Vaping is a hot new trend, and Gov. Chris Christie’s administration wants to capitalize on that. The state has proposed to increase taxes on electronic cigarettes, to replicate the tax burden of conventional cigarettes.

This is a good idea, the state treasurer argues, because “e cigarettes” have not been shown to be a safe alternative to regular cigarettes.

“Our main concern is public health,” he said.

Excuse our skepticism, but Christie cut $7.5 million from the state’s anti smoking programs in 2010, and since then the state has spent little to nothing on smoking cessation and education programs. No doubt another main concern is the governor’s budget Christie anticipates $35 million in revenue from this tax.

But do we even know that e cigarettes are a threat to public health?

The Federal Food and Drug Administration has not yet evaluated them for safety or effectiveness, or issued regulations. All we know is that they can be less addictive than cigarettes, and lack the added tar and toxins. Many researchers say that nicotine alone is not a serious health hazard that it’s the deadly tar in conventional cigarettes that kills you. E cigarette users avoid that by inhaling a nicotine laced vapor, which is why it’s called “vaping.”

Studies show this is at least as effective as nicotine patches in helping people quit smoking the single largest cause of preventable death in our country, killing about 480,000 people a year.

So there’s a real, life saving benefit to e cigarettes, which may greatly outweigh any risks. If these gadgets are not known to be an enemy to public health, and may in fact be hugely beneficial, why tax them like cigarettes?

We need to study this further, before we bring down the hammer and start imposing punitive taxes. Certainly, we don’t want Joe Camel reappearing in the meantime, e cig in hand, to peddle this to kids. The question is how to regulate it.

The government should impose the same restrictions on marketing and sale of e cigarettes as they do on regular tobacco products. And there should be some form of quality control. But a sin tax isn’t the answer. E cigarettes should be taxed at the same level as pharmaceutical, over the counter nicotine products that help smokers quit with a simple sales tax.

Taxing e cigs as if they were cigarettes only makes them less attractive to smokers who want to switch. And if the Christie administration’s true concern is public health, that should be reason enough not to.

Marlboro (cigarette) – wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buy cheap winston cigarettes, cheap winston cigarettes, discount winston cigarettes, discount winston cigarettes – tobaccoonline.co.uk

Marlboro cigarettes 13 and snus 13 come in the following varieties of flavor and packaging

USA cigarette varieties edit

  • Marlboro box, 25’s box, and soft pack
  • Marlboro 100’s box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Eighty Threes box
  • Marlboro 72’s box
  • Marlboro Red Lallel box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Red Label 100’s box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Gold Pack box, 25’s box, and soft pack
  • Marlboro Gold Pack 100’s box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Gold Pack 72’s box
  • Marlboro Silver Pack box
  • Marlboro Silver Pack 100’s box
  • Marlboro Silver Pack 72’s box
  • Marlboro Blend No. 27 box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Blend No. 27 100’s box
  • Marlboro Virginia Blend box
  • Marlboro Virginia Blend 100’s box
  • Marlboro Southern Cut biz
  • Marlboro Black box
  • Marlboro Black 100’s box
  • Marlboro Edge box
  • Marlboro Special Blend Red box
  • Marlboro Special Blend Red 100’s box
  • Marlboro Special Blend Gold box
  • Marlboro Special Blend Gold 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Menthol 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Green Pack 72’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Blue Pack box
  • Marlboro Menthol Blue Pack 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Blue Pack 72’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Rich Blue box
  • Marlboro Menthol Rich Blue 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Gold Pack box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Menthol Gold Pack 100’s box and soft pack
  • Marlboro Menthol Silver Pack box
  • Marlboro Menthol Silver Pack 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Blend No. 54 box
  • Marlboro Menthol Blend No. 54 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Smooth box
  • Marlboro Menthol Smooth 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Skyline box
  • Marlboro Menthol Skyline 100’s box
  • Marlboro Menthol Black box
  • Marlboro Menthol Black 100’s box
  • Marlboro NXT box

UK varieties edit

  • Marlboro Red
  • Marlboro Gold Original
  • Marlboro Gold Original 100’s (Superkings)
  • Marlboro Gold Touch
  • Marlboro Silver
  • Marlboro Bright Leaf
  • Marlboro Bright Leaf Platinum
  • Marlboro White Menthol
  • Marlboro Ice Blast

International cigarette varieties edit

  • Marlboro Gold Touch
  • Marlboro Flavor Code
  • Marlboro Premium Black

USA snus varieties edit

  • Marlboro Snus Original (discontinued in California, New York, Texas, Utah, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Kentucky)
  • Marlboro Snus Mint

Marlboro in Canada edit

Philip Morris sold the Canadian rights to the “Marlboro” name to Imperial Tobacco Canada in 1932. After the brand’s successful American relaunch in the 1950s which later became well known to Canadians through exposure to the brand’s international sponsorships and advertising Philip Morris tried several legal manoeuvres in attempting to reacquire the Canadian rights, to no avail. Imperial Tobacco continues to sell a line of cigarettes under the Marlboro name in Canada, albeit with very different packaging from that of the Philip Morris product. Philip Morris retains the rights to the “rooftop” trade dress and other elements of Marlboro’s branding which were developed after the 1932 sale, and has historically used that trade dress in Canada in combination with the names “Matador” or occasionally “Maverick” for a line of Virginia blend cigarettes. 14 15

In 2006, Philip Morris International’s Canadian affiliate Rothmans, Benson & Hedges introduced a new product with the “rooftop” trade dress, and marked as being the “World Famous Imported Blend”, but not bearing any actual brand name. This led to a legal challenge from Imperial, contending that the new packaging created customer confusion by merely suggesting the Marlboro brand, thereby infringing on Imperial’s Canadian trademark rights. Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Imperial in June 2012. The judgment noted that Canadian regulations which (in most cases) prohibit the public display of tobacco products at retail locations i.e., customers must ask for a brand by name exacerbated the situation, as there were now two products that customers might be referring to when asking for “Marlboro”. 14 Though PMI is expected to appeal, shortly after the ruling it began using the brand name “Rooftop” on packaging for the previously unbranded cigarettes. 15

See also edit

  • Marlboro Friday

References edit