https://thecigarauthority.com/the-ban-of-online-cigar-sales-one-step-closer-to-reality/

This is a bit concerning.  What do you think?

So we are my thoughts as a political hack
HR 2339 will come up for a vote next week and will probably pass the house with people on both sides crossing the aisle.  that does not make it a law.  Skopos Labs puts it a a 50% chance of passing.

There is a similar Senate version  S.3174, introduced by two Democrats and co-sponsors are all Democrats. I do not seeing it passing the Senate, Casey the D from PA should vote against it since so many PA jobs rely on on-line sales.  Rubio is strongly against it.  It still sits in committee and Skopos puts it as 29% chance of passage
I also do not see Trump signing in the event it passes both chambers.

PROHIBITION AGAINST REMOTE RETAIL SALES.—

"(A) PROHIBITION.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the the Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2019, the Secretary shall promulgate a final regulation prohibiting the retail sale of all tobacco products other than retail sales through a direct, face-to-face exchange between a retailer and a consumer.

"(B) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN CIGAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—

"(i) EXCEPTION.—The regulation required by subparagraph (A) shall not apply to tobacco products described in section 910(a)(2)(A)(iii).

"(ii) APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the the Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2019, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations regarding the sale and distribution of tobacco products described in section 910(a)(2)(A)(iii) that occur through means other than a direct, face-to-face exchange between a retailer and a consumer in order to prevent the sale and distribution of tobacco products described in section 910(a)(2)(A)(iii) to individuals who have not attained the minimum age established by applicable law for the purchase of such products, including requirements for age verification.

Section 910(a)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387j(a)(2)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A)—

(A) in clause (i)(II), by striking "or";

(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; or"; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

"(iii) subject to subparagraph (C), for the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2019 and ending on September 30, 2028, the tobacco product is a cigar and—

"(I) is wrapped in whole tobacco leaf;

"(II) contains a 100-percent leaf tobacco binder;

"(III) contains primarily long filler tobacco;

"(IV) does not have a characterizing flavor other than tobacco;

"(V) weighs more than 6 pounds per 1000 units;

"(VI) has no filter, tip, or non-tobacco mouthpiece;

"(VII) (aa) is made by combining manually the wrapper, filler, and binder and is capped by hand; or

"(bb) has a homogenized tobacco leaf binder and is made in the United States using human hands to lay the 100-percent leaf tobacco binder onto only one machine that bunches, wraps, and caps each individual cigar; and

"(VIII) has a retail price (after discounts or coupons) per cigar of no less than—

"(aa) for calendar years 2019 and 2020, $12; and

"(bb) for each subsequent calendar year, $12 multiplied by any percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (all items; U.S. city average) since calendar year 2020."

The above seems to be the most relevant section(s) to us...  The major sticking point that I see here is that the RETAIL price point of a cigar is no less than 12$, to increase with CPI. That leaves out a LOT of great smokes.

The frustrating part of this is that it is so common sense...100% handmade, no additives, yada yada yada.  If they would just listen and lower the price requirement to a reasonable number then they would have very little opposition.  Yet they continue to fight a battle that helps no one.  It is generally accepted that the folks fighting for cigar rights are not the group you are trying to protect with this, yet they can't get out of their own way.  I think most of us would gladly step aside if they just removed or lowered the MSRP number to, say, $3 or 4 MSRP.  That would encompass most all of what anyone considered a "cigar smoker" smokes, win win.

Personally I am not a fan of government intervention, but I do see the merit of some kind of protection in the vaping and cigarette category.  I just can't get through my simple head why they are trying so damn hard to be difficult with the cigar provision.  Maybe the cigarette lobbyist are trying to keep the cigar industry in to prolong this thing as long as possible?  I don't know.  All I know is that when a government can take something as harmless as cigars (debate not necessary) from us, you have to wonder what is next.  Are we going to see a bill that prohibits alcohol sales unless the bottle is over $100, because the $100 bottle consumer is obviously well informed enough to choose for themselves, but if you can only afford a $20 bottle you shouldn't be able to have it?  Ration how many carbohydrates we can have in a week?  

I am being dramatic of course, but this kind of overstep is EXACTLY what the founders of our Great Nation were looking to protect against.  Wow, that turned in to a ramble, but it is so important.  Hell, we have a self admitted socialist and communist sympathizer RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.  And leading a Democratic party, not a socialist party.  Crazy times we live in.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-approves-bill-banning-flavored-tobacco-products/ar-BB10wRtt?li=BBnb7Kz

The end of this article, as Chuck said, suggests that Trump would veto the bill as is.  However, the interesting part to me was there are several democrats opposing because the overall bill would give them more reasons to target blacks because they disproportionately use menthol cigarettes.  Geez, the things these people come up with....

I have to ask, if a cigar has  a suggested retail of 12.00 can the retailer sell for less,and still be in the rules.I buy very few sticks at 12.00 retail or should I say I am enabled by my bother geeks.This would effect me greatly.

I suspect that this bureaucratic red tape is precisely the tape of bill Trump would step in and paralyze., so there is hope. He'll get a lot of feedback from the cigar-chomping fat cat's he socializes wish.

The House vote was pretty much along party lines.  IF it went that way, in the Senate, it will likely fail.  One we need to be watching for sure

So the final votes have been recorded for HR 2339Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2019You can find the roll call with this link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/h78 How did you rep vote:  Mine, Connor Lamb (DP, PA), voted against it.  I plan on writing him thanking for his vote.

Just adding some more data points
Overall voting 213 (208 D, 5 R) in favor, 195 (177 R, 17 D) against, 22 not voting (7 D, 15 R)
5 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, 15 registered no vote at all. Had the 5 R voting against and just 10 who did not vote voted against it would not have passed.  Now that is a bit of an assumption, there are reasons some D voted against like my guy Lamb, who is up for election who's vote may not have been that way if it was closer.

My representative registered a no vote.  I am in a generally conservative republican area, so he received a scathing email from me that his lack of a stance on this government overstep was unacceptable and would certainly affect my vote moving forward if there was no good explanation.  Probably won't matter, but I said my peace.