks
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like the martix! Your pretty smart there Seriously, we could solve the energy problem in that manner by doubling as batteries!
Posted by Free4all (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With all this talk about making a community healthy, why have we not touched DRINKING ALCOHOL. In 2006 there were 466 fatalities to drinking and driving. Thats 466 people who could still be here if we banned drinking. Is it not dangerous too? Or are the opponents of smoking drinkers? I would like to know! Not only are there 466 fatalities BUT families are broke up, addiction runs rampant and is related to spouse and child physical abuse. Why not go after alcohol? Tell the families of the victims why smoking is more important than alcohol. They deserve an excuse why they are being ignored over you clean air for long term effects where alcohol ban could instantly SAVE LIVES AND FAMILIES!
Posted by d23_66801 (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
guess i'm banned so fahq
you kansas!!!!!
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free4all ,
Because unlike smoking alcohol in moderation does have positive health effects to offer. NOTICE I said in moderation, the people you mentioned above already are committing a crime and will pay for said crime. Smoking is the only habit that is shared with those around you, hence the only habit that others are forced to endure legally. People who drink alcohol do not share every beer with their neighbor, and people who chew do not share their dip with neighbor, its the nature of the habit, it takes the choice out of others hands.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
socially,
Instead of outlawing "Flavored" ciggs To keep children from begining the habit, lets just outlaw it all.
Free4All,
You're welcome to start a petition to ban the sale of alcohol.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The P.P.F.A.(people pods for America, fingers crossed soon to be people pods for ALL) is here to help. Whatever you fear or makes your clothes smell bad, The.P.P.F.A. can protect you from it. Fear not. We're from the government, we're here to help.
Posted by HenryVIII (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't agree with this.
'enry
Posted by justthinkin (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you people understand how much tobacco is taxed.... how do you propose replacing the revenue produced by that tax if sales are prohibited on all tobacco products? Property Tax? Sales Tax? Administrative Fees? Leave the "sinners" alone - they support your state & your community.
Posted by driveonby (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nope, we are going to push to ban the selling of all nicotine products. If you are worried about the MONEY instead of HEALTH you are just a self centered person. This is about health. THAT is what Clean Air Emporia wants, according to them, so we are going to try REALLY HARD to help them out!!!!! ALL business will suffer the losses, but that's a sacrifice that's WORTH IT, right? I hope that Gwen and the management at the Gazette will line up to sign as they were SO helpful in pushing the ban that bans nothing except business. A ban with BIG TEETH. BAN ALL SELLING OF NICOTINE. Look at all the money the State will save! Ask Clean AIR Emporia if they REALLY want to get people off nicotine! This should be thrilling them!
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't worry about the loss of taxes, there's always credit. Right?
Posted by driveonby (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since Senator Barnett is more concerned about our health than he is about money, he should be first to sign. What an honor! He will be saving THOUSANDS of lives from FIRSTHAND nicotine, which actually HAS been proven to cause health problems. I don't know why he hasn't pushed for a ban on selling it himself? Come on Senator, our health is more important than money to the State and to grocers and convenience stores isn't it??????????????
Posted by coldhardtruth (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
driveonby,
Just so you know, you're the one who seems the most "self-centered" with all your ranting about wanting to take away peoples rights to smoke just to make yourself feel better. Clean Air Emporia is a big joke. Does it smell like cigarettes when you step out your front door or something? All I can smell is burning plastic coming from Sauder. If you really want to clean up the air, shut down Sauder, or force them to move way out of town. I'm sure whatever they're burning an letting into the atmosphere is a lot worse for me than cigarettes.
Posted by smogman (anonymous) on September 8, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
coldhardtruth.
Can you spell SARCASM...........LOL
Posted by driveonby (anonymous) on September 9, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Smogman,
Looks like cold and hard kind of missed the point, eh? The ONLY way to shut down the nannies IS to deprive them of their grants by banning ALL selling. They DO NOT want tobacco to be unavailable. They would be OUT OF WORK!!!!! The Gazette does not want nicotine banned as huge ad dollars would dry up! Let's put them in the unemployment line with the rest of the small business owners who are going out of business due to the ban, which doesn't ban anything except the right of a property owner and the rights of their customers! Let the big grocers and convenience stores and the State share in the loss of revenue!!!!!!
Posted by coldhardtruth (anonymous) on September 9, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah that went way over my head.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)