Are Cigars Endangered in Obama’s America?

Tom Purcell, FloydReports.com

Are premium cigars next on the federal government’s hit list?

You see, as part of the 2010 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has the authority “to regulate marketing and promotion of tobacco products and to set performance standards for tobacco products to protect the public health.”

Though the law does not automatically apply to cigars, the FDA can issue new regulations that make cigars subject to the law.

Boy, does that have premium cigar advocates worried.

They say the FDA could force cigar shops to keep cigars under lock and key — maybe even put them behind black curtains, where customers are not permitted to see or touch them.

They say marketing prohibitions could forbid them from handing out samples. Decorative artwork common to cigar boxes could be replaced with dire health warnings.

They say blended cigars could require FDA approval, ingredient disclosure and hefty FDA fees — which will drive costs through the roof.

I smoke a premium cigar maybe five or six times a year. Why? I don’t know. Maybe it’s the manly feeling I get when I see my breath billow out of me like a chimney.

Maybe I want to be in the company of legendary cigar smokers, such as Mark Twain, Winston Churchill and Art Rooney.

Maybe it’s just for the relaxation. There’s something calming about taking a slow, deep drag on a stogie. It’s like male yoga — for males who would never do yoga.

Sure, there are health risks to those who smoke cigars on a daily basis. Such smokers are more prone to cancer of the mouth and other maladies — and fully aware of the risk.

But moderate cigar smokers?

Unlike cigarette smokers, moderate cigar smokers don’t inhale the thick stogie smoke. They don’t become addicted to nicotine. And, at $10 a pop, premium cigars aren’t likely to end up in the hands of underage kids.

That’s why the typical cigar smoker is….

Read more.

Do We Want Obama to “Reorganize the Federal Government”?

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

As Egyptians half a world away ponder what kind of government they want to live under, Americans must also ask themselves the same question in the wake of Barack Obama’s latest State of the Union Address. Although his salmon joke got a few (undeserved) laughs, few commented that it came just after President Obama “proposed a “major reorganization of the government.” Although he promised to make America “more competitive,” he provided astoundingly few details about what this would look like. So, Americans must ask ourselves: Do we really want to see a major restructuring of the government under Barack Obama?

We Do Big Things Government

As part of his theme that “We do big things,” Obama told the little people they “need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America.”

He began by getting his history wrong. “We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV,” he claimed. Actually, the last major reorganization of the government was in 2002, with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, which consolidated 22 separate agencies. Yet federal bureaus told to work together after 9/11 continue to wage turf battles nine years later.

Richard Nixon, too, reorganized government. Casper Weinberger, Nixon’s budget director, told The Washington Post, “Nixon sort of thought that by the stroke of a pen he could do it, but then Watergate came and destroyed his leverage.” Obama, too, is determined to make law with the stroke of a pen. He claimed in his address, “I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote – and we will push to get it passed.” But if it does not, much of it may be eligible to be implemented by executive order. After all, it has been done before. Leaving aside the objectionable nature of his (likely) means, what ends will they secure?…

Read more.

From “Health Nazis” to Death Panels

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Some liberals want to stop food stamp recipients from buying soft drinks, and some conservatives are outraged. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor David Patterson have petitioned the Department of Agriculture for permission to ban purchases of sugary drinks – which are allowed in the other 49 states – for a two year period. Today on “Fox and Friends” Steve Doocy asked, “Should it be any of the government’s business what you’re drinking?” (Brian Kilmeade quickly interjected, “You’re paying for it.”) Even the Lew Rockwell Blog, not usually known as an advocate for food stamp recipients, called Bloomberg a Nazi. Lost in the clamor over “food Nazis” is the real outrage: Once the government operates any enterprise, it can restrict or deny its use, whether the service is food stamps or federal health care – and the restrictions are usually anything but beneficial to public health.

Bloomberg and Patterson are making the case based on the Big Apple’s “obesity epidemic” and, less honestly, on fiscal conservative grounds….

Read more.